HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/26/1990• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
(Continuation of September 24, 1990 Meeting)
The meeting is called to order at 6:35 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue,
City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Members present included Chairman
Jim Klataske, Vice -Chairman Bernie Strom, Joseph Carroll, Laurie
O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Legal
Representative Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard.
Chairman Klataske stated that if anyone in the audience wished to
address the Board, they should sign their name on the sign-up
sheet. The Board would have those who signed up speak first. If
anyone who did not sign-up should wish to speak, they would be
called next.
#37-90 - EAST SIDE/WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS - REZONINGS
Ken Waido gave a description of the existing and proposed zonings
of the east side and west side neighborhoods. He stated that staff
recommended approval based on the following findings:
1. The primary criteria for evaluating rezoning requests is
• the request's compliance with the officially adopted elements of
the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning regulations,
zoning district boundaries, and amendments ar based specifically on
the policies of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the West Side
Neighborhood Plan plans which have been officially adopted by the
City Council and Planning and Zoning Board.
2. A written notice was sent to every property owner within
the areas of the proposed rezonings as required by Section 29-44 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins. This notice (via letter dated
July 30, 1990) identified the date, time, and place of the Public
Hearing required by the Planning and Zoning Board.
3. The existing zoning districts for the areas covered by the
East and West Side Plans were established in 1965. There have been
considerable changes of conditions within the City of Fort Collins
over the past 25 years. The city has grown from a population of
about 34,000 in 1965 to almost 89,000 in 1990. The nature of the
downtown CBD has changed, losing its predominance in the community
as a retail center, to become a more service, office, financial,
and government center. The existing zoning districts have undergone
some incremental changes since 1965 in an attempt to reflect
regulatory techniques consistent with more current market demands
and neighborhood resident attitudes. Time and experience have
demonstrated that the existing zoning is unwise and in need of
change.
0
4. There are adequate transportation, recreation,
educational, utilities, and other facilities in the area to
accommodate the uses permitted in the new zones. In some instances,
the reduction of densities and intensity of allowed uses will ease
the burden on existing services and facilities.
5. The East and West Side Plans, along with the Downtown
Plan, have designated certain areas within the neighborhoods for
higher density residential and non-residential land uses. These
uses are needed to promote city-wide policies designed to maintain
the vitality of the downtown commercial CBD. The new zones are
designed to encourage these uses in the appropriate areas within
the neighborhoods.
6. The impact of the rezonings will have a positive effect on
the immediate neighborhood without being detrimental to the city as
a whole. As indicated above, higher density and non-residential
land uses will be allowed within the areas of the neighborhoods
deemed appropriate for those uses.
Member O'Dell asked what the allowed other uses were in the B-L
Zone.
Mr. Waido replied that BL's list of uses allowed consist of 17 uses
which included banks, savings and loan finance companies, standard
and fast food restaurants, indoor theaters, membership clubs,
office and clinics, personal service shops, retail stores, laundry
and dry cleaning outlets whose business consisted of serving retail
customers, limited indoor recreational uses provided that all such
activities are conducted entirely within an enclosed structure,
small animal veterinary clinics, aquarium shops, public utility
installations excluding repair and storage facilities, accessory
buildings and uses, churches provided that such uses follow the lot
area front yard, rear yard, side yard and off-street parking
requirements as set forth in Section 29-201 in the City Code,
shopping centers consisting of any of the above uses subject to
being shown on a PUD, child care centers provided that a site plan
is submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning, and any
land use located on a PUD as defined in the process according to
Section 29-526 of the City Code which is the LDGS.
Member Cottier asked if child care centers would be allowed in the
NCS zone.
Mr. Waido replied that they would not be allowed but in -home day
care operations would be allowed as a home occupation.
