Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/18/2004Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m Roll Call: Craig, Schmidt, Gavaldon, Lingle, Carpenter and Torgerson. Vice - Chairperson Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, K. Moore, McWilliams, Gonzales, Bob Smith, Jim Hibbard, Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the March 21, May 2, May 16, and June 20, 2002, and February 19, 2004 (CONTINUED) Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-07, Easement Vacation. 3. #24-03 Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION — SCHMIDT) 4. #43-94K Horsetooth East Business Park, Dale's Carpet One, Project Development Plan. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 5. #2-04 Prospect East Fourth, Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 6. #43-02 Trailhead Annexation and Zoning. (CONTINUED PER APPLICANT) 7. #7-04 Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street, Modification of Standard. (CONTINUED PER APPLICANT) Recommendation Items: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 8. Proposed 2003 Stormwater Master Plan. 9. Land Use Code Amendment, Carriage House Design Standards. Member Schmidt pulled Item #3, Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, for discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (less the February 19, 2004 minutes), 2, 4, and 5. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, #24-03 Project Description: Request to convert a 1,939 square foot dwelling unit into a cultural center to be used for small gatherings. The property is 12,180 square feet in size and is located at 1024 West Mulberry Street. It is zoned NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Schmidt stated that she would like to have the neighbors' concern addressed with respect to parking and "filtering" of groups that would be using the facility. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the parking concern was received from John Nikol who was concerned about limited parking. Planner Olt stated that the Webbers do live on the property and that they have worked out an agreement with a State Farm Insurance Agent who has a property down the block, to use that site for parking for their facility. The site will easily park 10-12 cars. Additionally, there are two parking spaces on the site as well as public street parking. Planner Olt deferred to the applicant for the issue about what types of groups would be using the facility. He added that it would be appropriate to put a limit on the number of persons who could use the facility at one time on the recorded site plan. Margaret Webber, applicant, 1024 West Mulberry Street, stated that they had received inquiries from many groups, including symphony groups, bible groups, a 4-H club, and others, including family dinners. She stated that the Webbers plan to screen everyone who requests to use the facility. Member Craig asked if the site plan stated a maximum of 12 people could use the facility at any one time. Mrs. Webber replied that the new revisions have stated a 12-person maximum and people will be asked to park at the State Farm or carpool. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 3 Member Craig asked if this information would be included on the site plan to be recorded. Planner Olt replied that it would be. Member Craig asked if this use would be maintained after the property is sold. Planner Olt replied that it would be and that the next owner would also be subject to the same restrictions in terms of numbers of people and parking. Member Gavaldon asked if there had been an inventory of similar sites in the City. Planner Olt replied that he did not do an inventory and was not aware of anything like this in a residential home in the City. Member Gavaldon replied that inventories had been done for other types of facilities and wanted to know if we would be granting this use without enough information for what could happen in the future. Planner Olt replied that there are no guarantees but places of assembly are allowed in this zoning district and each subsequent one will need to be evaluated on a case -by - case basis. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that the criteria used to evaluate this project are the same as a church, it is a place of assembly. Member Lingle stated that this is a site -specific development proposal that deals with this particular property; no new use or definition is being created. Public Input Charles Thomas, 1020 West Mulberry, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated his support for the proposed project and added that the City should stripe the 4 or 5 blocks of Mulberry on which parking is allowed on the north side. Al Kruchten, 1305 Green Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He urged the Board to look favorably upon the application and stated that this would be a good use of the home. He stated that he would serve on the Board of Directors if the project were to be approved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 4 Eva Sue Littleton, 900 Arbor Avenue, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that this project would provide a great meeting place for the Fort Collins Symphony Guild and other small groups. She stated that this is a tremendous asset to the community. Mark Olsen, 515 Wayne, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the Webbers have done a great job with organizing the project and have been very considerate of their neighbors. He stated that he trusts the Webbers with their decisions about what types of groups are appropriate. Arlene Albrandt, 2912 Shore Road, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated her support for the project and added that it should be approved as the home is a perfect small meeting place. Tara Zeleny, 920 East Lake Street, stated her appreciation for the City staff throughout the process. She thanked the Webbers for their generosity and concern for the community. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked about the street striping issue on Mulberry and asked Director Gloss to follow up with the citizen who brought it up. Planner Olt replied that he was unsure if parking was actually allowed on Mulberry Street and added that it would not be necessary for this project but assured the Board that the citizens' concerns would be addressed. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, File #24-03, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon stated that it is a great project and that he wanted to make sure that a good framework was in place for future similar projects. He asked staff to look into the on -street parking issue. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 5 Project: Proposed 2003 Stormwater Master Plan Project Description: Request for the Planning and Zoning Board to either make a formal recommendation and/or provide comments to City Council in regard to the Stormwater Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Smith, Fort Collins Utilities, gave the staff presentation. He stated that the Board had discussed this item several times at worksessions and had provided comments. He stated that staff is asking the Board to forward a formal recommendation on to City Council for their April 6th meeting. Mr. Smith stated that other Boards have provided formal recommendations with comments. Mr. Smith stated that the Master Plan contains a number of items that are important to convey runoff through that basin. It provides projects to address flooding problems on existing properties and provides guidelines for new development. It also addresses stormwater quality. The study showed that there are 2,600 structures in the floodplain. If we had a 100-year storm, we would expect $142 million worth of damages which would be dramatically increased without improvements. With respect to improvement funding, totaling $164 million, about $132 million is in the City, $32 million is in the County and on CSU property. The funding is achievable under the current financing plan that was adopted by Council after the flood. About $42 million of improvements are associated with new development. After the improvements, only 400 structures would be left in the floodplain. Water quality and wetlands enhancement, stream stability, and other improvements would be part of the project. Mr. Smith stated that the public outreach was tremendous for this project, including open houses, presentations to community groups, presentations to Boards and Commissions, and community mailings. There is City-wide funding for this project, which City Council decided upon after the 1997 flood. Once adopted by City Council, prioritization of projects in the Master Plan will be completed, the budget will then be adopted by City Council, and the project will then begin. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 6 Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Craig commended the Master Plan book and asked about the work that will need to be done around the airport and its funding. Mr. Smith replied that the airport will pay their share through their basin or impact fees which are collected at the time of building permit. The basin fees are calculated based on the amount of runoff the property is generating. Member Craig asked if the figures are gross figures as to what the projects would cost without taking out some of the development impact fees. Is there a possibility that figure could be lower? Mr. Smith replied that the totals in the Master Plan are the total costs of the projects. The funding depends on how quickly they are built, the revenue from the rates, etc. Some of that cost will be picked up by the development even if that does not show on these totals. The priority is to solve existing problems which is why we use the prioritization system looking at how many structures will benefit, the benefit/cost ratio, and the number of road crossings. There are projects that may come to the top of the list due to an opportunity, such as if a street is being reconstructed, or a new development is coming through. These opportunities will reduce the cost of the projects further from what is shown in the Master Plan figures, which are "stand-alone" projects. Member Gavaldon asked what portion of the costs Larimer County, CSU, and Poudre School District will pick up. Mr. Smith replied that any project on another entity's property will be involved in cost - sharing between that entity and the City. CSU is doing improvements on the main campus on their own. The City is doing improvements for the City urbanized properties. Member Gavaldon asked about the Poudre School District and County assets and whether or not these other entities were paying their fair share. Mr. Smith replied that they were all paying fees for their schools and their administration buildings and those kinds of things. Member Gavaldon asked if the other entities would be expected to pay their fair share if a Special Improvement District were created. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Smith replied that they would be a partner in any kind of Special District and they will all pay their fair share. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the County has any funding mechanism for this. Mr. Smith replied that they have one on West Vine but that is the only place. Chairperson Torgerson asked if they would perhaps consider doing that if the property is within the UGA and the City is considering annexing it. That may change their motivation for investing millions in projects that will eventually be annexed into the City. Mr. Smith stated that they do not have an identified or dedicated funding source for drainage improvements. They have to get grants or create user fees. Annexation may or may not be part of their motivation. Member Schmidt asked about the Mulberry area, presuming that those businesses are not paying any kind of stormwater fee. Mr. Smith replied that was correct. The fees exist only in the City, except for West Vine As soon as they are annexed into the City, they will start paying utility fees. Developed properties would start paying the fees right away based on their runoff contribution. Undeveloped properties would not pay any fees until they develop, at which time they would pay a basin fee or impact fee and then start paying their utility fees, based on their runoff contribution. The basin fees are one-time fees that are collected at the time of building permit. Once they get their CO, they start paying the monthly utility fees like everyone else. Member Gavaldon moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to City Council of the 2003 Stormwater Master Plan as presented by staff. