Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/25/1980171 E PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 25, 1980 Board Present: Paul Eckman, Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Spahr, Ed Van Driel Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Van Driel: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Explained procedure to be followed during the meeting. Asked if anyone wished to speak on the Golden Meadows Fourth Filing Final P.U.D. (No response.) 1. Consent Item #211-79A Golden Meadows Fourth Filing Final P.U.D. Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 2. #12-80 Hill Pond Master Plan A proposal for a master plan of the Hill Pond area, approximately 93 acres, located east of Shields between Prospect St. and Drake Rd. The master plan is an area of approximately 32 acres, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential, and 61 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential. The preliminary proposal is for 707 total units, including 63 existing townhomes. The master plan includes 5.8 acres open space. Applicant: Steve Van Lear,'c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval. Steve Van Lear: General partner with Victoria, Ltd. Stated this is probably the largest in -fill project that has been proposed in Fort Collins to datp. Said they had put in a lot of effort to make it the best they could. Introduced Jim Gefroh of Gefroh and Associates and Les Kaplan to make the presentation. Jim Gefroh: Stated the master plan is conceived as a mixed residential development, consisting of single-family, apartment condos, and low and high density townhomes, combined under one ownership. Said the over-all objectives are quality, master plan respecting the surrounding existing development. Stated the master plan consists of three distinct areas, all bordered by a common green -belt system. Stated the allowable over- all density would be about 7.5 DU/acre. Pointed out some design determinants that went into the master plan: Spring Creek, which is designed as a floodway and a recreational green -belt; the adjacent, p & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page 2 high -quality development, the SKY Addition. Stated the curb cuts were limited, and pointed/ �e planned access and curb cuts for each area. Said that the existing recreational area is to be considered a major amenity in the total plan which will be added to by connecting it to the floodway system and allowing access from the other areas. Stated this recreational area will serve the existing townhomes, the second phase of the townhomes and possibly the single-family area. A completely separate recreational area will be provided with the apartment phase, consisting of a pool, tennis courts, and a clubhouse. Another recreational area will be provided for future phases of higher density townhomes. Discussed the central wooded area which is designated for exclusive townhomes. Stated that defining a use for the area and maintaining all the existing landscaping would prevent its becoming a security problem in the future. Said it would be expanded and tied into the floodway. Pointed out that the only commercial allotment to be used would be a 5,000 sq. ft. professional services building which existing residences would be remodelled into. Stated the single-family area is designed to interface with the Sheely Addition, with no vehicular ties at all to the other developments -- designed to function on its own, respecting the existing Sheely Addition. Said the floodplain area is designed to the figure established by the Interim Flood Plain Study, 5,000 CSF. A current city study to be completed by July, will probably indicate that only 2300 CSF will be required. Stated that, in that event, more green space could be provided. Said the developer has agreed to pay $10,000 for the development of a bikeway system in the floodplain area. Pointed out that the developer has concerns about the traffic conditions and park development adjacent to the area. Said the developer will improve Shields Street on the east side, Hobbit Street, and would participate in the improvement of the Prospect/Shields intersection. Stated the development would generate about $155,000 in street oversizing fees, which the developer would encourage the city to target for the improvement of the remaining Shields Street to the north and south. Said the developer, with the generation of $318,000 of parkland fees by the development, would encourage the city to follow through with the development of Rolland Moore Park, targeting those fees for the park. Evans: Stated that it appeared that the single-family structures appeared to, be oriented to take advantage of solar energy; asked if the remainder of the project was so oriented. Gefroh: Replied the single-family will have solar applications. The remainder of the areas will address the solar issue, particularly in the single- family and townhome phases. Spahr: Asked for elaboration on the statement that the 5,000 sq. ft. professional area would be for the exclusive use of Hill Pond residents. Gefroh: Replied it would be open for professional service type uses, such as a dentist or barber which may contribute to the over-all master plan, as 700 households afford an appropriate drawing power for such a small user. P & Z Board Minutes • • 3/25/80 Page 3 Van Driel: Asked if there would be several homeowners' associations