Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/22/1995E 0 r-1 U The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Walker, Strom, Cottier, Clements, Fontane, Carnes, Bell. Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Olt, Eckman, Ludwig, Ashbeck, Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion agendas. The Consent Agenda items are as follows: 1. (Continued) Minutes of the November 14, December 19, 1994 and January 23, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. 2. #15-95 Prospect Greens PUD - Preliminary 3. #16-95 Choice Child Care, Enlarged Daycare PUD - Preliminary and Final 4. #17-96 Rafferty's PUD - Preliminary 5. #75-86R English Ranch PUD, 6th Filing - Final 6. #11-94B Westbury PUD, 2nd Filing - Final (Continued) 7. #81-93C Indian Hills Village PUD - Amended Final 8. Resolution PZ95-12 - Abandonment of a Portion of Indian Hills y. West PUD and a Portion of the Indian Hills Village PUD 9. #81-93B Indian Hills Village PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary and Final 10. #53-85AK Centre for Advanced Technology, 17th Filing, Phase 2 - Final 11. # 5-96 Rocky Mountain Auto PUD - Preliminary and Final (Continued) 12. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 13. Resolution PZ95-14 Easement Vacation 14. #63-7913 Resolution PZ95-13 - Abandonment of Lake Street Townhomes PUD 15. #23-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding Boxelder Sanitation District, Expanded Lagoon System - Referral Discussion Agenda: 16. #19-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Eastside/Westside Design Guidelines 17. #14-96 Marsee Residential Addition PUD - Preliminary and Final 18. #11-81M Huntington Hills PUD, Fifth Filing - Final (Moved to Consent Agenda) 19. #4-83 Cunningham Comer/Five Oaks Village - Referral of an Administrative Change. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 2 The following items will be heard at the June 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: 20. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Adoption of the Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Management Plan 21. #60-91M Pinecone PUD, The Tower Shoppes - Final 22. #42-89C Timberline Farms PUD - Diamond Shamrock Cornerstore - Preliminary Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that an updated resolution of Item 13 was distributed to the Board which includes the existing irrigation lateral, not just the one that was shown on the new plat, and the exhibits. He stated that this item will not need to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Director Blanchard pulled Item 11 from the Consent Agenda and requested that it be placed on the June 5 discussion agenda. Member Cottier moved that Item 18, Huntington Hills Pud, Fifth Filing Final be moved to the Consent Agenda. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Bell abstained from voting on moving Item 18 to the Consent Agenda due to a conflict of interest. The motion passed 5-0. Member Strom arrived at this time. Member Fontane moved to approve Consent Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Member Cotner seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Fontane moved to approve Consent Item 18. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 3 Chairman Clements stated that she would abstain from voting on Consent Items 7, 8, 9 and 10 due to a conflict of interest. Member Fontane moved to approve Consent Items 7, 8, 9 and 10. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. EASTSIDEIWESTSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES - #18-96 Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, gave a brief staff presentation discussing code changes, giving the Planning and Zoning Board the authority to make findings in the Landmark Preservation Commissions' review criteria when dealing with landmark structures and districts, granting the authority to the Building Permits and Inspections Administrator to be able to use design guidelines in the review of building permits when appropriate, and granting the authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear appeals and variances to the design guidelines. Director Blanchard detailed the major change to the Conservation Districts. He stated the current draft has taken the Conservation Districts out of the design guidelines. Staff still supports the designation of three areas as landmark districts, which are the Holy Family Neighborhood, the Laurel School Historic District and the Mountairi Avenue District. These three areas were recommended for landmarking in the two neighborhood plans when they were adopted in 1986 and 1989. This means that all of the structures within these three districts would have to comply with the historical section of the design guidelines. Director Blanchard stated there are two options up for discussion: 1.) The recommendation to City Council that, during the 1996 budget cycle, Council provide the resources to actually carry out the landmarking function in the three neighborhood districts. The process would be public and would include surveys, interviewing the individual property owners, public hearings and requiring the action of the P&Z Board and City Council; and 2.) The historic guidelines in the design guidelines document would be advisory only, however, there would be a requirement that any individual who is renovating or taking any action on their homes would be required to fall within the city Sprocesses as they currently exist, and meet with the Planning Staff to educate the owners on what is recommended to maintain their homes in an historic condition. The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 4 actual application of the guidelines would be advisory and not mandatory. Staff is recommending that the P&Z Board consider one of these two options. Director Blanchard commented that there was an error in some information that had been given to the neighborhood residents which stated that normal maintenance activities would be infringed upon (Page 6 of the document). It was not the intent of this document to control what color the owners painted their homes or whether or not they replaced windows. Adequate maintenance has been a major concern throughout neighborhood meetings that were held. Staff strongly encourages the property owners to maintain their property in good condition but the guidelines do not mandate proper maintenance in any way. Director Blanchard discussed questions asked and publicized in some documents regarding an addition of a bedroom or family room to the existing homes. He stated that there is no special review attached to these guidelines nor no new process or new step to the process that an individual will be required to follow. The design guidelines serve as additional criteria for the review that already occurs when an application for a building permit is obtained. Director Blanchard stated there was a concern that the City would not allow flowers and xeriscaping in the planting strip. Page 42 of the document states that "maintaining the tree planting strip as a lawn area is preferred". This is an advisory statement, not a mandatory statement. The only mandatory part to this statement is that it not be paved over and that there be no barriers to pedestrian crossings placed in the strip. Director Blanchard stated there also were questions regarding the removal of a sagging front porch and adding skylights to a home. Page 47 of Policy 1.29 refers to buildings that should reinforce a sense of human scale and the provision of a one-story porch that is similar in size to those traditionally seen. However, it is not mandatory that a front porch be on the home. Page 51 makes reference to minimizing the visual appearance of solar collectors, skylights and satellite dishes. This is also advised and encouraged but not mandatory. Director Blanchard commented on Page 55 by stating the color of the homes is only advisory. The document suggests that color schemes should be simple in character and it is preferred that the entire building be coordinated in one color. Director Blanchard continued by stating that these guidelines went through a quick extensive public process with a deadline placed on Staff by City Council. It was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . May 22, 1995 Page 5 criticized that the documents were changed after each public meeting. The intent of the public process is to take comments and make appropriate revisions as suggested at public meetings. At this time, Director Blanchard introduced Bob Mattatall and Leslie Bethel of the consulting team. Director Blanchard discussed the public process that had taken place citing deadlines set by City Council and dates and times of public workshops held. He added that there would be three more public workshops held by the neighborhoods before the City Council hearing. Chairman Clements added that public participation in this community is very important and that the Planning Department encourages citizen participation from the onset to the end of the public process. CITIZEN INPUT Bill Smiley, 127 Fishback, stated he was concerned as to where the individual stood, as property owners, in regards to taxes and how much was being put into law. Mr. Smiley then read a poem regarding taxes. Chairman Clements stated she would clarify the guidelines and standards at the end of citizen participation. John Moleski, 414 Buckeye Street, stated he was concerned that a 50 page document could be objectively analyzed by the P&Z Board in one hearing. He believed that there were too many ordinances being rushed through the process. He asked the Board to request more time to study this document. Nancy Eason, 1019 Remington Street, stated she was involved in the production of the flyer that was sent to the neighborhoods. She stated that, at that time, the information in the flyer was accurate. She added that the neighborhoods were unaware of the document and its review by the P&Z Board. She stated that, in reviewing the third draft, there has been several improvements and was pleased with Staffs recommendation on the historic section. However, she added that she had concerns with the first section of the guidelines that apply to all structures. She believed there were still some ambiguity and that it was not clear that the design standard is followed by a number