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Craig commended staff for the Master Plan report. She stated that there are a lot of existing deficiencies and stated that she would like City Council to approve this plan but also not put it on a shelf; they should continue to look at different ways to fund this. We need to be a bit more creative than going at the projects piecemeal the way we are right now. She stated that she would like to see the buffers left and have "mother nature" work with flooding as much as possible. Member Craig also wanted to forward to Council the comment that once we've made the buffer, she would like us, to the extent feasible, not to modify those buffers and keep development out of the areas it should not be. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 8 Member Gavaldon stated that the report is well -written and well -analyzed with good detail. He stated that he appreciated the funding part but wanted to echo the comment that we need to ensure our partners in government, CSU, Federal Government, State and County, and the School District, pay their fair shares as well. He stated that the rate payer cannot afford to pay for all the past oversights and should not have to pay for them because they did not cause them. The rate payers should not be burdened with fixing the old problems and new, creative funding should be explored. All other entities should be paying their fair share. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the substance of the report is excellent. He stated that he has similar concerns about funding. It seems fundamentally unfair to have the entire City as a whole share the cost of past deficiencies. By paying for projects that take properties out of the flood plain, there is a direct financial gain for those properties in that they do not have to pay flood insurance. This is a direct financial gain for those properties that is at the expense of the other rate payers. The riparian habitat and water quality aspect of the report is interesting and important. Whenever that can be done at no additional cost, it should be encouraged. However, there are other departments in the City that take care of those sorts of things and it would be more honest if the funding for those kinds of things were funded through natural resources or the department in charge, as opposed to funding it through Stormwater so the citizens have a clear idea of where their tax dollars are going. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Torgerson noted that he had a conflict of interest on the next item, the Carriage House Design Standards, and would be passing the gavel on to the former Vice - Chairperson, Jerry Gavaldon, after the break. Project: Land Use Code Amendment, Carriage House Design Standards Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Land Use Code related to the design of dwelling units and accessory buildings located along alleys within the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. The Land Use Code changes are a response to issues raised in a moratorium approved by City Council in January 2004. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 9 Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict of interest on this item. Planning Director Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation, recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval of the new design standards on to City Council. Director Gloss showed slides illustrating various examples of current carriage houses throughout the City. He illustrated both positive and negative aspects of different designs and sizes of the dwellings. He discussed the history of the process, which began with a City Council moratorium on alley house construction in January 2004. A very successful design charette was held over several days involving members of the public, architects, developers, and other interested parties. Director Gloss stated that, so far, the duplex, triplex, and fourplex units on the alleys have not contributed much in a positive way. Staffs perspective, and that of many involved in the public process, is that those should be prohibited. That is reflected in the draft standards. Other changes include eliminating the loophole with respect to square footage below grade, adding an open space requirement that every alley house lot needs to have 120 square feet of open space with no single dimension being less than 10 feet. That 10 foot dimension is enough to build a small patio or yard area. Poudre Fire Authority has requested that we require fire sprinkler systems to be installed. Ron Gonzales, from PFA, is here to answer any questions and to make a presentation. Director Gloss stated that the new requirements for accessory buildings are also included. Accessory buildings will have some restrictions with respect to human occupancy so 4-car garages and the like cannot be built in the backyard. Along those lines, another perceived loophole is that some people could put water/sewer service to their garage and not meet the standards. The review process has that trigger built in so these structures would have to be reviewed for compliance. It gives people some level of control from a neighborhood side, but it also gives people on the private side the ability to build that "away" space for their teenager, or an art studio for example. Director Gloss stated that the new proposed review process would include the ability for the Landmark Preservation Commission to be involved in situations where there may be an individual landmark property that is eligible for historic designation. The LPC would have the ability to provide comment at the start of the review process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 10 Director Gloss concluded his presentation by stating that there is an existing City policy and the proposed changes to the Ordinance are not tremendous. There are some instances where allowed square footage is larger but some of the loopholes are being eliminated. Some of the big impacts, such as multiple units, will not be allowed. The public is also being allowed to get more involved in a meaningful way. Member Lingle asked whether or not there needs to be some kind of limitation placed on how many accessory buildings and/or alley houses can be put on a lot. There could be a potential for a smaller house and two or three accessory buildings at the 600 and 1,000 square foot maximums. Director Gloss replied that staff tried to address that with a floor area ratio requirement. There is a floor area ratio in the NCL district, for example, that