as. there are several recreational areas planned. Gefroh: Replied there will be separate associations relating to the phases as developed, eventually with an umbrella organization to deal with the fixed recreational needs. Van Driel: Asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the master plan. Brian Hyde: Resident of Hill Pond, and a professional city planner. With another resident, an architect, he had spent some time going over the proposed master plan. Discussed the plans for the central knoll with the fine landscaping provided by a former resident, and the developers' contention that it could become a security problem. Stated it is the very seclusion provided by that area which is attractive to many current residents and which is unusual in the middle of an urban area. Said that building units there would detract from the attractiveness of the area. Stated that the area is ideally located for both active and passive recreational uses and should be preserved for the enjoyment of all future Hill Pond residents. Expressed concern about Shields Street traffic and whether the city would satisfactorily anticipate the,problems created by the impact of the development. Also expressed concern about maintenance of the quality of landscaping, especially that in the central knoll area. Pointed out that that should be an amenity from the developers' point of view as well. Agreed with city staff's contention that Hill Pond Road, at least as far as the split in the road should provide no direct access to any future units. Reiterated concern aboutthe central area, noting that many residents purchased units there because they _were attracted by that unique area. Smith: Stated the city is well aware of the Shields Street problem and is looking at improvements of it. Said there will probably be a signal at Shields and Stuart, and possibly at the entrance to Rolland Moore Park.. Stated that if those lights did not provide sufficient gaps to allow traffic to move well at the Hill Pond intersection, a light would be considered there. Van Driel: Asked, if that happened, if it would be possible to provide left -turn and acceleration lanes on Shields. Smith: Replied there would probably be sufficient right-of-way to restripe the street in that manner, and said Shields might have a continuous left - turn lane. Evans: Asked what the Streets Department's schedule for improvement of Shields is. Smith: Replied he was not sure, but pointed out that several developments had been approved along Shields and that improvement would occur as they were built up. Charles Borden: New resident of Hill Pond, a registered engineer in Illinois. Commented about the potential traffic problems, especially with respect to left turns off Shields. Asked whether the developer had a commitment to continue the P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page 4 same style and quality of building as the existing buildings have. Expressed concern about the planned professional services area fitting into the rather secluded residential area on a short street with no outlet. Stated that when the existing development became a condominium, it was represented to buyers that the area by the pool and the secluded central area would never be developed, but left in a natural state. Said he was assessed a charge for the purchase of the pool and tennis courts and paid homeowners' fees for that purchase, and there was considerable confusion about the ownership of those facilities. Asked what was contemplated about changing the floodplain, improvements that might be made, changes to decrease flooding potential, plans for floodplain detention with increased development, to alleviate the potential for increased run-off in the area. Van Driel: Noted that Mr. Gefroh had mentioned that a flood -plain study was under way which is scheduled for completion in July, therefore, answers to Borden's concerns about the floodway would not be available until then. Les Kaplan: Representing applicant. Responded to Borden's and Hyde's concerns. Stated that the decisions regarding the handling of the central area were not made lightly, nor to gain maximum land use, pointing out that the eight units could easily fit into any one of the other town home phases. Also noted that the proposal utilizes only 75% of the allowable density. Stated that the building of the units in the central area is central to the over-all design of the project. Said that the character of that area would change in any case with the building of 700 additional units, and contended that leaving the area with no defined recreational uses would make it an attractive nuisance. Stated that eight units was requested as a maximum, that only two, four or six may finally be built. Said that the site plan for that area would show how the existing landsca- ping would be preserved and how the units would fit as an integral part of the project. Stated that access to that area would be off a proposed street just north of Area E, and would be a private drive. Said these units would also serve to provide separation between the existing townhome .. and recreation areas and the apartment phase to the north. With respect to traffic-, said that they could only do what is within the project's parameters to do concerning off -site street improvements. Said they would have to improve Shields Street, and reiterated their request that the city target the project's