of advisory statements. She questioned the site improvements and asked if this meant only changes would be reviewed or would past work also be reviewed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 6 Chuck Robinson, professional engineer and consultant in the building business, stated he was concerned about the fast track ordinance program being pushed off on them. He stated he, too, would like to see more time to review the guidelines. He suggested that an educational brochure be published, since most of the document is advisory, and no ordinance be passed. He believed that the residents in these neighborhoods were being dictated to by people who do not represent the areas. Andy Cornetti, 818 E. Myrtle, stated he has been following the NCM process since 1993. He was concerned about the size of buildings being encouraged, which he believed restricted him in utilizing his building he has erected on the back of his property. Rich Testardi, 622 Peterson Street, commented he was unaware of the issue at hand. He applauded any progress that can be made toward these advisory -only standards and the educational assistance available. On the other hand, he did not want someone telling him what he can and cannot do to his property. He believed that many of the citizens on the East and West Side feel the same way. He asked if the guidelines on Page 6 and 32 were for everyone or just for a person who lived in a landmark district. Betty Maloney, representative of the Affordable Housing Task Force, stated that she does not live in this district, however, the Affordable Housing Task Force has been aware of this consideration for some time. They have participated in all but the first of the public meetings and believed they were very represented. She stated the Task Force has two concerns: 1.) People could be permitted to put modest structures on the v rear of their lots that would help in affordable housing by having a single parent or a student living in that structure, which would be more affordable than in other parts of the community; and 2.) When the guidelines are adopted, items that people request be affordable and that the guidelines not be too strict about replacing parts with identical parts. She stated that the document had a great deal of leeway and people were not being required to spend a lot of money to keep things in character. Joe Bastian, resident of the Westside Neighborhood, supported voluntary guidelines. However, he objected to mandatory design rules. He believed the essence of good legislation is what defines a problem and figures out what is the quickest, most effective way to solve that problem without causing any greater problems or collateral damage. He stated that he attended all the neighborhood meetings and has heard the neighbors' comments. He commented that much of the problem that started this was subdividing properties into small ones and building secondary units. The small person putting a small addition on, or somebody fixing up their property, was not a great cause for concern. He questioned if this was the best way to solve the problem of people . • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . May 22, 1995 Page 7 subdividing properties, building large structures, or building new dwelling units. He believed these were zoning issues. He asked if this large document of intrusive government control on our aesthetic decisions has any effect on this problem. He believed this was overkill and goes beyond the boundaries of solving the original problem that was defined. It would be more bureaucracy which people would have to go through and would cost them more money and time to get through the process. Good projects will not get done because of these rules. He believed it would have a negative impact on the amount of renovation and regeneration that occurs in Old Town. He also believed it will have a negative effect and diversity on affordable housing in the area. He believed this does not meet the goals of good legislation. John Clark, 202 E. Elizabeth Street, stated he was in favor of the guidelines and supported the concept. He was concerned that he has seen creeping pressures with growth in his neighborhood and also economic concerns. He believed that this is one way to address the economic and growth pressures. The source of the guidelines should be taken into consideration and was a grass roots effort. It was the people inside . the neighborhoods that are asking that something be done to preserve the look and feel of our older communities. He suggested that the P&Z Board recommend the guidelines to City Council Kent Curling, 418 E. Oak, stated that the flyer brought attention to what was going on in the neighborhoods. He stated that Staff has stressed that the guidelines are all advisory with encouragement. He bought a home and planned on painting it to show a reflection of him and what he has to contribute and believed he was being guided through this document to the appearance he wanted to put forth. Herb Hinneman, who has lived at his residence since 1941, was concerned about the regulations attached to the guidelines. He believed there was a lot of money and time spent which was not necessary. His home was built in 1910 and they have made some changes but believed that senior citizens should not need a lot of regulations. He did not believe that this area needs protecting and that there are no landmarks in the neighborhood. He thought the P&Z Board should focus on growth and traffic problems. He stated he did not want these restrictions passed. Don Daslick, 700 Smith Street, stated that he participated in two of the forums which lead him to want the advisory guidelines. He stated that there has been improvement in his neighborhood and favors an educational effort to help the homeowners to do their . best to fit in. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 8 Andy Coranetti, 818 E. Myrtle, had concerns of how the look and feel of a neighborhood would be controlled and questioned how this would be maintained when the City approves a homeless shelter in an old nursing home. He did not understand how those issues can be addressed and that changes are inevitable. Les Coram, 1305 Remington, stated that the reason he lives in this area is because he likes Old Town. He asked if houses needed to be maintained in just historic districts or just part of the Old Town neighborhood. There are several homes on Remington that are rental properties with furniture in the front yard and cars parked on the front lawn. He asked if this would be addressed in the guidelines. Don Eason, 1019 Remington Street, recited a fable about the sun and the wind and the contest they had to decide who was the most powerful. He favored the revisions in Draft #3, but still saw mandates and appreciated the fact they were considering changing to voluntary guidelines. Karla Oceanik stated she was with the Centennial Neighborhood Association and a member of the Design Standards and Guidelines Advisory Committee. She believed the guidelines were reasonable and are not draconian mandates. The neighborhoods asked for the guidelines and there was evidence of that in many documents of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plans, which all went through lengthy neighborhood processes. The design guidelines and standards have arisen from the concerns and values of the people who live in those neighborhoods. She commented that the biggest issue before the Board is a lack of education about the document itself. She thought that more time for review might be in order since there are so many people who have not read the document. She stated that there is a lot of confusion about the historic properties, content and application. She supported Staffs recommendation and that the Board consider recommending to City Council that landmark districting be made a priority for the coming year. Jeff Bridges, Eastside neighborhood resident, believed there was a fear of the document. He stated that since the flyer was distributed, he has fielded over 40 phone calls with an average of 30-60 minutes per call. Of those 40 phone calls, 3/4 were from senior citizens concerned about what was going to go on in the neighborhood because the flyer falsely portrayed to them that they would be impacted in their day to day lives with the maintenance of their property. This was an unrealistic expectation of what the document was intended. He believed the confusion came from the historic property designation. He suggested that Staff clear up that there are only 18 homes in Fort Collins that afforded any protection and are even targeted by over half of this document. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 9 He felt that our state and local governments have not recognized this. Mandatory items in the document are only mandatory to new construction, which provides a significant amount of protection for other people coming in and buying properties and demolishing all the homes and constructing student apartments. There is a six block area within the east and west side areas that investors have acquired and who want to demolish the homes and construct student apartments. This document was drafted so the current owners would not be affected in their day to day maintenance operations and minor renovation work. He hoped people would attend the information sessions and get their questions answered, being careful in how information is taken out of context and handed over to someone else who might be adversely affected by it. Kate Mahlers, 518 Peterson, owns property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District in the Eastside neighborhood that is in the process of being designated as a local landmark. She participated from the beginning of the process. She believed that she needed some protection as she goes about the renovation of her historic house. Angela Dasli stated that she is presently remodeling a Victorian home on Smith Street and that she has read the document and attended the meetings. She hoped that the historic guidelines would remain advisory only. She asked that the aesthetic rules not be piggybacked onto a zoning issue, that private initiative would preserve these historic neighborhoods and their character in the long run better than design rules imposed upon them. She asked that she not be told what to do, but rather assist her to do it better by advisory guidelines. Carolyn Martin, 116 N. Whitcomb, stated that she appreciated the efforts of the Zoning Commission. She believed that educational efforts by the City could only benefit everyone. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairman Clements asked how the design guidelines piggyback on the zoning. Director Blanchard replied they are part of the zoning review. In practice, they are not separated because during the review of projects for compliance with zoning regulations, the design criteria will apply if it falls into the appropriate process. Chairman Clements asked if they have ever been separate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 10 Director Blanchard replied no. These are additional criteria by which projects will be reviewed. Chairman Clements asked if that was to provide more consistency. Director Blanchard replied yes, that was one of the reasons. Chairman Clements asked how the Staff resources were being allocated. Director Blanchard replied that the resources referred to in the Staff Report were resources that are an option for the Board to recommend to City Council to actually carry out the landmarking process. This particular recommendation does not elude to ongoing resources to assist homeowners. However, there are two historic preservation individuals in the Advanced Planning Department who are available and work with property owners all the time, as well as certain members of the Landmark Preservation Commission who have certain expertises. Those are ongoing resources. He stated he was not familiar with all the grants and tax credits and the consultants may be able to expand on those. Bob Mattatall, Winter and Company, added that several of the incentive programs that citizens have referred to do not necessarily come from the City. They come from the Federal and State Governments. Those usually are deductions that are allowed for doing certain improvements. He added that those are only available when districts are in existence. If someone owns a historic home, but not a designated home, either contributing to a district or landmark, the 20% income tax rebate based on the cost of the renovation would not be available to them. Certain incentives discussed are part and parcel with the adoption process for the districts and some of the historic guidelines. The guidelines go with having the district, but the incentives are not available if the districts do not exist. Chairman Clements asked if that would lend argument to the option of having a priority for the landmark function in 1996. Director Blanchard responded that this issue was discussed at the committee level, as well as the public workshops. He stated that the NCM and NCL Zoning Districts provide a special site plan review when changing residence from a single family structure to a multi -family structure, up to a four-plex. There are opportunities in those districts to go through the PUD process, in which compliance with the LDGS would be required, in addition to the design guidelines. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . May 22, 1995 Page 11 Chairman Clements asked about the citizens' concern with not having enough time to review the document. Director Blanchard replied that there would still be two more public hearings if the Board chooses to pass this on to City Council. Those hearings will be June 6 and June 20, both regular City Council meetings. He added that there are four neighborhoods within the Eastside and Westside that have banded together to sponsor public workshops. Chairman Clements asked about the maintenance of rental properties. She asked if this was discussed in the design guidelines and is there currently a mechanism in place where citizens who have concerns have an avenue to contact City Staff with their concerns. Director Blanchard responded that this issue had been discussed at nearly every committee meeting and every public workshop. The guidelines do not address maintenance but are directed toward design issues. He added that the City does not • have a minimum maintenance ordinance. He stated there is one that deals with safety and unsafe structures. He suggested that the Board propose to City Council that they deal with the minimum maintenance issue as part of their work program for the next two years. Chairman Clements asked about cars being parked on lawns and if there was anything that could be done. Director Blanchard replied that it was enforcement of existing conditions. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that there are provisions in the code for nuisances regarding unsanitary conditions that sometimes can be used to deal with the debris on lots in urban areas. He was unsure what the rule is regarding parking cars on lawns. He stated that he would clarify this code. He added there is a weed ordinance of not more than 6 inches and that there is a uniform building code that regulates just the structures themselves. Mr. Mattatall added that they did take into consideration these issues. Some of these are use issues that would typically be thought of as zoning and there are ways to address those from a design standpoint. The guidelines suggest that the parking and driveway occur in the rear of the property. If the car is abandoned or being worked on, it . would not be seen from the street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 12 Chairman Clements asked who the citizen can contact about these issues. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied they could contact the City Attorney's office. Chairman Clements asked for clarification for the processes now in place for people to build onto their structure, how would these guidelines or mandates affect what they could do, and is there a cost associated with it. Director Blanchard replied that the processes that are currently in effect include a building permit which kicks in when there is an addition of greater than 120 square feet. If that permit is required and the structure is located within the east or west side neighborhoods, then it will be reviewed against the design guidelines for residential structures, as well as the guidelines that apply across the board to all structures, to determine if they even apply. There is no guarantee that all these would apply to every case and that is part of the reason for a review. Director Blanchard added that other ways a property develops in the City include the Planned Unit Development and also an NCM and NCL Site Plan Review. He stated that the majority of the properties in the east and west side neighborhoods are zoned either NCM or NCL. When there are changes of use, they go through a special site plan review that comes before the Planning and Zoning Board. In each of these cases, the proposal would also be reviewed against the design guidelines. Director Blanchard stated that in terms of cost, the cost associated with the process will be any costs that are incurred as a result of having to comply with a mandated guideline or those you choose to comply with if advisory. It would also depend on the actual proposal that is being reviewed. Mr. Mattatall stressed the difference when the term "mandatory" is used between mandatory review and mandatory compliance. Mandatory review refers to having Staff look at the project and provide an opportunity for a choice of what guidelines you would like to utilize. There is mandatory compliance in some situations, and in the case where the guidelines are used, it is still an interpretation by Staff or by a Board or some other entity. Chairman Clements stated that there is a plan for Old Town and design guidelines for Old Town so it will maintain the look and feel of Old Town. She believed that was what this citizen committee was trying to do with the design guidelines that City Council asked them to look at and develop. She asked about the process someone would have to go through. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 13 Director Blanchard replied that the process begins with the building permit application by submitting site plans. He stated those would be reviewed by the planners and Building Inspection and Zoning Department. They would review it against the Building Code and Zoning Code, against any conditions that may be applied if it is part of a Planned Unit Development to ensure compliance with setback standards. Then the building permit would be issued. As the building is being constructed, it goes through a series of inspections until the final inspection decrees that it is safe and appropriate to issue a Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Clements asked about mandatory compliance and what were some of the things that would be mandatory. Mr. Mattatall replied that the clear issues were how to maintain the character of the buildings that were there and that the new buildings would be similar. Most of the mandatory statements reflect what was brought out through the analysis of what is in the neighborhood. He referred to Page 36, 1.8 as an example of a mandatory compliance issue. He also referenced Page 37 as a mandatory guideline. Chairman Clements asked about a variance clause in the document and the issue of building review not being retroactive. She asked if Building Inspections could come in and inspect for work that was done 5 years ago. Director Blanchard replied that in the document, the variance clause was included on Page 5. In regards to retroactive inspection and if you have a building permit and have begun construction, no one will be going in and retroactively making you comply with these design guidelines; nor, would anything be reviewed beyond what the application is for when you apply for a building permit. Mr. Mattatall stated that, in terms of the understanding of this being an advisory document as well as a mandatory document, if someone came in and were only proposing one certain thing, but there were issues with their building, within the mandatory review, those issues could be brought out and suggestions made to them, but it would not be a mandatory compliance. Chairman Clements explained that, in regards to the Board legislating these guidelines, when doing development review, the Board is the final decision -making authority. She stated that in this avenue, the Board is simply making a recommendation to City Council and that all legislative issues and concerns should go back to City Council. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 14 Chairman Clements and Director Blanchard gave a history on the background of how these design guidelines unfolded and became a priority, starting with the development of the East and West Side Neighborhood Plans and the structure that was built at the corner of Laurel and Whedbee. Chairman Clements asked for clarification of Chapter 6, Page 32. She stated there appeared to be concerns that some of those issues, not a landmark but in the district, and how that might affect a resident of that area. Mr. Mattatall replied that if a district is adopted at a local level, there would be buildings that would be determined to be within a period of significance toward that district. Buildings that are not landmarks, specifically designated, but fit within that time period, would be considered contributing to that district and would be required to have their rehab guidelines apply to them in whatever form that finally gets adopted. Director Blanchard added that it was important to understand that the guidelines elude to landmark districts. There are no landmark districts now in the City of Fort Collins. That was part of the recommendation that the three areas shown on the map and in the document, someday become landmark districts. Until that occurs, Chapter 6 does not apply. Chapter 6 today applies to 12 residential structures that are located in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. There are a total of 18 historic structures in those two neighborhoods but include things like the Trolley Barn. Mr. Mattatall replied that there is a National District in town but it is not recognized by the City of Fort Collins. He stated that was from the Federal Government saying that this is an important area. He added that the local designation would enhance that designation. Member Cottier asked if Chapter 6 would not apply to contributing structures and would it only apply to landmark designated structures. Director Blanchard replied that they would apply within the district including non- contributing, but an analysis of how they would apply would occur when those non- contributing homes would come before the Landmark Preservation Commission. He stated that non-contributing structures are defined as those that may be over 50 years old but have "lost their integrity" in terms of their architecture, location, or geographical location. Member Cottier commented that they had stated that Chapter 6 would only apply to houses that received landmark designation. • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 15 Director Blanchard replied that, at the present time, only those that received landmark designation because there are no existing landmark districts. Once a district is approved by City Council, they would apply to all structures within that district. The landmarking district is one of the recommendations that was referenced to. Mr. Mattatall added that once those districts are adopted, it is only historic buildings, contributing structures in that period of significance that Chapter 6 would apply to. If there was a new structure going in, then you would fall under a separate chapter that is just new construction. Member Bell asked for clarification on why City Council was interested in having this move along more quickly. Director Blanchard stated that the motivation was the fact that they were changing a zoning regulation on an interim basis and they put a deadline of December 31, 1994 with a condition that the design guidelines be adopted or the interim change of lot size in the NCM zone revert back to 4,500 square feet. Because of other issues in the Planning Department, the design guidelines once again took a lower priority not having the Staff to work on them. When he took over as Director of Current Planning, he received an extension to May 31 and, in order to have an adequate review after last month, he received an additional 30 day extension to the end of June. Member Strom was concerned with what might come out of the public meetings scheduled after this hearing. Director Blanchard replied that the workshops were to be informational only and for people to learn about the guidelines. This is not a City -sponsored process and was established by four neighborhoods within the larger eastsidetwestside areas. Member Strom asked for a clarification on Page 47 and the difference between standards and guidelines regarding front porches. He stated that it appeared as though everything under 1.31 is a standard rather than a guideline. Director Blanchard replied that was not the one he referred to in terms of a porch, rather it refers more to the elevation. Guideline 1.29 addresses the porches and the third statement under the advisory portion states, "providing a one-story porch that is similar in size to those seen traditionally", is an advisory method of reinforcing the sense of human scale on the buildings within the neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 16 Member Strom stated he understood that and believed that 1.31 would override 1.29. Mr. Mattatall replied that the first statement reads, "the front shall include a one-story element such as a porch", and does not say that it must be a porch. He believed it needed to be clarified and could be changed, to read, "front elevation shall appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block". He explained that the front porch would not be a two-story element or something that would have columns that would go all the way up to the roof eaves if it was a two-story building. Member Strom asked if it was a semantic thing or were they not requiring a one-story porch, but requiring that if there is a porch, it be one-story rather than two. Mr. Mattatall responded that if there is any element on the front of the building, it should be a one story element. Member Strom believed those details needed to be clarified. Member Strom asked for clarification on Page 48 where there is a combination of both 1.33 and 1.34 of mandatory followed by advisory. He did not believe that it was clear as to how those should be interpreted. Mr. Mattatall stated that the general statement, "use building forms that appear similar to those traditionally on the block", is just what it says. He stated that the examples are ways to try to clarify the previous statement because they do not apply in every situation and they are not mandatory. Member Strom asked about Staff support implementing and evaluating these standards and the implication that Staff has design training. Mr. Mattatall replied that in the implementation memo that also accompanies this document, one of the issues mentioned is training and it is not just hiring someone with an architecture background. This is ongoing training for Staff. He added that hopefully, the City will allocate resources in the future to supplement this program. There can also be community sessions to discuss how to use the guidelines and how to interpret these issues. Director Blanchard stated that there was a recommendation that deals with the issue of Staff training. Currently, the Advanced Planning Department has Staff with design training and two Historic Preservation Specialists, one with architecture training. He added that this is something that will be included in the review of hiring a new Staff S 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . May 22, 1995 Page 17 person in Current Review. He continued that the City has an initial training agreement with Winter and Company with all of the Staff that will be implementing these guidelines. The intent was to be an ongoing budget item. Member Cottier asked about special code flexibility for historic structures. Mr. Mattatall replied that the interpretation is somewhere in the middle. The building official is required to insure the health, safety and welfare of the structure. There is additional documentation and codes that gives substitute materials and alternative solutions for certain situations. Member Cottier asked if this was currently in place in Fort Collins and if people need to know to request to be evaluated under this kind of alternative code or does the building official automatically do this with an older structure. Mr. Mattatall replied that this comes down to each individual situation. The building . official is required to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the public. Member Cottier asked that this topic be explained a little further for the consideration of the homeowner. She asked about wording in the "triggers" section and when does a homeowner have to go by which standards. She questioned the wording "and" and asked if two of the three exist, is compliance not triggered. Director Blanchard replied yes. Mr. Mattatall added that it removes projects from consideration rather than adds them. Member Cottier asked about items in bold and then mandatory explanatory comments below it. Mr. Mattatall replied the intent would be for maintaining versus providing something. Member Cottier stated that in such cases as there is a guideline with mandatory explanations beneath it, that is not a conflict. Mr. Mattatall replied that you have to understand the concept of examples. He commented that quite often the bullets are trying to clarify the previous statement. • Member Cottier asked about calling some things standards and some thing guidelines and how would there be consistency in terms of interpretation and how can neighbors be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 18 protected against a real subjective interpretation. Mr. Mattatall replied that everyone involved with this project are human and there is obviously many concerns about government intervention. There needs to be a trust level of how that works and there are avenues within this that, if you don't like the outcome, you can go the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council and have a second or third opinion. Member Strom asked if the code flexibility applied to any old structure or just to designated landmark structures. Mr. Mattatall stated that it would only apply to a structure that was considered contributing within a district. He stated that the UBC may have a policy of any building over 50 years old but could