Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/16/19870 . PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 1987 The re3ular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colo- rado. Board members present included Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Linda Lang, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Members not pre- sent were Don Crews and Sharon Brown. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Kari VanMe- ter, Debbie deBesche, Joe Frank, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whet- stone, and Renee Joseph. Leal representative was Paul Eckman. Planning Director, Tan Peterson, reviewed the Consent. Agenda which included Item 1, Minutes of the October 26, 1987 and November 2, 1987 meetings; Item 2, #13-82AE Oakridge PUD - Tenth Filing Lot 1 - Preliminary & Final; Item 3, #96-81J Horsetooth Commons PUD, Tract A, Grease Monkey - Final; Item 4, #35-86D Clarendon Hills Patio Homes PUD, Tract C - Preliminary; and Item 5, #60-87 Chaparral POD - Preliminary. Member Edwards pulled Item 1, the Minutes of the October 26, 1987 and • November 2, 1987 meetings, for discussion. Member Kern made a motion that the minutes include the four clarifications as outlined in the staff memo received by the Board on November 16, 1987. The first clarification: Currently, the note reads: "...the applicant shall prepare a wildlife and fisheries report for Fairport Reservoir and the four proposed water bodies in the Master Plan, ..." Based on the issue of. the timing of the four proposed water bodies, and the recommend- ations made at the P&Z worksession, Staff suggests the following: 1. Delete the reference to the "...four proposed water bodies in the Master Plan,..." 2. In case the four proposed water bodies are needed to offset potential environmental losses to Fairport Reservoir, Staff suggests the following language be added to the note: "In the event that the wildlife and fisher- ies report for Fairport Reservoir, as specified herein, demonstrates envi- ronmental enhancement or mitigation by other areas, then the four proposed lakes depicted on the Master Plan shall be considered." Second Clarifica- tion: Currently, Note #10 reads: "...and that this report be distributed for continent and feedback from all groups, and that this report be made pub- lic..." Based on the recommendations of the Board at the worksession, Staff suggests this language be revised to read as follows: "...and that this report be made available for public inspection and comment." Other clarifications to the minutes of October 26, 1987: Page 9: Member Edwards: "Council" should be replaced with "Staff". Page 10: Member Kern: "increase" should be replaced with "decrease". Member Edwards seconded. Member Strom suggested being more specific with the intent of the wildlife • and fishery report. He stated a reasonable format could include: an assessment of the existing habitat and species currently using the facil- ity, an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed land uses and Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 2 design around the reservoir, and in the event that significant adverse effects are found to the existing species that a mitigation plan should be prepared to maintain the habitat for the species that currently use the reservoir. He stated a wildlife and fishery report with no guidelines would not show what was to be accomplished. He commented that by request- ing the report this shows the Board's concern and he wanted his suggestion to be an amendment to the motion. Member Kern stated he accepted Member Strom's amendment. Member Edwards stated some of the confusion has come about because of the reference to the four water bodies that at this point do not exist. Be commented as long as the report does not require the study of water bodies that do not exist, but rather, addresses those water bodies with respect to any mitigation measures that need to be taken regarding Fairport Reservoir, then the report that Member Strom suggested might became a factor. Member Strom agreed that this would be reasonable. Chairperson O'Dell asked Paul Eckman if adding these more specific details constituted a change in the motion or a clarification of the motion. Paul Eckman stated the Board should not change the substance of the motion. He commented that he believed that this was a clarification of an ambiguity in the minutes, and was not a change in substance. If anyone feels it is a substantive change then they have the right to appeal to the City Council. He restated his belief that the comments made serve to clarify an ambiguity and not to charge. Chairperson O'Dell stated the changed minutes would be included in the Con- sent Agenda when voting on the other items. Member Edwards removed himself from voting on Item 2, Oakridge PUD, Tenth Filing Lot 1 - Preliminary & Final, due to a perceived conflict. Member Lang abstained from voting on Consent Agenda item 3, Horsetcx.)th Con- mons PUD, Tract A, Grease Monkey - Final, due to a perceived conflict. Paul Eckman inquired if individuals in the audience would have commented on Item 1, Minutes of the October 26, 1987 and November 2, 1987 meetings, if approval of the clarifications of the minutes was an item open to a public hearing. Motion to approve Item 1, Minutes of the October 26, 1987 and November 2, 1987 meetings passed 6-0. Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 4, Clarendon Hills Patio Hanes PUD, Tract C - Preliminary and Item 5, Chaparral PUD - Prelimi- nary. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Lang moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 2, Oakridge PUD, Tenth Filing Lot 1 - Preliminary & Final. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning•ard Minutes • November 1.6, 1987 Page 3 • Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 3, Horsetooth Commons PUD, Tract A, Grease Monkey - Final. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 5-0. PEINHOLTZ/FOMEY PUD - Kari VanMeter described the project. She commented the applicant is requesting preliminary approval of a planned unit development to locate a "bed and breakfast inn" with accessory meeting space for indoor and outdoor activities. The proposed uses will be in an old mansion located at the southwest corner of West Olive Street and South Grant Avenue. The existing building is both historically and architecturally significant. The site location is in a stable low density (primarily single family) neighborhood. The PUD will feature a four -room bed and breakfast operation that will serve a single continental breakfast meal per day. She stated the bedrooms would be located on the second floor. She commented the main floor of the house will be the setting for corporate seminars and other meetings for 12 to 18 people, as well as social gatherings. The outdoor areas of the site are proposed to feature the accommodations for outdoor receptions, gather- iryls, and activities. There is adequate on -site parking for the boarding guests and smaller meetings. She added larger events will utilize on - street parking. She stated the design features of the site include the renovation of the main structure, that is the mansion and the grounds. She indicated it is the intention of the applicant to seek national and histor- ical designation when the renovation is complete. The interior is to be renovated to meet or exceed the minimal building code standards for the previously stated uses. Included will be the extra baths on the second floor to meet the needs of the bed and breakfast guests. The exterior of time house will be renovated and maintained in its original appearance as much as possible. Some of the existing outbuildings such as the car port and pink stucco wall will be removed for the purposes of upgrading the site. Improvements include a semi -circular drive through the front yard between West Olive and South Grant, replacing the low concrete wall with a six foot wooden slat fence that replicates the original fence, landscaping improvenents (including rehabilitation of some of the mature landscaping), and a small parking area at the rear of the lot, which will accommodate six cars. Signage will consist of two 2' X 2' brass plaques attached to the front of brick planters lighted from below. A neighborhood meeting about this proposal was held on September 24, 1987. All property owners within 500 feet were mailed an invitation; 34 neighbors attended. The concerns of the neighbors included business encroachment, traffic and parking impacts, noise and other disturbances, maintenance and upkeep guarantees, and a potential change to the neighborhood character and quality of life. There were supportive comments also made at the meeting. Kari stated they included the fact that the applicants' live in the area and have significantly improved their own property. Others supportive of the proposal see it as an opportunity to preserve an important historical structure. Still others would like to see this type of use instead of oth- ers that are permitted by right of the zone, which include public and pri- vate schools, public recreational areas, churches and group homes subject to special review. She stated there is a report summarizing the issues • brought up at the neighborhood meeting included in the Board's packets. She commented letters