street oversizing fees for Shields Street. Stated also, that they had indications from the owner of the corner property that she would cooperate in dedicating the right-of-way to the city along her property so that the street could be improved there prior to development. Pointed out the proposed location of a bus stop for the project. Stated the existing entrance to Hill Pond would be improved, by removing the island and widening the entrance, easily allowing lanes for both right and left turns. Said they anticipated being required to construct a left- turn bay into the improved entrance from Shields Street. Concerning the landscaping, said it would probably be among the best in the city. Noted that landscaping is not shown on the master plan, but would be shown roughly on the preliminary phase proposals, and in detail on the finals. Stated the developers feel landscaping is important to the project and will enhance marketing of the project in the future. P & Z Board Minutes., • . 3/25/8p Page 5 With respect to the townhomes, said that the first phase townhomes, on the southern end of the site, would be submitted in May and should be before the Planning Board in June. Said that the individual with concerns about their construction could learn more about the proposal at his office, from the city Planning office, or from the June hearing. Stated their plan is to make the project harmonious. Said the professional office area (not a professional service area) will be limited to professional office uses as defined by ordinance (no barber- shop), or perhaps limited even further. Stated they were looking for tenants who wanted luxurious, low -volume offices, such as architects, or attorneys. Stated that an over-all storm -drainage plan had been submitted with the master plan which the concerned individual could look at. Pointed out that detailed storm drainage plans would have to be submitted with each phase plan. Van Driel: Asked Smith if too much detail was being discussed with respect to a master plan. Smith: Replied that comments with respect to building style and landscape treat- ment were beyond what a master plan addresses. Stated the master plan addresses type of land uses and the circulation system, but the other concerns are germaine and may be discussed with the individual plans for phases of the project. Steve Van Lear: Developer of the project. Responded to Borden's question about the pool, noting there had been problems, including an unfinished pool. Stated the pool and tennis courts would serve about 260 to 280 residences in Hill Pond Phase A, Phase C, part of Phase E, and possibly part of Phase D, but probably not. Said they had a problem representing the pool and tennis courts to the residents of Hill Pond because of "secondary mortgage market lender requirements", and that that problem had been solved with an umbrella association, which is the way that the recrea- tional aspects of the P.U.D. will be handled for the entire project. Stated that with the umbrella association over separate homeowners' associations for each phase, the proposed type of recreational facilities can be supported. Van Driel: Asked for additional comments. John Rash: Resident of Hill Pond. Asked what plans were being made to avoid flooding into the existing area when the area north of the dike is raised in order to build on it. Asked about plans for parking, noting that it is inadequate in the existing area, and that cars often block the cul-de-sac where he lives. Expressed concern for the maintenance of adequate green space. Smith: Responded to the parking question, stating that the city ordinance has requirements based on the number of bedrooms in a unit; if two or more, the requirement is 1.75 to 2 spaces per unit for new areas as they develop. Mauri Ruple: Responded to concerns about the floodplain. Stated the city presently requires that the developer provide means for detaining a 100-year flood. p & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Paae 6 Stated that the channel will beimprovedto take 5,000 second .feet which would be a 100-year flood. Rash: Asked if the area north of the dike would be filled in order to build additional houses. Van Lear: Stated their preliminary apartment plans will show that the whole flood system will be changed drastically in terms of both width and depth, and will accommodate 4 to 5,000 cubic feet per second. Said they did not plan to raise one side or the other to the detriment of any other area. Ruple: Stated the channel would be improved to handle the flood; there would be no back -water problem there. Van Driel: Asked if there were control over the landscaping through the Inspection or Planning department. Smith: Stated that the existing development met the standards in effect at the time it was built. Said any new development would be required to meet the standards of 15% active and 30% passive open space. Anticipated the project would be on the high end of meeting open space requirements. Stated that area presently being developed will be done consistent with the plan which has been approved for that area. Van Lear: Stated they are adding to the open space which was originally designed, building only 65 instead of the approved 73 units, reiterating their commitment to open space. Dorothy Miller: Resident of Sheely Addition. Stated there had been a meeting with the developers and Sheely Addition residents at which