Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/19/1992• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 19, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m, in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, Rene Clements -Cooney, and Joe Carroll. Board members absent included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, and Jim Klataske. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson stated that in accordance with the bylaws, the Planning and Zoning Board will have to select a chairperson. Member Carroll nominated Laurie O'Dell to serve as the chairperson. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 4-0. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item I - West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD, Final, Case #51-88D was pulled for discussion; Item 2 - Paragon Point, Phase II, PUD, Final, Case #48-91C; Item 3 - Bridges II PUD, Amended Final, Case #132-79E; Item 4 - PZ92-15 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 5 - PZ92-16 Emergency Access Easement Vacation; Item 6 - Timberline Annexation and Zoning, Case #40-91A was pulled for discussion; Item 7 - Nordick Annexation and Zoning, Case #44-92A; Item 8 - Timnath Pit Special Review, County Referral, Case #48-92; Item 9 - Eagle Lake Subdivision Third and Fourth Filings, County Referral, Case #3-91B; and Item 10 - DFC Farms PUD Master Plan and Preliminary, County Referral, Case #51-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - West Side Neighborhood Plan Rezonings, Case #37-90; and Item 12 - Harmony Market PUD, 1st Bank, Preliminary and Final, Case #54-87F. Member Cottier moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 2-5 and 7-10. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 4-0. r1 U P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 2 WEST ELIZABETH PLAZA, KFC, PUD. FINAL - Case #51-88D Mr. Ted Shepard gave a detailed description of the project recommending approval with the condition that the development agreement and the utility plans be executed within sixty (60) days from tonight's hearing with the option of coming back to the Planning and Zoning Board to discuss those agreements, utility plans, or to request an extension. The Planning and Zoning Board would also like to discuss the mansard lighting on the site. Mr. Shepard also stated the owner of the Terraces (Mr. C.J. Streit) would be addressing some concerns he had in regard to vehicular access on the site. Member Clements -Cooney asked Mr. Shepard to display a slide of what the access concerns are that Mr. Streit alluded to. Mr. Shepard stated the possible vehicular access connection could cause some problem for the laundromat customers, Little Caesars pick up window, and traffic to Circle K and Block Buster Video. This presents safety concerns in terms of having this much activity in one parking lot. Mr. Shepard also stated that traffic entering and exiting the site could also be a potential problem. The left turns against arterial traffic during the peak hours are very difficult. Mr. Shepard felt that reducing the connection could be beneficial. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the Transportation Department felt that reducing the vehicular access to a pedestrian walkway would help alleviate some of the concern? She also asked if the Poudre Fire Authority had been notified about the change and does it meet their standards? Mr. Shepard stated that in speaking with Transportation, he found that it does not make much difference in terms of impact on the arterial streets. The idea is not to over load the arterials with internal traffic. He stated that he has not had the opportunity to discuss this with Poudre Fire Authority. Although there are situations where fire access is allowed for fire trucks through the use of chains or gates, but denied customer vehicular access. Member Cottier asked if the 20 percent increase in building square footage would be considered a minor increase and what increase is acceptable to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary? Mr. Shepard replied that it's still in substantial conformance. They would be increasing the seating capacity. That would be well accommodated by the parking spaces on site. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 3 Member Carroll commented that it was not discussed, at the worksession, the reduction of the thoroughfare to a bicycle/pedestrian access with access for fire/emergency vehicles. He understood that such a revision meets the planning criteria, the Transportation Department and the applicant have no problem with the revision and Mr. Streit would like this revision to occur. He asked if there has been anyone else who has surfaced and asked that it remain a vehicular access? Mr. Shepard stated that at Preliminary, the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart, credit was taken for joint parking. Mr. Shepard stated that he has taken away those points since there would be no vehicular access and the project still is in conformance. Member Carroll asked if any interest was given to have that access remain a thoroughfare? Mr. Shepard stated that he was not aware of any interest in regard to leaving the access as a thoroughfare. Mr. Paul Edstrom, MacGregor/Wathen Construction Company, explained that the original proposal had no vehicular access in between KFC and the Terraces and felt that having no joint vehicular access would not be a problem for this project. He stated that the reason for creating a joint vehicular access was due to the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and the Planning Department. He felt that there are more problems with shared parking at shopping centers and would prefer there not be any on this site. Mr. Edstrom also addressed the lighting issue and stated that the new corporate image is to have a back -lit awning. He stated that concept was presented to the Planning Department, who in return, did not favor the back lit awning. Consequently the design was changed back to a design that was configured two to three years prior. Mr. Edstrom felt that the project would not detract from the neighborhood with a lot of lights, but simply trying to have a facility that is attractive and safely lit. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. C.J. Streit, owner of the Terraces P.U.D. (Gatewest Plaza), stated that there was never any intent of connecting the two properties on this location. He was concerned about the property values and the business aspect of the tenants should this particular access be allowed. He stated that it was their idea to have the bicycle/pedestrian access walkway through that area, but have a strong objection to have that area as a vehicular access. He stated that trash trucks would also impact the access. He felt that the trash trucks should not be able to access the KFC site through his site because the amount of weight of the truck would ruin their parking lot. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 4 Member Cottier asked if Mr. Streit was opposed to the access down by Little Caesars? Mr. Streit stated there was no opposition to that access. Member O'Dell closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Mr. Edstrom stated that the suggestion of the trash truck was not to access through Mr. Streit's property, it strictly is just an area for the truck to turn around. Member O'Dell asked how Mr. Edstrom envisioned the trash truck circulation? Mr. Edstrom replied that if the trash truck had a little more hard surface in that area it would be easier for them to pick up the trash. Member Carroll asked if that access was going to be open to pedestrians and bicycles and there is a chain across the opening, how would they access the walkway safely. Mr. Edstrom responded that there will be three bollards; two which would carry the chain across and one on the other side that would be open only to allow for pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Member O'Dell asked if that was a reasonable design configuration? Mr. Shepard stated that it does appear to be reasonable. He stated that he does not want people driving their car from Block Buster to KFC and felt that should be a pedestrian trip. The reason for the bicycle connection is because of the apartments. Member Carroll suggested that the up lights on the building be limited to the front of the building. He understood that the lighting would be on both sides and the front, but not the back. Mr. Shepard stated that the up and down lighting along the mansard is only on the front and the two sides. Member Carroll asked what the impact would be of any light spillage from the mansard uplighting to the multi -family and to the single family residences? Mr. Shepard stated that there is one parking lot light fixture that covers the northern portion of the parking lot, which in his opinion would create more illumination than the mansard roof lighting. The mansard roof lighting does not occur on the north of the site, so it does not face P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 5 the multi -family apartments. Mr. King who lives to the west of the property stated that his issues were more with joint access with future development and never raised the issue of lighting. Member O'Dell asked where the future access would be for the King Parcel. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be along the west property line and designed so that it would be aligned with the King Soopers loading dock. Member O'Dell asked that from the KFC parking lot would there be access to the King Parcel? Mr. Shepard stated that there was hope to accommodate that opportunity. Member Carroll moved to approve the West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD, Final with the condition recommended by staff and also with a second condition that the previously designed access to the east be reduced to bicycle/pedestrian access only with emergency access for Poudre Fire Authority emergency vehicles only. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked that if the Poudre Fire Authority feels that this access is unnecessary, should it be made as a permanent bicycle/pedestrian access without poles and chains. Mr. Shepard agreed that the access should be made permanent and suggested that "as required" should be added to the second condition of the motion. Member Carroll added "as required" to the second condition of the motion. Member Cottier seconded the addition. The motion to approve carried 4-0. TIMBERLINE ANNEXATION AND ZONIN . Case #40-91A Mr. Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed annexation recommending approval. Mr. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the recommendation, for which the Board would consider for City Council, would be whether the property should be annexed. Since it is an enclave annexation it does not need to have any annexation agreement that accompanies it. If an annexation agreement is to accompany an annexation then there needs to be some valuable consideration given to the City by the property owner to support the agreement. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 6 Basically, the City would not assess these Special Improvement District Assessments against the property owner. He stated that right-of-way dedication would be something that would support the contract. He stated that the Board should make the recommendation to the Council on the annexation and if an agreement is to be made by the City promising not to levy assessments that the agreement be supported by some valuable consideration flowing to the City. Member Carroll wanted clarification that the City is willing to waive the assessments for improvements and staff felt that was fine? Mr. Waido stated that the agreement is worded in such a way that the assessments on any urban improvements would not be made on Spring Creek Farms property until those properties come out of a farming operation and start to develop. They would only delay the period of time when those assessments would be made to the property. Member Carroll stated that if he were to own property to the south or west and does something with it, then normal City policy would be that he would pay part of the improvements and the neighbor to the north or east would pay the other part. Member Carroll stated that the City Attorney's Office stated that in essence this agreement would be an unsupported promise or such by the City and; therefore, the City ought to get something in return. Mr. Waido agreed with that theory. Member Carroll asked that staff isn't requesting anything in return? Mr. Waido stated that in order to enter the agreement to not assess them for urban improvements, the City needs to receive something. Member Carroll stated that is a legal opinion and that staff is not requesting anything and is simply asking for that on the advice of the attorney's office? Mr. Waido agreed. Mr. Peterson added that there is a history to the property owner's concern. He stated the people who own Spring Creek Farms had been on the outer edges of the City for a number of years. He stated that the owners of this piece of property owned property which was donated to Edora Park and they were tagged with a special