both supporting and opposing the proposal are also included in the packets. Also, late arriving letters are included. In Planning and Zoning Bor ` Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 4 reviewing the project staff has analyzed many aspects of the proposal. A minor traffic report was submitted as required by staff.. The report indi- cates the most consistent traffic demands will be incurred through the reg- ular bed and breakfast operation. Check -in and check-out times will repre- sent the peak demand, which due to the limited nature of. the business will consist of four or fewer cars per day. Less frequent traffic demands will be generated by the proposed seminars and outdoor events. These demands will be more seasonal in nature, especially pertaining to the outdoor events. Peak arrival and departure demands resulting from these events are surmised to be limited in duration, and will not exceed the allowable capacity of area streets. Parking was also reviewed. She then introduced the addendum to the staff report which informs a little bit about a recon- structed parking study. The staff has submitted an amended parking study that is based on the sane carrying and occupancy per vehicle assumptions made in the traffic report, which is separate from the parking study. Kari continued by stating, most of the parking study is relevant to the larger outdoor events. She stated the parking issue has been really difficult to resolve due to the varying needs of the activities included in this pro- posal. She pointed out the site is just under one acre in size and could possibly accommodate maximum parking needs on site. However, paving the site to accommodate peak needs is incompatible with the established neigh- borhood character. Staff is therefore willing to shift the burden of these occasional top -end uses to the public streets because these larger events are less frequent. For events up to 75 people, based on a occupancy of 1.25 persons per vehicle, 60 parking spaces will be required. The amended park- ing study shows how these cars can be accaanodated on the street. Only parallel parking is acceptable in this situat.ion. As the site plan now starxls,,six parking spaces will be available via alley access. Total on - site parking capacity will be about twenty spaces. This is generally within the recommendations of the Planning Department's Parking Program as follows: four bedroom inn -one space per unit, four spaces total required; caretaker - .5 spaces per employee, one space total required; and assembly - .3 spaces per. seat, (assume 40 seats) 14 spaces total. Staff wants to limit the frequency of the larger events to mitigate the effect of on - street parking to the neighborhood. She stated it is the intention of the owner to instruct guests of outdoor events, through the invitation system, to park on site and on public streets immediately adjacent to the site. At this point Kari directed the Board's attention to the parking schematic in the addendum to the staff report. The original parking study was based on three persons per vehicle in order to be consistent between the traffic and parking study. She stated she had re -worked the study and come up with 1.25 persons per vehicle and therefore, 60 total space demand. Kari indicated the parking schematic shows how all the parking spaces could be handled on the streets. She also mentioned that 20 additional spaces would be available on site, therefore, relieving some of the burden of on - street parking. At the time of the staff report the staff made that a con- dition of approval that the applicant would instruct guests to park on the street adjacent to the site and now with the reconstructed parking study this is not passible. Many of the parking spaces are located fairly far north of Grant Street. At this time she confessed she has some doubts of the enforceability of the condition and stated she would recommend it be dropped entirely. She commented outdoor events are the aspect of this pro- posal that present the most impacts. Outdoor events must be conditioned so that successive owners are bound to operate in the same manner and to meet Planning and Zonin*3ard Minutes • November 16, 1987 Page 5 the same expectations of the applicant. Regulating these events has been a real problem for staff. There are few previous appropriate examples to draw fran. Early in the review process staff recommended against allowing for outdoor events knowing about the concerns of the neighbors. Staff was urged to reconsider by the applicant since outdoor events are the primary asset of making this business successful. The applicant has offered cer- tain conditions on outdoor events to reduce potential negative impacts. Staff believes the following restrictions on outdoor events will reduce the expected impact on the neighborhood to acceptable levels without making outdoor functions impossible. Kari stated these restrictions include: 1, rx3 amplified music will be permitted at any outdoor activity; 2, the number of guests will be limited to 75 maximum; 3, no more than two outdoor events per month; 4, no outdoor events to commence before 12:00 noon on Sundays; 5, no outdoor event will extend beyond 7:00 p.m., except for those outdoor activities conducted entirely within the outdoor patio area or immediate yawl of the structure; 6, in no event will any outdoor activity be con- ducted beyond 9:00 p.m.; 7, outdoor events are defined as scheduled events with food, beverages, or entertainment provided, or religious, informa- tional or instructional activities conducted, outdoors to more than ten persons; and 8, outdoor events specifically exclude breakfasts held out- doors for bed and breakfast guests or impromptu tours of the grounds by guests. The applicant is aware of these conditions and disagrees with the r_ecannended frequency of outdoor events. The applicants are recommending that they be allowed two activities per week from April through October or approximately 62 events per year. The staff is concerned that 62 outdoor events could severely overburden the neighborhood in terms of parking, noise, etc. and might being to change the residential character of the neighborhood. if in the future the applicants desires to appear before the Board to increase the number of outdoor activities per year, the Board, after considering the past performance of the activity, could decide to do SO. In addition to the analysis of various aspects of the proposal the procedure has been difficult. The staff and applicant have met several times in September to discuss submittal requirements, procedures, and point chart to make sure the applicant had obtained the assistance of a qualified professional design firm. Because the staff wanted to remain flexible in light of the applicant's needs and requirements negotiations on the condi- tions of approval were complex, lengthy, and sometimes contradictory. Due to the lack of resolution regarding conditions of approval a situation was created where concerned neighbors were unable to obtain the latest informa- tion in a timely manner. Staff apologizes to the neighbors since this was a situation where early resolution of the issues was not accomplished. Kari stated the applicant is not in agreement with the staff limitations on the frequency of outdoor events and wishes to proceed as a combined preli- minary and final POD. Departmental policy precludes the approval of final plans with conditions, therefore, the staff would like to recommend condi- tional approval of the preliminary plan with the continuation of the final plan until the December meeting. This would allow the applicant to place conditions on the site plan and submit all documents in a timely manner. The staff recommends conditional approval of the preliminary plan subject to the condition that the following additional notations be shown on the final site plan as follows, thus becoming legally binding: " In order to protect the existing residential neighborhood against intrusive or disrup- tive outdoor activities, and in order to mitigate negative or adverse impacts of outdoor activities upon neighboring properties, the following Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes November 16, 1987. Page 6 limitations are hereby imposed upon all. outdoor activities: First, No amplified music will be permitted at any outdoor activity. owners shall at all times maintain noise decibel. levels that are legally acceptable so as to mitigate any negative ore adverse impacts from noise pollution upon neighboring properties. The second condition, Kari informed, should be stricken from the record addressing Parking and Traffic. Third, Number of Guests. In order to further mitigate adverse impacts upon the neighborhood resulting from noise or parking congestion incidental to outdoor activi- ties, owners shall at all times limit the number of persons attending cut. - door activities at any single event to not more that 75. Fourth, Schedu- ling -Frequency. owners shall conduct no outdoor activities during the months of November through March of any year. owners shall schedule out- door activities from April through October of each year at such dates and times as are reasonably calculated to mitigate adverse impacts upon the neighborhood as follows: a. In no event shall owners schedule more than two outdoor activities