the developers had said that the single-family homes to be built adjacent to the Sheely Addition would be of the same size and quality as the existing homes. Pointed out that the planned lots are too small to accommodate such houses. Expressed concern about the additional traffic and getting onto Prospect from the Addition. Appreciated the fact that single-family housing was being planned, but felt it is still too dense. Also pointed out how beautiful Spring Creek is as it is now, and asked if it would be channeled. Smith: Replied it would be channeled, not with concrete, but with dirt and land- scaping. Also said many of the curves would probably have to be straigh- tened. Miller: Stated it would be a shame for the city to lose such a special green space. Also contended that the central knoll area could not possibly become a security problem, even at night. Van Lear: Stated they had cut down the number of single-family lots from 51 to 39, and the patio homes in D had lots ranging from 22,000 ft. to 12,000 ft., but lots across the street are smaller, and could not accommodate $130,000 to $140,000 homes. Said their intent is to build a high -quality solar subdivision. Pointed out they had gone to considerable effort to acquire property so that additional traffic would not be added to Sheely Addition as was originally proposed. P & Z Board Minutes • 3/25/80 Page 7 Haase: Stated it should be brought to the attention of the Poudre R-1 School District that there will be a very significant on Bennett Elementary School and Blevins Junior High School when the development is completed. Eckman: Asked for better definition of the secluded area, stating he needed more justification for putting units in that area, if it is as attractive as people have said. Kaplan: Responded that the landscaped area to the rear of the white house would not be touched. Said the new units would go where there are now two dilapidated buildings. Stated the Planning board would see a plan showing how the existing landscaping would be preserved. Also said that the master plan would provide additional landscaped area to residents of the existing homes, by means of the footbridge. Eckman: Asked if Spring Creek now meanders and would have to be straightened. Kaplan: Replied he did not know what city requirements would be. Stated that in meeting those requirements, they would try to preserve the character of that area as much as possible. Van Driel: Stated that to handle 5,000 CFS, it would have to be more than a meandering stream. Van Lear: Stated much time had been spent on this. Said the federal government required 1875 CFS, but that the city's own study had indicated 7,000 CFS. Stated that since then, additional study has indicated that 2 to 3,000 CFS will be adequate. When the master plan was submitted, the city -asked for 5,000 CFS, wanting to be safe. With the reduction to 2 to 3,000 CFS they can treat the channel differently. Stated they consider it a very important active open space. Smith: To clarify, pointed out that the Poudre River at high flow in 1979 ran with 4,000 CFS through it. Rash: Asked if they planned to cover the creek. Smith: Replied they were planning to rip -rap the channel and then cover the rip -rap with dirt and landscaping. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the master plan of Hill Pond. Evans: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 3. #13-80 Hill Pond, Phase I, Parcel B, Preliminary A preliminary proposal for the first phase of the Hill Pond Master Plan, 20 acres located adjacent to So. Shields and north of Spring Creek, zoned R-P, Planned Residential. The preliminary proposal is for 282 apartment units with approximately 11.28 acres of open space. Applicant: Steve Van Lear, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page 8 Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval. Jim Gefroh: Of Gefroh and Associates, representing applicant, Stated the acreage is 20.45 acres, with 280 apartment units planned. Gross density in the project is 13.7; total open space is 58% of the available land. Pointed out on the slide the parking and open space. Said the units going in will be as close as possible to the existing development in design. Stated there will be efficiencies, one -bedroom, and two - bedroom apartments, some with lofts which are considered as bedrooms for the purposes of determining parking requirements. Total required parking would be 473 spaces; 511 are being provided. Discussed the landscaping, pointing out that it would be more detailed on the final. Stated bicycle and motorcycle parking and pathways had been provided and that trash areas would be screened. Eckman: Asked if the roofing and siding materials on the new proposal would be the same as on the existing development. Gefroh: Replied it is early to determine the materials, but that they would be compatible with the existing development and of high quality. Spahr: Expressed concerns about two parking lots running parallel to Gandalf Drive and possible confusion of the lots with the street. Gefroh: Replied the design meets the new city requirements. Stated they would add more space if possible, depending on the flood drainage requirements. Van Driel: Asked for speakers for or against the project from the audience. Dave Stephenson: Resident of Hill Pond. Stated he was not for or against the project, but stated the city should consider the traffic problems