Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/28/1980PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES April 28, 1980 Board Present: Paul Eckman, Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Ross, Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, John Dewhirst, Joe Frank, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Don Deaole Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Explained the advisory function of the Planning and Zoning Board and the fact that citizen input was welcome. Explained the procedure for speaking before the Board. Described the consent agenda, and explained the procedure for its consideration. Stated that Items 6 and 13 had been withdrawn and that Items 9 and 10 would be considered in reverse order. Introduced Planning Department staff. 1. Minutes of the March 24 and 25 meeting. Van Driel: Moved approval of the minutes. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0, Wells abstaining with respect to the March 25 minutes due to her absence at that meeting. 2. #25-80 Cunningham Corners 3rd Annexation A request to annex approximately 10 acres located on Horsetooth Road, east of Shields Street, additionally requesting R-P, Planned Residential zoning. Applicant: Court Square, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Evans: Moved recommendation of approval of the Annexation. Eckman: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. 3. #27-80 Dixon Creek Annexation A request to annex 58.7 acres located at Drake Road and Overland Trail, additionally requesting R-P, Planned Residential zoning. Applicant: Miller Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Wells: Stated a member of the audience had requested discussion on this item. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 2 Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval. Wells: Asked if Frank had come up with an inventory of existing R-P zoning. Frank: Replied he had not been able to come up with reliable information. Carr Bieker: With ZVFK, Representing Miller Properties. Stated they intended to do a mixed single-family and multi -family project. Said it is an exciting project due to the physical features of Dixon Creek and the nearby foothills. Asking for R-P, instead of R-L-P, primarily because they wish to develop at about 9 DU/acre with a theme concept, similar to Silverplume, but of an entirely different character. Stated they intended to develop with R-P, but with less than the maximum. Wells: Asked for speakers. Dawn Heflin: Representing Mr. and Mrs. Enrique.Barrau, who currently reside in Indonesia, but own adjacent land, which they had purchased for farming and residential use. Pointed out that houses to the south on Drake Road are large -lot, single-family, which is what the Browns wished to do. Stated that apartments or condominiums, medium density, are alien to this area. Also noted that they would not be able to farm their land for tax reasons, if this area annexed. Stated that the Barraus wish to have the annexation denied, but if it were approved, they would request R-E zoning. Dan Jensen: President of Miller Properties. Discussed the interesting nature of the site and the fact that much time had already been spent on the landscape plans for the site. Stated that they needed the R-P zoning to develop the extensive landscaping they planned. Wells: Asked if Jensen were interested in a conditional zone. Jensen: Replied that 9 DU/acre would provide the density they need. Van Driel: Asked if Dixon Creek was big enough that it made some of the ground unbuildable due to flood possibilities. Jensen: Replied that the Creek area is low and will be used for the green area along with another ravine in the area, and for recreational uses. Said that building would be done on higher ground. Van Driel: Asked if the unbuildable nature of the creek area was the reason the plans call for 9 DU/acre rather than the 12 that would be allowed. Jensen: Replied that, because of the creek area, 12 DU/acre would be too cluttered. Evans: Stated he had no problem with the annexation, but protested the zoning, saying there was too much R-P, R-M-P, and R-H zoning in the area already. Stated extending the collector system and Overland Trail would be extremely expensive for the city, and would probably not be completed for 20 or 30 years. Stated that R-P on this property without a fully - developed collector system was not warranted, but that he could support an R-L-P. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 3 Wells: Stated she shared the same concerns, noting that there is a great deal of R-P zoning in the city. Noted that statements in the Land Use Plan encourage R-P in close -in areas, near shopping, employment, recreation centers, and good transportation routes, and this area does not meet those needs yet. Said there can be very creative use of low -density zones where the developer can get close to six DU/acre. Stated 12 DU/acre is not appropriate at this time. Ross: Disagreed, saying they were "crystal -ball gazing" at 6 DU/acre, and the fact that 12 DU/acre might be approved does not mean that they can come up with a plan that the Planning Board can accept. Stated that placing a 6 DU/acre limit on raw land with no better information than is available would be short-sighted. Said that if the developer came up with unacceptable plans, they should not be approved. Stated he supported the proposal as written. Haase: Asked Smith to comment on the time -line for development of Overland Trail and its impact on this piece of land. Smith: The full development of Overland Trail and its extension to Co. Rd. 32, is probably 5 - 10 years away. Noted that the developer would be responsible for the parts of it in his development. Stated it would be a significant arterial street, if not an arterial by-pass to the city and would carry a large amount of traffic. Said it would have impact on any major project and the concern would be to mitigate that impact. Evans: Asked what the plans were for developing the northern part of Overland Trail. Smith: Replied that the county has plans to straighten out the 900 turn in the next two years, and that further plans are now being discussed by the county and the city. Wells: Stated she was skeptical of those figures, as five years ago, Planning Board members had been told that Timberline, Lemay and the northern by-pass would all be through by now. Stated there is a useable zone which can go on this property now which is appropriate; perhaps after all the transportation goes in, the situation would be different. Van Driel: Stated that if Overland Trail were to be developed, the city would have a large part of the expense. Smith: Pointed out that the street-oversizing fund is to pay the full costs of all the streets. Wells: Asked if each property owner would be assessed for their share in the development of Overland Trail. Smith: Replied, that, if in the city, they would be assessed for their share in the cost of a local street, and the city would pick up the cost of the difference between a local and an arterial street. Wells: Stated it was likely that Overland Trail would not go through there until all of that section is part of the city. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 4 Smith: Replied that was probably the case, but that it would depend on the city and the county. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval for the Dixon Creek Annexation. Evans: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. Evans: Moved recommendation of approval of R-L-P zoning and that the property be developed as a P.U.D. Van Driel: Second. Vote: Ross: no, stating that R-P is probably a more reasonable zoning; Wells: yes; Van Driel: yes; Eckman: yes; Evans: yes; Haase: no, stating that R-P would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the city's Goals and Objectives. 4. #23-80 Smith: Wells: Van Driel: Ross: Vote: 5. #24-80 Smith Wells: Van Driel: Motion carried, 4 - 2. Overland Trail Farm Preliminary P.U.D. A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for 122 residential units on 23 acres, located on Overland Trail, south of Elizabeth Street, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Stated there was an approved subdivision on the site, and that staff was recommending approval. Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item. Moved recommending approval to Council. Second. Motion carried, 6 - 0. Park Central Preliminary P.U.D. A proposal for preliminary and commercial P.U.D. for 80 multiple family units, 35,500 square feet of retail, and 80,000 square feet of office space, on 18.46 acres, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, R-H, High Density Residential, and B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: Osprey Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Stated staff is recommending approval. Asked if anyone wished discussion on this item. Pointed out that the location of the project is the southeast corner of Lemay and Prospect. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 • Page 5 Lee Effner: Stated there were potential problems, predicting that the Prospect/ Lemay intersection, in five years, would have similar problems to those at College and Prospect. To prevent this, suggested access not be allowed to or from Lemay for the proposed project; controlled access should be allowed from Prospect, at least one block from the Prospect/Lemay inter- section, with a signal; if access is permitted from Lemay, the next inter- section should be at least fifty yards from Lemay to prevent traffic slow -down at the intersection. Wells: Asked staff to discuss the traffic situation. Frank: Stated the plan proposes four curbcuts--one off Lemay, two off Prospect, and one to Welch Street. Wells: Asked if there were a deceleration/acceleration lane on Prospect. Frank: Replied there was not,at the center intersection. Smith: Stated there is a deceleration lane, but no acceleration lane, shown on Lemay. Frank: Said there is an acceleration/deceleration lane on Prospect at the other intersection. Wells: Asked if left turns would be permitted at all the curbcuts. Frank: Replied in the affirmative. Wells: Asked applicant to speak. Gene Mitchell: Stated they were concerned with the same things Mr. Effner mentioned, and that, jointly with Mr. Rosenthal, they were determined that this project would not resemble the College/Prospect corner in any respect. Mary Raich: Stated she was the mother of a Lesher Jr. High School student and was concerned for the safety of bicyclists and bicycle routes to Lesher. from Stonehenge. Asked if a separate bikeway could be built for students to get to Lesher. Wells: Asked staff to point out the bike routes associated with the site. Frank: Stated there would be bike lanes on all arterial streets, and that a bike path is planned all along Spring Creek which is being constructed by developers along with project construction. Raich: Asked how bikers would get to Lesher from Lemay and Prospect. Smith: Stated eventually the bikeway would be completed along Spring Creek, but that he was not sure of the time. With the completion of the appropriate segment, access to Lesher by means of side streets would be improved. Raich: Complained that access was needed now; that her child would no longer be at Lesher by the time the Spring Creek bikeway is completed. Van Driel: Asked how far the curb cut on Lemay, and the first one on Prospect, are from the intersection. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 6 Frank: Replied they are 350' to 400'. Eckman: Asked if any of the buildings were to be constructed in the floodway. Frank: Pointed out the floodway, and stated that no buildings would be built within it. Eckman: Stated this proposal is the least problem -creating of all those at that intersection, and is unlikely to duplicate the College/Prospect problems. Moved recommendation of approval of the preliminary site plan. Haase: Second. Ross: Added that College/Prospect was not developed as a large plot of ground, but by several individuals, each with his own curbcut, while the Park Central plan had only a few curbcuts, the elimination of any one of which would only put pressure on the others. Stated the proposal should be approved. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. 6. #28-80 Mail Creek Preliminary P.U.D. Withdrawn. 7. #203-79A Wagon Wheel (Filing No. 3) Preliminary P.U.D. A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for a 196 townhouse development, including a day care center, on 20 acres, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, and R-L-P, located west of Shields and south of Casa Grande. Applicant: Melody Construction, 11031 Sheridan Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020. Smith: Stated staff is recommending approval. Wells: Asked if anyone wished this item be discussed. Stated she had concerns about the appearance of monotony of design. Asked if the applicant wished to speak to that issue. Dave Oyler: Representing Melody Homes. Stated the units proposed are fourplexes, town- house type units, two stories high, oriented with three "fronts" and one "back". Said the units are clustered around central parking lots with the "backs" to the parking, and each unit having a "front" on one of the three sides. Wells: Asked how many stories would be seen from the parking lot. Oyler: Replied it is basically a two-story unit. Stated the garage has four spaces, one for each unit, and the fourth unit of the cluster is located entirely above the garage. Said on one end is a ranch unit, and there are two two-story units which front on the side opposite the "back". Wells: Asked if each of the units had basically the same floor plan. P & Z Minutes , • 4/28/80 Page 7 Oyler: Replied there are two basic differences: one of the upstairs units in one plan is two -bedroom, and the other is three -bedroom. Stated, in addition, they are in the process of planning some modifications, and there are three different elevations, so they are not all the same on the outside. Wells: Asked what kind of outside finish would be used. Oyler: Replied it had not yet been decided, but that the Boulder units had a variety of hardboard sidings --vertical groove, horizontal groove, stucco. Eckman: Asked if the buildings would be built on the site and not pre -fabricated. Oyler: Replied in the affirmative. Eckman: Noted Oyler had said the buildings had different elevations; asked if they also had different over -hanging eaves, etc. Oyler: Replied they do have different roof -lines; said that for the size of the buildings, they are very "busy", but not ornate. Evans: Noted one unit was to be over the garage; asked if the garages would be heated and enclosed. Oyler: Stated they probably will have doors, but did not know if they would be heated. Evans: Said it seemed to be an extremely inefficient energy design. Oyler: Replied they had no energy problems with the Boulder units, except with water pipes which ran through the garage. Evans: Asked if they planned double insulation on the floors of the units. Oyler: Replied he did not know. Evans: Contended it was poor energy design with today's energy costs. Wells: Asked staff for insulation requirements. Ross: Stated that any single-family home with bedrooms over the garage had the same problem, and with adequate insulation and the garage doors kept closed, there should be no problem. Oyler: Stated they would obviously have to comply with the city's building code, as well as VA and FHA codes. Wells: Stated there were goals and objectives in the city's Land Use Plan which deal with the issue of monotony of design. Noted that the Board had approved plans in the past which turned out to be very poor, and stated that, on the surface, this looked like it could be that kind of a plan. Oyler: Reiterated that three of the buildings' sides were "fronts", and described how the buildings were located with respect to each other and with respect to distances between them. Stated that all yards were someone's "front" P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 8 yard and had maximum distances from the next building, a design allowing sufficient density to get the costs down. Wells: Stated she understood the importance of landscaping, but that most people here look to the west for a view, and in this project, many people will look out their west windows onto the parking lot, and that, too, should be considered. Eckman: Asked Oyler for assurance that these buildings will not be, essentially, rectangular -shaped boxes with slightly pointed lids. Oyler: Replied that monotony had been one of staff's concerns and that they had been able to satisfy staff that that would not be the case. Van Driel: Asked if staff had gotten any response from the Post Office or fire Department about two street names, Seneca Drive and Hickock Drive, as they seemed similar to Scenic Drive in the county and Hickory Drive in the city. Smith: Replied there had been no concern expressed at their initial review, but that there would be a double-check with the finals when street names are finally applied. Evans: Stated this was one of the most unimaginative, poorly designed site plans he had reviewed, and he could not support it. Moved recommendation of denial due to the poor layout. Ross: Second. Asked what kind of suggestions or recommendations Evans would offer. Evans: Stated that all units were the same size, oriented in the same direction, and more could be done. Stated the density was high, considering the nearest park is 4 mile away. Suggested there could be better grouping, that he had not much argument with the buildings, but that they could be better laid out. Haase: Asked if there had been any discussion of alternative design on the site by the applicants. Chianese: Stated the staff reacted negatively at first also, but the large amount of landscaping tends to mitigate some of the monotony of the buildings, and staff was pleased enough to recommend approval. Vote: Haase: no, based on the staff's recommendation and extensive work with the petitioner, and on the assurance of extensive landscaping; Evans: yes; Eckman: no, based on the mitigation of the monotonous layout by the diver- sity of the building elevations and the landscaping; Wells: yes; Van Driel: yes, sharing Evans' concerns; Ross: no. Vote tied: 3 - 3. Ross: Said to Oyler that the item would go on to Council with essentially no recommendation, but that they would have the benefit of the record of the Board's discussion. P & Z Minutes , • 4/28/80 Page 9 Oyler: Pointed out that the streetscape would be substantially different from the appearance of the site plan as in most instances the buildings would be viewed at different angles. Stated the "monotony" of layout results from the attempt to maximize the distances between the buildings, and that there would not be the appearance of monotony that Board members fear. Ross: Stated if a straight edge were put along the south side of the building envelopes, they would be in a straight line. Said that if Oyler did not also own the adjacent property which would be developed as single-family, he would be more apprehensive, but did not believe Oyler would want to damage his own property values. Wells: Stated Oyler would also have an opportunity to speak before Council. 