per month; b. no outdoor activities shall be sche- duled to commence prior to noon on Sundays; c. no outdoor activities shall extend beyond 7:00 p.m., except for those outdoor activities conducted entirely within the outdoor patio area or irmrediate yard of the structure; d. in no event shall any outdoor activity be conducted beyond 9:00 p.m. Fifth, Definition of outdoor activities. The term "Outdoor Activities", as used herein, means those events scheduled by owners at which food, bever- ages, or entertainment provided, or religious, informational or instruc- tional activities conducted, outdoors to more than ten persons. Outdoor activities do not include events at which all food, beveraqes or entertain- ment, is provided, or events conducted, indoors. Outdoor activities spe- cifically shall not include breakfasts held outdoors for bed and breakfast guests or impromptu tours of grounds by guests." Staff recommends the larger significant issues be resolved at this preliminary plan stage. The final plan may be processed with minor changes pertaining to minor design changes that do not alter the intent or character of the preliminary plan and additional corrective changes in notations. Ralph Olson, the applicant, stated the objectives of the project. The first intent is to get the property designated as a historic landmark. This proceeds the activity of beginning the renovation process. He stated the property would be restored according to the National Park Service guide- lines that applies to the interior, exterior, and the grounds as well. He stated his wife and himself hope to generate an economic return from the project by establishing a four bedroom bed and breakfast, by hosting corpo- rate seminars and meetings with a maximum of 18 people, and by sponsoring social gatherings inside the structure with a maximum of 40 people. In addition, occasional outdoor uses for weddings and receptions with a maxi - man of 75 people. At this point he clarified the events taking place inside would not coincide with the events occurring outside, negating some of the potential traffic problem. This is consistent with their philosophy that this is a personal experience, much like visiting a family hone or estate rather than staying at a Holiday Inn or convention center. This is a difference in intent. He stated they hoped to retain the appearance of a single family residence on the interior, exterior and grounds. The property would be retained in its essential appearance as it is now. They hope to create a corner stone and show place for the neighborhood that benefits the neighborhood as well as the City of Fort Collins. He continued by stating the known concerns of the neighbors. I� L Planning and Zoninq>ard Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 7 . Kari stated these concerns included: diagonal parking, which will not be needed as verified by the parking studies; property could be used by more than 75 people if there were simultaneous inside and outside events, which will not occur; the traffic study that was not conducted by a professional engineer, it was not a requirement to be conducted by a professional engi- neer; outdoor lighting, there is no need for extensive lighting since events would end by 9:00 p.m.; a liquor license, not applying for one; and the last objection, strangers in the neighborhood and decrease in property values, can not answer this concern because he does not know what the impacts would be. Cheryl Olson, the applicant, informed about the historical facts of the property. She stated the Reinholtz/Forney hone could best be described as a Spanish Colonial Revival. Thomas Reinholtz began the construction in 1917. Clara Anderson, Thomas Reinholtz's daughter, informed because of World War I there were marry delays in building the hone and her mother con- stantly worried that the hone would not be completed. The family occupied the hone from 1919 to 1927 when a series of financial reversals came into effect. At this time the Northern Colorado Loan Association took over the title. The property then set vacant for about ten years and in 1937 the Alpha Gamma Roe Fraternity purchased the house. Mr. Forney bought the property in 1943 and he and his wife lived there until his death one year. ago. She then showed slides of the hone as early as 1919. In 1919, the porch on the outside of the hone was open at the time. The original fence and garage are also seen in the picture. Homecoming in 1941 was also shown on a slide when the fraternity owned the house. Then a slide was shown of the house around 1953 when the Forney's had been in the hone for some time. When comparing the property to the old photographs quite a few charges are obvious. The porch by 1953 had been enclosed, possibly by the fraternity. The driveway originally went around the north side of the home; it did not continue to go around the south side. Ralph Olson stated there had been questions as to the numbers used in the parking study. The numbers used were arrived at as follows: for seminar attendance it was calculated at 1.25 persons per car since people tend to cane alone; for weddings 3 persons per car was calculated since it was con- sidered a family event. He stated by reviewing the figures it might explain the discrepancy in the parking figures. A calculation was made that showed, based on full occupancy for a four bedroom inn, four parking places would be required; a half space per employee; one parking space for the caretaker; and .3 spaces per seat or three people per car for family gatherings and meetings. He stated for gatherings of forty persons 14 spaces would be required, for a total of 19 spaces on site parking places. The largest outdoor activity, assuming this would be a wedding, three per- sons per vehicle; therefore, the total usage would be 25 parking spaces. If a wedding and indoor activity were happening simultaneously, which was stated as not being the intent under any circumstances, 44 parking spaces would be required; given that there are 20 on site, this would yield a requirement for 24 additional spaces on the public streets. This would leave 15 possible parking spaces close in. When looking at the use for a non -simultaneous purpose there would be 19 parking spaces required and one to spare for the maximum usage. Planning and Zoning Boa. Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 8 Cheryl Olson informed the slide viewed was recently taken. She stated the house was shown from Grant Street. She commented looking at the slides it is obvious the hone needs lots of work and restoration. The backyard has about 4,000 square feet of outbuildings that need to be removed. The orig- inal garage, the tile covered structure in the slide, would be restored. She then showed slides taken from Olive Street which the back of the prop- erty was seen. Exterior renovation would include: repair and restoration of the front portico and balusters; dismantling and rebuilding of the north porch, which is now enclosed; replication of the baluster and once canvas covered roof; removing all stucco surfaces on the building; and replacing the original siding; demolition of the outbuildings, added in the 1950's; restoration of the original garage; removal of concrete block wall and replication of the original. fence; removal and relocation of the driveways; a new sprinkler system; complete new roof and underlayment for the roof; painting of the alley and parking spaces 10 feet past the parking area; removal of substantial overgrowth, dead trees, stumps, and debris; instal- lation of handicap sidewalk ramps on the corner of the property; substan- tial landscaping, adding trees, shrubs, annuals, perennials, and other items to create an extensive Post Victorian landscape and an estate -like setting. Also, substantial interior restoration will take place which would include: refinishing the floors; updating all of the mechanical sys- tans; working on the woodwork; remodeling the kitchen; and adding several bathrooms. She stated the interior and exterior restorations are conceived so that they will enhance the status of the property as a residence. She comnented she feels a unique, personal and elegant setting will be created that can be used and enjoyed by not only the neighborhood, but also by the City as well. Ralph Olson concluded the presentation by stating the conditions discussed to regulate outdoor activities were created to protect the neighborhood and ensure positive charge that should not have a negative impact on the char- acter of the neighborhood. A group of 75 individuals on a carefully lands- caped and planned one acre lot should not create objections related to noise, as and regulated by ordinances and conditions on the site plan, traffic or parking. The right to schedule two outdoor activities per week "should" be retained to ensure the economic viability of the project. To qualify as one of two allowed events according to the criteria, as few as eleven people gathered outside would meet the criteria. It is unrealistic to asswne that all or even the majority of outdoor events would be attended by the maximum number of 75 people. Member Kern inquired if the national historical landmark status would be acquired before cannencing any other development activity. Ralph Olson stated this was correct. Member Kern inquired if the national