assessment when urban development started. Ultimately the area is really on the fringe of urban development in this City. A new High School is being developed to the south and there will be ample water, sewer, electric and road P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 7 capacity that will be developed, which will force this property out of the farming mode. It is the owners intention to hold onto this property for farming until they are ready to sell. He pointed out that the Special Improvement District would only apply to the property until the use changes from farming. Member Carroll asked if the City would make the provision that without the requirement for the dedication of right-of-way that they do not oppose the annexation? Mr. Waido stated that they do not object to the annexation provided that the agreement covers the stipulations for which it does. He stated that the owners are still not very happy with the hunting aspect or the sales tax aspect. Member Cottier asked that at some point in the future when the urban improvement charges are assessed then why is anything being required in return now. She felt that the dedication of right- of-way seemed to be a pretty large contribution on their part to just get delayed charges. Mr. Eckman responded that in the dedication of all that right-of-way he did not think that it was . legally necessary that it all be dedicated. He stated that it was the feeling that something of value be given to support the contract by way of consideration. Member Cottier asked if one dollar would suffice? Mr. Eckman stated that would be valuable consideration. The issue is the time value of money because eventually the assessments would go against some urbanized use there. The fear is if the City loads up some other property with assessments than that person who was assessed would legitimately complain. If the City takes the assessment on itself than the taxpayers could legitimately complain that there was no public purpose to support the City's taking on that debt. Mr. Eckman felt that without something being received by the City to support that public purpose than the contract could be challenged. Member O'Dell asked that at the point when they decide to develop some portion of the property than they would be required to do some road improvements and this whole condition would be null and void? Mr. Waido stated that it may not even come into effect that if there is no assessment on the property and they just have a development requirement to improve the street as part of development then the whole discussion could be mute. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 8 Member O'Dell asked that only in a situation where the need for Timberline Road be expanded and the need for the right-of-way proceeded the development of this property this condition would then go into effect? Mr. Waido responded that some type of improvement within existing right-of-way which would need to be put into a special improvement district verses a capital improvement program. Member O'Dell asked that a similar arrangement was made with this property owner in the past that this contract has come up or has this happened in any other parts of the City or Annexations? Mr. Waido replied that it is just the fact that these property owners have had experience with several conditions of this sort and seek to protect themselves. Member O'Dell asked that it is the Board's responsibility to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the annexation from a land use stand point or whether it meets the rules of the State? Mr. Waido stated that a recommendation from the Board is appropriate. Member O'Dell asked if it was really the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Board to make these kind of decisions? Mr. Peterson replied that it was appropriate for the Board to comment on the recommendation made by staff, but it is ultimately City Council that needs to make the decision on whether the conditions of an annexation agreement are appropriate. Member Carroll moved to recommend to City Council the Timberline Annexation and Zoning for approval. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that if staff and the landowner are in agreement that the assessment fees should not be paid until the property is assessed that is fine. He would suggest that if such an agreement was entered into perhaps the consideration coming from the landowner would be that he would not object to the annexation. Member O'Dell felt that because of the way the law is written on enclave annexations, it is not reasonable to say that the City would give people special consideration if they put up a fuss. She felt that what the City Attorney is recommending is more reasonable and equitable and that Council should look at some kind of trade or bargain to be reached with the landowners. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 9 Member Carroll stated that his understanding was that the agreement was a perfectly reasonable request and had no problem with it from a practical standpoint. Member Cottier felt that this project is beyond the Board's normal involvement and obviously it is an enclave and meets all the State laws for annexation. She stated that she does not feel comfortable in negotiating some agreement with respect to waiving future urban improvement charges. If the City feels that to be necessary it would be appropriately done by City Council and the legal department. The motion to recommend approval carried 4-0. WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONINGS Case #37-90 Mr. Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed project recommending denial of the rezoning. Member Carroll stated that on February 25, 1991, the Board recommended to City Council that . the west half of this area be rezoned to NCM, but the LDGS be added back into this particular zone. He asked if the recommendation has changed over what was decided a year and a half ago. Mr. Waido replied that nothing had changed. Member Carroll stated that he recalled spending hours on this project and asked if there has been a change of conditions or circumstances which have taken place since February 25, 1991, that would change his position toward this project. He asked what conditions if any have changed within the passage of a year? Mr. Waido stated that there have not been any substantial changes in the conditions that would alter the original decision. He stated that it has been recognized that zoning decisions at the neighborhood level does have opposition. Member Carroll asked if any changes have come in through the PUD process in