and the improve- ment of Shields Street with respect to this proposal. Evans: Asked about the timing of the installation of the traffic light at Stuart. Smith: Replied it would probably go in concurrent with the development of the project, but he was not sure of the Traffic Department's plans. Van Driel: Stated it would be logical to install the light at the same time as the developer improves Shields Street. Spahr: Stated the open spaces appeared to be long and narrow; asked if they were useful and accessible. Frank: Showed slide outlining the open space and stated it appears to be sufficient. Gefroh: Stated the total active open space within the developable area outside the floodplain is 10.4%. The floodplain area contributes 19.8% active open space, a total of 30.2% active open. Stated they are claiming 50% of the floodplain area for active open space for the apartments, bringing it to 20.3 active open total. Pointed out that the expansive area within the floodplain gives a unique opportunity to define recreational uses within a project. D Y. 7 Rna wel Minnfoc . • 3/25/80 Page 9 Van Driel: Stated that claiming 50% of the floodplain for active open space would include part of the stream bed which seems deceptive. Gefroh: Replied he was pointing out that even if 50% were claimed, there would still be an active open ratio for the project of 20.3, the minimum requirement being 15% for the project. Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. of Hill Pond, Phase I. Eckman: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 4. #9-80 The Arena, Preliminary P.U.D. A preliminary proposal for a commercial P.U.D., located east of JFK Parkway, south of Monroe Drive, west of Stanford, and north of Horsetooth Road, zoned H-B, Highway Business and B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: The Arena Associates, Ltd., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, and encouraging the applicant to come up with a better pedestrian circulation system among the three projects. Spahr: Asked if the building on the northeast is an out -parcel. Chianese: Replied it originally designated as an out -parcel, but has been incor- porated into the site plan at the staff's request and is now designated for a retail use. Van Driel: Asked Chianese to point out the locations of the two restaurant buildings outside the hotel. Chianese: Pointed out the two locations on a slide of the site plan. Evans: Asked if Stanford Drive were signalized at Horsetooth or if it would be. Chianese: Replied it would be. Gene Mitchell: President of Mitchell and Company, a general partner of the Arena Ltd. Associates partnership, developers of the subject property. Stated technical staff was available to answer any questions, and introduced several individuals. Said that many of the people in the area approve of the project. Stated they had tried to fill out the remaining quarter of the regional shopping complex of the city of Fort Collins in a way to complement the existing intense consumer shopping uses which exist there. Stated he did not see the plans as being in conflict with downtown. Said the community could expect the project to develop as proposed, just as Scotch Pines had developed as planned. Stated they are in negotiation with Marriott Corporation for the hotel, which would not conflict with the retail uses. Stated the site allows for 6 - 7 acres for the hotel, as opposed to the proposed Hilton on 2 acres. Stated the bank would be 15,000 sq. ft. instead of the 20,000 as shown. Said the store in the upper right-hand corner would have attractive western leisure P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page-10 wear. Haase: Asked Mitchell to comment on staff's comment concerning improved pedestrian circulation. Mitchell: Stated they would extend all existing pedestrian and bicycle paths into the project. Pointed out they had located the buildings as close as possible to Foothills Square and that the Square was as close as possible to JFK Parkway to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Asked the Board to recommend to Council that the developers be granted under- ground and over -air rights for a pedestrian street crossing. Described the planned walkways and the terracing in the proposed project, stating they fully desire to promote pedestrian activity. Noted they had tried to eliminate marginal hotel shops, and had provided a small number of retail shops which they hoped would be attractive to hotel guests. Smith: Stated the city would like to see the kind of off -grade pedestrian crossing they have proposed, and therefore staff has encouraged the applicant to come up with some plans, so that the city can grant them the rights they need. Mitchell: Stated the crossing would be at -grade now, but that off -grade crossings would definitely be in the future, and might be difficult to get if not provided for now. Evans: Moved recommendation of approval of the Arena, Preliminary P.U.D. Haase: Second. Vote: Haase: yes, commending the developer for a very exciting project, a harmonious architectural plan with vision for the future, thinking of pedestrian over -passes, similar to the Minneapolis Mall Plan, and encouraging applicant to pursue the rights for off -grade crossings; Spahr: yes, stating he was glad to see a high-rise proposal with enough ground to create a good use for a high-rise.proposal; Van Driel: yes; Evans: yes; Eckman: yes, stating the project was very attractive. 