not clarify that interpretation. Member Cottier asked about a comment in the memo in discussing the issue of interim conservation districts and that was needed because changes might jeopardize the ability to get landmark designation in the future. Mr. Mattatall responded that if the guidelines were not there, if the ability for the review is not there, there may be people that come in with changes to potential landmark structures that do not follow what is suggested in the guidelines. In two years, when the adoption process for the district occurs and they decide they want to go for the tax credits or some other incentive related to that, the determination may be that they did an inappropriate restoration and would not qualify for that. Member Cottier asked that if changes were done to an individual structure, would it jeopardize designation of the district. Mr. Mattatall replied that this would be possible but would probably be based on a percentage as in the National Register guidelines. Member Carnes stated that he was the Board liaison for the project. He believed this is still a deadline project and that a lot of progress has been made but more progress needed to be made to make citizens more aware of the document and to make more improvements in the document. He spoke on the fact that CSU enrollment would be increasing and these parts of town are in real jeopardy of losing their integrity. He believed that if something reasonable was not done to head that off, this could happen. Member Carnes commented that there is no protection for any structure that has not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 19 been designated as a local historic landmark for areas that may potentially become landmark districts. This presents a special danger for those who would not be as concerned as many of the residents about maintaining what few historic structures we may have. Time should be taken to do this properly so the majority of the citizens in these areas understand what is going on and that guidelines are as good as we can make them. He strongly believed that if it took another month or two to do it right, this is what the Board's recommendation should be. Member Bell commented that she was a little overwhelmed at first with the way this was presented and it has taken her a few readings to get a handle on it. She believed that the document should be simplified to some degree. She agreed with Board members that there are a lot of ambiguous areas where it is unclear exactly what the expectation, is. She was unsure that they have the document they are wanting at this point but it was the right track and a good start. She added that if it does take another month or two to get it refined, she was in favor of it. Member Fontane commented that she was taking a more global view of this document. She recognizes that this process is still in progress. She believed that a lot of good things have come from the discussion in front of the Planning and Zoning Board and that information will improve this document and the Board's role is to say "yes" , the document is good and that everyone has recognized that there are areas that need to be improved. She is in support of this document going on to City Council and wanted everyone to recognize that the Board is not committing to this document as it sits right now but worth going forward with. Member Walker commented that we are all subject to various regulations within the City. It was recognized long ago in the East and West Side Plans that these areas are special resources for the community and need special attention and they have been neglected. These areas are coming under increased pressure and the community needs to treat them in a very special manner. It is known that CSU will be expanding and the question is where are those residents going to live and how will they be accommodated. He commented that one obvious answer will be that they will be accommodated in the surrounding area. He questioned if that suggested that certain areas will be scraped off and, as a community, this document is trying to address that. Member Walker believed that everybody recognized the uniqueness of these areas and wants some protection and aren't quite sure how to do it. We must have a reflection of . what the community needs and what the neighborhood wants to preserve and this document goes along way to start to write that down. He believed that this was a first shot at getting the ideas in place but may need some clarification and how they should Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 20 be implemented is questionable. He questioned if they should be educational, voluntary, mandatory and he would like to see a combination of all of these elements. It was very important to get the right balance of mandatory, voluntary and educational aspects of this. He believed that this document should be looked at as an evolving document and this was not the last stop on the road. He likes what has been done and a step in the right direction and what would be the best way as a community we can implement them. Chairman Clements believed that a lot of the concern is what is the Planning and Zoning Board doing. She believed it needed to be looked at who is behind the work it takes to come up and address concerns and put together a document like this. It is the citizen committee made up of citizens of both these neighborhoods, made up of consultants and Staff and the Board always has a liaison to every committee. The Planning and Zoning Board is not coming up with this information - it is the citizens behind the scenes working and then bringing that document to the Board. She commented that it was important and a way to involve citizens in our community in government. Member Strom made a motion to approve the Resolution before the Board. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that he was concerned by some of the comments made tonight that the "government is doing this to us". First of all, they are citizen -appointed representatives and are appointed to look at these issues and give guidance to City Council. Council was responding when the Planning and Zoning Board was given a mandate to deal with this issue. They were responding from citizen pressure from the neighborhoods. This was not some kind of victorial mandate. He stated that they are the government and if someone does not like what the government is doing, they need to get involved in it and make a difference. Member Cottier was concerned about the motion and thought the changes they want to make should be clarified on where additional work is needed. She believed there needed to be a better balance between mandatory and voluntary. Member Strom responded that he was comfortable with the balance and if someone wasn't comfortable with it, then it should be postponed a month and review it in more detail and give Staff some guidance. Member Strom wanted to make a recommendation to City Council that an educational process on the order of the LDGS process. He recommended getting brochures published that give people an easy to look at, quick review. This is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 21 what this particular ordinance process deals with. Which would include things like the building code information. The second thing is that there needs to be a strong recommendation to City Council that the Board feels that their interpretation isn't required since the high end training piece is an important part of this process. Chairman Clements asked if those could be made as conditions on the first motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that could be added as additional provisions in the resolution. Member Strom, with the support of the second, added those conditions to his motion. Member Fontane accepted the conditions as the second. Member Bell stated she would like to see more of a pulling out of what the issue really was, but what they are trying to do is to protect these "ugly" things being put up on the backs of properties. She thought that should be out there and stated that what the streamlining and simplifying in part means to her, getting to the heart of the matter and then adding all the extra issues besides that. Member Cottier stated she was still struggling with the mandatory versus advisory. She thought everyone has supported what has been defined as the goals of this project in terms of what you want to see happen in the neighborhood. She was not sure whether it should be mandatory or advisory. Chairman Clements stated she would be supporting the motion. She was in support of the mandatory versus advisory as stated because of the fact that CSU is growing and will keep people from outside this community from coming in and leveling houses for apartments and to protect these neighborhoods. Deputy City Attorney Eckman read back the amendments to the resolution. The first is that the Board recommends to City Council that the City establish an educational process for educating the citizens on the standards and guidelines, with brochures and in the same way the Land Development Guidance System was implemented. The second was to provide design training for Staff. Member Carries suggested that City Council perhaps delay their decision, or extend the moratorium another month if it is felt by Staff and City Council to be appropriate. He also Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 22 suggested an evaluation, an update on the experience on this after a reasonable period of time, no longer than one year from the date it is adopted by City Council. He asked for a third and fourth amendment to the motion. Member Strom also added to the motion that an evaluation be done in a year to evaluate the system and guidelines. Member Fontane accepted the amendment as the second. Member Carries asked for a clarification on providing resources on the landmarking process and asked if the option needed to be part of this motion or as a separate motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that would take a separate motion. Member Cottier commented on the education of the Staff and neighborhood and if a brochure is developed, we still needed to make sure that educational information is distributed to realtors and the people who are considering purchasing homes so they know there is some design guidelines for homes in this area. Member Walker commented that through the process of developing the guidelines, the citizen input had been captured very well by the consultant. This was a reflection of what the standards are that this neighborhood represents. The content is well put together and the issue is more of how to go forward. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the three amendments to the resolution. He stated that one was to establish an educational process, two was providing the training and the third is to ask Staff to prepare an evaluation of this program after the passage of one year and report back to the Board with its findings. The motion passed 7-0. Chairman Clements reviewed the two options for a recommendation which included: 1) that in 1996, the landmark designation function should be funded and proceed on; and 2) that it would be advisory only and serve as an educational function. Member Carnes made a motion that the 1996 budget provide resources for the landmarking process and to create a survey to identify the structures that are historic or contribute to that in the specified areas recommended by the consultant and Staff. These districts are Holy Family, Mountain Avenue and Laurel School districts. In the interim until the survey is accomplished, because Planning and Zoning Board Minutes S May 22, 1995 Page 23 there is no inventory of historic sites, those three areas be designated as conservation districts and any structure over 50 years old be reviewed in the same manner that they would be reviewed in the survey. The idea would be that if City Council chooses to commit the resources to doing this landmarking process, and at the same time, identify and protect any structures which are deemed to have historic significance. If people would choose to do something to older structures in the interim, that would accelerate the process for that particular structure. Member Walker seconded the motion. Director Blanchard asked if the intent of the motion was that during the surveying process, if a change was proposed to a structure over 50 years old, we would ask them to hold on any changes until we complete the survey. Member Carnes replied no, that a special review would be done upon the requested change. Director Blanchard asked for clarification of special review, in terms of a compliance with the historic guidelines in the document. Member Carnes replied that whatever process is used to determine whether or not it is a contributing historic structure. Member Cottier asked if that would be evaluating the integrity of the structure in terms of the definition of "integrity" for historic buildings. She asked if it would be an easy thing to say yes or no to that a structure would be evaluated against the guidelines. Mr. Mattatall asked if, on an application of a building over 50 years old, the survey would be accelerated for that specific building. He stated that if there are 1300 historic structures but one of those comes in before the survey is completed, that becomes a priority in determining whether it is a contributing structure or not. Member Carnes replied that it gets a special review and determined whether it is a structure of concern. Member Strom asked about a time limit on the process. Mr. Mattatall replied that it would be about one week. He stated that to determine the integrity of the building would accelerate the survey process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 24 Member Strom asked what happens if it does have integrity. Mr. Mattatall replied that it would be considered a contributing structure and the rehab guidelines would then apply. Member Strom stated that he was not comfortable with the motion because he did not understand the process well enough to know what they are doing. Member Carnes stated that the reason he made the motion was for some protection for the historic values that are out there. He stated that another reason for the motion was that it is interim, and without that protection, who knows what will happen to those structures. He requested that City Council be asked to make a real commitment to identify and protect those resources which exist but if City Council is not willing to make that commitment, then it doesn't really matter. City Council needs to be asked to make the decision whether they are committed to protecting resources in this area of the community. Member Walker stated that he supported this motion because it is asking City Council to do something with these design standards and guidelines in the next month. He stated that whatever form it is passed in, it becomes part of our system of planning. The intent is that we need some interim measure to deal with this historical structure resource that changes can be responded to. He added that there needs to be a mechanism to at least have a way to get something in place while we can clarify these issues of what is a landmark district and what is a contributing structure. Member Bell asked if this process of evaluating these homes could take as long as three years and asked for clarification of how long it would take. Director Blanchard replied that, with the existing Staff, and City Council committing resources to bring someone in to do historical surveys, it would take approximately one year. Member Cottier asked if these landmarking districts could be surveyed and, if it is determined that there are not enough or some certain percentage of contributing structures, would it not qualify as a district. Director Blanchard replied that according to our historic preservation office, when you landmark a district, it requires that a finding be made of over 50% of the structures qualify as contributing and that over 50% of the homeowners agree. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 25 Member Cottier asked if, in the interim, a structure would be made to live up to the guidelines, which after the fact, would not apply because the district might not qualify as a district. Director Blanchard replied that the way he understood the motion that would be correct. Mr. Mattatall added that it was a possibility, but for clarification, the survey process is a continuation. There already has been some surveying done about the number of structures, and what needs to happen now is further definition to that survey to be certain of the information that is used when the adoption process occurs. He added that there is a strong indication from the preservation plan in 1994 and the previous neighborhood plans, and one has already been designated as a national district, that there is a good percentage that could qualify. Member Carnes stated that if the structures have been there for 50 years and if we are talking about another year, he could not believe that it was that critical as an interim . thing, but it could be real critical if people are anticipating something. He stated that it was prudent for one year or less to provide some measure of protection. Member Bell stated she was under the impression that people have to volunteer to have this occur. Director Blanchard replied that conservation districts require over 50% be identified as contributing structures which is what Mr. Mattatall addressed. He stated that initial r surveys have been done and that it needs to be verified. He added that there is also a public process in the designation which involves the agreement of the property owners. Chairman Clements asked if there would be a benefit of tax incentives and grant opportunities. Director Blanchard replied yes. Member Bell asked if the property owners are already protected in that they can say yes or no in the end result. Director Blanchard replied there would be a majority agreement. • Mr. Mattatall asked that Deputy City Attorney Eckman verify the 50% requirement. He stated that it should be based on Fort Collins' local ordinance. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 26 Member Strom stated he was concerned with balance and whether this motion establishes the "stick without the carrot" theory and he believed the balance needed to be there. He questioned whether a hurry up survey on one structure in a potential district would qualify for the tax incentives. Mr. Mattatall stated that the changes made to the guidelines were that they not do the conservation districts because the incentives do not exist. He stated that the balance to that is Member Carnes' motion that there needs to be some stop gap measure so that all of a sudden that window of opportunity exists, you don't see a flood of people coming and trying to make changes to their structure before the districts are established. Chairman Clements asked why they would do that if there are no incentives. Mr. Mattatall replied that the district would not exist and the guidelines would not apply to historic structures until the districts were adopted for the mandatory compliance of rehab. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated his examination of the Code did not lead him to that conclusion. He stated that it does not take a consent of 50% of the owners. He added that under the Code, it can be created without the consent of the owners, just as an individual landmark structure is established without the consent of the owners. Mr. Eckman cited the verbiage from the Code and that ultimately, it lands in the lap of City Council for designation. Mr. Mattatall added that what Mr. Eckman was referring to was a landmark district and' what Member Carnes referred to was a conservation district which is not mentioned in the Code. He added that the prevalent process throughout the country for conservation districts was to have some sort of consent of the property owners. Member Cottier asked if it would be easier to have the Landmark Preservation Commission define that these are landmark districts and anyone that wants to do anything should appeal if they don't think they are a contributing structure. Chairman Clements asked for clarification on applying for designation yourself as a local landmark to receive tax credits. Mr. Mattatall replied that the criteria for a landmark is much more stringent than the criteria for a contributing structure. An application could be made, but the incentives that are available, eventually if there was a district, would go to all contributing structures. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that the Landmark Preservation Commission • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 27 cannot, by fiat, declare a district because they have to make a finding that the district fits the criteria to justify it to be a district, otherwise, their decision would be arbitrary and capricious. He stated that this is what the factual information is for, to support that finding. Chairman Clements asked why the Landmark Preservation Commission has not heard this and made a recommendation. Director Blanchard replied that tomorrow evening they are to review the guidelines. Member Carnes offered to modify the motion that, with the concurrence of the Landmark Preservation Commission, they would endorse the Board's motion and pass it along or it would stop. Member Cottier believed that it might be better to recommend a time frame for when this survey would be completed while recognizing that within that interim period something . may happen. We would also have protection from total demolition with the Demolition Delay Ordinance. She stated that would put City Council's feet to the fire to get designation done within a year's time. She stated she would feel more comfortable with a recommendation like this because of the uncertainties of what could end up to be non - designation of a district and what we may require people to do in the interim. Chairman Clements asked if Member Cottier wanted to make a friendly amendment. Member Cottier amended the motion by stating that the landmarking district designation will be accomplished within a year's time and in the interim there will not be historical review of properties but the demolition delay ordinance would be in effect. Member Fontane was concerned that the Board was providing the governmental control that the citizens were discussing this evening. Member Strom offered an amendment by stating that in the interim a mandatory review but not mandatory compliance on any structure would apply on an application that comes in. He was concerned with the lack of public process in this particular piece. • Member Carnes did not accept the amendment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 28 Member Walker believed that the Board was trying to deal with protecting the integrity of the structures. Member Cames was very receptive to that and asked the consultant if that was a practical distinction. Mr. Mattatall replied that this is the intent of the survey. He stated that it defines the significant elements and that it would be difficult to do a blanket statement that these are the characters defining elements that decide the integrity and these don't. He stated that it is different for each structure. Member Fontane asked if the motion, as it stands now, would require someone to do something that was not appropriate. Mr. Mattatall responded that the survey would determine what would be required and would be appropriate at that time. He stated the possibility would be that down the line, City Council may say that they are not going to adopt the district, and that person had to go through a more stringent review than someone else would in the future. Member Cottier asked with respect to qualifying for incentives or grants, could that be done retroactively if the area is under consideration for district designation. Mr. Mattatall replied no. The motion was denied 5-2 with Members Carnes and Walker voting for the motion. Member Strom made a motion to recommend to City Council that they go forward with the designation and not be done later than the calendar year 1996, and in the interim period, if a structure in this district comes in, there should be, within a one week time frame, a spot survey completed for this structure for the owner that wants to do a modification, and that if it is determined to be a contributing, still having its integrity so it is a potential contributing structure, that there be a mandatory review with City/Owner component going through the intent and purpose of both standards and guidelines, but not considered mandatory unless the district is designated. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 29 Member Cotner made a motion to recommend to City Council to adopt the Implementation Ordinance. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. ,73 JT4 =1 J=R11 . .. eZ11101AIW14_.=I 14 171103NOWp Planner Mike Ludwig gave a summary of the proposed project with Staff recommending denial due to the project failing to meet Criteria 1 of the Residential Uses Point Chart and All Development Criteria A 1.2 of the LDGS.. Jeani Marsee, 1320 Southridge Drive and applicant, stated that this project did meet 90 of the 100 points required for approval. She stated that they would rent this apartment to a single mother or father with a child, not to several single college students. She added that the neighborhood was in favor of this project. She believed that they are complying with regulations and that they would removing one car from the street with the addition of a garage. She stated that the majority of the homes in the area are rental units. CITIZEN INPUT Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association and member of the West Central Neighborhoods Advisory Committee, stated that the association opposes residential zoning changes such as this project. This area is currently the most densely populated area of the city. She questioned how much of the City's population and density loads should the neighborhoods next to CSU carry. How much longer will city policies, which are transportation and air quality driven, attempt to dictate that this area of the city is to bear the brunt of these policies at great sacrifice to the quality of our neighborhoods. She stated that they request that the Board deny approval of this project. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairman Clements asked what is the current mechanism for a citizen complaint should there be illegal renters in the neighborhood. • Mr. Ludwig replied that the process would be through the Building Inspections and Zoning Department as a zoning violation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 30 Chairman Clements asked if there were any neighborhood comments or concerns regarding the revised plan. Mr. Ludwig stated that Staff did not receive any calls regarding the revised plan. He stated that initially the applicant proposed a two story addition which Staff had concerns with meeting the architectural compatibility of the neighborhood. He stated that in discussions with the applicant, it was suggested that a basement apartment be proposed. The majority of the letters received opposed a second dwelling unit being added, not just a two story addition. Member Walker observed that the point is set up to suggest, in this situation, what is being asked to be done is somehow more than the system is comfortable allowing. He believed that this proposal is overstepping the limits of what the system is interpreted by the LDGS. The criteria isn't there to grant a variance. He was uncomfortable with this project and believed it was not in character with the residential area. Member Bell commented that she could relate to the applicant wanting this project however the spot zoning aspect should not occur. Member Walker stated that in the meetings with the West Central Neighborhood Committee, which he is the P&Z liaison, this type of area is one of the areas that is of concern in the planning process because the older ranch style homes need improvements. But how is the vitality kept in this neighborhood. Member Cottier stated that this was a problematic situation. She stated that the Board grants variances to the point chart quite often. She had concerns with the compatibility with the neighborhood and has no opposition if there is no objections to the physical appearance of the residence. She appreciated the idea of wanting to preserve the character of the neighborhood however, if this is one of the few owner -occupied structures in the neighborhood, this would be another inconsistent criticism. Member Strom commented that if he were to vote for a change in the point chart for this property, he would question what grounds he would have for not voting for all the neighbors to do the same thing. Member Cottier replied that she, personally, would review them on a case -by -case basis based on the architectural impact in terms of changing the physical appearance of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 31 neighborhood. She believed this would be a more significant evaluation of the character of the neighborhood. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that, in reviewing the variance, there is a two part test, one being to decide whether the granting of a variance would be detrimental to the public good or would impair the intents and purposes of the LDGS and the other part being finding whether one of the four circumstances to exist regarding the granting of the variance, whether it be an unusual circumstance that creates a hardship or "equal to or greater than". He added that there is nothing in the Staff Report nor presented in the way of facts to support Item 3, that the project does not comply with Criteria A 1.2. He suggested that whatever motion is made, that this not be one of the findings. Member Strom responded to Member Cottier's statement by stating he believed there was more to a neighborhood character than visual character. He did not believe that one or two additional cars would be a problem but, on the same basis, he does not find anything unusual about this property compared to other properties in the neighborhood. Member Fontane stated that the majority of the housing is rental units and the character of the neighborhood has already been set. Member Walker stated that there was no finding of fact along those lines and if that were the case, it is an illegal situation which the Board cannot base their case on. Member Carnes concurred with Member Cottier that it would not alter the appearance of the neighborhood. He added that if this were to set a precedence for doing this elsewhere in the neighborhood, he believed that the only place to have this would be on a comer lot. He believed that a basement apartment would be the most affordable in the community. He was concerned about the future redevelopment of the neighborhood if this should occur. Member Strom responded to Member Carnes' comment regarding placing this on a corner lot, that there is no requirement that an apartment has to have direct access to the street or alley. Ms. Marsee stated that the setbacks on the sides of the houses are not wide enough to allow for a garage. She stated that if they moved their house west they would receive more points on the chart and if they moved it towards Prospect, they would be in another zoning area. She stated that they are capable of doing this application under the standards required because of the size yard they have being a comer lot. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 32 Member Cottier asked for more information about the restrictive covenants that expired. Ms. Marsee replied that the covenants stated that an additional two-story would have to be granted. The covenants were established in the early 1960s and would expire 20 years after that unless the neighborhood upheld them, which they did not. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Board needs to address the variance request as a separate motion. Member Walker moved to deny the variance request due to a lack of criteria for granting such a variance request. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she would not support the motion because the reason for granting a variance is that it would be detrimental to the public good and that the plan submitted is "equal to or better than" because the plan submitted has no visual impact. She believed that Ms. Marsee's points that moving the house either direction are significant and that if they were willing to commit income guidelines for affordable housing they would have the points made. The motion to deny the request did not carry on a vote of 4-3 with Members Cottier, Fontana, Carnes and Bell in the negative. Member Cottier moved to grant the variance on the grounds that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plans submitted are "equal to or better than" such a plan incorporating provisions for which a variance is requested. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Walker, Strom and Clements in the negative. Member Cottier moved to approve Marsee PUD Preliminary and Final. Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she was persuaded because of the nature of the surrounding area, which is primarily rental, and her interpretation of the point chart in not substantiating the requirement for a variance. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 1101 May 22, 1995 Page 33 Member Clements stated that she understood where the Board members were coming from and is supportive of overall planning and putting her weight behind the West Central Neighborhood Plan. She would like to have this plan in place before spot zoning occurs. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Walker, Strom and Clements in the negative. Planner Ted Shepard gave a summary of the referral with Staff recommending approval. Member Strom asked for a summary of the response from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Shepard stated that the response from the neighbors that attended the meeting, as well as the formal response from the Five Oaks Village Homeowners Association, was • positive. He added that they believed it was in the long term maintenance interest to go to more drought -tolerant species and to finish the pond. He stated that this pond needs to be established before the City will take over maintenance, which is two growing seasons and is through irrigation. Member Carries asked if the path that connects to Gunnison Drive is going to be access granted. Mr. Shepard stated that there was no discussion regarding this. He stated the path is part of a platted mufti -family project. This request does not include any platted easements and that it will wind its way through a private development. Glen Schlueter, City Storm Water Department, stated that in order for the City to take over the maintenance, Tract 2 will be deeded to the City soft will become public property. CITIZEN INPUT Eric Fellers, who lives north of the detention pond, stated that he has lived next to this unfinished pond for over 10 years and fully supports what the applicant is wanting to do with the pond. He encouraged the City to be financially involved in this pond. is CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 34 Chairman Clements asked what guarantees there are that this pond would be completed. Mr. Schlueter replied that the present developer, in order to receive any more building permits, has already put up a bond for 1 and '/2 times the cost of the improvements. He added that this particular phase of the subdivision had been built out to where the City would require 25% of the buildings to be built. He stated that the developer wanted to wait until the next cul-de-sac is constructed. There are no guarantees other than building permits or escrows. Chairman Clements asked if time frames can be imposed and if this a current need given the area. Mr. Schlueter stated that detention outlets are in place and the pond has been filled. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the City is approaching this in the proper manner with building permits and escrows. He did not believe that it would be proper to impose an unreasonable burden on this developer just because other developers have not contributed in earlier times. Mr. Schlueter stated that the developer can pull building permits because he has escrowed the money. Member Cottier asked that even though the developer has escrowed the money, does that mean the Board can not tell him to finish the pond. Mr. Shepard replied that part of the construction sequence is that by waiting until the last building permit is issued, the developer does not have to go in and rebuild the pond twice in its finished state. This is the purpose of holding the escrow. If the market moves along, the improvements get done and if the market doesn't move very well, the escrow is cashed in and the pond gets completed. Member Cottier asked what is the City's deadline. Mr. Shepard replied that if the market pronounces the project dead, the escrow would be cashed in and then the work would be completed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • May 22, 1995 Page 35 Member Carnes asked how many phases there were to this development. Mr. Schlueter replied that there were only two phases to begin with of which this is the final phase. Twenty five percent of the development was built in the first phase. He added that there is only one cul-de-sac and one storm sewer remaining to be built. Chairman Clements asked if this was the same developer as with the first phase. Mr. Schlueter replied that this is a different developer. Member Carnes asked if this developer has already escrowed funds for the planned improvements and would he pull money out of escrow if this is approved. Mr. Schlueter replied that the money the developer escrowed was for a dry land seed mix and pan improvements. • Member Carnes asked why the developer hasn't escrowed money for what is already approved. Mr. Schlueter responded that the City evaluated what it would take to get the detention pond up to standards before the City takes it over and this is the amount that the developer put into escrow. Member Cottier asked if the detention pond would have to be redone based on1he construction activity on the last cul-de-sac and why would this happen. Mr. Shepard replied that the pond would have to be redone. The reason for redoing the pond would be due to the act of digging foundations, grading the streets, putting in storm sewers, which are all something of a gross nature versus a fine grain nature. He added that the heavy equipment needs to move around and maneuver in a small area. This is a typical construction sequence where the heavy construction is completed first then final seed is placed in the detention pond. Member Strom moved to approve Five Oaks Village/Cunningham Corners Detention Pond Referral of an Administrative Change. Member Fontane seconded the motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 36 Member Cottier suggested that there be an amendment to the motion that the City will do the improvements within one year if the developer has not completed them. She believed that Mr. Fellers' points are well taken in that the improvements have been promised but nothing has been done. Member Strom stated that he would support the amendment to the motion and believed that there is a flaw in the system if these projects don't get done and are not enforced. Member Fontane stated that placing a time frame of one year doesn't make sense if the developer is still working on the project, to have the City finish it off and then it gets torn up to where it needs to be redone when the project is finished. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that what the Board needs to think about with the escrows is what are the terms of the escrow agreement because the terms might not allow someone to draw on it within one year. If this was the agreement, the City would not have access to the funds. Mr. Schlueter stated that basically the agreement states that if the developer does not perform, the City can use the money. He added that this would have to be taken to City Council for appropriations before the money can be spent by the City. Mr. Shepard stated that the City is making a substantial long term maintenance obligation by taking over this pond and that the developer needs to deliver it to the City before perpetual maintenance is performed. He had concerns with doing something that is beyond what is normal and customary, therefore penalizing the developer at the expense of the misdeeds of the previous developer. He did not see an urgent need to something that is not normal and customary and that the developer has not demonstrated any bad faith effort. Member Strom understood Mr. Shepard's concerns but believed that the neighborhood also understands that it has not been done so if there is a way to speed the process, he would encourage that it be done. Chairman Clements clarified the motion of approval with an effort to encourage that the detention pond be completed in a reasonable time frame. Motion passed 7-0. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.