PUBLIC INPUT
Chuck Bowling stated that he agreed that the residential
neighborhoods of this city do need proper protection. However,
additional study is needed. He had concerns about some of the areas
• included in the zoning concepts. These concerns were: 1) the area
bordering the downtown area and the business area. He believed that
the downtown area is still strong and the bordering areas of
downtown should be removed from the plan and considered part of the
overall downtown plan; 2) the Riverside and Lemay area should have
greater uses allowed than what is proposed and be considered
separate from the existing areas and with the downtown plan, and;
3) the area around CSU should be further studied. He had concerns
with the non -conforming use requirements and needs more study.
Don Shannon stated that he had concerns with the vastness of these
proposed rezoning plans. He stated that the LDGS does work but
these.plans are inconsistent with the system. He presented slides
which showed residential homes and apartments in various parts of
the city that fit into their perspective neighborhoods and how the
proposed rezonings could affect them. He pointed out that mixed
type of housing could be used in the downtown area that are needed
and could support the downtown area. He encouraged the Board to
study this plan further and to follow the LDGS to keep the option
of the PUD with more than four units.
Ron Walling, United Bank, stated he believed the non -conforming
uses properties would face obstacles and limitations related to
future financing, whether refinancing for expansion or improvement
or for new financing to facilitate a sale. The predominant
• influence in a commercial or multi -family real estate loan decision
is related to the income stream produced by the property and its
market value. These are the primary and secondary sources of loan
repayment. Lenders would consider the lower potential economic
benefits of the conforming or lower use as opposed to its current
use which would result in a reduction or limitation of available
financing with a non -conforming property. He encouraged the Board
to consider this in the deliberations of their decision.He
presented a map of the downtown area which depicted non -conforming
uses. He stated that this map graphically exemplified the nature of
the problem and where they exist.
Mr. Waido stated that the map that Mr. Walling presented is the
same map that staff had presented with the exception that the areas
that were not surveyed are colored in gold on the staff map. There
is no gold color on Mr. Walling's map.
Larry Stroud, Miscio & Stroud Investors, stated that he viewed this
plan, in some ways, as very positive in reaching certain goals and
objectives, and as a threat to the vitality in the long term
viability of the downtown and surrounding areas. He suggested that
the Board keep a broad perspective of the whole city when reviewing
this plan. He felt that the plan is inadequate in protecting the
downtown area and that the character should be maintained. He felt
that this plan encouraged sprawl and discouraged the diversity of
family housing. He suggested that 1) time be taken to include the
• downtown area within the plan, 2) that the Riverside Avenue area be
included as an artery and as a potential area for business areas as
well as parts of Mulberry, 3) that the single family areas stay as
proposed, and 4) that the R-H and R-M areas stay as they currently
exist.
Jim Martell, Downtown Development Authority Chairman, stated that
the DDA has not had the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposal. He stated that he recognized that this rezoning does not
include the downtown area or property within the boundaries of the
DDA except at College and Laurel. He felt that portions of this may
have a significant impact on the downtown area. He suggested that
the Board table the portion of the plan that relates to the buffer
areas to allow additional study and discussion and to permit the
DDA input.
Gerald Benson, 835 Riverside, stated that he had concerns about
widening Riverside to six lanes. He felt that property values would
be downgraded when the city purchases these properties for the
proposed 40 foot easement. If 40 feet were taken from his property,
he would have nothing left that would be useable. He felt that the
plan's boundary should go beyond Mountain Avenue and not limit it
to a certain section of Riverside. He stated that single family
dwellings are all along Riverside and the B-L zoning would not
allow single family dwellings. The existing homes can stay but the
selling value would decrease greatly. He questioned that when his
property would be evaluated by changing the zoning, when would his
property be changed for tax purposes.
Tom Milan, property at 407 Riverside, believed that this is just an
idea with no plan. There is no auto repair or sales, building
supplies or lumber yards allowed on Riverside to Prospect. He
listed several businesses that exist along Riverside to Prospect
that would not be affected by the proposed rezonings. He encouraged
the Board to review this proposal further.
Larry Kennedy, property owner at 428 Maple, stated that these
proposed changes would decrease his property value. He stated that
he is one of about five strictly transmission shops in the city. He
presented to the Board a petition of people who are against the
rezonings in the West Side area.