5. #177-73A Foothills Square P.U.D., Amendment A preliminary proposal to amend the uses and building square footage of the three building envelopes in the Foothills Square P.U.D., located east of College Avenue, and north of Horsetooth Rd., zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Mitchell & Co., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval. Spahr: Expressed concern that there might be a curtain of 90 to 100 foot high buildings. Chianese: Looking at the whole complex, stated that a tall building in this location does have some advantages for the whole complex, and that staff is comfortable with the proposed height. • P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page 11 Mitchell: Spoke to the height issue. Stated that this area would be the center of Fort Collins in 1985 for consumer qoods retailing and that it lacks a focal point. Stated that a tall building at the proposed site would provide the focal point for the whole area. Van Driel: Asked what the distance is between the subject building and the hotel proposed in the Arena project. Ed Zdenek: With ZVFK, representing applicant. Replied the distance is more than two city blocks. Stated this is basically a parking request, an adjustment to solve parking problems. Haase: Expressed concern about the -direction of traffic coming around the major Square building, heading toward the west at that intersection; asked if that could be a hazardous condition with the traffic coming south. Zdenek: Stated that that is the existing condition. Showed on the slide how the underground parking would work and how the traffic would flow. Pointed out that the building would not be as large as the envelope as portrayed. Haase: Stated she still had concern whether there was sufficient visual space during heavy traffic. Mitchell: Said he shares the same concern and stated he would work it out. Zdenek: Stated the traffic circulation could be worked out as an adjustment to the plan, noting that this hearing is concerned with the envelope. Van Driel: Expressed concern that the building might be so close to the intersection of College and Horsetooth as to cause a visual hazard to traffic going west on Horsetooth or south on College. Zdenek: Stated they would work with the Traffic Department to avoid that problem. Van Driel: Asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the project. Eckman: Stated this is a good proposal. Moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Foothills Square P.U.D. Evans: Second. Vote: Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 6. #5-80 Shiretown P.U.D. A preliminary proposal for a P.U.D. located at Lemay and Stuart St., on 3.3 acres, zoned R-P, Planned Residential. The proposal is for 40 townhome and condominium units. Applicant: Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval. P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page12 Evans: Asked if the applicant owned the corner parcel. Chianese: Replied not, but asked the applicant to reply. Kaplan: Stated there'is the potential of enlarging the P.U.D, to include the corner property and that the plan is so designed. Discussed two major options for the layout. Said one of the incentives for the owner of the corner to join in the P.U.D. would be to use the existing structure for professional offices, using the commercial allotment for the entire P.U.D. .Stated they would have roughly 1500 sq. ft. of commercial allotment, the size of the existing structure, so the building would not be enlarged. Stated that staff could not respond to this idea unless it is a part of the proposal, but said that unless they have some encouragement, there is no reason to pursue it. Asked the Board for their reaction to it. Evans: Asked staff if the proposal would come back to the Planning Board if the corner were included. Kaplan: Replied they would have to submit an entirely new plan, not just an amendment. Stated that if the owner were asking a price reflecting its use as a single-family dwelling, the property could be easily integrated into the P.U.D. Eckman: Asked if developer would hope for office uses and tear down the house. Kaplan: Replied they did want to keep the house as a professional office use, and would use existing access. Van Driel: Asked how many residences they would put on the corner. Kaplan: Probably from six to nine, whether townhomes or condominiums, and whether they could use the existing hou*e for office uses. Stated it would serve the public interest to include the corner. Van Driel: Replied they could not make a commitment on something over which they (the Board) had no jurisdiction. Kaplan: Stated he did not want a commitment, but just the tenure of their thinking. Smith: Stated he hated to get the board into the position of making that kind of a statement as it could be interpreted as a commitment. Said the board could encourage the applicant to include the parcel as part of their P.U.D., but the question of use should only be addressed as part of the proposed P.U.D. Kaplan: Pointed out that with R-H conversions, use would be considered more frequently, and that this is a use question, simply one of whether or not the use would be appropriate. Haase: Pointed out that city ordinances support use commentary in the R-H zone, but do not support commentary on use in this particular zone. Asked if legal counsel would care to comment, as