historical landmark status was not granted would the Olson's proceed with developing the site into a bed and breakfast inn or anything that has been discussed previously tonight. Ralph Olson stated he had not carefully considered this situation enough to comment to Member Kern's question. He commented the historical status is a significant motivation. He informed his wife and himself have had strong Planning and ZoningWrd Minutes . November 16, 1987 Page 9 • encouragement that the property holds a contribution to the community. Mr. Forney's stature and the Forney Car Museum meet the criteria needed to place the property on the National Register. Member Kern stated his point was if getting that status first before pre- ceding with the project, it would seem the procedures the Board is going through at the present time are premature. Cheryl Olson stated the procedure of historical status takes time. The Commission that makes the decision meets only three times per year. The paperwork is complete at this time, but the decision will not be known to the us, the Olson's, until December 1987. Member Edwards commented he had a question of staff. He inquired about the driveway access being so close to the corner of Grant and Olive and asked what staff's opinion of this was. Kari VanMeter stated the location of the drive cuts are sufficient to meet safety standards given the volume and speed of traffic through those streets. Member Kern commented if the Olson's would not be finding cut about the historical status until December then why is it being asked for a prelimi- nary and final tonight? Cheryl Olson stated her husband and herself wanted to start some of the improvements before the weather gets worse. She commented there is a lot of outdoor work that needs to be done that could be started at the this time. Bernie Strom inquired where the outdoor patio structure was located on the site plan. Kari VanMeter stated the outdoor patio area and immediate yard surrounding the structure have not been defined as of yet. This could be precisely pinned down at the time of final plan. She stated she anticipated the patio being on the back side of the house where the old patio shed is now. Lucia Liley, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Alden Hill and others, stated the neighbors involved wanted to be satisfied of two things before proceeding with their concerns. These included: one, there was an adequate basis for their opposition; and two, there was neighborhood support for their posi- tion. Unfortunately, because of the process that has been used here and with the timing involved it has been difficult ascertain. It was not until last Thursday, after 5:00 p.m., when we received the final version of the plan, staff comments, and the proposed conditions that had been negotiated over the period of weeks between the neighborhood meeting and the Friday worksession of the Planning and Zoning Board. It has been extremely diffi- cult for this neighborhood to be made aware of what these changes are, what the City is proposing, and to fully understand what this project is all about. She continued by stating her role is to present to the Planning and Zoning Board some questions and concerns that the neighborhood has, based . upon the City's practices and adopted policies, which the neighborhood does not feel comfortable asking. There are two major questions Lucia focused upon. The first question: What is being requested of the Board? That is, Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 10 what are the legal land use decisions at stake here? Secondly, from the neighborhood's standpoint the most important question: Is any commercial use in this area an appropriate land use? Turning to the first question, looking at the staff report, it informs what is being requested is a bed and breakfast use with four rooms, we are assuming a limited breakfast function is a primary use, and then limited accessory uses which are char- acterized as business service uses. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project includes a bed and breakfast with four bedrooms, indoor uses that have not been very well defined, as well as outdoor activities. Tak- ing a closer look at the project one thing strikes the neighbors, no where is there any restrictions imposed upon the indoor activities. Yet, there is a large impact on the neighborhood from the proposed indoor activities. The staff memo informs about what the applicant intends to do. These hope- fully are good intentions but we are dealing with legal zoning restrictions and a broad potential range of uses. There is nothing in any of the docu- ments reviewed that would indicated that there is any intent to place legal conditions on any of the uses of the indoor activities, whether indoor or outdoor events there will be traffic, parking, and noise impacts. Lucia stated the neighbors had a question about cumulative uses which Mr. Olson stated would not happen. The staff had indicated in the memo outdoor uses had been initially prohibited based upon their professional experi- ence. Traffic and parking are something new that has cane to our attention. We had a lot of trouble with the condition because it was that the owners shall "request" that parking will be immediately adjacent to the site or on the site itself. She felt that a legal condition could not request; by requesting it does not make it a legal condition. Now the solution is that this is being dropped. This is a solution, but it is not a very good one from the neighborhood standpoint because it does not address what is the real concern. How is parking going to be handled and accommodated for? With this condition dropped there is going to be no condition that regu- lates the parking, where that parking is going to occur, haw the parking is going to occur, or anything else. Number of guests - there is a condition that limits the rumber of guests to no more than 75. As a lawyer, I have the most problems with this condition. Haw is this condition enforceable? The number itself is easy but how as a neighborhood resident do I enforce this. Do I go over and count, and how do I count 75 milling people at a wedding reception, some inside and some outside? What is my evidence? If a neighbor wants to enforce this condition a complaint has to be filed. Suddenly the burden of proof is no longer on the City it is on the neigh- bor. The neighbor would have to file a formal complaint with the City and provide evidence. A picture of the 75 people would have to be taken which is very unrealistic. In addition, the neighbor will have to follow-up and be a witness in municipal court and the whole thing would start over when there is another violation. That is why enforcement in this situation is so difficult and why these conditions are not normally adequate for hand- ling major problems with neighborhood compatibility. In the definition of outdoor activities, again sane questions should be presented for the Board's consideration. There is an exception here that takes away all the restriction for more than ten people. The impact is less, but the way the conditions are worded there would be no restriction on amplified music for ten people, no restrictions on timing of events, no restrictions on what events would take place. They are simply excepted from the definition of. outdoor activities. This is not acceptable from the neighborhoods stand- point, particularly when the applicant is in a profit making business. The Planning and Zonin4ard Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 11 r1 L • neighborhood has other questions related to the wording itself as to what it means. The applicants talk about outdoor activities not including events at which all food, beverage, or entertainment is provided. Does this mean if some of the food, beverage, or entertainment is provided indoors that this is not considered an outdoor activity? Again, if legal conditions are going to be relied upon these conditions had better antici- pate everything that is going to happen and be very clear. From the neigh- borhoods standpoint they do not get another chance. These are the legal conditions and if they are ambiguous and unenforceable the neighborhood is the one who suffers not the applicant. The characterization of the land use is the problem, apparent after reviewing all the material, because it is not appropriate. The land use has been characterized as a bed and breakfast with limited accessory uses. But in fact, Lucia stated, it seems to the neighbors that the bed and breakfast may become a minor part of the land use. Because there are no restrictions on the indoor activities and could possibly be used year around, it is a profitable business and the applicants will maximize what is the most profitable. If this is the case and there are a lot of indoor activities and it becomes profitable, as the applicants hope, and there is the full ability to proceed with outdoor activities, then it appears more and more that the limited accessory uses are really becoming the primary uses. At the minimum it appears this could be the potential. There is nothing in any of the documents of the project that would restrict this [ran happening; the indoor and outdoor activities becoming the primary uses and the bed and breakfast becoming the secondary use. This is very trou- blesome to