says you cannot have more than 25% building floor area on that lot. If the subdivision of lots does go forward, as recommended in the staff report, the minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet. If you have a 12,000 square foot lot in the NCL, split it in half for 6,000 square foot lots, the floor area ratio would be 25% of that area, or 1,500 square feet. That would be the maximum floor area for all structures. The standards to not limit the number of accessory structures, but this floor area ratio should help limit the number. If we decided not to subdivide, there would be an imaginary subdivision line based on the minimum lot size in the zone district. For example, even if the lot was 13,000 square feet, the minimum lot size in the district would still be used for the 25% calculation, so it would still be 25% of 6,000 square feet in the NCL zone. In the NCM and NCB zones, because the minimum lot size is smaller, the floor area ratio is 33%. Director Gloss stated that this certainly may not be the correct approach and other ideas would gladly be entertained. Member Lingle pointed out that in the 1,500 square foot example, there would still be enough room for two of these to be on the rear portion of the lot. He asked if staff was comfortable that this would not be detrimental to the neighborhood character. Director Gloss replied that one would have to be more of a principal building and one would have to be more of an accessory building so they would be smaller. There could be some situations where two buildings would be possible. Ron Gonzales with Poudre Fire Authority gave a presentation regarding PFAs thoughts on the topic. Mr. Gonzales showed the Board several photos of alleys throughout the City and illustrated various problems with obstructions and getting equipment through when other vehicles are using the alleys, and when power lines, trees, and other obstructions exist. He stated that driving down the alley is not the issue, but rather the need for workspace that causes problems. The well -established alleys, like most Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 11 downtown, have utility poles, large trees, fences, outbuildings, and other obstructions. The tight space can cause decreased room for hoses which then crimp and this results in decreased water flow. The width of a truck, from outrigger to outrigger, is 20 feet, the entire width of the alley. This makes it impossible for other equipment to get through the alleys if needed. Mr. Gonzales stated that the two issues most difficult for PFA to deal with are access and water supply. It is very difficult to get adequate room to work in the alleys as well. He added that there are other facilities that would make it into this concept, not just alley houses. Director Gloss clarified that the other uses to which Mr. Gonzales was referring, such as places of worship, would be allowed uses only for the front of the lot. Mr. Gonzales stated that PFA does support the infill concept and has worked with Director Gloss to get the addressing of the structures squared away as well as other issues. Member Lingle asked if Mr. Gonzales' illustrations were essentially in support of the argument that the alley houses be sprinklered. Mr. Gonzales replied that even if the structures are sprinklered, trucks still have to get there despite the obstructions to the access and water supply. Sprinklers are not the 100% answer to the problem. Many of PFA's calls are medical, not fire, so these issues are still a problem. Member Lingle asked what Mr. Gonzales was asking the Board to do, or did he just want the Board to be aware of the issues. Mr. Gonzales replied that his recommendation would be for further study to see if some of these issues can be overcome. He stated that he did not want to squelch the alley house concept but there are some safety issues to consider. He stated that he would like to have the opportunity for continued study in order to determine how to get over these obstacles. Member Carpenter asked if PFA does not think they can provide the safety they need if the alley houses go in. Mr. Gonzales replied that the alleys are ineffective for the delivery of their services. The alleys were never intended for emergency -access purposes. Member Carpenter asked about the other communities with alley houses and how they have dealt with this issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Gonzales replied that he had tried to research how other communities handled the problem but he had difficulty finding documents from a fire and emergency access perspective rather than from a planning or engineering perspective. Director Gloss stated that he had looked at Land Use Codes throughout the west and found that one community in California actually requires carriage houses to be on the backs of lots. There was not enough information or detail to determine how this issue was dealt with in other communities. Member Schmidt stated that most of the difficulties seem to be caused by existing things that are there, the garages, power poles, etc. She stated that other communities have gone to smaller -sized fire engines to deal with different street widths. She asked if that would be a possibility in Fort Collins or if some alleys could possibly be redeveloped to be a bit wider. Mr. Gonzales replied that this downtown concept is a problem because of the established alleys. It can work in new developments where the access can be planned. Trying to fit this in to well -established communities is difficult. Member Schmidt asked what the size of an ambulance is in relation to a fire truck. Mr. Gonzales replied that it is about as wide but not as long Member Craig asked if this issue came up in Boulder at all. Director Gloss replied that access and obstructions seemed to be about the same in Boulder and that this issue did not really come up. The units there are required to be fire sprinklered though, as a matter of course. Member Craig stated that her impression is that sprinklering is not enough; they only protect the structure until an engine can get there. There are also still ambulances and other access issues so sprinklers may not be enough. Member Craig noted that Boulder no longer allows alley houses except on corner lots and asked if possibly the safety access was one of the concerns. Director Gloss replied that the change had a lot more to do with noise impacts, rental housing impacts, and the scale of units. There were also some units being built in historic districts where it was felt that the units were not compatible with the strict standards of those districts. Member Schmidt asked if there were any regulations now for people who have flammable materials as part of an alley structure. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Gonzales replied that those issues are considered with the home occupation requirements that are part of the Building Code. There are fire code requirements for dealing with the hazard, not necessarily the location of that hazard. Member Gavaldon asked about fire access issues which he dealt with in 1983-1986. He stated that he brought up some fire access concerns with then PFA employee Mark Pretz (?). Member Gavaldon stated that he was told that it was not a concern for PFA at the time because they do not fight from the alley, they fight from the street where the hydrant is. Member Gavaldon asked why the change in PFA policy had occurred. Mr. Gonzales replied that he could not answer that question Member Gavaldon stated that he was not inclined to support the sprinkler systems because it seems to only be part of the solution. He suggested exploring the idea of smaller trucks. Mr. Gonzales stated that the life of a fire engine is 20-30 years and that PFA has considered trucks that have four-wheel steering to lessen the turning radius. However, they do not have any trucks that articulate at this time. The problem with the smaller trucks is that there is not always enough room for people and equipment. That sometimes means more pieces of equipment have to show up to bring the same amount of equipment and personnel. Member Gavaldon suggested adding fire hydrants in the alleys. Mr. Gonzales replied that the water supply in the neighborhoods to which this project refers, is already low because of the smaller pipes. Public Input Barbara Balzer, 5200 Abbey Road, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she owns many properties in the Fort Collins area. She stated that she and her husband started a duplex alley project over two years ago, at 624 Loomis, which they bought specifically because a duplex was allowed under the rules in effect at the time. She stated that she followed the guidelines and codes exactly at the time. She stated that her architect, Mikal Torgerson, assured her that she would hopefully meet all the requirements in time to get the project submitted prior to the moratorium taking effect. She stated that her concerns lie with the fact that her project followed all the rules in effect at the time. Mrs. Balzer read a letter that was written by her architect, Mikal Torgerson, to Cameron Gloss with respect to her project submittal being turned away. According to Mrs. Balzer, the letter read "I am writing to express my disagreement with Mr. Olt's decision to return my accepted project development plan application for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 14 Balzer Duplex. Your Planning Technician, Ginger Dodge, reviewed and accepted the PDP application at 2:30 on Thursday... Roughly at a half-hour following the acceptance of the Balzer PDP application, Mr. Olt informed me that he wished to return the Balzer PDP application because he had discovered a week or two ago that the Fort Collins Land Use Code would required a neighborhood meeting to be held prior to the acceptance of the PDP application that would be submitted to the P8Z review ... At no time during the multiple meetings conducted with Mr. Olt regarding the pending Balzer PDP application, did Mr. Olt ever inform my client or I that a neighborhood meeting would be required prior to the acceptance of the development application. Given the fact that this process occurred over the course of the last few months, there would have been ample time to schedule, provide the Code -required notice, conduct such meetings to our developing PDP application, and submit before the January 30th moratorium, had we been informed of this process in a timely fashion. The Balzer PDP represents significantly less than a one percent change in the overall project density; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it does not constitute a major impact on its surroundings...I am particularly bothered by the fact that the application was accepted by the staff only to be returned an hour prior to the moratorium taking effect. The most charitable interpretation that I can offer or the series of events is that Mr. Olt exhibited extreme incompetence in his duties which could result in costing my client multiple thousands of dollars as a result of his ultimate job performance." Mrs. Balzer stated that this has cost her a great deal of money. She continued on reading the letter, " I am however haunted by the thought that this application, and others like it have been the subject of some bias by both staff and the City Council. It is no secret that the moratorium was enacted to further regulate and restrict exactly this sort of development in Old Town. I do not believe that it is appropriate to withhold information which could have been dealt with if appropriate notice had been given. I have never been asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to the submission of a PDP application in seven years I have practiced in Fort Collins." Mrs. Balzer asked that her issue be addressed, perhaps at a further date Member Gavaldon assured Mrs. Balzer that her concerns would be addressed by appropriate staff members, including Director Gloss. Ian Scheff, 909 West Oak Street and member of the Landmark Preservation Board, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that, overall, the LPC is supportive of the proposed alley house standards. The LPC's greatest concerns are related to the subdivision of lots. By subdividing the lot, there will inherently be two different owners with which will come two different landscaping designs, fences, and other attributes that will change the lot and disrupt the historic character of the lot. Also with two owners, when new neighborhoods could be eligible for historic districts, the new alley houses Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 15 would be considered separate which would increase the number of new homes in the historic district which could detriment its likelihood of becoming a district. Mr. Scheff stated that the LPC would like to be a part of the review process, mostly