the last year? Mr. Waido replied that a PUD has been submitted for the area dealing with potential changes. He felt, however, that does not enter into the analysis regarding the zoning issue. Member Clements -Cooney stated that this process went through public meetings, through the Planning and Zoning Board who made recommendations to Council which approved the plan as is and wanted to know why the Board rehearing about this project? P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Waido stated the reason for this project being brought before the Board again was due to a Council Member having a conflict of interest in the rezoning process. Member Clements -Cooney stated that a Council persons conflict of interest would not play a part necessarily in the public meetings or Planning and Zoning Boards information that was received? Mr. Waido stated that would be his opinion as well. Member Cottier asked how many properties are presently non -conforming to the NCM designation? Mr. Waido responded that there are no properties that are of non -conforming use in the NCM designation. He stated that it was written into each of the new zoning districts that existing legal uses were allowed to continue as uses -by -right on those properties, therefore, there were no non- conforming uses created through the rezoning process. If those uses had become non- conforming uses then there would have been a series of hoops, including a public hearing in front of the Board in order to go through changes. By considering them uses -by -right under the zone, those businesses could change to similar types of uses, as they met the parking code and other codes which are applicable. Member O'Dell asked what was meant by changing to similar uses? Would it mean changing different types of office or could it change to retail? Mr. Waido replied that the zoning code deals with uses such as professional offices. It may be an attorney's office, but could change to any other use that the zoning code would consider to be a professional office without any problem. For example, it could go from an attorney's office to an accountant office with no problems, but it could not go from a professional office to a daycare center. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Joe Bastian, 428 West Oak Street, stated that some of the comments that Council made when they decided to send this back was that there were several unsolved issues with the Westside Neighborhood Plan and did not receive the attention that it deserved. He asked where the buffering element was between Mountain Avenue and Oak Street, and felt that once the buffering element is located then what kind of zoning vehicle are you going to use to protect it. Mr. Bastian commented that Mr. Waido felt that the Westside Neighborhood Plan states that the Fast side of the half block meets all of the qualifications stated in the Plan for the definition of a buffer area. . P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Bastian stated that Sherwood street is 99 percent residential and from Meldrum Street over it's entirely high intensity commercial uses. He stated that Mr. Waido felt that part the buffer area consists of 2/3rd's parking lot for the Home Federal Tower and the rest of the uses are commercial uses. He felt that the area for which Mr. Waido suggests to be a buffer zone does not fit the description in the Westside Neighborhood Plan. He wanted to know why that half block is not included in the buffer area since it is identical to the surrounding areas? He stated that if that half block is not included in the buffer area it will be detrimental and that the high intensity commercial uses just make an indentation into the neighborhood and felt the boundaries need to address that. Mr. Bastian asked if one considers this half block to be a buffer zone, to try and imagine the parking lot for the Foothills Fashion Mall as an adequate buffer between the Mall and NCM residential. He felt that the NCM and the NCB identifies with the Westside Neighborhood Plan as being a conservation area. He stated that in order to preserve existing residential structures it is necessary to promote or encourage other uses besides residences as an alternative to neglect or demolition of properties. He felt that if this area was not protected with a buffer NCM that all the properties in the area will suffer from an economic standpoint as well as a physical standpoint. Mr. Bastian stated that some residents in the area oppose the zone change because they feel it is inappropriate for their residences which are across the 100 foot wide Sherwood Street to be zoned NCM, then why would it be better for our part of the area to be NCM residential when the area is only ten feet across the alley. He stated that whatever properties are facing Sherwood Street should stay NCM, however he felt that the area in question should be considered as a buffering element. Mr. Bob Getz, 1311 South Sherwood Street, commented that his residence is on the northwest corner of Sherwood and Oak Streets which is located right across the street from this block that is being considered for rezoning. He stated he supported the staff's recommendation and felt that it is a real reasoned, well though -out recommendation, and it has at its heart the idea of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. He felt that the residential character of the neighborhood is coming back from what it was back in 1985. He also felt that the neighborhood was still extremely fragile and preserving the residential character of a neighborhood is a real tricky thing to do. He stated one way to preserve that is by trying to have as much residential uses as you can in this block in question and when you allow people to convert properties to commercial uses/professional offices one must do it through a more careful process which is why there is a PUD process. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 12 Mr. Getz stated that Mr. Bastian raised some good points regarding the buffer zone in the alley. He stated that block has been predominantly residential with a couple of professional offices. He commented that a lot of older people have moved out or died in the past few years and so the neighborhood is turning over and there are people coming in with new ideas. He felt that the area still works very well as a neighborhood residential area and the area did not warrant change. He stated that the current owners in the area are doing beautiful things with their properties, however, what will the next generation do if there are allowed to be more liberal conversions to commercial uses and to the block. He felt that the standing zoning is a more conservative approach and will preserve the neighborhood. Mr. Scott DeDolph, 401 West Oak Street, stated that he has converted an older home into law offices and would like to see the zoning for that area changed from NCM to NCB. His reasoning for the change was because business who serve people of the community find it beneficial for clients to come into a more relaxed atmosphere such as this. He felt that the older homes are primarily bought by law offices and others such as that nature to restore homes such as these in this area. He stated that the Home Federal parking lot at some point may be converted to a drive-thru bank or high rise parking facility as the City grows. Therefore, that particular parcel could no longer be considered an efficient buffer zone. Mr. DeDolph felt that professional use does not harm the old homes, in fact it preserves them and brings money to the area. He stated that this part of town has a historical feel to it and felt professional office use creates a safeguard for this area to remain intact. Mr. DeDolph stated that his final point is in regard to the PUD process that is proposed as being an adequate means of addressing the concern without the Planning and Zoning Board keeping this area zoned as NCM. He asked if one has to have a 100 feet of frontage in order to do a PUD? Mr. Waido stated that there was not a frontage requirement, but typically depending upon the point chart that is used for the use it specifies a minimum amount of acreage be used for a PUD. However, on an infill site or a site limitation consideration the Board routinely waived that particular requirement. Member O'Dell commented that has been her experience on the Planning and Zoning Board and that in infill the Board is a lot more lenient with the point charts than in new development situations. Mr. DeDolph stated if indeed the Westside Neighborhood Plan's intent was to preserve the old housing structures and to keep them for the visual benefit of the community, than allowing them to convert to professional offices in no way harms that goal. However, to require a PUD to be done may actually encourage the destruction of the structures. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 13 Member O'Dell stated that one of the reasons the Westside Plan was even undertaken was to preserve the character of an older neighborhood. It was felt that the Land Development Guidance System did not adequately do that. She believed that this Plan would be the over- ruling that this Board and future Boards would use when looking at any kind of conversion or any kind of change in the westside neighborhood. Mr. Waido stated that the Westside Plan is a policy document. Policies provide decision -making guidance, they are not a zoning code or regulation. He stated that there is a criterion in the Land Development Guidance System that asks if the proposed use in conformance with adopted City plans. However, there is a point chart that is an absolute criteria in the Land Development Guidance System that evaluates the appropriateness of a specific use on a piece of property. Mr. DeDolph asked if the Westside Neighborhood Plan is to be the major persuasive input than why did it not stick to it's original contemplation of that half block being a buffer zone? Member O'Dell asked what the original proposal for the eastern half of the block was? • Mr. Waido stated that the eastern half of the block was originally recommended by the staff to be in the NCB zone. Member O'Dell stated that it was the Planning and Zoning Board but the City Council that changed the zoning to BG. Mr. Waido agreed. Member O'Dell wanted to know what their rationale that was behind that decision. Mr. Waido stated that it was the existence of auto -related businesses. Those uses throughout the rezoning process receive very special attention. The plan states buffer zone and the Council deliberated as to whether or not a condition BG zone would have the same effect as an NCB zone. The decision resulted in the retention of the BG zone with land use restrictions had the same effect from a zoning perspective as preserving a buffer area. Member Cottier asked if the BG zone was with a PUD condition? Mr. Waido stated that it was not a PUD condition. There is a specific list of uses that would be allowed in the BG zone. One of the listed uses is the PUD option, so if a use isn't specifically listed the PUD option could be used to interject another use. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Don Richmond, 420 West Oak Street, stated that the consultant that wrote the Westside Neighborhood Plan was writing a description of her neighborhood in the Central Business District of Denver. He stated that Chapter 4 of the plan states clearly that there had to be an established buffer zone that included transitional uses. The word conserve in the plan means conservation of residential structures and it was not meant to mean conservation of residential uses. It means that there needs to be an effective economic barrier between the high intensity business district and the residential neighborhood. He felt that this neighborhood has been traditionally and historically been a transition zone. He stated that they are just asking for a continuation of professional office use and no other type of use and feel that there is a compromise. He felt that all properties facing Sherwood should be residential and that the properties facing Oak and Mountain should be allowed to have that transitional use of professional offices as a use by right. Ms. Elizabeth Nance, 209 South Sherwood Street, stated that she is a stay-at-home mom in the neighborhood and felt that she knows the neighborhood better than people who just come to their offices during the day and are not their in the evenings or weekends. She felt there can be professional offices located in the NCM zone, but she is allowed to express her thoughts on how she feels about the uses. If the zoning were to change to NCB than those owners get a lot of things through use -by -right that could directly influence her home. She stated that she was confused by the statement that the only people who want those old homes are the professional office people. She stated that seemed wrong to her because in the last six months she has had realtors call her stating that they could sell her home to families over the phone. Those houses are in great demand for people who want to live there. She stated that the block has gone from majority rental to majority owner occupied. She felt that her family, as well as others living in the neighborhood, financially enhance the neighborhood. She felt that the people who go to the lawyers office, generally do not enhance the neighborhood or spend money in the neighborhood as the people living there. She felt that this zone change would hurt the neighborhood. Dr. Frank Veutucci, 424 West Mountain Avenue, felt the alley does not provide a buffer. There is a home for sale there that he felt would not be of use for a family, but would maintain its value if it were to become a professional office. It appeared to him that professional offices are very low impact that do not degrade the efforts of the neighbors who are restoring their homes. He stated that it seems fair to allow for the kinds of professional offices that are very low impact to maintain the integrity of the current structures and will help preserve the environment without any detriment. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 15 Mr. Mark Hanson, 216 South Sherwood Street, stated that he also works on Oak Street and felt that the character of the neighborhood has always been very interesting. He stated there are college kids, elderly people, and small 1,2,3 person law offices that made the neighborhood attractive because of all the diverse activity. He felt that with the diverse amount of people to the area makes it a better neighborhood to reside in as well as work in. Mr. Tim Carney, 221 South Sherwood Street, stated that he totally renovated his family home and that the whole block is becoming beautiful. He stated he lives in the middle of Sherwood Street, yet there is three different zonings. He stated that his home has been down zoned from high density residential and felt with three different zonings in the neighborhood there was not much conservation going on. He stated that above Uhlrich Blueprinting there are four apartments, so it is not solely business but also residential. He stated that he supports the current zoning with the buffer on the eastside of the alley with full appreciation of the concerns who are also renovating there property. He felt that the most appropriate way to handle renovation on that side of the street is through the PUD process. He stated that he is not opposed to changes in the neighborhood, but is opposed to site specific zoning rights which are proposed here. He stated that he was happy that those people are renovating their properties, however what would happen when they move in a few years and there are new tenants. Mr. Dan George, 425 West Mountain Avenue, stated that he has some reservations about a parking lot being a buffer zone. He stated that it does not conserve any residential structures as the Westside Neighborhood Plan states. He felt that the transition between residential and professional offices has been great for the area. Ms. Susan Wholey, 123 South Sherwood Street, felt that the Board should make recommendations that are consistent with what the City Staff has recommended to the Board. She stated the area under question has 18 lots and of those 18 lots there are 4 that are businesses, 1 is an empty lot, and leaves 13 of those 18 as residences. She felt that to zone by lot use would make it confusing for the neighborhood. If the area were to remain NCM it would still give people the opportunity to convert their residences to businesses through the PUD process. She stated that the NCM zoning for the area with the option of allowing people to use PUD process seems a lot more fair to the neighborhood. Mr. Carly Williams, 209 South Sherwood Street, asked what the uses -by -right are in the NCB zone? 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 16 Mr. Waido responded that the uses -by -right in the NCB zone are single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multi -family dwellings up to four units provided no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, boarding/rooming/tourist homes, churches, medical/dental clinics, professional offices, and personal service shops provided no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building. Mr. Williams stated that there are some uses that Mr. Waido states you can not change the existing structure and there are some things you can. Does that mean one can level the building and build a dental clinic? Mr. Waido replied that there are different review processes. The conversion of an existing structure up to a fourplex, medical/dental clinic, or professional office are permitted uses through the building permit process. A multi -family structure up to four units which would propose a structural additional or exterior alteration to the existing building would need to be approved by the Planning Director. So if there is an existing structure on the property, someone could not level that structure, then go into the building permit office and state to them that since they have a vacant lot now they want to build an office building. That would not be allowed. Mr. Williams stated that under NCM they could not level any structure for any reason? Mr. Waido stated that NCM has similar provisions for multi -family structures, however the difference between the two are in the non-residential uses. Mr. Williams stated that he supports the recommendations made by staff. Member O'Dell closed the public input portion at this time. Member Clements -Cooney stated that there seems to be some confusion on what can happen in an NCM zone and an NCB zone. It appears that the public are assuming that in an NCM zone there can only be homes, and in an NCB zone that it allows all these various businesses. She stated that in actuality in the NCM zone there are a variety of proposals that one might make for their property, however, it is just that the neighbors may have more of a say so. She stated that it was not a black or white issue. She stated that one could not just have a house in one zone and a business in another zone. Member Cottier stated that there seems to be a certain sentiment expressed that the existing NCB is not an adequate buffer zone; therefore, one should expand that area and have a larger buffer zone. The NCM zone is more protective than the NCB zone which would provide a better buffer than NCB in terms of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 17 Member Carroll felt that there was not a sufficient argument presented that would change his mind from the decision that was made two years ago. He stated that he heard from some people that the Board should not have made the recommendation that was made two years ago and this is the Board's opportunity to correct it. He recalled that there was another option which