Member Carroll asked how the PUD process is limited and not limited
in these zones.
Mr. Waido replied that each existing zoning district is listed
according to the PUD code. The proposed zones change the PUD code
significantly given the fact that current zones allow any land use
to be proposed anywhere. The NCS zone eliminates the PUD process
totally. The only uses allowed in the NCS zone are the eight uses
listed as uses -by -right within that zoning district. The NCM zone
has the PUD process as a listed process however, it limits the PUD
process to only the uses allowed in the NCM zone which are
• residential units up to and including a four-plex and accessory
uses such as churches, schools, etc. The NCB zone is similar to the
NCM zone in its affect on a PUD. It does include the PUD process
but it limits it to the uses defined as uses -by -right in the NCB
zone which includes multi -family up to a four-plex, sororities,
fraternities, undertaking establishments, professional offices,
clinics, etc. The PUD system can be used in the NCB zone to propose
multi -family residential projects up to 24 units per acre. The BL
zone uses could be proposed through the PUD process.
Member O'Dell asked if there are plans for widening Riverside
Avenue.
Mr. Waido stated that all of the major streets in Fort Collins are
presently under re -review under the Transportation Plan. This plan
is to update the city's Master Street Plan. Analysis is currently
being done. Currently, Riverside Avenue is an arterial street and
will eventually be a six -lane facility. He stated that when a
property comes into the city for redevelopment, the Engineering
Department does ask that sufficient additional right-of-way be
dedicated for the eventual classification of the street.
Member O'Dell asked if a 40 foot right-of-way is requested by the
city, what would happen with the triangular -shaped properties along
Riverside Avenue.
• Mr. Waido stated that the East Side Plan postulates the closing of
some of the three-way intersections in an attempt to stop traffic
from transversing the neighborhood.
Paul Eckman stated that if a property is required to dedicate for
street right-of-way purposes in such a way to leave a large part of
the property without any reasonable economic use, the entire
property would be taken. The courts have enunciated the rule that
the governmental entity can require as a dedication without payment
only the portion of the right-of-way as is necessary because of the
impacts of the development itself. The government can also require
construction of necessary streets to compensate for the impact of
the development. As far as whether other public streets can be
vacated to compensated to make up the difference for that which is
dedicated to cover the impacts, it may not work because there is a
statutory mechanism whereby vacations are to be done and typically
that provides that the street would be divided down the middle.
Member Cottier asked, with the PUD restrictions proposed limiting
multi -family to four-plexes, if the NCB zone is also limited to
four-plexes.
Mr. Waido replied that there is a limitation in the NCB zone to 24
units per acre.
• Member O'Dell made a motion to hear only public input this evening
and to continue the East Side/West Hide Neighborhood Plans
discussion and voting to the November 19, 1990 regular meeting.
Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Bill Setzer, 314 North Sherwood, stated that he is opposed to this
proposed plan because several places would not be in compliance in
his neighborhood. He questioned as to how long it would be before
the existing places would be told they are not in compliance and
would have to be changed.
Herb Heineman, 308 North Sherwood, stated that the area in which he
lives should stay as currently zoned. He stated that this is an old
neighborhood and changing it would create a hardship on the current
residents.
Jean Kamal, property owner of 608 West Laurel and 645 South
Whitcomb, presented a letter to the Board. She stated she had
concerns with the two different zonings between her property and
the property next to hers.
Paul Harder, East Side property owner, stated that he had concerns
with this proposed plan being reviewed only for certain parts of
the city and affecting only one side of designated streets and not
the other side. The downzoning of just some of the land is not
practical. He felt that this is not what is needed in these
neighborhoods.
Joe Meyer and Bonnie Matter, property owners of 1005 E. Laurel,
stated that they opposed any zoning changes to their property
because it would be taking away and limiting certain people's
properties.
Barbara Gill, 707-709 E. Magnolia, stated that she is violently
opposed to the proposed plans. She urged the Board to talk with the
property owners, particularly along Riverside, and looking at the
economic impact that this proposal would have on the businesses,
property owners and the downtown area.