there may be similar requests in the future. P & Z Board Minutes • 3/25/80 Page 13 Ruggiero: Stated he concurred with Smith. Kaplan: Stated he appreciated the encouragement to include the parcel, but whether they can depends on what the board views as a potential use for that corner. Eckman: Stated he would like to see the parcel included as a residential use as there are other offices developing in the area. Kaplan: Replie27geialking about 60,000 sq. ft. of offices, while this proposal would probably employ only four people. Van Driel: Concurred that the parcel, if left out, could cause future problems, but was still reluctant to make a statement. Stated the P.U.D. as proposed should be considered. Asked for comments on the project. Robert C. Tueting: Resident of Indian Hills. Stated he thought the board was being asked to approve a "pig in a poke", and that more data was necessary. Rick Goodale: Partner in the ownership of the property. Stated they plan to pursue the purchase of the corner property with or without encouragement from the board. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the Shiretown P.U.D., preliminary. Eckman: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 7. #6-80 Stuart Hill P.U.D., Preliminary A preliminary proposal for an 11 unit multi -family P.U.D., located on one acre located on Stuart St., between Cheyenne Dr. and Cherokee Dr., zoned R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Gene B. Christensen, c/o Engineering Professionals, Inc., 2020 Airway Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524. Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval and approval of a variance to the two -acre minimum requirement. Van Driel: Asked if the passage through Spring Meadows was a street or a parking lot. Frank: Replied it is a private drive with access easements across it. Eckman: Asked if Stuart Hill then has an access easement across Spring Meadows. Frank: Replied there is. Smith: Stated they are public access easements. Gene Christensen: Applicant. Stated he had no comments at this time. Van Driel: Asked for speakers from the audience. Tueting: Presented a petition objecting to this proposed change in the use of the P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/BO Page 14 land. Listed the reasons for the objection: additional traffic on Stuart Street, the sole artery to Indian Hills; impact on the already limited amount of parking; increased density (11.1 DU/acre) of 20-25% over the existing P.U.D. there (9.1 DU/acre), leading to problems of congestion, such as sanitation problems, close living; disruption of the stability of the Indian Hills neighborhood; possible depreciation of property values near the development. Van Driel: Asked staff how long this property had been zoned R-P. Frank: Replied he was not sure, but that it was not recent. Evans: Asked if there were any problem with the parking --only 20 spaces for 11 units. Frank: Replied it meets the parking ordinance requirement of 1.5 for one bedroom, 1.75 for two bedrooms, 2 for three bedrooms. Van Driel: Stated it did not seem reasonable to expect a property zoned R-P to remain with only one unit when the maximum permitted is 12 units per acre. Haase: Asked if the zoning to the west is R-M, and if, further west, where there is another multiple development, fairly new, if that is R-M. Frank: Replied that to the west is a vacant piece of property going all the way to Spring Creek, zoned R-P; west of that is Shadowbrook P.U.D., also R-P; also the property to the north, west and east is all R-P. Haase: Asked the density of Shadowbrook. Van Driel: Stated Stover Street would be the first R-M zoning. Bob Marsh: Resident of Indian Hills. Asked what the allowable density, is in R-P zoning. Frank: Replied R-P allows a maximum of 12 DU/acre. Marsh: Asked why Spring Meadows is only 9.1. Van Driel: Stated it is up to the developer to decide what density he wishes to use up to the maximum. Nancy Adams: Owner of the property directly to the west. Stated she would like to have a six-foot board fence along the property line for her privacy. Expressed concern that the landscaping be attractive and the parking be adequate so that there will be no cars blocking her drive. Van Driel: Stated the landscaping is a part of the P.U.D. requirement. Fern Marrou: Resident of the second house from Stuart Street. Stated her main concern is also for parking. Van Driel: Stated there should be sufficient parking on the site to take care of the tenants' needs. P & Z Board Minutes 3/25180 Page 15 Marrou: Replied that every tenant has extra friends. Eckman: Asked applicant if he intended to build a fence along the property line. Fritz Jackson: Said he had just spoken with the developer who was willing to replace the hedge with a fence if that was the board's desire. Stated they had originally intended a hedge. Frank: Stated that a screening hedge had been required along the west side of the parking lot along the property line. Eckman: Asked if Mrs. Adams would be satisfied with that. Adams: Replied she would. Van Driel: Asked for comments. Haase: Asked if they had considered having the six-plex be another four-plex, thus reducing the density. Jackson: Stated they started out at maximum density and reduced it to its present configuration. Said there is a lot of water line and paving expense so fewer units would not be feasible. Eckman: Stated he did not see that there