8. #44-80 Shryack Out -of -City Sewer Request Request for out -of -city sewer service to 1901 Hull Street. Applicant: V. E. Shryack, 12675 Hillcrest Drive, Longmont, CO 80501. Smith: Stated staff recommends approval. Ross: Moved recommendation of approval. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. 9. #26-80 Stonehenge Replat Preliminary P.U.D. A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for 84 single family cluster homes on 84 lots on 16 acres, located on Lemay Avenue and Druid Drive, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Osprey Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Wells: Asked again that the hearing be conducted in a business -like manner. Stated it is the work of the Board to consider all the items as they relate to land -use in the city, with the city's Land Use Plan as a guidepost along with consideration of existing land uses in the area and existing zoning. Stated staff provides technical background. Empha- sized the Board could only consider land -use issues, not covenants, or building code. Explained how the hearing would be conducted. Asked that comments be concise and not repetitive in order to give everyone who wished to a chance to speak. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, and noting that there was considerable neighborhood opposition. Haase: Asked if sidewalks were to be provided on Osprey Drive, Brookwood Drive, Welch and Druid. Chianese: Stated they would be provided on one side of the street. Haase: Asked if there would be a stoplight at Lemay and Druid. Chianese: Replied in the negative. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 10 Haase: Asked Smith if any stoplight were planned. Smith: Replied not that he knew of. Haase: Asked where the Stonehenge pool was located. Chianese: Pointed out the site, shown as a tennis court, where the swimming pool is planned. Van Driel: Asked then, whether there was a pool in the master plan. Chianese: Replied there was not. Wells: Asked the applicant to make his presentation. Reid Rosenthal: Representing the developer, M.E.E.S. II, Ltd. Stated the residents of the neighborhood seemed to have three concerns. The first is that the contractor, Osprey, has been not diligent in pursuing minor service follow-up items required after move -in. Stated he was distressed to find that people felt that way and asked anyone with service problems to contact him and he would personally arrange to have the problems taken care of. Said the second concern is with the sequence of green -belt development, including the pool, and stated that he had asked the city to inspect the development to determine whether or not the green -belts have been developed in sequence. Stated the third concern is with the proposed replat. Discussed the housing market background which led to the decision that there was a Fort Collins market not being addressed and that,the days of $100,000 homes were decreasing. Stated they could have kept the original plat and built a cheaper product to address this market, but they chose to increase the density, keep the fee simple and detached feeling, decrease the yard areas and increase the green -belt to lower maintenance, and to decrease the initial size of the home so families would not have to pay for finished square footage they would not need. Contended the proper plan would enable them to offer homes at a lower cost with the same quality features in terms of appearance and design found in other homes in Stonehenge. Discussed the extensive planning which had been done on the plan and emphasized its unique nature. Described the site plan, pointing out the distances between buildings, the central courtyards, access drives and garages, zero lot lines, street perspective, wood siding and shake roofs, and landscaping. Addressed traffic concerns, quoting traffic studies done for them by CH2M Hill, indicating that the average daily trips would decrease under the new plan due to a smaller projected household size, while there would be an increase in peak hour trips due to the possibility of more working adults per family. Stated that the amount of open space was increased from 4.17 acres to 4.97 acres, plus .91 acres in the courtyards. Said the density was increased from 3.5 to 5.0 DU/acre and compared that to the 6 DU/acre density in the Solstice area. Stated the existing Stonehenge total is 223 homes; with the approval of the replat, there would be 249, an 11.5% increase. Said they were putting in the tennis courts, and indicated where. Stated that due to the smaller projected size of the P & Z Minutes • 4/28/80 Page 11 families in the replat units, there would actually be a smaller increase in the population in the area, and a lesser impact on recreational amenities, especially since the greatest users of such facilities are children. Showed slides of existing model homes in Stonehenge, duplexes in Parkwood, the Parkwood apartments. Stated the model homes were examples of 1200 sq. ft. homes, similar to those planned for the detached clusters. Stated the replat would benefit the project in several ways: faster projected build -out, 18 months as opposed to 6.5 years; with faster build -out, faster green -belt development; with completed development, enhanced property values for existing homes. Discussed the relative costs of the same homes in 1976 and the present and the income necessary to purchase one. Stated he owns the most property in the Stonehenge and he would have no reason to create a development which would devalue his property, developed and undeveloped. Evans: Asked if the commercial area shown on the replat was shown on the original. Chianese: Stated it was not on the original 6th filing, however it was shown on a previous replat. Rosenthal: Said that replat was done nine or ten months ago, and those buildings are presently under construction. Wells: Asked for comments from those in favor of the project. Dave Gilfillan: Homeowner in the area. Stated that the developer obviously had problems, but that he was in favor of the current request. Said that in light of the market conditions, it is a very innovative plan and he supports the idea. Wells: Asked for those in opposition to the proposal to speak, requesting the time for their statements not exceed half an hour and also stating everyone who wished to speak would be called upon. Sam Flores: Resident on Brookwood, member of Concerned Citizens Group. Stated four members of the group would speak on four topics: himself, on misrepresen- tation; Richard Martinez, on the redistribution of green -belts; Lonie Swenson, on the builder's motives, and petitions; A. R. Chamberlain, conclusion. Stated they had also allotted time for discussion from the floor for any concerns which had not been addressed. Stated Mr. Rosenthal's presentation was very impressive, but said he wanted to go over previous representations which had been made to buyers in Stonehenge. Stated that in September, 1978, he had chosen to move to Fort Collins and had looked for a neighborhood which had proximity to schools, parks, pool, shopping, and proximity to his work. Most important, he was concerned about the kind of neighbors and community he would have. Stated he was impressed with Stonehenge which had mostly single-family homes, wide green -belts, proposed tennis courts and swimming pool, and cul-de-sac streets which are safer for children. Stated that Bill Albrecht had shown him a mock-up of the plans for Stone- P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 12 henge which showed that it would be completed with single-family homes with yards similar to and behind the one he was purchasing. Stated that they had purchased their home with.this understanding and that they would not have done so if they had known the plans would be changed. Said Osprey was proposing a 70% increase. Stated he thought Osprey did not have the right to change their plans, and that the cluster homes would change the neighborhood from the one he had planned to live in. Contended many other residents felt the same way. Stated that if their request was denied, other potential buyers would be wary that the city of Fort Collins could not guarantee that development would be as promised. Van Driel: Asked how he arrived at the figure of a 70% increase in density. Flores: Replied that he had taken the figures of 58 and 84 which had been sent to him by Council, and dividing the 84 into the 58, he came up with very close to 70%. Ross: Stated he was concerned with the word "misrepresentation" being applied to a situation where the only complaint is that the purchasers thought there was going to be a P.U.D. Said there was nothing underhanded or backwards; that Mr. Rosenthal was right up front talking about his proposal and that "misrepresentation" was a pretty tough word to use. Flores: Stated he did not wish to argue about the word, but that he purchased his home with the understanding there would be a certain amount of green- belt which will be reduced by 50%, and that there would be one to three homes (if the cul-de-sac cluster is included), which will be increased to six. Stated the zero property line would bring those homes very close to his yard, and that if the proposal were approved and built, that would certainly be misrepresentation. Ross: Said he was not saying that the residents should not be concerned, but that the term "misrepresentation" connotes something underhanded and he does not see that. Flores: Stated he had not addressed other promises concerning the greenbelt which were made in 1978 as they were not germaine, and that he had discussed those problems with Mr. Reid. Said that if "misrepresentation" were a bad word, that he