Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/27/19920 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 27, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, City Attorney Steve Roy, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Cottonwood Farm - Upper Meadow (a Miramont, 1st Filing - Final, Case #54-87H; Item 2 - Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, 1st Filing - Final, Case #18-92A was continued indefinitely at the applicant's request; Item 3 - Sunstone Village PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary & Final, Case #57-86K; Item 4 - Chili's PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #6-87E; Item 5 - Park South PUD, Second Replat - Final, Case #46-88E; Item 6 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Filing - Final, Case #60-91E; Item 7 - Best Buy - Final, Case #29-92A; Item 8 - Stone Ridge PUD - Final, Case 10 #21-92A; Item 9 - Hampshire Court Subdivision - Final, Case #31-92A; and Item 10 - Pi Kappa Phi Living Center - Referral of Administrative Change to Fairview PUD, Phase II Revised, Case #72-79C was pulled for discussion. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - 1216 Maple Street Multi -Family Use Request - Site Plan Review, Case #19-84C; Item 12 - Camera Corner Inc. PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #34-92; Item 13 - Huntington Hills PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary & Final, Case #11-81G; and Item 14 - Abandonment of the Undeveloped Portion of the Indian Hills West PUD for Rivendell School. Chairman Strom pulled Item 4 - Chili's PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #6-87E. Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, and 5-9. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 7-0. CHILI'S PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - Case #6-87E Steve Olt gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval with a condition. 171 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 2 Chairman Strom asked if the color rendering that was presented to the Board was a reasonable representation of the brick color that would be used on the building? Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, agreed that the color presented to the Board would be the color of brick that would be on the building. Chairman Strom stated that he was concerned about whether the color scheme used on the building would coincide with other structures in the area and felt that his question was answered adequately. Member Carroll asked if the proposed project was a final, preliminary, or preliminary & final? Mr. Olt responded that the project was a preliminary & final. Mr. Vaught pointed out that Chili's does not always build masonry buildings and in fact when the site was reviewed, it was taken into consideration that the surrounding structures were masonry structures which played a role in the decision to choose brick for an outer appearance. The site itself is much larger then what would typically be selected for a free-standing restaurant, which enables a great deal of more landscaping around the building. Member O'Dell moved to approve Chili's PUD - Preliminary & Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. PI KAPPA PHI LIVING CENTER - REFERRAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO FAIRVIEW PUD, PHASE II REVISED, Case Jl72-79C Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. Member Walker stated that the parking spaces along the east side are to be leased by Wendy's, however, on the site plan it indicated that was shared parking and asked for, a clarification between shared parking and Ieased parking. Mr. Olt stated that there was a lease agreement that indicated that Wendy's would lease those spaces. Member Walker expressed that the lease agreement stated those spaces would be Wendy's and now it was indicated that there would be shared parking. He felt shared parking meant both parties could park there. • • P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Olt responded that should the Board approve this project the site plan would be changed to indicate what the status of the parking would be. Mr. David Huber, owner of the building, stated his first concern in regard to this project were the neighbors. He approached surrounding neighbors with the idea of converting the old health club into a Living Center for Pi Kappa Phi. The owner of Wendy's indicated that he would highly approve the change of use from a health club to a fraternity if something would be done in regard to parking. Mr. Huber stated the owner of Wendy's approached him and asked if it were possible to lease the parking spaces on the east side of the building for restaurant parking only. Mr. Huber agreed and thus a lease agreement was drawn up. The agreement, however, is subject to the Board's approval. Member Walker asked if kitchen facilities could be built in the existing structure? Mr. Huber stated that kitchen facilities would be built. Member Walker felt that to feed that many people there would need to be some way to accommodate food trucks for unloading and loading of products. He stated that there was not any type of loading zone indicated on the site plan to accommodate those trucks. Mr. Huber stated there were over 40 parking spaces for the fraternity right now and according to the Planning Department one only needs to allocate 1 parking space per 2 bedroom unit. There are only 17 or 18 2 bedroom units that are proposed; therefore, parking space would not be a problem to accommodate the unloading or loading of trucks. Member Walker felt that there should be a designated space for such vehicle loading that would be convenient to the door. Member Walker also was concerned with the intensity of use on the particular site. Mr. Huber responded stating that there used to be 500 to 600 people a day go through the club and at one time there would be around 150 cars trying to park around the building. This project would be a severe down grade in the use of this site. Mr. Mike McDowell, President of Pi Kappa Phi, was also concerned with outdoor use around the building site. All current and future members of the fraternity would be able to use the Pulse Athletic Club for recreation. Additionally, City Park is 3 or 4 blocks north of this site and could also be used for outdoor recreation. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 4 Member O'Dell asked what kind of bike racks were currently there and were there plans for increasing bike storage facilities? Mr. Huber stated that bike racks were in storage; however, most fraternity members would like the bikes stored inside. Member Walker wanted to know how the rooms would be divided? Mr. Huber stated that the past upstairs aerobic room would be 90 percent of the living area. There would also be a bathroom added upstairs. Member Walker then wanted to clarify that the aerobic room would then be converted into a 36 bed dormitory. Mr. Huber stated the room would be divided into individual rooms with 2 to 3 people per room. Member Walker asked what the City's view was on the parking needs of this facility? Mr. Olt replied that the parking for the facility exceeds code for this type of use. There are 34 parking spaces behind the building that are for 36 students. It was felt that the parking provided on site for just the fraternity was more than adequate. Member Walker asked how the Wendy's parking would be signed in order to make it clear that parking is for Wendy's patrons only? Mr. Huber stated that in the past Wendy's and/or Pott's had stenciled on the concrete whether it was Wendy's or Pott's parking. Member Walker then stated that shared parking on the site plan is not accurate, but should be designated in some other way. It should read that it is parking for Wendy's use only per the terms of your lease. Member Walker asked if 26 parking spaces would be considered adequate? Mr. Olt stated as per code for fraternity or sorority houses there should be one parking space per two beds. There will be 36 beds that would require as a minimum 18 parking spaces and there are 34 on site which exceeds the requirement. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 5 Member Walker was concerned with the intensity of the area and that there is insufficient outdoor activity space. The fact that the students could go to the Pulse or City Park is not adequate to him. Member Walker felt that a loading zone was necessary. By code only 18 parking spaces are needed and felt that it might be possible to create some green space in the back from the excess spaces. Member O'Dell felt it was unusual in Fort Collins not to have green space immediately adjacent to your living quarters, but it is certainly not unusual in lots of other cities. There are a lot of people who live in high density situations and have to walk to a park to enjoy their recreation. She felt there are a lot of walking possibilities around there; and with the park close by it would not be a major concern. Member Cottier felt it was a good use of the building. She felt it would be interesting and hoped that the fraternity could make it work for them. She also pointed out that being only a block away from CSU, the students could go run around the ball fields there. Member Cottier moved to approve Pi Kappa Phi Living Center - Referral of Administrative Change to the Fairview Shopping Center PUD, Phase II Revised. Member Clements - Cooney seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was any way to designate an area for a loading zone by striping the parking lot? She felt that could be a potential problem if there was no step taken to provide a loading and unloading zone. Mr. Huber answered by stating that if loading and unloading became a problem then it would be arranged to provide an area for that purpose. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the fraternity would keep Mr. Huber advised of that situation? Mr. McDowell stated that the fraternity would keep Mr. Huber advised of the loading and unloading situation. Chairman Strom shared a concern in regard to the open space, but felt hopeful that the fraternity is going in with their eyes open and understands the situation they are in. He felt it was an interesting adaptive reuse of the property. The motion to approve carried 6-1. 9 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 6 1216 MAPLE STREET MULTI -FAMILY USE REQUEST SITE PLAN REVIEWCase 19- 4 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval Member Clements -Cooney asked for an explanation of the neighborhood minutes, which reflected that there was potential for a restriction of tenants to the elderly, handicapped, or developmentally disabled as a condition of this proposal; and yet it is not a condition of this proposal. Mr. David Herrera, Fort Collins Housing Authority, stated that the project was partially underway. He also apologized to the neighborhood, as well as to the Board, for some instances which have occurred that were unavoidable. One instance being that the building is already placed on site and that was unavoidable because either the building was to be moved immediately or the Housing Authority would lose the privilege to obtain the structure. The building was displaced out of Boulder and was received at an exceptionally low price. The Housing Authority knew that if it were placed on the site, it would come before the Board for its permission to use the structure as a fourplex. In the event that the Board denied the structure being used as a fourplex, it would be converted to a duplex which would be a use -by -right. He stated that his apologies go out to the neighborhood for not having the opportunity to inform them that the structure would be placed on site as soon as possible. Secondly, the neighborhood minutes reflected that an individual felt that Mr. Herrera was arrogant in having made the remark that it was there and it was going to be there as a duplex or as a fourplex regardless. Mr. Herrera stated that he did not mean that comment to be arrogant, but that there was really no choice but to put it there. He believed that the project fits nicely with the neighborhood and that it is compatible both architecturally and visually. There will be additional landscaping and other work will be done in order to mitigate the effect of that structure. Mr. Herrera felt the building would be better suited as a fourplex rather than a duplex because it is a lower intensity. The Housing Authority intends to specifically designate the structure for elderly, handicapped or disabled (not just developmentally disabled). He stated that if the Board decided restricting occupancy to those categories was needed to approve this project, then the Housing Authority would comply. However, the Housing Authority does not wish to restrain their opportunities 10 - 30 years from now to use that site for another purpose. r� P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 7 Mr. Herrera stated that he did hit hard to comments from the neighbors on how the Housing Authority was dumping in the neighborhood. He does not believe we elect our neighbors, and feels that because a person is low-income that they are no less worthy of being someone's neighbor. He felt that the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome was inappropriate in Fort Collins. Member Walker asked what the configuration would be if the project were a duplex? Mr. Herrera stated that they would be two - two bedroom units. PUBLIC INPUT Randy Debey, 414 Tedmon Drive, believed the Fort Collins Housing Authority does not intend to own this property forever and the type of use that this property would be put to would not comply with the wishes of the neighborhood. He felt that the wishes of the neighborhood should be adhered to forever not just 10 - 30 years. He stated that the Housing Authority gave the impression that if the use was to change in 10 years that they would go ahead and change it to something else and he felt that was unacceptable. 0 Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Chairman Strom asked what the status of the property would be if it were to receive site plan approval and what kind of options do they have to make changes to the property. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded by stating that the site plan approval does run with the property. That means if a fourplex were to be approved, it could be property owned and operated by the Housing Authority or it could change ownership and remain a fourplex with rental units available on the open market. A duplex or single family unit would be permitted as a use -by - right and would not have to go through any public review. Member Walker found that he was in favor of restricting this project to elderly, handicapped, or disabled and felt it was a reasonable consideration. He felt the restriction would satisfy some of the neighbors concerns. Member O'Dell asked who would maintain the landscaping around the units? Mr. Herrera replied there are considerable amounts of existing landscaping and the Fort Collins Housing Authority has a maintenance department which would maintain the property. Member O'Dell asked if the Housing Authority responds if the house needs painting or if the deck were to be broken etc.? 