the neighborhood because the project is looking more and more like a full impact commercial use. There are two other related issues with regard to this specific proposal before moving on to the second question. This project scored 30 out of 48 on the point chart and this is not a com- pelling reason to approve the project. The parking study, the second issue, the neighbors found to be unbelievable. She stated the neighbors hired Matt Delich to conduct a study. Fran this study he found that 20 spaces on site was more like 10 spaces. The proposed land use, the primary issue, the neighbors do not feel that commercial use is appropriate at all for the area. The neighbors' concerns included: the older neighborhood should be preserved from the encroachment of commercial use; zoning RL is similar to spot rezoning to commercial use and for the last 47 years the area has been used for single family dwelling use; the Westside Plan, which is not adopted in the project, the overall goal is to protect older neigh- borhoods from commercial uses; and, the neighbors are not largely in favor of the project because they feel the plan is presented as one thing but not what it truly is. The letters of support for the project relate to the fact the Olson's live in the area and have good intentions. The neighbors do fear that if they do not approve the project that something worse could be developed on the property. In conclusion, the proposal was presented differently at the neighborhood meeting than it was tonight, the commercial use is inappropriate for the neighborhood, and at the minimum the project should be tabled at least one month so that some of the issues brought up tonight can be reviewed. Matt Delich discussed the parking demands. He stated with the maximum of 75 people at an outdoor event estimating three persons per car would not be appropriate. A more reasonable figure would be 1.5 to 2.0 persons per vehicle. He stated he had spoke to Rick Ensdorf.E about the issue and that Planning and Zoning Bc i Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 12 Rick had agreed this was a more appropriate calculation. He commented at a wedding 50 to 67 vehicles would have to be accommodated for which would burden on -street parking. On site parking according to the applicant could accommodate 20 vehicles. Fran his study he found only ten cars could be parked on the site. He discussed the problem with the proposed valet park- ing. 11e stated the fourteen spaces provided for this function would mean the cars would be parked bumper -to -bumper. This would make it almost impossible to get to any particular car. He commented the parking demand as presented by the applicant is grossly understated for the maximum event. He added the parking on site was overstated. Geoffrey Robinson stated he was representing his parents as well as him- self. He commented his parents own the property were he lives which is in the neighborhood of the proposed project. He read the letter that his par- ents submitted which stated they were opposed to the project. He summa- rized the letter by stating the character of the neighborhood would be influenced by the commercial operation; this project is not retain the character of an older neighborhood; they were concerned with number of people involved in outdoor events; the parking and traffic would have a heavy impact on the neighborhood which could endanger the small children; and finally the extra lighting for the project would disturb the neighbors. Member Lang inquired where Geoffrey Robinson's parents lived at the pre- sent. Geoffrey Robinson stated his parents were presently living in Ohio but they planned to move back in the area in a year or so. Loren Blandin stated she was in favor of the rezoning application. She commented she liked the idea of the restoration of the hone and attaining the historical landmark status. She stated the revised plan seemed suit- able. The fact the Olson's lived in the area also was a plus to the pro- ject. She indicated multiple indoor activities had been taking place in the hone since the 1950's. She also informed the comment was made that the neighborhaxl homes do not have garages that is why the on -street parking was such a great concern, but in fact almost all the homes do have garages. She concluded by urging the approval of the project. Peggy Haller stated she chose her present hone located at 200 S. Grant Ave. because of the residential character of the neighborhood. She commented she strongly opposes any commercial use in the area. She indicated the applicant's process of informing the neighborhood was by word-of-mouth and by one meeting. She stated she was not certain what is being proposed. She added the neighbors object to the outdoor uses and were not aware of the present zoning in the area. She commented she had attended two meetings for the Westside Plan. She stated the plan opposes commercial use in older neighborhoods. She concluded by stating she opposed the proposal. Steve Drake stated the historical landmark status is not that significant because the Wattress home could also be considered a historical landmark. He commented Olive Street will be affected by the larger events and that he is against business use in the area. Christine Wood stated the main reason she purchased her hone in the area was that the neighborhood was a well established quiet area. The increased Planning and Zoningord Minutes November 16, 1997 Page 13 traffic was her largest concern. She stated she relies on curb -side park- ing and would be effected by the additional parking demands. She requested the project be denied. Add May Guard commented she urged the approval of the project. She indi- cated the uses under the RL zoning include more than residential uses. She stated because of the size of the home it is unlikely that it would be sold as a single family home. She added the character of any one home depends less on the zoning than on the care and up keep by the owner. Carry Wheatennin stated he was concerned for his two boys who play in the street. He commented he is totally opposed to the increased traffic impacts. Maurice Albertson stated his wife and himself are opposed to the commercial activities in the area. He feels the hone could be sold for a single fam- ily use. He commented the proposal is not economical, especially since no liquor license is being applied for. He stated there are not many wedding receptions that do not have liquor present. He informed he agreed that there are other things that could be worse than this project that the home could be used for. Willian A. Thomas stated he found a quiet neighborhood to buy his home in which there were all single family houses. He commented he does not feel this neighborhood is the proper place for this project. He stated he believed the market for a historical home such as this one would encourage a buyer to restore the property and live there. Helen Day stated her concerns which included the fact the neighborhood is unique in nature. She informed she had attended the neighborhood meeting and felt the preliminary plan was not such a bad idea. She gave the example that doctors have their practices in their homes and it does not affect the neighborhood that much. She informed she had called a realtor and found that older homes such as this one are at a shortage at the pre- sent time. The threat of a worse case is no reason to approve the project, she stated. Concerning the traffic impacts, the streets themselves can handle the normal traffic. She stated the fact that there are many small children in the neighborhood has not been addressed by the applicant. The increase traffic will increase the responsibility of the amount of watching over our children. There will be more strangers in the neighborhood which could also have an effect on the children. Staff is concerned about the outdoor activities and the compatibility with the neighborhood. The solu- tion presented tonight is to drop the conditions giving the neighbors the responsibility to report to the City. She discussed the problem with increased parking and traffic on the weekends due to outdoor activities. She inquired if there was a legal effect by granting the POD and then the property not receiving the historical landmark status. She asked what the implications would be if someone else were to buy the property and have other intentions. Alden Hill began by stating "hone is where the heart is". He pointed out . the commercial areas are ample to provide for the project at the fringes of the immediate area. He then submitted petitions from people who own sev- eral of the hones in the area opposing the project. He also submitted pho- tographs showing homes and the residential character of the hones in the Planning and Zoning Boat Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 14 neighborhood. He expressed some concern about the staff report. He can- mented at the neighborhood meeting it was stated that this project should h,� approved or something worse would be located in the area. There was a great "fear factor" present at the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors were given the impression that staff embarrassed the project. Fran the impression given at the neighborhood meeting, he stated he left the meeting in support of the project. He commented he had