would be a parking problem as the development was quite a ways back from Stuart Street. Van Driel: Agreed,saying that an overflow would probably use Spring Meadows, rather than Stuart. Spahr: Asked Frank to point out the driveway access for the house at the front of the property. Frank: Showed how the present access would be eliminated, and access gained from the parking lot. Spahr: Asked where the trees were located. Frank: Replied there were four, and only one was lost. Discussion about the location and access to the garage. Evans: Asked about the width of the access road to the six-plex. Frank: Replied 24'. Evans: Asked for the width off Stuart. Frank: Replied 20'. Evans: Stated there would be room for more parking if the access road were wider. Smith: Replied it would have t0b78' wider which would be detrimental to the land- scaping. Haase: Pointed out that with a maximum resident population of 35, and only 20 parking spaces, that could be less than desirable. P & Z Board Minutes 3/25/80 Page 16 Jackson: Stated these are expected to be rental units, so two spaces per unit should be adequate. Tueting: Stated the 20 spaces for 35 people was only Z space per unit which is inadequate. Van Driel: Stated it is z space per person, not per unit. Haase: Pointed out that the maximum population figures are for 3.2 persons per unit, but common sense dictates that each unit would probably not have 3.2 persons. Eckman: Asked how many spaces the ordinance would require. Frank: Replied, 18.5, 20 are provided, not including some other available space. Haase: Asked if there had been any communications from Spring Meadows residents objecting to this proposal. Frank: Replied they had had a couple of calls expressing concern about access. and traffic through the site, as well as architectural quality. Smith: Stated they tried to gain access through Spring Meadows, but since an 80' turn -around would be required, a standard cul-de-sac, the amount of units and open space would be severely limited. Van Driel: Stated that the developers, if not the residents, of Spring Meadows, would have anticipated the possibility of increased traffic at some time due to the access easements. Smith: Said it was on the original Spring Meadows plan. Evans: Moved recommending approval of the Stuart Hill P.U.D. and the two -acre variance. Eckman: Second. Vote: Eckman: yes; Evans: yes; Van Driel: yes, Spahr: no, stating he felt there must be a better use for the property; Haase: yes, with sympathy for neighborhood concerns about parking, but stating that it will probably not be the problem which is envisioned. Motion carried, 4 - 1. 8. #8-80 Boardwalk at the Landings P.U.D. Amendment A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for a neighborhood commercial center located on Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way, currently requesting B-P, Planned Business District. Applicant: The Landings, Ltd., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the condition that the applicant work with staff to develop a suitable pedestrian access solution for the site. P & Z Board Minutes • 3/25/80 Page 17 Frank Vaught: Representing applicant; with ZVFK. Stated they had no problem with the staff condition, and would be happy to answer questions. Van Driel: Asked for speakers for or against the project. Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval with the condition suggested by staff. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. Smith: Stated as an item of information that the next night they would be meeting with the Fairway Estates people at the meeting room in the basement of the Square to discuss the potential annexation of that area. Haase: Stated the April agenda had several annexation items as well as the hearing on the Old Town area plan, which could have extensive input. Asked if there were anything else coming up. Smith: Replied the Keenland Annexation had been tabled until May, and no other items were expected. Van Driel: Adjourned meeting at about 10:00 p.m. P E T I T I O N We, the undersigned, residents of Indian Hills, do hereby via this document, register our vigorous protest to the requested use of the property located north of Stuart Street and approx- imately 1,000 feet west of Lemay Avenue (immediately abutting Spring Meadows PUD). The petitioners` plan to construct one fourplex multiple family, one sixplex multiple family and one single family residence is anathema to the residents of Indian Hills. This plan calculates 11.1 units per acre vs 9.1 in the abutting Spring Meadows PUD. We vehemently object to it because of the accelerating problems of increased traffic and congestion on Stuart Street (the sole artery to Indian Hills), greater congestion of parking, more in- tense concentration of people with concomitant problems of sani- tation, more congested space for living, and the adverse impact these and other problems would exert on a long developed and mature neighborhood in which the residents are permanent and the value of owned real estate, in the area within 500 feet, is in excess of one million dollars. awM cti�J 'l `,/ / �1._ l 9�sCiGtE�(E71%tE�ridc. _ fc t:..l�r.[> l'n�o �J3�=S -'T C1 i �2- c°yL I(ZL ,<41 F go( 1 - 3 • �i i z �i/,--e%�/ iC l L L. t- I � � i 4 CORRECTIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES February 25, 1980 Page 8: First comment by Mr. Ruff, the name "Sharner" should be amended to read: "Tscharner".