was not to allow a PUD option in the NCM zone. This would have meant that had someone wanted to convert a residence to a professional office in the area they would not be allowed to do it. He felt there was a compromise made by the Board to allow a PUD condition. He stated that it is a transitional area and anyone could come back before the Board and present a PUD to convert a structure to another use. Member Carroll stated that he took offense to the comment that this issue did not get the attention it deserved two years ago and felt that the Board had spent a great deal of time reviewing the Westside Neighborhood Plan and the issue. He stated that City Council referred this item back to the Board because of a conflict -of -interest not because of not making the right decision two years ago. He stated that he would support the recommendation made by staff. Member O'Dell stated that it was her impression at the time the NCB zone was proposed to the Board that one wanted to make a consistent effort to have buffering along Meldrum? Mr. Waido agreed. Member O'Dell asked if it require a designated transition zone where bed and breakfast or conversion to offices be encouraged? Mr. Waido replied that the Westside Neighborhood Plan encourages low intensity professional offices, personal service shops, single/multi-family homes, boarding/rooming homes, bed/breakfast structures, parks, similar public non-profit quasi public recreational uses, schools, churches, child care centers, group homes, and elderly homes are the uses encouraged for a buffer zone. Now if it were a vacant piece of ground and a new PUD the approach would be a lot different than the fact that there were uses there existing from the turn of the century in some cases. In looking at developing the new zoning district staff tried to draw the boundaries according to the written criteria and also the boundaries that were shown on the future land use map. The future land use map took into account what was existing and staff tried to fit the boundaries as best they could given all those inputs. Mr. Waido stated that the Westside Neighborhood Plan was developed by the neighborhood. Member O'Dell stated that it was determined two years ago and felt it was still appropriate that a good dividing line is down the alleyway, just because it is more difficult to have different uses - by -right facing a different use that is already set. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 18 Member Clements -Cooney asked to clarify to the Board, the motion is to re -recommend to City Council? Mr. Waido agreed. Member Carroll asked about staffs recommendation of denial. Mr. Waido stated that it was a request made by the property owners to extend the NCB boundary and staff recommends denial of that. Staff does recommend that the boundaries remain where they are currently. Member Clements -Cooney moved to recommend to City Council denial of the rezoning of the Westside Neighborhood Plan Rezoning 37-90A. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to recommend denial passed 4-0. HARMONY MARKET PUD, 1ST BANK PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Case N54-87F Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with conditions. Member Clements -Cooney asked if it would be in the Board's ability to approve Phase I and at a future date if the developer, when and if is ready to build the permanent structure, come back before the Board? Mr. Shepard stated that it is within the Board's ability, however, he felt it was premature to comment on that at this time until the applicant has made their presentation. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that it was their understanding that the basic question revolves around the architectural details of the permanent building. Mr. Ward stated that a number of alternatives were looked at from the beginning on this site. The elevations that were included on the submittal were fairly simple. He stated that a gable entry skylight that would penetrate into the building that probably picks up on some of the other details at Harmony Market was considered. Mr. Ward stated that the reason that the gable entry feature was not included on the plans in the packet basically revolved around the large existing Cottonwood Tree. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Ward stated if the Board was comfortable with what was proposed, then the developers, etc. would rather not come back before the Board and workout the details with Staff. He stated that if the Board is comfortable with Staff's approval then it could just be made a condition of approval and not have to come back before the Board. Member O'Dell asked if what is being proposed is that the Board conceptually give the project some approval and then the Staff give it final approval at the time the permanent building is constructed? Mr. Ward stated that the final PUD and the elevations be approved and if there were to be any modifications to the plan or elevations then at that time could come back before the Board. Basically, the application is for approval of both phases of the development. Member O'Dell stated that one concern of approving something right now is that a lot changes in five years and would hate to hold 1ST Bank to some kind of design of a building that since discovered does not work very well or is out-of-date. There would always be the option of the applicant to come back. . Mr. Ward replied that the applicant could come back and it was reviewed that under the ordinary time limits any project could be approved and nothing could be done for three years. He stated that it was perceived that the applicant is coming in with a temporary building and a permanent building within a 3 - 5 year timeframe. Member Cottier stated that she does not recall approving the temporary building and finds it somewhat confusing to have one approval for two different buildings. She stated that it is obvious the permanent structure is the more important one, but there needs to be some concern as to what is going to be out there for five years. She asked if there was any better time schedule to present to the Board as to when the permanent structure would be built? Mr. Ward responded that it depends on the market response. Such as what the customer base is for the bank and it also gives 1ST Bank a little bit more experience with the specific customers demand. He stated that it is frequently seen that the Board approves projects with a construction phasing plan and felt that phased construction is not completely new. He stated that 1ST Bank has done this type of project on 20 previous