checked the title records on the hone and stated the Forney's had purchased the hone 44 years ago. Alden Hill continued by stating the Alpha Gamma Roe fraternity, which was implied by the Olson's had occupied the hone a short time ago, did not agree with the records. He indicated the conditions, as stated by staff, do not protect the neighbors because monitoring will not be effective and the conditions do not assure they will. be enforceable. He stated the hone has not been placed on the market to see if it can be sold as a single fam- ily house. He inquired if the applicants planned on applying for a special events liquor license so that alcohol would be permitted at certain outdoor events. Steve Olt stated his main concern dealt with the projected parking require- ments. He stated the figures for the persons per car for any event are pretty conservative. He informed he has a young child that plays outdoors and that he would not be overly concerned about the additional munber of vehicles. He referred to the Avery House as being a similar use. He sum- marized by stating the applicant's had recently moved into the neighborhood and have three small children which would also be effected by the project. He commented the project shows a compatible use with the residential char- acter of the neighborhood and he supports the use. He encouraged the approval of the project. Dick Beardmore stated he was the "hired gun" for the Olson's. He informed he had concluded radically different ideas from the proposal than Lucia Liley. He stated there is a misconception that the Olson's are holding back information as Lucia Liley had indicated. He commented the RL zoning is currently accepted. He stated the property not being on the market is net a real issue. He informed the Olson's have not threatened "take this or you will get something else that will be worse." Dan Robinson urged the Board to reject the proposal. Joseph Kissell stated he is generally in favor of the project. He ques- tioned what the future holds if the neighbors do not support the project. He commented if the hone stays on the market for several years it could possibly be vandalized or decay even more. He commented he supports the restoration, the historical designation, and feels the hone would be an anchor for the neighborhood by enhancing the residential aspects of the hones in the area. He indicated he did have a problem with 62 outside events per year but would agree with two events per month as staff recent -- mends. Della Bustis stated she opposed the project. Eric Knoder stated he purchased his current home because of the neighbor- hood. He commented the Olson's are fine people but the project is not stating they will run the site. Planning and Zoni#oaxd Minutes . November 16, 1987 Page 15 • Doug Konkel stated he was the legal representative for the Olson's. Chairperson O'Dell denied Doug Konkel the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Hill indicated she opposes the commercial use in the neighborhood. Scott McLean commented he felt it was unfair that the oppositions attorney was able to speak and yet the Olson's attorney was not. He stated he was generally in support of the project. He indicated he does not agree with the 62 events. He added the Olson's have a good intent. Arlene King stated she is against the project. Member Lang indicated to Chairperson O'Dell that she felt the Olson's attorney should be able to speak. Member Edwards stated he concurred with Member Lang since no ground rules were laid out at the beginning. Doug Konkel stated he did not intend to speak since the Olson's had pre- sented the project very well. He informed the commercial use was mentioned so many times he had lost count. He commented he had not heard opposition to items that staff had recommended. He agreed a lot of information had not been made available because of the timely submittal of all necessary information. He stated the project is not commercial use in the sense of what the objectors are emphasizing. fie commented parking was mentioned as a major concern. Staff had submitted a new report which showed 1.25 persons per car and the opponents have reports which show 1.5 to 2.0 persons per car. He stated from the opponents reports they are indicating more persons per car. He informed the applicants were not asking for 75 people for 62 events per year but wanting 11 people for two events per week. He stated there would not always be 75 people at an outdoor event any ways. Member Kern inquired about the process for acquiring the historical desig- nation. Mr.. Bermore, stated the State Historical representative had visited the site and indicated the home was eligible for the historical designation. Member Kern asked if the applicant had applied for the historical status or not. Mr. Bermore stated the applicants had not sent in the application for the status. He informed there are several steps that have to be accomplished first. These include having a State Historical representative visit the .site to determine if it is eligible for the status. Also gathering many photographs is involved. Member Kern inquired if the Olson's owned the property as of yet. Doug Konkel informed not as of the present. Member Kern inquired about the driveway at the front of the hone. Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 16 Doug Konkel stated the site is not being restored exactly to its original condition, therefore the driveway will be constructed at the front of the home. Member Kern inquired if minor additions were acceptable for acquiring the historical status. Mr. Bermore stated this was correct. Member Kern asked where the location of the outdoor activities would take place. Kari VanMeter showed on the map the porch area at the back of the home. Member Kern asked if the north area behind the home would be used for the outdoor events. Cheryl Olson stated yes. Member Lang inquired how the applicants felt about the staff recommend- ations. Doug Konkel stated the applicants are in complete agreement with the condi- tions as read by Kari except with the two events per week, as the applicant requests, whereas staff recommends two events per month. Also the recom- mendation by staff that only eleven people could go outside per month is not acceptable to the applicants. Paul Eckman stated one additional concern , this point had been raised by Lucia Liley, concerning condition V. He indicated the condition referred to no amplified music would be permitted at any outdoor activity. He com- mented the intention of the condition was to state that no amplified music was permitted outdoors at anytime, whether that be an outdoor activity or two people outdoors. The concern is if nine people gather outdoors it is not considered an outdoor activity and therefore this condition world not be applicable. He recommended the words "at any outdoor activity" be deleted and "outdoors" be replaced. Doug Konkel stated the applicants did not oppose this change. Also, staff had advised him of one change. Apparently staff feels one man' music is another man's sound. Therefore, perhaps the word "music" should be changed to "sound". Paul Eckman stated he concurred with the wording as stated by Doug Konkel regarding music as to sound. He commented for information to the applicant Kari had suggested we as staff recommend the deletion of the second condi- tion. He stated it does not make sense to have a condition that is not enforceable. 'this condition is very ambiguous and useless. Concerning the third condition, this condition will not be easy to enforce. The enfor- ceability would fall upon the neighbors to provide photos to prove that more than 75 persons are present at an outdoor event. He inquired if it was known, if the project were approved, what uses are permitted on the premises. He suggested a greater specification for these activities so that a later clarification would not be needed. Planning and 2oning4trd Minutes • November 16, 1987 Page 1.7 • D-)ug Konkel stated the applicant agrees to respond to the neighborhoods concerns or complaints as to the outdoor activities or any activities con- ducted on the property. He informed this was a previous condition as sug- gested by the applicant but since the lack of enforceability it was dropped. He commented a procedure could be incorporated into the oondi- tions which would handle this problem. He indicated the applicants would agree to this. Member Kern asked if essentially the Board is approving a nonconforming use. Paul Eckman stated the Board would be approving a use that is not a listed use by right in that zone. It is not considered a nonconforming use if it is approved as a PUD. Member Kern inquired if the use resides with the land forever. Paul Eckman stated this was correct. Member Kern inquired what would happen if the neighbors had found that 82 people were present at an outdoor activity. What would they have to do with this information? Paul Eckman stated the municipal court would handle the matter. If the evidence was credible then the owner of the property would be committing a zoning violation. Member Kern inquired what the punishment would be. Paul Eckman stated approximately a $900 fine and/or possible imprisonment of not more than 90 days. Member Kern inquired what would happen if the Board approved the project as a PUD and the home