Chairman Klataske stated that Don Richmond had signed up to speak
but had to leave. However, he submitted a petition opposing the
proposal.
Willard Solfermoser, retired CSU employee and resident, stated that
he concurred with Mr. Bowling, Mr. Shannon, Mr. Walling and Mr.
Stroud. He urged the Board to reconsider this proposal.
Chairman Klataske stated that Ernest Marine, owner of the Paint
Place on Myrtle, was not present to speak but was opposed to the
proposed plan.
Craig Hau, real estate broker and resident of Fort Collins, stated
that he supports the rights of people and property owners to
• protect their homes and have a say in what happens in their general
neighborhoods. He believed that the plans were misguided and short-
sighted and would devastate property values and unfairly restrict
future of rehabilitation in these areas and drive growth out. He
stated that the NCS zone goes against the mixed -use guidelines and
goals of the city. The downzoning of neighborhoods should be at the
request of the residents. He did not believe that this was good for
the city's best interest or the property owners. He stated that
these plans are a blatant attempt by an out -of -control city
planning staff to eliminate all uses -by -right forcing all uses
except a single family house on a single family lot to go through
a complete planning process. He was opposed to these plans and
urged the Board to deny these plans or table them until they are
changed.
Chairman Klataske asked if the East Side/West Side Plan, in
reference to the downzoning, derive from the neighborhood plans as
an implementation tool for those plans.
Mr. Waido stated that the zones, regulations in terms of allowable
uses, the boundaries are all consistent with the adopted plans.
Staff massaged some of the concepts in the plans that were similar
but were not exactly worded the same. The West Side Plan discussed
limiting residential redevelopment to a three-plex, not a four-
plex. The boundaries, in terms of the areas designated for buffer,
• are exactly as they are in the maps of the two neighborhood plans,
including the inconsistency that Mrs. Kamel discussed. He stated
that the neighborhood plans went through an elaborate process.
There were steering committees made up of residents, property
owners, and business interests. Those individuals of the steering
committees created draft documents of which went through very
lengthy processes and elaborate public reviews.
Chairman Klataske stated that Rhys Christensen submitted a letter
opposing the zoning changes.
Sanford Kern, 804 E. Elizabeth, stated that he presented a letter
to the Board which stated that the Board should give consideration
to the construction of Pinnock Street which would ease traffic to
and from the shopping center. He stated that he was on a steering
committee and the committee pleaded with the business community to
participate but only received one or two people interested. He
stated that if this area isn't changed, the businesses that depend
on the people will find the people leaving, the only kind of
businesses that will be able to survive will be those that depend
on highway business. He stated that he would like to see this as a
neighborhood that can survive which means a residential and
business component that would be inter -dependent.
Don Spangler, property owner on Riverside, stated that there would
be an adverse impact on downzoning the properties in the east side
• and west side. He believed the downzoning would lower the value on
most of the properties and would lessen the sale of the properties
both residential and commercial. The downzoning would also create
several more vacant buildings which would affect economics.
Jerry Moore, real estate appraiser, commented that many city -owned
properties were developed out of residential housing land. This
expansion of the central core is necessary to accommodate the
growth of the city. These properties have contributed value to the
City of Fort Collins. He believed the city needed to maintain an
inventory of land through zoning and the LDGS to provide a basis
for future expansion of the core area around the CBD and CSU. The
three areas designated by Mr. Stroud are worth reconsideration of
the Board.
Ed VanDriel, 1212 W. Mountain, stated that he was in support of the
rezoning to NCS in the West Side neighborhood.
With no other speakers, the Public Input portion of the meeting was
closed.
Member Strom asked about the legality of the non -conforming uses.
Mr. Waido stated that a non -conforming use under the Code for the
City of Fort Collins does not have to cease existence. There is no
statutory time limit if a use becomes legally non -conforming that
it has to cease its operation. Staff was aware of certain zoning
codes in certain parts of the United States that do have statutory
removal time frames on non -conforming uses.