sites. P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 20 Member Carroll felt that based upon neighborhood and staff comments and the plan, that this was a pretty good use for the property. The concerns are with the design of the final building, which seemed somewhat stark with the layout. He felt that there would be quite a bit of time for the Board, the bank and the architects to push a design around and come back with something that was in more detail. He asked if this idea creates a hardship for the parties involved? Mr. Ward stated that the only hardship is the uncertainty on the applicant's part about what the City may or may not find acceptable for final architecture and what the cost implications are. He felt that if the applicant only came in to receive approval for the temporary structure, that the City would also want something on file as to the level of quality that would be for a permanent building. He would like to establish what everyone's expectations are for the final building. Member Clements -Cooney stated that the Board reviewed slides of a design that was in the packet. Since the worksession the design has changed and she felt that the Board has not had sufficient time to adequately review the design. She felt that a permanent bank would be appropriate, but does not feel comfortable not having enough time to review or give input. Member Cottier asked for a review of traffic circulation. Mr. Ward stated that what the applicant has tried to do is put as much parking improvement in its permanent location. The entrance off of Lemay that enters into Steeles would also be used as an entryway. The same traffic circulation for the permanent building would be for the temporary building. Member Cottier asked if thought was given to circulate traffic counter clockwise? Reasoning behind that question is because the cars approaching the ATM's would be headed north and the headlights would shine across Harmony into residences. Mr. Ward stated that the structure across Harmony is a church and would not be impacted by the headlights. The primary reason is to get the driver's side against the building for the ATM. The other factor taken into consideration were trees. If traffic were to circulate counter clockwise then the trees would need to be destroyed. Mr. Shepard stated that he failed to mention the condition regarding the temporary nature of the modular structure and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the modular is removed after five years with some avenues for amending the PUD (that is the first condition). The second condition relates to the development agreement and utility plans. . P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 21 Member Clements -Cooney moved approval of 1ST Bank at Harmony Market Preliminary and Final for the modular and Preliminary for the permanent structure with the conditions as stated by staff. Mr. Shepard stated if that is the condition, then Mr. Eckman stated that we must add a clause to condition number one. Mr. Eckman stated that the condition was based upon that the Board might approve preliminary and final altogether and felt that the motion that was made would cover the clause; therefore, no clause would be added. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she is not comfortable approving final without something before her to review. She would like to see the design presented to the Board placed in a packet for review before she could make final approval. • Member Carroll stated he agreed with Member Clements -Cooney and felt that the design presented tonight is a marked improvement over the starkness of the first design. He felt it was not the intent of the Board to add expense to the bank, but simply add some architectural detail. He felt it is placed at a very important intersection to the City and would like to see some integration. The motion to approve passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Waido stated that the Board received a memo from Sherry Albertson -Clark relating to extending conditions for a two -month period to complete development agreements for four or five projects that are specifically listed in the memo. Member O'Dell asked if this was somewhat repetitive of what the Board has been doing in past months extending the development agreements for some hangers on and some new ones? Mr. Waido stated that was correct. Member O'Dell asked if there were any anticipated dates that these may be completed? 11 P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 22 Mr. Waido stated that they would have to be completed within the 60 day timeframe or ask for an extension. Member Carroll moved to approve the extension on all projects. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked how many times has each project come before the Board? For example, Fort Collins Truck Sales has been before the Board for several months. Mr. Waido stated he was not sure. Mr. Herzig stated he was not sure as to how long it has been, but he understood that the Fort Collins Truck Sales anticipated getting an appraisal completed by the end of the month. Member Clements -Cooney asked what the timeframe for Upper Meadows at Miramont is? Mr. Herzig stated that project was stalled due to ground water problems. but they are going ahead and the agreement has been signed. Member Clements -Cooney asked on the timeframe for Park South? Mr. Herzig stated that Park South is proceeding and the development agreement has been received but the plans are not quite done. Member Clements -Cooney asked when the Market Place (Italian Oven) would be complete? Mr. Herzig stated this was the first time for extension and have run into problems. Member Clements -Cooney then referred to the Laurie PUD and stated that they are asking for an additional three months to complete the condition and asked what appears to be the problem? Mr. Herzig stated it was the change of developers and the owner of the property is taking another approach. The motion to approve passed 3-1. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. � ... RICMAR ........ O NTRY ....... ... ...... .. ........... \ ............ ............. ............ ............. wl ELM RIDGE RANCH ::::::... .....:..... SUNOANCE IHILCS,��nd y FORT:: COLL:LNS .................... J �OEM Y.. .....!; i ::::: ..�..wr ..... SPORTS NEST •' PHILLIP A ': '::: ...... ........:: ...........ti .....:::..:............ . .: .... ...... ::::::.....:. ..::::::::............. Z. (....I! ..�. .:� ,. ..... \. ......... O HARMONY MARKET COLLINWOOD .... ............. 'ATTON "• ........... :a Ro City Limits: 1-31-112 ANNEXATION GREENSTONE