subsequently does not receive the historical designa- tion. Ts this possible to have as a condition? Paul Eckman stated a condition could be established making the historical designation a condition of approval. Ton Peterson stated this could be added as a condition but he was not sure if by doing so if this would achieve anything. The process that Mr. Ber- more stated could take as long as several years. Member Kern stated if the project was approved and the applicant did not achieve this status he could then sell this land with this intended use. He inquired if this was not correct since the use resides with the land. He also asked how the historic designation restricts the use. Kari VanMeter inquired if Member Kern was asking about national or local? Locally, if the structure is locally designated any charge to the outward appearance would be regulated through the Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion. Member Kern stated then none of the uses that have been discussed would be restricted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 18 Kari VanMeter answered this is correct. Member Kern stated someone had mentioned a special events license. Paul Eckman commented with regards to the liquor issues, this is another point besides the definition of the permitted uses he wanted to addresses and had failed to; the Board may wish to impose an additional condition that no liquor or beer license or special events permit be issued on the premises from a land use perspective. Incidentally, the liquor licensing authority of the City would be the body that would issue the license on the basis of the needs and desires of the neighborhood in considering such a license. The neighborhood would then have another opportunity for input. Menber Edwards inquired if it would be possible in any way to hold an event with alcohol served on the premises without having the special permit with rx) legal problems. Paul Eckman stated similar to hotel usage, occupants of the bed and break- fast could use their own liquor in their rooms. Private parties could pos- sibly be held where the party -goers could bring their own liquor. Even at wedding receptions individuals could bring their own. There is some ques- tion if this can be done and whether this would not be in violation of the State liquor laws. He stated in his opinion individuals could supply their own liquor. Chairperson O'Dell stated the Avery House had been mentioned as being a similar type of facility as this one is proposed to be. She inquired how the Avery House is restricted as to parking, scheduling, and number of people. Kari VanMeter stated the only restriction on activities at the Avery House is that activities have to conclude at 9:00 p.m. Member Edwards inquired if any complaints have been registered regarding a function at the Avery House. Kari VanMeter stated she had inquired with personnel and no complaints had been filed. Chairperson O'Dell inquired how often the Avery House has outdoor func- tions. Kari VanMeter stated she understood this to be every weekend through the nicer months. Member Strom inquired what the potential occupancy is for interior events in terms of fire code restrictions. Kari VanMeter stated she did not know what was allowed according to the fire code standards. She informed she had been told the interior of the structure could comfortable hold up to 40 people. This information was given by the applicant. Member Edwards inquired what the adjacent land uses are to the Avery House. i Planning and Zoningte d Minutes • November 16, 1987 Page 19 Kari VanMeter stated to the south is a commercial land use, to the west is largely residential with some mixed commercial and business uses, to the north is a mix of residential and commercial uses, and the same to the east. It is a pretty strong residential/commercial mix all around. Joe Frank clarified one point as to the maximum number of people inside the building. In the planning objectives the applicants stated this would be 35 to 40 people. After reviewing some of the comments that Lucia Liley made the Board might consider the maximum number as a condition to clearly state the indoor activities. Paul Eckman stated he had heard that the project was a bed and breakfast facility with no more than four bedrooms and the conducting of social meet- ing and gatherings that are typically accessory to the operation of a small guest house and meeting facility. This might not what others have heard or may not be what would be recommended. Member Lang inquired if someone would be living in the home permanently. Cheryl Olson stated there is an apartment located in the basement in which the caretaker would live. Doug Konkel stated two points: first, 50 people is the maximum as far as the fire code permits; and second, in Mr. Eckman's statement as to the . activities conducted indoors, this statement is completely accurate. Member Edwards inquired about the policy and the historic perspective, of when the Board has approved PUD's, allowing for on -street parking. Also, it seams that the prevailing policy is that PUD's must provide their own on -site parking, and yet on -street parking is very much being counted on for this project. How does this relate to policy? Kari VanMeter stated lacking the historical perspective on this issue she deferred this to Joe Frank. Joe Frank commented this is a unique project and the standard approach has been to require development of on -site parking. In this situation the question of providing a parking lot was debated and decided this would not be appropriate for the neighborhood. Since parking impacts would only occur 14 times per year, staff felt is was appropriate to use on -street parking for these needs. To give other examples of this the downtown area this problem would occur where the lots are too small to acccnmodate park- ing. A particular project does not cane to mind where on -street parking has been relied upon so heavily. But the frequency of parking needs was one reason why staff chose to use on -street parking. Member Edwards inquired how Joe Frank would react to the statement that the parking at the Lincoln Center relies heavily upon on -street parking; that the City is essentially responsible for this. Also, since the Lincoln Cen- ter has been open that the character of the adjacent area has dramatically changed. Planning and Zoning Bo. i Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 20 Joe Frank stated parking can have an influencing effect on the character of the neighborhood if it is not controlled. In terms of the Lincoln Center, he stated he was not sure. It is surrounding by commercial use except for a few residential homes. Again, the number of events was reviewed as to the impact on the neighborhood. Staff felt 62 events was too much impact. Member Strom asked to be updated on the status of the Westside Plan. Tan Peterson stated on October 1, 1987 was when the project was started. A series of meeting began in October and November. The schedule is to finish in March 1988. At present the Goals and Objectives are being formed. Member Lang commented in adding the condition of having to have the histor- ical designation then the project can not go to final without that designa- tion. She inquired how this would be tying up the project as far as time constraints. Paul Eckman stated preliminary plans expire in one year at this point. Joe Frank commented this could actually be a condition at final. No occu- pancy or building permits would be issued until certification was verified of the historical designation. Paul Eckman stated when the point chart refers to historic preservation that does not require national designation. Joe Frank stated the finals run for two years. The process allows for two six month extensions by staff. It would then come back to the Board for any additional extensions. He stated the historical designation condition was good because in listening to the comments made tonight about the reha- bilitation of the hone the supporters of the project feel this is the main reason for approving the project. Paul Eckman stated he had heard Mrs. Olson talk about the outdoor patio area which would be more accurately defined as an outdoor porch area. Therefore, in condition 4, part C, there is reference to the outdoor patio which would be better worded as "porch". Joe Frank reinforced the fact that staff wants to recommend the project with conditions and to continue the final for one month. Several issues have cane up that require more work. For instance, more work needs to be done on in defining the indoor activities. He stated the Board needs to give staff some direction on the 62 versus 14 events per year. He com- mented the project is important and staff needs to make sure the conditions are clear and enforceable to protect the neighborhood. Chairperson O'Dell stated she wanted to see some restriction on the indoor activities. Member Kern stated it is part of the policy of the City in the Land Devel- opment Guidance Systems, page VII, #7, "...that the City should provide guidance for the location of higher density residential and neighborhood uses." He indicated what this section states is that the Planning and Zon- ing Department should be planning for higher density and commercial uses in these neighborhoods if the Board can see there are some