Chairman Klataske stated that if people who were present at this
meeting wish to receive notification of the next Planning and
Zoning Board meeting, please let staff know. There will not be a
notification of all the people in the area. This continuation will
be the notification and notification will appear in the newspaper.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING POLICY
Mr. Waido stated that the SRO is a result of the City Council goals
to develop a single room occupancy housing policy for the city.
Staff developed a draft policy and presented it to City Council and
Council referred it back to various boards and commissions that
would be affected by that policy. This would become a policy of the
Comprehensive Plan therefore staff would ask the Board to make a
recommendation to Council with any addition comments or concerns
they may have. He stated the proposed policy states:
"It shall be the policy of the City of Fort Collins to require
replacement of SRO housing units lost or destroyed as a result
of development or redevelopment activity which receives
financial assistance from the City of Fort Collins.
"Financial assistance shall include, but not be limited to
• grants (Community Development Block Grants); loans (Section 17
Rental Rehabilitation loans); Capital Improvement Program
projects; or, bond financing (Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds, General Obligation Bonds, Tax Increment Financed
Projects, Special Improvement Districts, etc.)"
SRO dwelling units lost to development or redevelopment
activity shall be replaced one for one. The cost of
replacement shall be included within the overall project and
shall be the responsibility of the developer receiving
financial assistance from the City."
Mr. Waido stated that the following policy was also being proposed:
"It shall be the policy of the City of Fort Collins to require
the payment of relocation and moving expenses to families or
individuals who are involuntarily displaced as a result of SRO
housing units lost or destroyed as a result of development or
redevelopment activity which receives financial assistance
from the City of Fort Collins.
"Relocation and moving expenses shall include the actual
reasonable cost of moving (or a fixed stipend at the option of
the displaced family or individual) and the difference in
actual replacement housing costs not to exceed a fixed payment
• of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). The cost of relocation and
moving expenses shall be included within the overall project
and shall be the responsibility of the developer receiving
financial assistance from the City."
Member Cottier asked that if requirement of replacing any SRO units
lost, it appears that the City would be double -paying by replacing
their unit and paying moving and relocation expenses.
Mr. Waido stated that in the first part of the policy, it states
that the City would replace the unit to keep the stock of housing
at a constant level in the City. Then the City would take care of
the families that are displaced.
Member Cottier asked if the maximum relocation and moving payment
would be $500.
Mr. Waido stated that this was proposed in the policy. This can be
raised or lowered.
Chairman Klataske asked if the $500 was a fixed amount and if there
was a provision for a cost of living.
Mr. Waido replied that this could be modified through a
recommendation to City Council in the future.
0
Chairman Klataske asked if there are any provisions to pay for the
cost differential of replacing a unit with something that costs
more.
Mr. Waido stated that the clause regarding the replacement of units
should have a stipulation stating that for an certain period of
time they be rented at a comparable rate to the units that are
lost.
Member Carroll asked if this would be handled on a case -by -case
basis.
Mr. Waido replied that the policy would have to implemented in
various means. The application for financial assistance from the
City would have to contain a question or paragraph related to the
replacement of SRO units in the specific language in that granting
of that money, whether it be CDBG grant or loan, or whatever, so
that the cost and replacement of those units is included in the
project.
Member Carroll stated that he could not approve an iron -clad
requirement however could approve this proposed policy if it were
on a case -by -case basis.
Member Strom asked if the City has a current relocation policy.
Mr. Waido stated that the current policy is with federal monies or
actions by the Housing Authority. If we use CDBG funds, we have to
pay relocation expenses. If the Housing Authority uses HUD monies,
we have to pay relocation expenses. However, it does not extend to
any other local funding unless it is used in conjunction with
federal monies. Then additional federal monies going into the
project would make the local monies also subjective to the federal
regulations.
Member Strom asked what other cities have in the way of replacement
of SRO units.