did not use it intentionally; that some things had been promised which had not occurred. Richard Martinez: Resident of Hunter Court, which backs up to the replat area. Stated that after moving into the area, they had noticed the area was extremely slow developing. Stated also that many homes would lose considerable greenbelt. Objected to including the courtyards as green space as they were useable only by the surrounding residents. Stated they had lived in Stonehenge four years, first in the Second Filing, then they built in the Fourth Filing, which they would not have done if they had known about the replat. Stated the replat would jeopardize existing P.U.D.'s, especially in terms of the amount of money people spent on their homes in that area. Lonie Swenson: Resident on Brookwood. Expressed concern whether the people of Stonehenge, the people bordering Stonehenge on Lemay and Parkwood, or anyone else would benefit from the replat. Stated there are three major concerns. The first is the more direct route that Osprey Drive will P & Z Minutes • • 4/28/80 Page 13 have between Lemay Ave. and Brookwood Drive. The second is the higher density of structures and population, in addition to other high density developments approved in the general area. The third is the dissatis- faction among homeowners with Osprey. Stated the higher density would be in direct conflict with the expectations of Stonehenge residents. Stated that despite the beautiful structures, the increased density of residents increases the potential for problems. Pointed out that the projected occupancy of 2.1 residents per unit, primarily an adult population, is not guaranteed, and could change in the future. Discussed a meeting called by Mr. Rosenthal on April 16, contending that Stonehenge residents were not as adequately notified as others in the area, and that not all were invited, and noted that Rosenthal had said that the initial phase of the replat development would be evaluated to gauge the success of the project. Asked what the residents were to expect if the initial phase did not succeed. Stated that Osprey had not been able to meet their commitments to current homeowners, contending that the area being discussed tonight had been left undeveloped while Osprey continued con- struction on single-family homes in other areas. Said that at the April 16 meeting Rosenthal had stated that this concept had been on the drawing board for 11 months; expressed doubts that anyone who had bought in the Stonehenge area had any knowledge of it. Disagreed with Rosenthal's contention that single-family homes were not viable, as other contractors in town were still building them. Agreed that conventional loans were high, but pointed out that there was a sign at the Stonehenge offices offering loans at 10 1/4 to 10 7/8%. Stated that the difference in price between building the same type of homes as proposed, but on the original plat, was only $10,000. Read and presented a petition signed by neighborhood residents (attached at end of minutes), indicating that the developer would be the only one who would benefit from the replat. Stated that these people did not feel they would benefit from it. Ray Chamberlain: Resident on Stonehenge Drive. Has lived there only a few months. Acknowledged he was an indirect business partner in commercial, non-resi- dential ventures with Mr. Rosenthal, including Park Central. Stated the primary arguments against the proposal were: the change in land - use concept, the change in the greenbelt plan, the possibility that increased density could lower property values, and additional people would impact the recreational facilities. With respect to the concept, stated it was good, but should be located in a new area and not compromise the existing area. Stated that city staff had over -looked the substance of the perceived lack of good faith with prior purchasers in Stonehenge. Said that the chance in plan places an unreasonable burden for change in lifestyle and neighborhood on current residents. Concluded that the StonehengRWould be honored in concept, and thanked the Board for their consideration of community interests. Helen Ford: Resident on Brookwood Drive. Read and presented a letter, opposing the plat, claiming Osprey's verbal commitment to the original plat was binding. Wells: Acknowledged the receipt of many letters both in favor and in opposition to the proposal. p & Z Minutes 4/25/80 Page 14 Rosenthal: Stated that lot configurations are not shown on the mock-up, but that do show the lot configurations which some there are print sheets which people may have seen. Restated the green -belt figures, stating there is an increase of .8 acre, from 4.17 to 4.97; .91 acres additional is that the key to a good P.U.D. is its located in the courtyards. Stated flexibility. Pointed out that builders must build in response to existing demand, and contended that build -out would occur sooner with the replat. Also stated that green areas could not be completed until the filings and phases in which they are located are developed. With respect to traffic, stated that most of the traffic generated will be internal. Noted that there is no stoplight planned at Druid Drive, and that it is a three-way intersection. Stated that some builders are building expensive homes, but very few of them are selling, a nation-wide occurrence. in October. Stated the special loan rates they are offering will be over Stated that the $10,000 difference in prices mentioned by Mrs. Swenson reflects only the difference in land cost, not utilities and other is expenses. Contended that a change in the land -use concept preferable Also expressed the to a change in the quality of the structures. belief that there will be fewer people in the proposed replat than in the same area in the original plan. Haase: Asked Rosenthal to comment on his reasons for not building the cluster - type home on single family lots. Rosenthal: Replied that anything can be built on a single-family lot. Also said that the cost would be $10,000 higher per unit. Stated that due to the expense of street improvements and utility installations, the cost per unit goes down with an increase in units. Haase: Asked Rosenthal to comment on the statement that the initial stage of success would be assessed, and if it was not successful, another revision might be requested. Rosenthal: Replied that the proper market research is necessary, and that they have be had some of the best; stated that until something is built, it cannot said to be a sure thing, despite the best projections. Pointed out the location of the model complex and stated that if it is successful, they will continue to build the remainder of the project, noting that no one would want several vacant units there. Ross: Asked if it would be possible to start the project in the southwest corner with two clusters --a way of not having to redo the whole plat if Also having three lots on the south- the concept doesn't work. suggested instead of a cluster to stem the criticism from residents of east corner that area. Hoped this would address the legitimate concerns of the property owners. Rosenthal: Stated it is important to them to have a window and to have a module development which is economical. Said they would be willing to start with the westernmost clusters near the already -developed area, and to hold off on final approval of the rest until the project proves successful. Ross: Suggested phasing the project. Haase: Stated Ross's comments seemed very reasonable, and the residents' concerns P & Z Minutes • 4/28/80 Page 15 were important; said, looking at the market considerations, perhaps a compromise could be struck which would be acceptable to all. Ross: Asked Rosenthal if their time was too critical to prevent his going back to the neighbors with these concerns and coming back to P & Z next month. Rosenthal: Stated they had to keep on going. Van Driel: Asked counsel if the Board could approve only a portion of the plan, and leave the rest as is. Deagle: Stated that the density and green -belt requirements of the new portion would affect those of the old plan, necessitating an amendment of the old plan as well. Smith: Stated staff would also have to reviewejhff would work out, due to the changes in lots and street configurations. Said that the only way the replat could be partially approved would be with a review by staff to see how it would work. Van Driel: Asked, with the submittal dates, if that could be gotten on May's agenda. Smith: Replied, technically, yes, but it could be reviewed for next month as staff has already reviewed the major implications. Rosenthal: Suggested preliminary approval for the total plat, with the final coming to P & Z with phasing for approval of the first phase, final, and all subsequent phases also coming to P & Z for final approval. Wells: Asked how binding P & Z approval of the preliminary approval would be. Deagle: Pointed out that the developer could go on to Council if P & Z recommended against approval of the final. Wells: Asked, if Council denied the final plat, how binding approval of the preliminary would be --would it have to be done all over. Deagle: Replied it would not necessarily have to be done over; it could be modified as a final. Patty Martinez: Thanked the Board for their consideration of this matter. Appreciated the idea of a trial area on the western side, but said that is only half the problem. Stated their home would be affected by the reduction of the green belt and the addition of a building. Van Driel: Pointed out the change in market conditions. Moved recommendation of approval of the preliminary replat, with the condition that the final be submitted in three phases, from west to east, and that all finals come back to the P & Z Board. Haase: Second. Ross: Expressed concern about the green -belt in the southeast and stated it should be maximized. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 . Page 16 Evans: Stated phasing may be unfeasible, as, due to the lead time necessary to build, the second phase may appear before the Board before the first is built. Stated phasing may not accomplish anything. Ross: Said the Board has the right to ascertain that the green -belt and amenities are installed before they approve a second phase. Deagle: Stated the code provides that the amenities be constructed in proportion to the amount of the phase which is constructed. Stated it would be possible to have phases in different stages of construction. Van Driel: Stated that if the developer is dependent on the market place, he would not start Phase 2 until he knew how Phase 1 was working out. Evans: Stated phasing would not address the concerns of the residents about their loss of green -belt. Ross: Stated that an 18-month build -out could be an improvement over the six to seven year build -out. Rosenthal: Said that due to the 660' limitation on access, the center phase would probably be the last to be done. Smith: Stated there could be a requirement that the whole street be built with Phase 1. Flores: Questioned the premise that single-family homes are no longer in demand, pointing out that multiple -family residences have not been successful in California. Stated that while the premise could be true, it has not been sufficiently substantiated to base a Council decision on it. Stated the residents still had concerns about the green area and about density. Said he thought the same style of homes would sell there, that lower prices would sell, that townhouses would sell there. Complained that Welch St. had not been paved. Pointed out that with the commercial replat and the tennis courts, there actually are 52, not 58 homes now, as opposed to the 84 proposed. Vote: Haase: yes, with concern about the green -belt on the west side of Brookwood Drive which issue would have to be resolved in future final phases and stating that the compromise was good in light of current market conditions and the concerns of the residents; Evans: yes, not in opposition to the. density, but concerned about the phasing program, noting the number of replats from single-family to multi -family plans which have been reviewed by the Board this year, and expressing the opinion that this plan is much superior; Eckman: yes, inasmuch as the proposed density is within the allowable low density residential limit of 6 DU/acre, and that this development is a good compromise between maintaining good quality and increasing the density; Wells: yes, in agreement with other comments, and accentuating the fact that this is a single-family development in a low - density setting with a lower price; Van Driel: yes; Ross: yes. Motion carried, 6 - 0. 10. Public Hearing - Historic Old Town Area Plan A public hearing on the Historic Old Town Area Plan prepared by the Old Town Planning Committee and staff. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 17 Dewhirst: Stated Dennis Swain would make the initial statements, and he would follow with a presentation. Presented a packet of letters in support of the plan. Dennis Swain: Chairman of the Old Town Planning Committee. Said the presentation would be in three parts: he would talk about what the Old Town Plan is, why an Old Town Plan is needed, and what the use of the plan will be; Chuck Peterson of Black's Glass in Old Town will talk about how the plan was developed and what kind of support the plan has; and John Dewhirst will summarize the history of Old Town and the Old Town Plan itself, its goals and policies. Stated the Old Town Plan is the city's first neighborhood plan and an element of the city's comprehensive plan. It is unique in its emphasis on the preservation of an historic district. Stated it is also an element of the Core Area Plan. Discussed the need for so many plans, and the Old Town Plan in particular, noting that it sets specific goals and policies for public and private redevelopment activities. Stated it sets a framework for projects such as the Old Town Parking and Beautification Project, funded by the Community Development Block Grant funds, and designed by EDAW under the direction of the Old Town Planning Committee. As a neighborhood plan, the Old Town Plan gives the city an opportunity to be responsive to the needs and desires of the neigh- borhood, while respecting the needs and desires of the city as a whole. The plan will be used as a dynamic guideline for the city; it can be reviewed and amended to reflect changing conditions and attitudes. It will be used as a guideline by the Cultural Resources Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Design Review Board of the Cultural Resources Board and by City Council in reviewing public and private development and proposals. It will also be used as a guideline by current and potential Old Town merchants and is important as a reflection of their view of how the area should develop. Introduced Chuck Peterson, and submitted letters of support from businessmen in the area. Chuck Peterson: Stated his family is one of the oldest proprietors in the area, and had been one of the strongest opponents of all previous attempts to make any changes on College or in Old Town. Said that a year ago he was approached by people who said there was HUD money available to be used as seed money for the area. At that time, many of the long- time proprietors said they wanted nothing to do with it; they wanted things left the way they are. In the last two years, however, as many as 40% of the merchants are new in the area, many with substantial investments, so the old-timers decided to sit back and watch what happened and attend a few meetings. Said the money was earmarked for traffic control, parking; and beautification, none of which could hurt the area. Stated they applied and got the money with the help of EDAW, ZVFK, and Cox Parker and Associates. Said the plan is receiving wide support, both enthusiastic and mild, but has no opposition in Old Town. Stated one of the benefits of the planning process had been their involvement with the city which had supplied planners, attention, and had turned them down on their requests only with good reason. Stated that the College Avenue project had left a lot of ill feeling which this project was beginning to change in all of downtown. Said the city had designed new mechanisms for dealing with neighborhood groups and was being very cooperative, while requirina the residents to do most of the work. Expressed pride for the things the Old Town Planning Committee had accomplished. Said they had decided to hire P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 18 EDAW and were very pleased with them because they have a vested interest in the area. Stated they were in great shape --they have good agreement and money. They are looking for approval of their final design and hope to go to bid in six to eight weeks, and start construc- tion in August and be done by November. Stated they hoped this would motivate people to spend money and fix up Old Town, the most beautiful part of Fort Collins, and asked the Board for their acceptance. Wells: Stated this was the most encouraging report the Board had heard in years. Dewhirst: Defined the area which the Old Town Plan addresses, and also pointed out the areas covered by the Cultural Board review and the National Historical District. Showed slides illustrating a brief history of the city, covering the platting, the beginning of the college, the coming of the automobile and the spread along South College. Slides also illustrated the Old Town architecture as it used to be, and as it is now. Pointed out some of the problems in Old Town, noting that most of them had potential for improving Old Town as a viable city center. Problems included: narrow alleys, utility lines, under-utilized block interiors, traffic engineering, parking, sidewalks, needs for restoration. Pointed out the still -existing architectural detail. Stated the old railroad station would be converted into a restaurant. Said there was an opportunity to re -use other buildings for the benefit of Old Town, to introduce landscaping, to reclaim neglected assets in the area, to build on details of the past, to capitalize on little-known historical remains. Pointed out many projects now being undertaken in Old Town. Stated Historic Old Town undertook an area plan to capitalize on the history, protect the past, organize the improvements of tomorrow, and capitalize on the potential of the area. Said this is a sincere effort and not just a gimmick. Summarized the plan, noting it was mainly developed by Old Town for its own use, and thus it had to set the stage, define the area, include a capsule history. Noted that one of the results is that many people now are working on the history of Old Town, collecting documents and photographs to be used in restoration work. Pointed out that the initial impetus came from property owners and merchants who organized, held workshops, and had many meetings. Stressed the importance of the Old Town Plan as the first element of the city's comprehensive plan, noting that other neighborhood residents would be watching to see what happens with this one. Also noted it is part of the Core Area Plan, the city's attempt to keep the core area viable. Stated there were fourteen goals and nine policy areas developed to meet the goals. The policy areas are: land -use, open space, transpor- tation, facilities and services, environmental, economic, organization and implementation. Stated the plan was reviewed by the Cultural Resources Board and favorably received, and would go on from Planning and Zoning to Council for adoption. Said the next goal would be a land -use ordinance possibly creating a special historical zone. Other important elements would be a utility study, design guidelines. Pointed out that the Old Town Planning Committee emphasizes their desire to work with the Planning and Zoning Board on future ordinances, rezonings, and other core area elements. Stated there was no staff recommendation as staff had worked very closely with Old Town . Stated that Old Town respectfully P & Z Minutes . • 4/28/80 Page 19 requests Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval to City Council of this plan. Evans: Asked if this kind of document were required for funding of future projects. Dewhirst: Stated the document will give direction and guidance. Noted that it was an accident that the money became available at the same time that the work on the area plan began, and that the two progressed simultaneously. Said that some of the goals and policies had to be developed to give the current project guidance which turned out to be a good educational tool. Said it was important that this be adopted as money for improvements would not be available in large chunks in the future. Evans: Asked if federal money would be the major push or if they wanted private money. Dewhirst: Stated they were looking for federal, state, private historical foundations, corporation and any other funding. Wells: Asked for a show of hands of the Old Town Planning Committee present. Congratulated them for an excellent plan and thanked them for their hard work, noting that the whole city owed them thanks. Stated the plan is very exciting. Asked if they had any questions or requests for the Board. Swain: Asked for continued support from city staff, expressed appreciation for the Board's involvement and willingness to come down and look at the area. Said their help in rezoning and changing the building code would be appreciated, and with continued support from staff, P & Z Board and Council they would be able to attain their goals. Haase: Complimented the committee on their landmark work which would have a great impact on preservation developments in the state as well as locally. Expressed gratitude for all the time and expertise which they had offered. Stated that Point 43 on page 21 is extremely important: "The City of Fort Collins shall establish on -going commmunity preservation education programs." Stated they would find increasing support from many different sectors with a great deal of dissemination of information through all the media and citizen contact sources. Asked for comments on the idea of the Design Review Committee and what the membership would be. Swain: Replied that the committee had been set up under the Cultural Resources Board. Said they have a series of design guidelines which have been adopted. Dewhirst: Stated the design guidelines follow the Secretary of the Interior's guideline standards set forth in the preservation legislation. Said there are seven members on the Design Review Board, including architects, banker, historian, Old Town property owners, representing a broad point of view. Said Old Town was soon to be toured by one hundred docents from the State Historical Society. Van Driel: Moved recommendation to City Council of whole -hearted support for the adoption of the Old Town Plan. P & Z Board 4/28/80 Page 20 Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. Smith: Expressed appreciation to the Old Town Committee for their work and complimented them on how well they worked together. 11. #32-80 R-H Conversion at 304 East Mulberry Description: A proposal for a R-H conversion from a residential to a non-residential land use, located at 304 E. Mulberry, the northeast corner of Mulberry and Mathews. Applicant: Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dewhirst: Gave staff report, recommending approval. Van Driel: Asked, under the new conversion regulations, what criteria there are on plot plan and parking. Dewhirst: Replied that the parking ordinance requires 1.5 spaces per employee, allowing fewer cars, but further restricting the location of the spaces, none in the front yard. With respect to plot plans, stated the main intent of the conversion ordinance is to discuss use, not site plan issues. Said that if additional controls are deemed necessary, the P.U.D. approach should be pursued, but that site plan should not enter R-H conversion review. Wells: Pointed out that site plan review was used for the conversions on College between Prospect and Pitkin, and that it was very helpful there and a great deal was accomplished. Smith: Agreed that it was very helpful there, but said the question is whether it is necessary in all cases. Pointed out that many conversions will use the existing structure, so the site plan is already there, and if the use is deemed compatible with the neighborhood, a site plan is probably not necessary. Stated other types of conversions need to be looked at closer and may require a P.U.D., and that approval could be conditioned on a specific site plan coming before the Board. If the use is not appropriate, the site plan would be superfluous. The ordinance was written to consider use first, with the option to condition a P.U.D. or site plan for approval. Stated any site plan should be reviewed by staff before Board review. Eckman: Asked if under the present ordinance the Board can condition approval on a site plan or P.U.D. Smith: Replied they can do so. Ross: Stated that made a two-step process; suggested they allow the applicant to submit a site plan so that, if it is necessary, it will be there, to avoid wasting considerable time. Smith: Noted the similarity to zoning where the zoning must be considered separately from the site plan. P & Z Minutes • • 4/28/80 Page 21 Wells: Said there are uses already allowed in that zone. Smith: Replied, not under the ordinance as it is now written, only by special review, not as a use by right. Ross: Questioned the use of the R-H zone as it is not being used in new areas at all and so many uses are existing in it. Stated it seemed important to review traffic flow and impact on nearby property, and that it was unlikely that very many would be passed without site plans. Smith: Said that if there were many cases where the use could not be approved without a site plan, Ross would be right, but contended that there would be many where the use could be approved without the site plan. Stated there was not enough experience to know what the case would be. Ross: Stated staff had probably seen a lot more detail than the Board and could thus make a better recommendation. Smith: Replied that they had not seen more information, and had, in fact, turned site plans down, so that they would be seeing the same information. Wells: Suggested they proceed as originally planned to see how it would work. Les Kaplan: Representing the owner of the property. Stated that in view of previous approval of this request by the Zoning Board of Appeals, he would make no presentation, but would answer questions. Wells: Asked if structural changes would be made to the house. Kaplan: Replied that what changes there will be would probably result in the house having more its historical appearance than it does at present. Stated some structural changes may have to be made to increase the load capacity df the second floor. Said preservation of the historical value of the building is one of the objectives of the conversion. Wells: Asked where the parking would be. Kaplan: Stated some would be in the rear, some in the east. Originally there were 12 spaces, but with reduced parking requirements, they could reduce the parking to 8 spaces and have less asphalt. Wells: Asked where access would be. Kaplan: Stated access would be off Mathews St. Said they would not be using the alley at all for access, as the only connection to it is too narrow. Wells: Asked how the narrow strip would be used. Kaplan: Replied they did not know. Van Driel: Asked about the parking requirement. Smith: Stated it is two spaces for every three employees. Van Driel: Said he felt the amount of parking seemed insufficient in view of the amount of businesses in the neighborhood which use on -street parking. P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 22 Stated also that it seemed likely that parking would be abolished on Mulberry Street before long. Kaplan: Said that it was possible for them to provide more parking, but returned to the philosophical basis for the change in parking requirements in the R-H zone, stating that if insufficient parking is provided, there will be a lack of business. Pointed out that this issue had been argued and that the P & Z Board had voted to recommend approval of the change, saying, in effect that if the use does not provide enough parking, then that use will have to impose limitations on its capacity. Stated they were providing substantially more than the required two spaces per three employees, and that the proposed use was professional offices which would not generate the need for large amounts of parking. Pointed out that he was represen- ting a person who had been before city agencies seven times to get this project approved, partly due to the change in city policies on R-H conversions. Stated that the building is presently an unattractive rental, and said that, had the present parking ordinance been in effect, the Loomis house would not have been demolished, but been converted into an office use. Said there could be no perfect ordinance, but that the present one would allow the city to preserve historic buildings in the city without adversely impacting surrounding areas. Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval of the 304 E. Mulberry R-H conversion. Stated it creates within the community a sense of belonging, and that the site plan considerations had been adequately addressed. Evans: Second. Vote: Ross: yes; Van Driel: no, questioning the use with respect to the adequacy of parking; Wells: yes; Eckman: yes; Evans: yes; Haase: yes, with commen- dation of the new land use and preservation of one of the few remaining examples of Queen Anne variety of Victorian architecture in fort Collins; sharing with Van Driel concern on the parking allocation for the property based on thorough on -site inspection. Motion carried, 5 - 1. 12. #33-80 R-H Conversion at 415-431 West Mulberry A proposal for the conversion of residential land uses to an office/res- taurant complex at 415-431 West Mulberry. Applicant: Junge Associates, 3405 Pen -rose Place, Boulder, CO 80301. Dewhirst: Gave staff report, recommending denial. Pointed out surrounding zoning. Larry Kendall: President of The Group real estate concern. Stated that when they had purchased the property, the proposal had been a use by right --summer of 1978. Said they had brought a site plan and hoped it was all right.to do so. Pointed out they had been caught in the changes in the parking require- ments and the use review. Said they wanted to build an office building which looked like a house so that it would be more attractive, and provide a good buffer between Mulberry and the residential area. Reviewed the history of the project as it appeared before the ZBA. Discussed the criteria for. evaluating a change in use: stated that the transition from R-H had already begun in the area with the office building, and Lincoln Center, and that the high traffic on Mulberry made the site undesirable for residential use. P & Z Minutes . • 4/28/80 Page 23 Stated they had been advised that if they wanted the site plan to be considered, they should go through the P.U.D. process, but that they were anxious to get going on it, so they had elected to proceed with the use review. Questioned the residential desirability of the site, noting that two of the structures had been abandoned and would probably not be rehabi- litated. Said the site was not good for residential development --that a low-rise building would mean a cost per unit of $100,000 to $150,000, considering a per -unit land cost of $25,000 to $30,000. Contended that no one would want to buy at that price across the street from a swimming pool and gas station on one of the busiest intersections of the city. Stated, as a neighbor, that the proposal is better than what is there or what could be there, such as a high-rise residential building. Said that other neighbors had expressed pleasure that the present residences would be replaced. Pointed out that he was not an outsider, but would be there every day. Said he lives in Warren Shores, near an office building which he feels has no negative impact on the surrounding residential area, but in fact acts as a buffer from Horsetooth Road. Introduced Jim Junge, a specialist in the architectural style proposed for the site. Evans: Asked what is to be done with the existing mature landscaping, and how crucial the restaurant is to the plan. Kendall: Replied the very large spruce trees and most of the other landscaping would be retained and that Mr. Junge would address that issue and the restaurant further. Jim Junge: Planner and architect for the project. Expressed appreciation for the Board's concern and requested that a site plan review be a part of the process either tonight or in the future. Stated that it was important in evaluating the project with respect to the review criteria of conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, impact, and compatibility. Stated they see the neighborhood as different from the area to the south, saying the site is unique: bordered on four sites by streets and alleys, isolating it somewhat from the neighborhood. Said they consider the site to be a part of a neigh- borhood centered around Lincoln Center and including the large parking areas, the Federal Building, the high-rise buildings on Howes, and profes- sional office buildings. Stated that at the time of their original proposal, restaurants were a use by right, so they had not prepared to defend the restaurant use. With respect to the review criteria, stated they felt the plan met the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, due to its proximity to a busy street, the Lincoln Center, and the Core Area. With respect to compatibility, said office and restaurant are compatible uses in the R-H zone, especially on this site. Pointed out that parking could be shared with entertainment parking at Lincoln Center, as the offices have mainly day -time uses, while the Center has most events in the evening. Said the restaurant use is only 20% of the building and is needed in the area. Contended the shake -shingle one to two-story building is very residential in character, enhancing the compatibility with the residential neighborhood. With respect to impact, stated it should be considered with respect to the neighboring area, which, when defined as centered about Lincoln Center, is appropriate for office/ restaurant use. Described the building itself, which is designed as a four-sided structure, P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 24 with no front or back door. Said it is placed at the front of the site and will act as a buffer to the area to the south. Asked again that the Board consider their statements as part of their submission. Showed several slides of the site and vicinity, and of buildings similar to the one proposed. Stated they felt the restaurant is a viable need for the core area, noting again that it was previously a use by right. Said that if it is a problem for the Board, their thoughts would be respected. Haase: Asked the location of the restaurant. Kendall: Pointed out where it would be, noting that it is the one-story portion of the building. Wells: Asked if anyone present wished to speak about the conversion. Gayle Norman: Resident on Myrtle Street. Commented that the residents do feel parking is a problem, mainly due to the proximity of the university. Stated he and other residents were concerned about the run-down condition of the existing buildings on the subject site and felt that any change would be an improvement. Haase: Asked Norman if there were a large percentage of rentals in that neighborhood. Norman: Replied that over the past ten years, the area has become about 80% rentals, noting that many of them are well maintained. Haase: Said she was impressed with the mixed values in the neighborhood which seems to rebut some of the comments in the staff recommendation about the intrusion into the neighborhood being incompatible. Suggested the proposal would increase the value of the remaining residences as the existing houses would be removed and the proposed building is architecturally compatible. Norman: Stated that an elderly lady neighbor thinks the proposal would be an improvement. Said the residents have become accustomed to heavy truck traffic in the neighborhood. Noted they have concern about the safety of pedestriansacross Mulberry to Lincoln Center as there used to be a light there when it was a school. Van Driel: Asked Norman how much impact there was on parking there from Lincoln Center on weekdays. Norman: Replied that the major impact was CSU student parking, and that there seemed to be no impact from day -time events at Lincoln Center. Kaplan: Owner of building at 528 S. Howes where his office is. Stated the unfortunate reasoning behind the conversion review ordinance is that there is something unwholesome in mixing residential and restaurant/office uses. Said the real issue is how something is done, not to fantasize on the impact of a commercial use. Stated the neighborhood is a rapidly transitioning area and that the proposal is highly compatible. Noted that the interior areas of the neighborhood would probably redevelop with higher -density residential uses, but that the outside areas on Mulberry and Howes where traffic is high are appropriate for carefully done office and residential development. Stated that once that is done it would provide motivation for redevelopment to owners of the interior areas, accomplishing the objective of providing P & Z Minutes • r 4/28/80 Page 25 more high -density residences near the core area. Stated the Land Use Policies Plan encourages having neighborhood -type uses close in to high density residential development, and said restaurants are a neighborhood - type use. Contended that a restaurant there would provide additional incentive for redevelopment of the interior. Expressed support for the proposal. Wells: Asked if there were further comments. Eckman: Stated he did not see Mulberry Street as an important boundary line between neighborhoods here, and that the neighborhood seems an appropriate one for the proposal. Expressed approval of the site plan and the preservation of the existing landscaping. Van Driel: Stated he would approve the conversion from the existing buildings to what is proposed, but did not favor the restaurant, feeling it would have too much of an impact on the entire area. Ross: Stated that mixing of uses is probably under-utilized in Fort Collins. Said that the size of the restaurant is small and fills a need, and that Mulberry Street is an arterial