tangible benefits Planning and Zonirgitard Minutes • November 16, 1987 Page 21 . to the neighborhood. In a sense this applicant is gaining some commercial equity and there is the possible expense to his neighbors. some of the benefits the neighbors would gain would be the rehabilitation of the home. He stated he agreed with the project as a bed and breakfast use but he is uncomfortable with all the other uses. Particularly at the level the applicant is requesting because this is a lot of commercial activities. He suggested adding on other conditions which had been previously discussed. He stated a motion should be made to limit the project to specifically a bed and breakfast activity. He asked for some input from the other Board members by inquiring if even as a bed and breakfast if the project would intrude to greatly upon the neighborhood. Member Strom stated the bed and breakfast would benefit the area. He com- mented he has some real strong reservation about any type of exterior use of the property in this residential area. It seems there is an opportunity for some limited meeting use of the interior of the hone. He informed by looking at the site plan with a small amount of additional parking on -site, which could be added on the alley, the parking requirements could be lim- ited to the street frontage of the site itself. His inclination at this point is to reject the outdoor uses. Maiber Edwards ca-)mmnented he was prepared to make a motion. He stated the project has not been thought out enough at this point simply by the fact that there are so many unanswered question and a large amount of public input. He stated the bed and breakfast use is not out of line. He ccm- • mented he sees the project not being so much of a commercial use but more of a public use for a fee. The process will not be well served by the Board placing more conditions on the project only for the applicant to negotiate with multitudes of attorneys at this point. The way to seek a good long term outcome for what might well be a bed and breakfast use in the future is to make the notion to deny the application on the basis that is lacks compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. There is a heavy reliance for the on -street parking, which is a clear deviation from previ- ous City policy. Also, there is the questionable enforceability of same of the conditions that have been proposed and debated, particularly in the issue of the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property. The pro- ject is placing too much responsibility on the neighborhood and therefore would not be protecting the neighborhood's rights. He restated his motion is to deny the Reinholtz/Forney POD - Preliminary. Member Kern seconded. Motion to deny passed 6-0. Kari VanMeter stated given that the preliminary plan has been denied she recommended denial for the final plan as well. Member Edwards inquired how the Board could consider the final approval without the approval of the preliminary. Pau]. Eckman stated since the preliminary was not approved then there is no reason to consider the final. But for the records the Board can go through the process of denial of the final as well. • Chairperson O'Dell inquired if full discussion was needed for the final. Joe Frank stated no. Planning and Zoning Bo6,,u Minutes November 16, 1987 Page 22 Member Edwards moved to deny the Reinholtz/Forney PUD - Final. Member Kern seconded. Motion of denial passed 6-0. Ralph Olson thanked the Board for its consideration and to the many sup- porters also. COLLINDAIE, 1ST TEE PUD - FINAL Ted Shepard gave the description of the project. He stated staff recan- mended two conditions at preliminary and at this point they have been satisfied. The conditions related to the developer's options. He added staff is recommending approval of the proposal. Bill Bartran stated at the suggestion of the Board he approached the neighbors regarding the green belt. He informed he took the ground in question and divided it in half, giving half to the existing subdivision on the north side and the other half into the lots at the south. The division of the green belt was satisfactory and the people unanimously accepted the decision. They have all agreed to move their fences back to a new property line and change their sprinkler systems. He indicated he would do all the sodding and landscaping on the lots. He stated he would also be giving the people a title policy to guarantee clear title to their ground that will adjoin their lots. Ted Shepard stated the only other condition was at the developer's option he explore eliminating the fence by the commercial access located by the parking lot. He informed Bill Bartran had agreed to do this and add pedes- trian access in this area. Member Edwards stated it is unusual to do away with the green belt but can - mend Mr. Bartran on communicating with the neighbors one-on-one. He com- mented the plan is better now than before for the long term. Member Kern moved to approve the Collindale, 1st Tee PUD - Final. Member Klataske seconded. Motion passed 6-0. FORT COLLINS CLUB OFFICE PARK AT PARK CENTRAL PUD - PRELIMINARY Member Edwards stated due to the potential of a perceived conflict he abstained from the vote. Debbie deBesche introduced the project. Prank Vaught stated at the worksession on Friday a few questions arose as to the set backs on the Welch Street side of the project. The conflict between staff and the applicant relates to the proposed curb cut on Welch Street. The applicant feels the curb cut should be allowed. In the Board's packets a memo from Matt Delich is included. Access to Welch does not affect the operation at either the Prospect access or the Prospect and Welch intersection. The addition of the curb cut on Welch Street has no impact on those two points. Whether the curb cut is constructed on Welch makes no difference in the traffic impact in the area. Also, the existing pedestrian traffic on Welch is on the east side of the street and is pri- marily due to the school crossing on that side of the intersection of Welch and Prospect. Therefore, there will be minimal impact with the school r iauui„j al. wuu w rwwwa November 16, 1987 • Page 23 children walking to school because the peak hours of the office use does not correspond with the children going to school. The curb cut may provide some off-street parking for Edora Park. 'There have been questions regard- ing the parking ratios. He stated the project proposes 18,000 square feet with 70 parking spaces. This comes out to be 3.9 spaces per thousand square feet. Also, with regards to the building set backs, there are vari- ous set backs along the Prospect Road exposure. The first building is 1,800 square foot one-story building that is 40 feet back. The larger building is a 3,900 square foot building and in the center is 35 feet. The corner is 40 feet from Prospect. The closest point on Welch is 29 feet. The parking circulation is all internal to the site. The way the buildings are configured along the street does provide some screening in regards to the existing single family homes to the north. Staff would usually require two points of access to a development. These are somewhat different cir- cumstances and can see where they are coming from in terms of their reason- ing. The developer feels the curb cut may not be justified from a numeri- cal point of view in terms of use; we feel it is a matter of convenience. Member Kern inquired about the building on the southwest corner being less than 20 feet from Spring Creek Trail. Frank Vaught stated the sewer easement is 20 feet wide and the trail touches the southern most boundary of this easement. The buildings corners touch the northern most boundary of the easement. There is 20 feet at the worse condition. . Debbie deBesche stated staff recommends approval with two conditions. The first is prior to final approval: the curb cut on Welch Street be elimi- nated; and second, at final review the building materials be further tied down as to color and type. Also, she made the Board aware of a phone con- versation with Paul Huff, the Principal of. Riffenburgh Elementary School, he stated he is opposed to the curb cut on Welch and will be following up with a letter. Member Kern commented to the second condition. The wording "tied down" could be replaced with elucidated. Chairperson O'Dell stated she was in favor of the elimination of the curb cut on Welch Street. Member Stran moved to approve Fort Collins Club Office Park at Park Central PUD - Preliminary with the two conditions as recammended by staff. Also, that the second condition include elucidated rather than tied dam. Member Lang seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Joe Frank stated he wanted to schedule a Special Wbrksession on December 3, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. A presentation will be given and a discussion of the proposed wildlife plan will take place. With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. BINGHAM HILL A- i�. .•ricnmR.,.s aKF COUNTRY C� ;.•.' :., 1420•N• COLLEGE...;.. �" �'•'•'•: '�':'`'•'•' RANGE FARMS II V 1 .. 1..•4;. 6. ;.:.;.:..;.;s . i 4 ;�. .... CAT—TR4CT J ....... ::: ..5' ... x' .• • •.•.•.':: ..... �.::;}}t:{{::•:.�: ••GREENFIELD;•;•}}}':•�, � •'.CR4kE..'. .•..•....,.I F I .•a rc •'' • ' ' ''' �'•'• •: i p ? THE MALLARDSY