on an architectural or compatibility level. Meegan Flennigan (sp?), 617 West Myrtle Street, gave her testimony to the Board. She strongly urged the Board to recommend that City Council adopt the carriage house standards as proposed. She stated that she was part of the extensive public process and felt that the proposed standards reflect a responsible, creative, and critical means for protecting historic Old Town character and our Old Town neighborhoods. Ms. Flennigan stated that as a proponent of infill and an Old Town resident, she feels that requiring standards for congruent structures, that infill will compliment existing neighborhoods and we will be able to provide a greater community benefit. She stated that she did not believe that duplex and multi-plex units are not appropriate in the alleys or in many parts of Old Town. Ms. Flennigan recognized Director Gloss and City staff for what was a very effective, well -planned, open, and well -advertised public involvement process. Sarah Dentoni, 20 Circle Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated support for the carriage house proposal but discouraged the possibility of multi -family development and subdivisions. She also commented that there is probably a large existing problem with respect to the PFA concerns. She suggested that perhaps this is a general problem which should be addressed rather than relating it solely to carriage houses. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked Director Gloss to address Mrs. Balzer's concerns as the issues seemed to be outside the Board privy. Member Lingle asked if Mrs. Balzer's problem was the process and where she got caught in the moratorium or if it was that she won't now be able to do what the PDP submittal would have allowed her to do. Director Gloss replied (as Mrs. Balzer had already left the meeting) that he suspected it was more the latter. They seemed to be more interested in constructing a duplex which, as we have said, would be a prohibited type of dwelling under this proposal. Member Lingle asked if there were other projects in the same situation just before the moratorium went into effect. Director Gloss replied that one single-family alley house did get in the day prior to the moratorium. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 16 Member Craig asked what the history of PFA's approach to alley houses has been — did they fight fires from the street? If so, why can that not be done today. Mr. Gonzales replied that he was unsure of the history of which Member Gavaldon spoke earlier but stated that today, the PFA position is that fire protection and medical services are to be provided when a customer calls. If there is a fence in the way, PFA will do the best to get around it. The upper level of the carriage houses compounds the problem. Even if non-combustible buildings were required, the furniture and people inside create the fire conditions. Time is always of the essence. Member Lingle asked if PFA could require sprinkler systems in alley house units regardless of whether or not the City Council would adopt that as a requirement. Mr. Gonzales replied that the PFA uses that option as a recommendation for the customer to get past the obstacle. Typically, the Code response to no access or no water supply is "thou shall not proceed." As an alternative to that hindrance, PFA recommends that if the facility is sprinklered, that Code deficiency can be offset. Member Lingle asked if that was something that PFA would invoke regardless of what action the City would take, as the two organizations are autonomous. Mr. Gonzales replied that there are triggers for any facility that is beyond the measurable distance from the street. Member Schmidt asked if PFA knows when it is going to a property if it is a stand-alone structure, or a front house connected to a back house. If the lots are subdivided, could PFA access the rear lot through the front? Mr. Gonzales replied that they will use whatever means necessary but there are property lines that may need to be respected if the particular lot is subdivided. Right now, there is not a way to identify the front lot from the back. The City lacks in that we do not have a formal addressing policy. Member Schmidt asked how current subdivided lots are identified. Director Gloss clarified that the City of Fort Collins is authorized to assign addresses; this is done through explicit rules of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. With respect to the front and rear unit, the City does assign addressing at the time of building permit. The protocol currently is that if it is a detached single-family house, the front unit is A and the rear unit is B. There have been some instances where a numeric was assigned rather than a letter, but overall that is the policy. A difficulty comes up when there are multiple units in the front and a single-family unit in the rear. If Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 17 subdivisions are allowed and you create a second lot, you have to assign an address to the lot. This is done when a subdivision plat is recorded with the County. If the subdivision does not happen, we would still assign an address at the time of building permit. The alleys do not have names, and that is not supported by PFA of the police, other than a few in Old Town. Member Gavaldon suggested that the PFA issues could possibly be discussed in a worksession. Director Gloss stated that the goal of this project was to address all the impacts of these structures. Some of those translate into specific Land Use Code language changes and others are specific to administrative policies. It may be that we cannot overcome some of the obstacles we have and City Council may have to make some of those decisions. Member Schmidt stated that the reality is that if PFA cannot get to a fire from the alley, they will have to fight it from wherever they can. Member Carpenter stated that she greatly appreciated the work staff has done on this topic. She stated that the majority of the project is great but she is confused about the subdivision piece and did not understand why it is there. She asked if there were other cities that allow subdivision of lots like this. Director Gloss replied that he did not find any other communities that allow subdivision. Member Carpenter stated that in the staff report, it basically states that the sentiment of most members of the public in