and should have such uses on it. Felt that a quality development would anchor the whole area. Expressed support for the concept, but did not know how to word a motion to lock in some of the things they had seen, due to the problems of consideration of use and/or site plan. Deagle: Reversing his earlier position, stated that based on the administrative guidelines concerning conversions, it was his opinion that it is the Board's function to take into consideration site plan review under these circum- stances. Said that in deciding upon this conversion, they were not only authorized, but must necessarily take into consideration the specifics of this site plan. Smith: Commented that there had been no staff review of the site plan. With initial review, there appear to be significant problems with the layout of the site plan, including parking locations going directly onto the alley- ways. Stated that if the Board were to make a recommendation on the site plan it should be first reviewed by the staff in order to get an adequate staff recommendation. Evans: Said he had no problem with the proposed use, but would like to see it come back as a P.U.D. with the site plan. Pointed out that the original intent of the conversion review ordinance was to protect the type of housing seen in the previous conversion, not the type in this one, and that they seemed to be getting away from that. Ross: Asked what that would do to the scheduling of the project. Junge: Said that the word P.U.D. horrified him as it is not meant for a 38,000 foot site of a single building on one piece of land, where inherently there is use by right. Also said that site plan review could mean the approval of use based on certain criteria of site plan review that would not affect their schedule. Complained that they had been before the city for 90 days trying to get someone to hear them, and that this was the first time they had succeeded. Said they hoped to break ground July 1, and if they could P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 26 have the design review done in time so that the project could go on to Council at the time it would normally go, they would welcome it. Said to start now with a whole P.U.D. would be a great inconvenience, especially in light of the recent changes in city ordinances. Kaplan: Stated that if staff was concerned only with the parking, that that would be picked up when the plot plan is submitted to the Building Department. Smith: Said that is correct, but said the site plan is misleading as it provides more spaces than could be provided under a legal plot plan and said that raises the question of whether the plan is acceptable with the intensity that is on there. Said there are many other things that need to be looked at. Kaplan: Asked if those things could be looked at as part of the building permit review. Wells: Stated the main issue is that they are hearing an item for the first time under a new ordinance and that there is concern on the Board that they need to see site plans in these situations. Said the staff did not know site plans would have to be reviewed. Apologized to the applicants, but said they could not make a recommendation without a thorough analysis of the site plan. Said they were learning, unfortunately at the applicants' expense. Ross: Asked if the paved alley is dedicated. Kendall: Replied it had not been. Ross: Asked if it served anyone else to the south. Said.there were problems with the plan. Kendall: Pointed out that with the previous item's approval, there was nothing to prevent the owners from tearing it down and building something else there. There had been no site plan presented at all. Said they might not be able to build the project if they had to go with a P.U.D. due to time problems with the financing and the purchasing of the land. Ross: Stated he was sure the problems could be solved but that the Board could not approve the proposal with the parking as shown. Kendall: Said they could reduce the size of the building, but that they wanted to know if the Board believed in the concept, and if so, they would do whatever is necessary to meet requirements. Eckman: Asked Smith if the Board could approve of the general concept and still give the staff time to tighten up the details without delaying the project. Ross: Suggested approving it subject to seeing the final plan. Smith: Said there is no final. Said a site plan deals solely with the building envelope and parking configurations. Said the only way to get guarantees on the scale, character and elevations of a building is through a P.U.D. Said that they could do what Eckman suggested, but that the project could be nothing like what they were seeing tonight by the time it gets to Council. P & Z Minutes * • 4/28/80 Page 27 Stated again that that would be only in terms of looking at the site plan, that if they wanted to guarantee the character, unless it came back to the Board, the only way to do so is to review it as a P.U.D. Eckman: Stated he would hate to see the project fail due to the city's bureaucracy, and suggested considering the possibility of simply approving the use as they do not have to consider the site plan. Smith: Said he was trying to make the Board aware of its options based on different approvals. Said, given today's market, the project could go a completely different way. Ross: Stated they were dealing with reputable people, but it was possible their financing could fail and they could not guarantee what someone else would do there. Said the project had been going on too long. Kendall: Suggested recommending approval based on an office and restaurant with the conditions that the restaurant not exceed 3000 sq. ft., that the office not exeed 12000 sq. ft., that the building footprint not exceed 9100 sq. ft., that the building not exceed two stories in height, that the building have a sloped roof, that the building materials be compatible with the residential surroundings, and that the details of the site plan must meet all the criteria. Thus, there would be restrictions on the use approval. Said they were trying to get to the point where they could get the criteria to make the site plan acceptable. Deagle: Said he thought that could be done. Stated it seemed necessary to define the considerations further, but that recommendation could be made to Council that the Board had done the best they could under the circumstances, and perhaps Council could provide more guidance for.future situations. Smith: Agreed. Wells: Stated the R-H zone was originally intended for high -density residential use in areas near the core area, and part of the reason for use review is to determine whether there is really a need for other uses than the high density residential. Said this site is ideal for high -density residential due to its proximity to public facilities, shopping, educational facilities and employment centers. Said the need had not been demonstrated for the change from residential to office/restaurant use. Contended the site could be developed as a very fine high -density residential building, and profitably as well. Ross: Asked if it would not have to be a ten -story building. Wells: Replied, not necessarily, that it could be done with a residential character. Ross: Contended height is necessary. Wells: Said there was no reason why they could not go up a little there. Ross: Moved recommendation of approval of the intended use based on the restaurant not to exceed 3000 square feet, the office building not to exceed 12,000 sq. ft., building materials to be compatible with the neighborhood, building height not to exceed 36', the building envelope not to exceed 9100 sq. ft., P & Z Minutes 4/28/80 Page 28 and all city regulations to be met, and that the format be tied to the general idea as represented by the photographs, and finally, that the existing trees be preserved. Eckman: Second. Wells: Stated it is imperative that the whole conversion process be reviewed and worked out. Vote: Haase: yes, stating the plan is exciting, compatible with the area and with the highest and best use of land,should be a positive factor in the develop- ment of the neighborhood; Evans: yes; Eckman: yes; Wells: no, for the reasons previously stated; Van Driel: no, saying it would fine in a B-G area, but concurred with Wells' comments on using the area for high density residential; Ross: yes. Motion carried, 4 - 2. Wells: Adjourned meeting, 11:45 p.m. STONEHENGE P.U.D. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT The Planning Division received a petition for the above item consisting of 110 petitioners. The specifics of the petition were that all signers were strongly opposed to the proposed replat of that area for the following reasons: 1. They relied on the developer's original representations as to how the area would be completed in deciding to purchase homes in this area. The proposed higher density and different concept was a violation of earlier representations. 2. The original greenbelts that acted as added space between homes would be shifted so as to be enjoyed more by the residents of the clusters instead of the subdivision in general. 3. The increase to 84 units from 58 and the more direct link to Lemay that Osprey Drive will become, is a traffic and safety hazard to schoolchildren walking along Brookwood to and from Riffenburgh. 4. The increase to 84 from 58 units would place undue stress on the single swimming pool. 5. The party benefiting most substantially from the replat is not the city nor prospective home buyers, but the developer. These petitions are on file in the Planning Division Office and would be made available for anyone who would like to review them.