Mr. Waido stated that the current way of solving the problem is to
throw additional federal money at the problem. If we loose SRO
housing through redevelopment and there is a need for that type of
housing, an agency would have to go through a process requesting
CDBG funds to purchase or renovate a building in which they can
therefore replace the SRO housing units. An example of this would
be the housing units above Black's Glass.
Member Strom asked if the Housing Authority was trying to achieve
additional SRO housing in any other fashion.
Mr. Frank stated that San Diego, California has an agency that
provides SRO by purchasing buildings and renovating them which is
done through leveraging of funds or there is a foundation for that
purpose. He believed there is a fee involved that is paid by this
0
• agency.
Mr. Waido stated that a fee was considered but staff decided to
present a stronger version.
Member Strom stated that, in general, he favored the policy but
would prefer more input from the DDA or Housing Authority on what
the effects of the policy might be.
Mr. Waido stated that the DDA and the Housing Authority are making
their recommendations and comments back to City Council.
Member Cottier asked what currently is .the maximum relocation
benefit that has been established for CDBG or Housing Authority
situations.
Mr. Waido stated that he believed it is part of the Uniformed
Relocation Acts which is part of the HUD regulations. He believed
that it is in the neighborhood of $500.
Member Cottier asked that for programs that are getting CDBG or
Housing Authority money, they are not required to replace the
units.
Mr. Waido stated that there is no replacement requirement. They
• would just have to pay the relocation. He stated that CDBG also
attempt to avoid projects that would require displacement of
families.
Member O'Dell commented that if there is a problem, there is a
problem and it is not tied to City funding. She stated that if a
policy is made and a developer makes use of city funding or not has
nothing to do with it. This could be fairly expensive. She believed
that it would be better not to use the city funding and develop on
our own then there wouldn't be any replacement of lost housing. The
goal is to replace lost housing. She would prefer to tie it to any
kind of development.
Member Walker commented that he concurred with Member O'Dell. He
approved the policy as stated in terms of requiring and replacement
and replacing one for one. He did not approve just saying what
should be a policy toward SROs and removing that aspect of it.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend a policy for City Council to
consider regarding the replacement of lost SRO housing units and
allow for relocation and moving expenses as suggested by staff that
need to be replaced as a result of redevelopment in any part of the
city.
Member Strom stated that he was not comfortable with expanding it
beyond publicly -funded projects.
40
Member O'Dell asked if there would be any opportunities for people
who are displaced to be relocated and for their moving expenses to
be paid, other than this policy being adopted.
Mr. Waido stated that there is a pool of money called the CDBG Fund
however, none of those monies have been specifically set aside in
a pool to pay relocation expenses to families who may be displaced.
The projects that are funded with CDBG attempt to not deal with
relocation.
Member Cottier asked if there are any other public assistance
monies that might be used for something such as this.
Mr. Waido stated no.
Member O'Dell amended her motion to state that SRO housing units
that are lost as a result of development need to be replaced at the
cost of the developer. Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated that this is a type of policy that would
potentially have an effect on a lot of people.
Member Cottier commented that she was concerned about forming a
policy when it was not certain what the need for SRO units was. She
believed that this was a response to help solve the homeless
problem.
Mr. Waido stated that this was an issue that has been around for
several years.
Member Carroll stated that he was opposed to the proposed policy.
Member Cottier asked if there were any hotels on North College that
would qualify.
Mr. Waido stated that he believed StoneCrest Hotel would be very
similar but they do not share common baths.
Chairman Klataske commented that this is a good policy and is
needed however he could not vote for this policy as proposed. He
stated that he would need further information.
The motion was denied 5-2 (O'Dell and Walker in the positive).
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
....1 .
•
:: VICTORIAN
GABLES .
...':
Y�
CLARENDON
.........:::::
:,
4th_&_
....::.:•� .:..
...._ . ,....... \
t.............
i
.. .. . ..........
... HARMONY CORRIDOR
HILLS SUEUIVISION ..
5th Filings-,-..
GREENS
CENTER GREENS
City Limits: 1.1.90
PWA
GAALLATIIA A