the process to date is that the ordinance should prohibit the creation of lots fronting on alleys. The police department and fire department agree and the LPC is concerned about the historic districts. Member Carpenter asked why staff was even suggesting that subdivisions be allowed. She stated she could not support it at all. Director Gloss replied that one of the main considerations is the provision of affordable housing. It would give the opportunity for home ownership in Old Town to more individuals. There were also some individuals from the real estate industry who made the case that if the lots are subdivided, there is an equal or better chance that there will be owner -occupancy on the lot. If it is one lot, there will likely be a renter in the rear unit. Member Carpenter stated that there is something to be said for affordable housing but there are too many groups against it. She stated specific concern for the historic districts noting that you change the entire historic pattern when subdivisions are allowed. She stated that she could not support the subdivision idea as the negatives far outweigh the positives. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 18 Member Carpenter stated that we are now up to 660 lots on which the carriage houses could be built, in the Old Town area. She asked if there were any blocks on which 5 or 6 units could be allowed, creating an entire street of alley houses. Director Gloss replied that generally, that is not the case. There are some areas where eligible lots are concentrated, but that is generally not the case. Many of the blocks probably have 1/3 of the lots eligible but it is really on a block by block basis. There is no maximum number on any particular block due to fairness. Member Schmidt asked if a single -story carriage house unit could have a basement for more storage. Director Gloss replied that it would be very small due to the maximum square footage of the units, but it would be possible. One of the goals was to show that there are many types of designs available, depending on the type of use. It would not be possible to put in an unfinished basement to be finished later. Member Schmidt asked if there was any consideration given to allowing a multi -family alley unit on corner lots. Director Gloss replied that that was not explored. Member Lingle asked if there was any consideration given to allowing larger units on some of the larger lots. Director Gloss replied that they did look at that and determined that the best way to handle it would be to have a modification procedure apply. Because some of the lots are bigger and represent a unique circumstance, a modification could allow something different. One of the issues that was continually brought up was the mass of the unit, which is why the footprint has been decreased to 600 square feet in the proposed standards. Member Carpenter stated that she noticed that the only standards relate to mass and size. She asked if there were any kind of architectural controls or guidelines. Director Gloss replied that architectural guidelines were not included purposefully because we did not want to get trapped into stylistic issues. Aside from a few individuals that represented preservation concerns, there were few comments on architecture. The main comments were related to the mass, bulk and scale of the structure and the intensity of the use in terms of the number of people who live there. Director Gloss noted a comment received from an Old Town resident who did not want to see diversity Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 19 squashed with this process. The point basically is that we wanted to protect the variety and imperfection of Old Town Member Craig asked if it seemed the current carriage houses are becoming "cookie - cutter' and if that were one of the concerns which led to the moratorium. Director Gloss replied that it would be difficult to stop people from repeating the same floor plan or structure. Member Craig noted that new subdivisions do not allow the same model to be built on next door lots and asked if something like that could be a possibility with this. Director Gloss replied that that was the reason for showing the different illustrative examples to show residents that there are many ways to configure these spaces so they don't have to be exactly the same. However, the final design will ultimately be up to the property owner. It would be too difficult to regulate that. Member Craig asked if it would be possible to put the LPC higher in the review process and thereby have some input into allowing a series of "cookie -cutter" carriage houses. Director Gloss replied that, in the cases where LPC would have comment, such as on structures that are individual landmarks or those that are eligible or in close proximity to a landmark, the LPC would have some influence on the decision. Quite a few of the lots in Old Town would fall under the LPC review and they are shown as pretty high up in the review process, at the first round when staff looks at the project. Director Gloss added that the LPC does not really have a review process which goes from conceptual drawings to design. A certain level of design has to be complete before you could go talk to them. Member Carpenter stated that in fact, one could request a conceptual review from an architectural subcommittee of the LPC. Mr. Gonzales clarified that Member Gavaldon had been correct regarding the 1980's information he had discussed previously. He clarified that PFA's position is that they would like to stay on the street but they feel they are being drawn into the alley with the concept of alley houses because that customer fronts on the alley. PFA would be particularly concerned about subdivisions because there would likely be fences and other obstructions which would prevent an alley house fire from being fought from the front. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 20 Member Carpenter moved for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval to City Council of the Carriage House Design Standards and Land Use Code Amendments with the exception of the subdivision clause. Attorney Eckman stated that the subdivision language could be extracted and noted that some minor, non -substantive grammatical changes would likely have to be made to the language as the latest draft has not been proofread. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Lingle asked if Member Carpenter would be willing to consider subdivision of corner lots only where those could take street access. Member Carpenter replied that she was not at all comfortable with subdivision and would prefer to move forward without it. Member Craig agreed with Member Carpenter stating that the subdivision is extremely inappropriate, particularly with the knowledge that other communities do not do it. Member Craig added that Mr. Gonzales made a very strong case and now that there are as many as 660 eligible lots for alley houses, it is a particular concern. She stated that she could not support going forward with alley houses at all, given the safety concerns, but definitely could not support subdivisions. Member Lingle echoed Member Carpenter's comments about the tremendous and speedy staff effort. He also thanked the public and professionals for their input at the charette. He added that he was supportive of most of the proposal and stated his support for affordable housing outweighs his concerns about some of the access issue: on the alleys. These issues can be dealt with as we move forward. Member Lingle stated that he was in support of not allowing multiple units on the alleys and was also in support of the modification process to possibly allow larger units on larger lots. He added that he was going to take the stance of subdivided lots being acceptable on corner lots but if that would negatively affect the historic district eligibility, he may not be in support of it. Member Carpenter stated that she was not exactly sure of how it would affect eligibility but it could be calculated. Member Lingle stated that he was concerned about requiring accessory buildings to go through an entire PDP process. He stated that he could see the need for the full process on something that is definitely going to be a dwelling unit, but for something like a pottery studio, it seems to be a bit of an onerous requirement. He suggested perhaps having a neighborhood meeting with a smaller notification radius and no other steps, or Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 21 something along those lines. He asked if changing this process could be considered as a friendly amendment to the motion and also stated concern about having disincentives built into this so we end up with a proliferation of pop -tops or additions or something that would be in a reaction to the restrictions. Member Gavaldon stated that he would like to see staff and perhaps City Council look into that issue. Member Schmidt agreed with Member Craig's comment about the safety issues but stated that she saw those as currently existing. She would like Council to hear that if the alley house concept continues, the whole alley/ safety issue needs to be looked at as ar entirely separate issue — how are we going to look at the safety of all the residents in an Old Town environment. She noted that undergrounding utilities was an example of a start on that. Not going forward with this does not do anything to help solve the existing problem. On the affordable housing issue, there is no guarantee that any of these homes will be, or will remain, affordable. If a corner lot were to be subdivided and the rear lot would then have street access, the whole rear yard/side yard issue becomes a concern. That can create setback issues for that lot and adjoining lots. Member Schmidt stated that her recommendation would be to not have subdivisions. The safety issues are definitely a concern but, if we go ahead with this, they are issues that will need to be dealt with on a much larger scale. Member Craig asked if a friendly amendment could be added to the motion to consider the safety of the alley. Along with the design standards, alley safety should also be considered. Members Carpenter and Schmidt agreed to accept the friendly amendment. Attorney Eckman asked Member Craig to clarify the meaning of the amendment in terms of tasks for staff. Director Gloss noted the short time frame on this issue and asked the Board to provide direction on the additional study. Member Craig replied that she did not want to slow down the process but would like Council to, as they look at the design standards, ask staff to do a study or sit down with PFA and address some of their issues and bring that back to Council. Member Schmidt stated that some work needs to be done on addressing the problems that currently exist. She stated that this is another reason to not have subdivisions, to avoid fences and property line obstructions. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 22 Member Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion and agreed that he did not want subdivisions and added that alley houses have been going on for years and that the City needs to get everyone to work together, as Director Gloss has done with this process, and be on the same page with the issues. He stated that PFA needs to be flexible on their equipment choices when adapting to these kinds of chages. Member Lingle asked if there was any support for his idea to remove the full PDP requirement from accessory structures. Member Schmidt stated that the concern is that there is no guarantee they will stay accessory structures. Director Gloss stated that neither of the existing processes, the PDP or the Basic Development Review, seems to have an appropriate fit here, one is too much and one is not enough. The Basic Development Review would not require the neighborhood meeting, hearing, or any public process to come into play. The PDP (Type I Review) may be a bit too much but, given the public involvement, the hope was to have a bit more expedient PDP review. It did not seem appropriate to come up with a new type of review for this. Member Schmidt reiterated her concern that the units could turn into some kind of living space. Mr. Gonzales stated that some home occupations that have come up, involving hazardous materials include glass blowing, spray painters, and jewelers. Those are sometimes not seen from the street and the PDP process sometimes helps to catch that. Typically, the home owner goes ahead with their business and PFA only finds out about it when a neighbor calls in with a concern. The motion was approved 5-0, with Chairperson Torgerson abstaining from the vote due to a conflict. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. These minutes were approved at the 4/15/2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.