Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/04/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Schmidt, Colton Craig, Carpenter, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Jones, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer, Harridan, Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: Minutes of the October 30, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ03-11, Easement Dedication. 3. Resolution PZ03-12, Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ03-13, Easement Dedication. 5. Resolution PZ03-14, Easement Vacation. 6. #39-03 300 Smith Street, Modification of Standards. 7. #47-95D Longview Marketplace, Modification of Standards. Recommendation to City Council: 8. #33-98A Eastridge Rezoning. Discussion Agenda: 9. #18-03 Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non - Conforming Use. 10.#29-01A Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan (CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 2004 PER STAFF). 11.#24-94A Lindenmeier Estates PUD, Final (LDGS). Recommendation to City Council: 12443-02 Trailhead, Annexation and Zoning (CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 2004 PER APPLICANT). Chairman Torgerson acknowledged the final meeting of Member Colton's term. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon, Member Craig, and Chairman Torgerson stated appreciation for Member Colton's service. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 2 Vice -Chairman Gavaldon pulled Item #6, 300 Smith Street Modification of Standards, from the consent agenda in order to allow a letter from a neighbor to be read into the record. Chairman Torgerson asked if anyone would object to placing Item #11, Lindenmeier Estates PUD, Final LDGS on the consent agenda. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon asked to leave Item #11 on the discussion agenda. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: 300 Smith Street, Modification of Standards, #39-03 Project Description: Request to modify Section 3.5.2(D)(2) of the Land Use Code to reduce the required setback along the Olive Street frontage of the property at 300 Smith Street from 15 feet to 12 feet. This request is in anticipation of an upcoming development application to redevelop the site at 300 Smith Street. The property is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density zone district. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Vice -Chairman Gavaldon asked that the letter in opposition to the project be read into the record. City Planner Troy Jones gave a brief presentation of the project, recommending approval. Planner Jones paraphrased a letter received from a concerned neighbor. He stated that the neighbor does not agree with the reasons used by the applicant to justify the modification. The applicant stated the following reasons: to provide more ample private yard on the south property line, to provide additional shield from Riverside Drive traffic, and to push the garages facing Olive Street further back so they are less visible from the street. The letter argues that the yard space on the south should not be a valid argument for Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 3 shifting the setback on the north, that moving the building to shield them from Riverside traffic does not make any sense as the building would actually be closer to Riverside, and that granting the setback does not have a relation to whether the garages could be moved further south on the site. Rosita Bachmann, project applicant, made brief comments with respect to the letter content. She stated that this property is very much in line with the surrounding homes but that the site is also very near commercial property. The front elevation of the home will be very similar in style to other homes on Smith Street. Pushing the property back will allow the houses to be able to have a courtyard with south and east exposure. It is a modest adjustment to the property. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked how staff arrived at the conclusion that the modification is "equal to or better than" the purpose of the standard. Planner Jones replied that the purpose of the setback along the street is to allow some sort of minimal front yard space. In this case, that purpose is being satisfied because of the unusually wide area on Olive Street between the curb and the front property line. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon moved for approval of 300 Smith Street, Modification of Standards, File #39-03 citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Craig asked if the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning should be continued to a date later than January 15, 2004 in order to allow the Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan to be completed. Director Gloss replied that the main issue is getting some commitment from Anheuser-Busch about the lands surrounding their facility. He stated that an Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 4 official letter from Anheuser-Busch indicating protection of the lands zoned E- Employment, would be adequate. Member Craig asked if that would clarify the job -housing balance that is a concern. Planner Gloss replied that it would. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon moved to continue the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, #43-02 to the January 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon moved to continue the Paradigm Properties Overall Development Plan, #29-01A to the January 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -conforming Use, #18-03. Project Description: Request to replace three dilapidated horse sheds (previously demolished) with a new barn. The new barn would be 1,480 s.f. featuring six horse stalls. The property is located on 3.3 acres at 2304 West Prospect Road and is zoned RL — Low Density Residential. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 5 Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairman Torgerson offered the applicant, Elizabeth Kaufman, time to make a presentation, as this item was continued from the November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon asked that City Planner Ted Shepard make a staff presentation. Planner Shepard gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that a mediation occurred November 24, 2003 between Elizabeth Kaufman and neighbors opposing the project. The mediation was facilitated by two members of the City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Resources Office staff. There was a failure to reach an agreement between the two parties. Planner Shepard cited information given to the Board from zoning administrator Peter Barnes regarding the length and legality of the non -conforming use on the property. Elizabeth Kaufman gave the applicant's presentation. She stated that the relevant section of the Land Use Code is 1.5.5(A) which talks about adding a structure to a non -conforming use. She noted that the non -conforming status of the property is not in question. The property was in a shambles when purchased in 2001. Ms. Kaufman stated that she has since put about $40,000 into cleaning up the property. She added that she would not be before the Board on this issue at all if the horses she intended to put in the barn were owned by her. She stated that the demolished sheds had a total square footage of 1,188 square feet and encroached onto the Miller property to her west. The replacement barn would be 1,480 square feet and would be consistent with all the RL zone setbacks and is well under the height restriction for the neighborhood, which is 28 feet. The barn does add square footage but it decreases the concentration of horses in the facility. There was previously an 8-stall capacity and the new barn will have a 6- stall capacity. Replacing a structure that houses a non -conforming use does not require neighborhood consensus. She stated her strong effort at having good relations with her neighbors but added that there was no requirement for her making these efforts. Ms. Kaufman discussed how her project meets the criteria in Section 1.5.5(A). She pointed out that the use shall not change as a result of the enlargement, that the enlargement shall not result in the conversion of a seasonal to a year-round operation, that the use shall not be expanded beyond the limits of the parcel, that additional traffic will not be a factor, that noise shall not be increased, there are no outdoor storage facilities, the project will not add more than 25% new floor area, the project will not exceed the height requirements of the zone district, the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 6 project will conform with the setback requirements, the project will not hinder future development of surrounding properties, and the project will not present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the City or its residents. Ms. Kaufman stated that her project is completely consistent with the criteria set forth in the Land Use Code. She added that while a view is a pleasant thing, the RL zone provides no view protection and does allow structures up to 28 feet high in exactly the location where this barn will be. Public Input Rose and Augustine Godinez, 1508 Ponderosa Drive, gave their testimony to the Board. Mrs. Godinez stated concern about the barn affecting their property and about health issues. She stated that horses are being trained on the property and an arena exists and she expressed concern over these uses increasing traffic. She stated that, according to animal control, one horse is allowed for every'/3 acre of pasture land. Mrs. Godinez presented the Board with some drawings and pictures of the site. She stated that the larger barn would lower the value of her property thousands of dollars and will totally block their backyard view. She stated concern about drainage from the barn into her yard. Public Input Closed Ms. Kaufman replied that there is no view protection in the RL zone district. She added that the riding arena is no where near the property in question and it does not increase traffic. She stated that the Godinez property is substantially uphill of the Kaufman site and that any drainage from the barn will run toward the catch pond on Prospect Road. She stated that there has always been a working space for horses on the east side pasture. Member Schmidt asked if the only people using the facility are the ones boarding horses on the facility. Ms. Kaufman replied that there is no for -fee training or lessons on the facility. Member Craig asked Planner Shepard where he came up with the 1,188 square foot measurement of the former sheds. Planner Shepard replied that was the total square footage of all the dilapidated sheds that were removed. Ms. Kaufman replied that the site plan was drawn in a hurry and that the 1,188 square foot number was correct. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 7 Member Craig asked Ms. Kaufman about her reason for locating the barn where she did and if it did have something to do with her truck and trailer. Ms. Kaufman replied that she had mentioned that as a reason at the past meeting but that it really was not much of a reason in defense of the barn's location. Member Craig stated that non -conforming buildings are usually replaced close to the footprints of the old structures and asked why the barn was being moved from the old footprint. Ms. Kaufman replied that her primary goal is to make efficient use of the available space so that people can get around with the horses in larger spaces. Chairman Torgerson asked if it was true that the City encourages reconstructed non -conforming buildings to be on the same footprint. Planner Shepard replied that that criterion was not being used. The was no natural catastrophe causing the demolition of the old structures. This is an expansion or enlargement of a building on a property containing a non- conforming use. The building itself is not non -conforming. The property contains a non -conforming use and the barn is considered to be an enlargement and is within the 25% allowable. There is no requirement that the building be replaced on a per footprint basis. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon stated that he wanted to make it known that he did receive a phone call from Mrs. Godinez requesting information on process and procedures for Board operations. He stated that he did consult with her on that and asked her to confer with Cameron Gloss on some other issues. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon asked why staff feels that this barn will not hinder future development. He cited that there was no neighborhood meeting and that new people were bringing up concerns. Planner Shepard replied that this barn does not prevent any of the neighbors from fully developing their property in accordance with the Land Use Code. With respect to the neighborhood meeting, that is why the item was continued and the parties went into mediation. This is a far superior form of citizen input than a neighborhood meeting as it is professionally facilitated, at a smaller scale, and for a longer duration of time. The new materials were given to the Board as soon as they were received. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 8 Vice -Chairman Gavaldon stated that if the neighborhood meeting had been done to begin with, a better product could have resulted. He stated concern about the impacts to surrounding areas. Planner Shepard replied that the criteria should be read in total. The criteria allow the Planning and Zoning Board to evaluate these items. City Attorney Paul Eckman replied that the opening paragraph states that this development should not adversely impact the surrounding properties. There are then criteria presented to use to determine if there is an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Criteria L has to do with whether or not the neighbors can still develop their properties in accordance with the Land Use Code. Criteria M is a more general approach to the law which is "health, safety, and welfare." He added that health and safety are more precise terms than welfare and that you would need some rational basis to conclude that the neighbor's welfare is being adversely affected. A rational basis would be one that could pass the "straight face test" and be believable. If the impact is such that the surrounding properties could not develop in accordance with the Land Use Code, then L becomes applicable. Member Schmidt asked if lowering of property values falls under welfare. Attorney Eckman replied that if there was some appraisal evidence, it may be considered. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon stated that it is on the burden of the owners to prove that their property value has been adversely affected. Member Meyer moved to approve Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use, File #18-03, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would support the motion but was disappointed that the mediation did not go better than it did. The neighbors asking for 10 or 15 feet is not asking for too much considering that they will be adversely affected by this and that at the present time they are not affected by it. The concerned neighbors have a much smaller lot than any other neighbors. Given the criteria, this project cannot be denied. Member Craig stated disappointment with the fact that for no other reason than this is a better location, the neighbors are not being listened to. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 9 Vice -Chairman Gavaldon stated that he appreciated the mediation efforts but that there was no willingness to work together as a team, no willingness to be open, compassionate and understanding. He stated that he would support the motion with great concern and reservation and stated that he hoped Ms. Kaufman would be a good neighbor. Member Schmidt stated that houses going on to the property would allow for a 15 foot setback rather than the 5 foot setback of a side yard. It is a very narrow distance between the barn and the Godinez' yard but part of the risk of buying property is that something may be built behind it. She praised Ms. Kaufman for improving the property and making it safer. Member Colton stated appreciation for the work done to the property but wished that on a 3.3 acre project, some more congenial resolution could have been established. As the Land Use Code allows the project, there is little grounds for denial. Chairman Torgerson stated that he will enthusiastically support the motion and apologized to Ms. Kaufman for all she had gone through. He stated the mediation was probably well beyond what the Board should have required. Just because housing begins to grow around rural uses, it is inappropriate for the Board to say that because someone developed a shallow lot adjacent to a horse property, we need to worry about their views. He wished Ms. Kaufman luck. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Lindenmeier Estates PUD, Final LDGS, #24- 94A.. Project Description: Request for 12 single family residential lots on 6.107 acres. There will be at least 7 lots with a second dwelling unit. The project is located on the west side of North Lemay Avenue, north of Willox Lane, and south of Lowell Lane. Zoning is LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 10 Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that all of staffs concerns which initially led to a recommendation of denial had been resolved, thus changing the recommendation. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Colton stated concern about the accessory dwelling units and asked for assurance that they get built. Ed Zdenek, applicant, replied that the determination was made with staff that the building permit would be a duplex building permit. Staff determined that it was not yet necessary to determine exactly which lots would contain the "granny flats." It will be put up to the market to determine which ones. If for some reason, the single family units all developed first, we would be responsible for selling duplex lots at the end and they would be processed as such through the Building Department. Attorney Eckman stated that the City may consider not issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the main building until after the Certificate was issued for the secondary one. Planner Olt stated that the only leverage the City would have is to make certain the duplex fees are paid on at least seven of the lots at the time of building permits. Member Colton expressed concern over the possibility that only one house may develop on each of the duplex lots with or without the correct building permits. Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Department, stated that their department places conditions in the Development Tracking System which will keep track of the number of permits pulled and those left that will require the duplex structures. Mr. Zdenek stated that was the agreement he had entered into with the Building Department. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 11 Chairman Torgerson stated that it is probably around $15,000 for the additional unit on the permit fees and that it seems unlikely that a person would pay an additional $15,000 and then not build the unit. Member Colton stated concern not over the building permits but over whether or not they actually build the second unit. Dave Stringer, Development Review Engineer, stated that language could be placed in the development agreement citing the duplex lot requirement as well. Member Craig asked if Member Colton was considering the Certificate of Occupancy requirement that Attorney Eckman had mentioned. Member Colton replied that he would like to see a condition that the units actually get built, not just that permits were pulled. Mr. Stringer stated that he would work with Attorney Eckman to get language in the development agreement for that. Attorney Eckman asked if the Certificate of Occupancy idea was a bad idea. Mr. Stringer replied that the normal course of business talks about building permits, not Certificates of Occupancy, but that it is a possibility. Chairman Torgerson suggesting allowing a temporary Certificate of Occupancy on the first unit because both units would likely not be finished at the same time Mr. Zdenek stated that the two units on the duplex lot will be under the same ownership. The second dwelling unit will be a "granny flat." This unit would likely house a related individual. The dwelling unit would be separate living quarters but it would all look like one house. There may not be two structures on the lot. Member Colton moved for approval of the solar variance for Lindenmeier Estates PUD, Final LDGS citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Vice -Chairman Gavaldon seconded the motion. Chairman Torgerson stated that the idea of orienting lots north and south to allow people to put solar collectors on their house is absurd. The solar collectors would logically go on the side of the house so probably the non -solar oriented lots are the most logical to put solar collectors on. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 4, 2003 Page 12 Member Colton stated that they may be passive solar collectors. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Colton moved for approval of Lindenmeier Estates PUD, Final LDGS, File #24-94A, with the standard conditions found on page 7 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Schmidt asked if the long list on page 7 of the staff report was still needed. Attorney Eckman replied that it was still needed as the development agreement was not yet written and stronger language to require the build -out of the second units may still be needed. Member Colton stated that he would like to see some language in the development agreement for this. Mr. Zdenek stated that he would be more than happy to put some language in the development agreement but wanted to stay away from the Certificate of Occupancy requirement. Member Colton stated that he would like to condition his motion to require staff to work out the appropriate language to the extent possible to make certain that the second units are built. Attorney Eckman replied that if staff and the developer do not come to an agreement on the language, it comes back to the Board for mediation. The motion was approved 7-0. Director Gloss stated at that the next City Council meeting, December 16`h, an appointment will be made to fill the opening on the Planning and Zoning Board. On January 23ro, a Planning and Zoning Board retreat has been scheduled at the downtown branch of the Home State Bank from noon-3:00 PM. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Approved by the Board January 15, 2004.