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Herrera confirmed that the Housing Authority is responsible for all maintenance Mr. Herrera explained it was not their intention to change the configuration of the property. As one member from the public stated the Housing Authority is hedging on changing the project back to a duplex or a single family home. That was not the intent. The hesitation in changing the occupancy or restricting the occupancy is because currently there's a demand for elderly, handicapped, or disabled housing. However, 80 percent of the waiting list population are single parent and that number is growing. Single parent with one minor child (infant) would qualify under the occupancy guidelines to occupy a one bedroom unit. The Housing Authority would like to have the opportunity to provide this project to a single parent if there were no elderly, handicapped or disabled. Chairman Strom asked if the maximum number of occupants in a one bedroom unit would be two people. Mr. Herrera replied that yes that would be the maximum number of occupants. Chairman Strom questioned that a single parent with an infant is acceptable, however, infants have a tendency to grow and would there be a limit on the age of the child before a larger unit would be needed? Mr. Herrera declared that typically in a situation where it is a single parent with an infant they would be considered transitional in the one bedroom unit that they are placed in. Chairman Strom asked if it would more or less be on an emergency basis for a parent and child to be placed in that situation. Mr. Herrera agreed with that statement. Member Walker asked what other categories of individuals does the Housing Authority consider placing in a one bedroom unit? Mr. Herrera stated that the only occupants that would be placed in a one bedroom are elderly, handicapped, disabled or single parent with infants. Member Walker asked if there could be two people such as an elderly couple placed in one of the units? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 9 Mr. Herrera responded that would be acceptable to place an elderly/handicapped couple in a one bedroom unit. Member Walker asked if two people would be the maximum number of people in a one bedroom unit. Mr. Herrera replied that yes only 2 people per one bedroom unit. Conceivably what could happen would be that a disabled non -elderly couple could have a child while occupying the unit then the Housing Authority would look for another unit. Member Cottier stated she was aware that the Housing Authority has moved buildings, houses, etc. into other locations throughout town and was curious about exterior finishing of projects like this one. Mr. Herrera responded when projects are moved into new areas, they try to match it with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, matching of architecture, color, style, and landscaping. Since these projects are used structures they seem to be able to fit into an already established neighborhood. Member Cottier asked what type of front porches would be constructed and would both structures receive a new paintjob? Mr. Herrera stated that the project would receive a whole new paint job. He stated that all of the units have been completely repainted and a new roof installed; as well as some sort of porch or stoop that would be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood is installed. Mr. Herrera commented that when the painting is being done a base coat, a trim coat and an accent coat are used in order to give the appearance of uninstitutional. Mr. Herrera suggested that a list of rehabilitated projects should be given to the Board in order for them to view the type of infill that has been done throughout Fort Collins. Member Clements -Cooney stated that the neighbors were shocked to see the structure was already on site when they woke up in the morning and she understood that the structures needed to be moved in the evening when there is no traffic; however, she felt that some sort of public notice should have been placed in the neighborhood. She asked if the Housing Authority normally does some sort of notification to the neighborhood on projects such as this? Mr. Herrera replied that in most cases the Housing Authority has the opportunity to post notices, however if it were a use -by -right we generally do not subject the neighborhood to the belief that they can say no to the project. If a project requires permission then the Housing Authority will 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 10 post notice. In this particular case, the Housing Authority knew that they must ask permission for the fourplex, but did not have enough time to notify the neighborhood in advance and if the fourplex were to be turned down then there would be a use -by -right to do a duplex. Member Clements -Cooney understood the frustration with the "Not In My Backyard Syndrome", however, in the event that the Housing Authority needs to notify the neighborhood then she would like to see them carry through with the public notice. Mr. Herrera stated that in this case the public notice was required, but what was asked was additional notice that is not required of anyone. He felt that the Housing Authority is held to a standard beyond the normal standard, but in this case there was no time to extend further notice to the public. Mr. Roy recommended that if the Board were to place a restriction on the occupancy of the unit, they would be creating a category of people who could not live there. Since there is no discrimination against any protected class, the legal standard would be to establish some rational basis related to a legitimate governmental interest why a restriction was being set up. A use as intense as this is not permitted as a use -by -right, the concern is that certain kinds of occupants would make it more intense of a use creating some problems. He encourages the Board to articulate on the record what the governmental interest is that's to be protected by this kind of restriction and then to create a category that allows everyone to live there who's occupancy wouldn't interfere with that interest. In other words, to make the category broad enough so that the restriction advances the interest to be protected, but is no more restrictive than that. He suggested including handicapped, elderly and everyone else who can live there and still not make it too intense a use. Member O'Dell questioned if the neighborhood concern was in regard to families living in a one -bedroom? Mr. Herrera responded that the concern was more of the issue of being surprised. They were concerned that the neighborhood did not have anything to say about the project being placed in their neighborhood and that advance notice should have been given to them before the unit was placed on the lot. Member O'Dell stated that there was specific discussion to restricting the types of people or numbers of people who could be renting these units. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Herrera stated that there was specific discussion in regard to restricting occupancy and that it was a consideration because it was the Housing Authority's intention. Member O'Dell clarified that the Housing Authority's own restrictions would be people who would qualify to live in this kind of unit would be someone who is on the Housing Authority's waiting list and numbers of people. Member Walker asked how the Housing Authority establishes it's policy for occupancy? Mr. Herrera replied that the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners establishes the number by administering the occupancy policy plan. Member Walker inquired that any changes made to the number of persons occupying a unit would need to go through the Housing Authority Board for approval. Mr. Herrera stated that was correct. Member Walker questioned what the City's position was on the occupancy rate in a one bedroom? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that there is nothing that stipulates the amount of people per a one bedroom or two bedroom unit. There is just a definition of a family which is not more than three unrelated persons. Member Cottier wanted to know how the Housing Authority finds out that the number of people allowed in a unit is being abused? Mr. Herrera stated that the neighbors keep the Housing Authority very well informed of the conduct and occupancy of the unit. He stated that the Housing Authority clients are under strict scrutiny, and once it is known by the neighborhood that the people occupying the unit are Housing Authority clients they share ample information in regard to the unit. Chairman Strom feels that he is not inclined to place a restriction of use on the units and that it seems the guidelines for which the Housing Authority go by are probably sufficient to keep the intensity of use of a one bedroom unit to an acceptable level. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve 1216 Maple Street Multi -Family Site Plan Review. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 12 CAMERA CORNER INC.P D PRELIMINARY AND FINAL se #34-92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the project recommending denial. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the residential unit was a part of the application or has it been eliminated? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the residential unit was a part of the application and that no credit was given for mixed use. The reason for not giving credit for mixed use was because staff does not feel that a basement apartment geared to family members and would serve as a significant use. Therefore, staff did not give credit for mixed use; thus the project did not receive the 50 percent that is required on the point chart. Mr. Doug Donaldson, Applicant, stated that he, his family and his business have resided on the corner of Prospect and Shields for the past 8 years. During their residency he felt that they met all of the City of Fort Collins Home Occupation License requirements. Since his family established their home/business in 1984 on the corner of Prospect and Shields they have seen two major capital improvements which have drastically changed the property and the quality of family life. The widening of Prospect Street and the expansion of the intersection impacted our property by taking a loss of approximately 2,000 square feet of property off of Prospect Road. They have experienced a substantial increase of automobile traffic, air pollution, noise pollution, vandalism and crime. As proposed for the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program they will lose an excessive 55 percent of the remaining front and side yards to highway; and almost all of the backyard due to the relocation and construction of the current parking area. He felt he would not be able to subject his family to these extraordinary and unhealthy conditions on a full-time residential basis. While those needs have been thrusted upon his family, Mr. Donaldson pointed out that his needs have remained the same. He felt that his needs are to continue the business in the same location, while providing a daytime residence as needed for the care of their four children. One of his daughters is autistic and one of his sons has an attention deficit (Hyperkinetic Disorder); both of these children require specific daytime care and attention for which he has been able to provide them from their current location. Mr. Donaldson stated that his business has been structured so he may implement his children's therapy needs and developmental programs during the day. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 13 The business is both financially and historically tied to the existing property. Mr. Donaldson felt that he could not afford to relocate his business elsewhere. The best scenario for which they investigated would be to relocate the business to South College. He felt that would put him out of business within six months. As a result of the capital improvements in the area, Mr. Donaldson wishes to move their primary residence; while continuing the business and secondary residential use at the current address. He felt that they have structured the elements of the PUD; such as the expanded retail, and number of employees to allow them any future development and still remain in strict compliance. Mr. Donaldson expressed that the Planning Staff stated that the PUD does not adequately meet the mixed use requirement. However, the PUD requirement states that credit should be given on the point system because the specifications of a residential use would dictate that it would be a significant use and not an accessory use. 1f this PUD was not given credit for the mixed use, then he feels that the project should be granted a variance under Section K (Variance Procedure). The variance states that the Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of the section under the following circumstances: Paragraph 2 - A strict application of any provision would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property; provided that the variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose of this section. As stated in the letter from the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, this project has been commended on the improvements, effectiveness and public spirited manner in which the business has been conducted. The Planning Staff report states that the proposed PUD is for a commercial or business use which introduces retail at this site and that retail sales are not permitted with an in home occupation. However, the home occupation license states that there should be only incidental sales of stocks, supplies or products conducted on the premises. There is no wording that excludes retail or wholesale sales as long as those sales are incidental in nature. Mr. Donaldson stated that the proposed PUD is clearly for both business and residential use and its characteristics comply with the spirit and intent of the objectives of the City. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 14 He felt they are forced into this situation as a direct result of the City's seizure of his property. He understands that the rights of eminent domain grants the City a legal right to seize privately owned property from a citizen at its discretion; however, with this right there's a corresponding civil and moral responsibility to help the victims of eminent domain. Mr. Donaldson felt that the LDGS was designed to deal with more dramatic land uses, then what they are proposing. Unfortunately, since they are not proposing any substantial or dramatic changes in the use of the land, he felt they are a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Mr. Donaldson stated that as a member of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association and as a resident he is very adamant about maintaining the character of the neighborhood. He proposed no changes to the architecture, landscape, parking, or current use of the property. The application is consistent with the economic development goals stated in the Goals and Objectives under the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. This project protects the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activities which has a significantly negative impact upon predominantly residential areas. It promotes the preservation and maintenance of older houses and buildings which do not merit official designation, but make an important contribution to the character and historical development of this city. Member Walker asked what exactly would be the nature of the change? Would the use be more intense? Is the apartment going to be set up to be rented to an unrelated individual? Mr. Donaldson responded that it was not the intention to rent the apartment to anyone. First of all, they can not afford to provide full facilities to make it a complete apartment. The residential use was indicated simply because of the daytime care of the children. Originally, the house was set up as a duplex; however the downstairs has a low ceiling and would not be considered a desirable place to occupy on a full-time basis. Member Walker stated that the change would be that the business be moved upstairs and the residence be moved downstairs. Mr. Donaldson stated that was the only change. The downstairs is not accessible to anyone other than himself. Member Walker made reference to the comment of adding more employees, and wanted to know if that meant expansion of the business? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 15 Mr. Donaldson stated that was in place so he would not have to come back in front of the Board if he were to hire some outside individual. It would be ideal to have someone to relieve him so he may take vacations etc.; however, there are no funds for expansion, no outstanding loans, no applications for loans, and the only expansion would be simply moving what is placed in store rooms out a little bit. There are no employees hired at this point. Member Cottier asked if the 4 employees included or excluded Mr. Donaldson? Mr. Donaldson stated that the 4 employees included him. PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Emily Smith, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the Association has consistently strived to preserve the existing residential character of the two RL zoned arterials. The Association has been and is adamantly opposed to changes which result in commercial use on these arterials; which go beyond the use allowed by the City of Fort Collins Home Occupation requirements. Non-residential/commercial use would have unacceptable and far- reaching effects, not only to our neighborhood but to other surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Association and Mr. Donaldson have spent an enormous amount of time in pursuit of a solution to his proposal, which would allow him business use of his property while maintaining permanent residence elsewhere. If feasible this would allow residents protection from intrusive commercial development which would have disastrous and far-reaching effects on the neighborhood. Since any approved change in land use remains with the property and not with the owner; therefore, it is our position to oppose any request in which the possibility exists for neighborhood decline unless protective restrictions and conditions are a part of that approval. In the Association's pursuit of a solution, they found that presently there are no mechanisms which insure future protection of residential character within the neighborhood. The Association's Board recommends their guidelines for this project should warrant serious consideration and approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. The guidelines require the applicant to write into the PUD all restrictions and conditions that apply to home business requirements and including limited residential use with the one exception that the applicant not be required to reside in the residence on a permanent basis. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 16 Since Mr. Donaldson has incorporated the restrictions and conditions requested by the Association, they are in support of Camera Corner PUD. Without the restrictions and conditions the residential character of Shields Street would be at risk. The Association also recommends that a rational constructive solution is necessary now, so that future proposals of this nature will not consume a large amount of staff, board members, and neighborhood's time. Mcmber Carroll stated that these restrictions and conditions that the Association placed on approval of this PUD intended to preserve the business as an in home type business. One of the changes is that in an in home business only one additional employee is allowed and Mr. Donaldson is proposing three additional employees. Ms. Smith felt that one helper other than himself would be allowed. She felt that what the Association is proposing needs to be fine tuned by the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Carroll clarified that the Association recommended approval provided that the same conditions exist on the business as they would exist on a home occupation business, with the obvious exception that the homeowner or businessowner does not need to reside there. Member O'Dell asked if that one additional employee includes a family member? Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that is one additional employee that does not reside at the home. So it is a non -family member. Member O'Dell stated that an entire family could work at the business and have one additional employee. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted that retail sales as part of a home occupation is not permitted as a principal use. Retail sales permitted with a home occupation are things that are clearly incidental to the principal use. The illustration that was presented for a camera business would be if someone had Mr. Donaldson repair a camera and purchased a part or lens. That is acceptable within the realm of incidence. On the other hand if the intent is to advertise cameras for sale to the general public versus just new customers then that becomes a retail sale element that is not permitted under the home occupation requirements. Member Walker asked for a clarification of what was being proposed relative to retail sales? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Donaldson replied that the home occupation allows retail sales of specifically stock, supplies, or products conducted on the premises with no restriction. He would like to be able to do more retail sales. What has happened to him in his business over 17 years is that people come to him for advice and he needs to send them elsewhere to buy the product and it is kind of cutting his own throat. He would like to be able to advertise so he may be able to offset the cost of the project. There are currently around 44,000 cars a day that pass his property which provides a built in limitation for expanding the business. Currently the business invoices per day come out to 3.2 paid invoices. If that is considered half of the people who come in to the business that is only 6.5 people a day. Mr. Donaldson and his wife generate a substantial amount of trips per day and if they were to move their permanent residence elsewhere that would bring down the intensity of the project as far as traffic. Member Walker asked if Mr. Donaldson felt that the exterior signs should remain the same as they are currently? Mr. Donaldson stated that no change would occur to any exterior sign. Member Walker inquired if retail sales were to increase would you increase the verbiage of the exterior sign? Such as - Camera Sale etc. But that the suggestion of retail sales pertains to a client asking for a recommendation to purchase equipment from another shop, then you would be able to present them with the stock that the business may have. Mr. Donaldson stated that there would not be any change to the sign whatsoever and that his assumption of changing his recommendation into sale was correct. Mr. Donaldson stated that staff had asked him exactly what he wanted and he replied that he would like to have his front yard back with all the trees and shrubs. He stated that he is searching for a means to mitigate the situation and continue the services for which he provides and protect the area. If this is not approved then it is either sell the property, change to commercial use, or rent the property. It appears that renting is the option and that is basically increasing the use. He felt that in weighing all of the risks that his project appears to be the best suited for that area. Ms. Smith stated the Association would allow such cases to be approved with certain safeguards to a very fragile neighborhood. She felt that it was not the Association's intent to endorse a more intense usage, but to allow for certain hardship cases. 9 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 18 Member Clements -Cooney asked how the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association came up with the 10-point system? Ms. Smith stated that they reviewed the home occupation guidelines and stated that the 10 points for which the Association came up with are the only positive solution for which everyone could agree upon. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the Association agreed that the home occupation guidelines need to be applied for employees? Ms. Smith agreed. Member Cottier felt that Camera Corner did meet the mixed use point chart; therefore she felt the variance did not need to be considered. The reason for that suggestion is because a similar request came before the Board 2 months prior and received an approval. Member Walker felt that this particular project brought up the point that there is a real lacking of how these types of projects are reviewed. He felt that there was too much difference between a project being considered to be a residential project, a home occupation project, or a commercial project. He stated that more of these types of projects would be coming through and that the definition of the different types of uses need to be further defined or have a median use defined. Chairman Strom stated that because this project does not have 2 acres it does not receive any points. On the other hand if one was to purchase adjoining homes in order to attain 2 acres then come before the Board and propose commercial use, he felt the effect on the neighborhood would be much worse than what is already proposed. Chairman Strom stated that the policy does need to be reviewed in terms of smaller scale developments that can not be considered infill development. Projects such as this could be considered adaptive reuse of the property to fit into its residential surroundings. Chairman Strom would like a verification on the traffic count of 44,000 cars passing by per day? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated she was unclear whether that was an accurate accounting of traffic flow through the area. Chairman Strom asked if the City were anticipating continued growth in traffic at the intersection of Prospect and Shields? Is the continued growth of traffic the reason for pursuing the 93-94 improvements? What type of physical improvements would be made to the intersection? r� P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 19 Ms. Albertson -Clark referenced the graphic that shows an additional 20 feet of right-of-way coming off the Prospect frontage which would be used for additional lane widening. There is also a significant need in the vicinity for bike lanes and currently there are no bike lane facilities available on the street. Shields Street is currently under evaluation in terms of bicyclists and pedestrian needs; whereas, the Prospect design has been finalized. Mr. Tom Peterson stated that the applicant's numbers of 44,000 is within the ball park. The two roads involved in the area are very significant, especially the intersection. Secondly, two bike paths are essential for that area. One path being on the street and the other wide enough for both pedestrian use and bicyclist. Chairman Strom asked if staff was exploring alternatives in terms of other routes to the University? Mr. Peterson stated that staff is in the middle of reviewing significant alternatives and is a great matter of concern to staff. Chairman Strom inquired about whether a neighborhood plan has been designed for that area? Mr. Peterson responded that the Planning Department has a large work program that is based on Council's goals and priorities. Staff has looked into the possibility in 1993-94 and proposed doing a neighborhood plan for the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood area. There have been a continuing series of issues in the neighborhood that staff believes they can only be addressed by a neighborhood plan and start looking at some very specific uses. The Planning Department's budget requested for that plan has not been approved and will not appear in the recommended budget that is going before City Council. If the department's schedule clears up in late 1993, then the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Plan will be looked at to incorporate that in house. Member Carroll stated that it was his understanding that the applicants will be reimbursed not only for the actual property that the City takes for use, but could also be compensated for the value of the remaining balance of the property. Member Carroll understood the neighborhood association being comfortable with that property continuing as a home occupation, because there will be no increase in the intensity. He stated that it appeared to him that Mr. Donaldson would like to increase the use potentially. The business is going to move from the downstairs to the upstairs, which is a better part of the house; conduct on site sales; and the possibility of adding two more employees. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 20 It seemed to him that the whole idea of a home occupation use is that the principal use of the property is residential, the home occupation is incidental, and the property retains its character as residential. In his opinion this property can no longer be considered residential due to the increase in use. If this project were to be approved he would like to see it remain under the restrictions of home occupation, because to expand the use would defeat the purpose of the home occupation guidelines. Member Cottier asked if there were any distinction between the number of employees allowed for different types of home occupations? Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that there was no distinction. Member Cottier then wondered why the Bryce Dental Clinic was allowed to have 1 dentist and 4 employees? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that particular home occupation was in violation and came through a PUD process to correct that violation. Mr. Roy stated that such use shall be conducted entirely with the dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants living there with not more than one other employee. Member Walker asked for a clarification on sales on the property. Mr. Roy responded by stating that there shall be only incidental sale of stock, supplies or products conducted on the premises. Member Walker asked that the interpretation of incidental sales, stocks, supplies or products that is only in regard to the fixing of and replacing a piece to a camera. Mr. Roy stated that incidental could mean secondary sales. The better meaning would be furtherance of the primary occupation that is carried on. Member O'Dell asked if a client were to bring in a camera to fix that was broken beyond repair and Mr. Donaldson suggests purchasing a camera that he had for sale; would that be considered incidental. Mr. Roy stated that maybe another word besides incidental should be used and that a refinement of the wording should be worked on. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 21 Member Walker stated that the strict interpretation of home occupation was that the home was located on an arterial in such a way that the character was thought to be residential. Member Walker would like a clarification of signage on a home occupation. Mr. Roy responded stating that there should be no exterior advertising other than identification of the home occupation. Chairman Strom felt the question that needs to be addressed is how best does one protect against adverse effects on a residential area. He understood how the Donaldson's came to the decision that 44,000 cars a day is enough and move there home elsewhere. The Donaldson's do have the option to just move out and place the property on the market and then we're faced with what would be constructed on the comer. It has been hard for him imagine over the long term that very many people would want to use that property as a principal residence. Member Walker felt that this project is a viable way of protecting the neighborhood and would suggest to consider the issue of retail sales in some increased but limited way. Member Clements -Cooney asked if it were in the Board's ability to pass the preliminary with the condition that staff revisit the home occupation guidelines before final approval and update the Board on that agreement? Mr. Peterson stated that staff could come back with some suggested wording. Member Walker moved to approve Camera Corner PUD, Preliminary, with the conditions that staff, applicant, and neighborhood meet and refine the suggestions from the neighborhood; and with the clarification and specific wording on the number of employees and retail sales. Member Walker commented that the Board has worked this through but would like to see more time spent with staff. He stated that his motion was made with the intent that this property remain as a home occupation. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Walker added to the motion that variances were not necessary. Mr. Peterson stated that if the Board was going to do something that they need to make a finding of equal to or better than with conditions that are laid out in the home occupation scenario. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 22 Member Walker added that this was an equal to or better than proposal. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the addition. Member Cottier wanted to know what the motion stated with respect to number of employees? Member Clements -Cooney added that staff and Mr. Donaldson should revisit that issue and bring it back before the Board at final. Member ,Walker would like to leave that area open because he feels that needs more thought and time taken on that issue. He is open to some retail sales, and perhaps more employees. Member Carroll stated that this project, had he made the motion, would be granted on Preliminary with the condition that the final comply fully or substantially with the restrictions placed on home occupation. At this point there has been nothing indicated to him to grant anything other than the restrictions on home occupations, but he is open to comments from staff, the applicant and citizens. Chairman Strom recapped the motion by stating that it is to approve a preliminary that is in favor of at least the concept that is proposed. Taking into consideration the language of the 10 conditions from the neighborhood, the possibility of allowing as high as four employees, and leaning towards some sort of retail. Member Walker agreed. Member O'Dell stated that it is important for staff to be fairly conservative in their recommendations and interpretations of those goals and objectives. She felt it was up to the Planning and Zoning Board to balance the interests of the owner, neighborhood, and the City. She felt that this project was not intrusive and disruptive to the neighborhood. Mr. Donaldson stated that he understands the Board is asking for full compliance with the home occupation standards; however, he does not feel that full compliance with the standards supplies him with enough flexibility to survive. He stated that he is hearing about what is best for the City and what is best for everyone else, but ultimately he is looking for a modest way out of the situation that the City has put him in. He stated that he was unclear of the position the Board was taking. • L P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 23 Chairman Strom replied the Board was some what unclear of exactly the procedures to be taking as well. The Board has stated that they feel this project can be worked out, and that the final language needs to be hammered out in something other than a public meeting forum. He felt that the motion leaves the flexibility to do what Mr. Donaldson has asked to be done, but the Board would like to review the final language before they finalize it. The motion to approve Camera Corner PUD Preliminary passed 7-0. HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD, FILING TWO, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, Case N11-81G Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark presented a description of the proposed project recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Mark Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills Corporation, stated that this project which was started in the early 80's was abandoned due to financial difficulties and previous developers. He stated that the project was a request for 110 single family lots on 28.0 acres which are approved plats • and the only approval that is being asked for is the approval of the construction and master plan update on that portion only. PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Wynne Pressley, 213 Tralee Court, asked for a brief summary of what needs to be resolved and how much longer till construction takes place? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the first condition which needs to be resolved relates to a final development agreement being written and all plans need to be signed. Secondly, a mitigation plan regarding the drainage channel and the wetlands area all be calculated and that some mitigation be provided to offset the wetlands loss. Mr. Palkowitsh stated the first phase of the construction will start at Saturn Drive. There are some very important elements that will be taken care of in the initial stage of construction; such as, the 50 foot dirt pile that will be depleted immediately. On the north side there are some very unfavorable commercial uses that are going to require fencing and that would be done in the first phase in order to create some mitigation. Member Walker asked what the area above the detention area was going to be used for? n L J P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 24 Mr. Palkowitsh stated that detention area was created in the previously approved plans and has been constructed. There is a portion that is native wetlands, there is a portion that will be enhanced and then the area above will be maintained as an open space. Ms. Pressley asked that upon completion of the plans would construction start this fall? Mr. Palkowitsh hoped to commence construction in August. Ms. Pressley inquired about the price range of the homes? Mr. Palkowitsh replied that they are still in the process of costing those out and some of the elements that go into that are making it difficult to determine the price range of the homes. As a broad brush the home prices would be in the vicinity of the high $70's to approximately $105,000. He felt there is a tremendous market and need in the Fort Collins community for reasonably priced homes and that is the market for which they are trying to fulfill. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Member Klataske pointed out that signing of final utility plans and PUD plans would not take place until September 28, 1992; however, it was mentioned that construction would start in August; he asked if construction would start before everything was final. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that construction would not start until everything was final. The way the condition is written it would give them as far out to September 28th as needed; however, Mr. Palkowitsh indicated they are interested in proceeding at a much faster pace. There is still the 15 day or 2 week appeal period that must be adhered to on the project, which means that none of the plans would be filed or recorded until after that time period elapsed. Member Carroll moved to approve Huntington Hills PUD, Filing Two, Preliminary and Final with the two conditions as stated in the Staff Report. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. ABANDONMENT OF THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF INDIAN HILLS WEST PUD FOR RIVENDELL SCHOOL Case #43 79C Chairman Strom stated he would be abstaining from this project due to a conflict of interest and Member Walker would Chair this project. Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. CI CJ P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 25 Mr. David Osborne, Attorney representing Rivendell School, stated that in the spring of 1991 the school was looking for a site to build on and discovered this site which was owned by the RTC Corporation. The school met with the City staff and evaluated the site and were told that it was a use -by -right. However, there are certain factors to be considered; such as, the flood plain which bisects Stuart Street and the desire of placing aesthetic buffering next to the neighboring area. The buffering would be on the south end and the school would be located far from the existing PUD. He felt that the plat on the north half is impossible to develop with all of the building envelopes in place. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Art March, 636 Cheyenne Drive, stated that there is no objection to the proposed use of the site. He felt that it could be a very compatible use with the existing development. Mr. March does object and the Homeowners' Association objects to the abandonment of the remainder of the PUD at this time. He stated that they have asked the school for some assurances that the development would not impact the residential community and the answer that they have received is that they cannot provide those insurances at this time. The school stated that they aren't sure if they are going to be able to fulfill their plans, they aren't sure if they can achieve a successful financial drive to allow them to build as proposed, and they aren't sure if they would have to sell the site off for another purpose. Mr. March stated if the school develops the site as they propose, then the concerns are minimal; however, to abandon the plat before their plans are firm or without a new plan that requires the school to be built as proposed then there is some opposition. He stated that the property line was designed in the expectation that a residential development would continue on the basis for which the site was platted. The property line was platted in order to create an open space area in the PUD. Mr. March again stated that there was no objection to the school, no objection with the plans, but a significant objection to the idea of getting rid of the plat without any assurance that the development would take place. There is no long range objection to the abandonment of the plan but there is a short term objection to the abandonment until their plans are finalized. He felt that if the abandonment were approved it would not deal with the issues that need to be addressed in the neighborhood such as; separation from existing dwellings, fencing, and drainage issues. Member Walker closed the public input portion at this time. Member Carroll asked if the Board were restricted to base their decision on the two criteria of the amendment? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 26 Mr. Roy responded that was his interpretation of the ordinance that they would need to follow those criteria. Member Carroll questioned that staff made the decision that abandonment of the undeveloped portion of the site would not disqualify the existing portion of Indian Hills West and assumed that met the first criteria. Regarding the second criteria it says there are existing utility easements and utilities remaining in place and the applicant would be required to deed any necessary easements prior to the development of the site. He felt that staff did draw a conclusion that the second criteria has been met, is that correct? Mr. Roy stated that as he understood staff conclusions on this project, they have recommended that the application would not result in either of the harms that have been described if the Board agrees, then under the ordinance the Board really does not have much discretion . The ordinance states it is to approve the application. He felt the rationale behind that was that this is a right and that one can relinquish the right to develop in a particular way as long as the public is not harmed. Member O'Dell wanted a clarification on if the Board reviews the two criteria, then the discussion about demanding that the site remain a PUD or revert to the existing PUD is beyond what the Board should be looking at? Mr. Roy stated that is how he perceived it. Member O'Dell asked if the PUD was to be built as a use -by -right what kind of buffering would be suggested or required between the school and/or school ground and the existing residential area? Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that the lot area must be three times the total floor area, the lot width must be 100 feet wide, side yard dimensions for school uses are 25 feet, a rear yard set back is 15 feet, and the front yard is 20 feet. In terms of specific buffering the only code requirement would relate to the parking area. In those cases the minimum average would be five feet where interfacing with the property line. Member O'Dell asked if the school yard itself does not have to buffer at all? Ms. Albertson -Clark interpreted that to be the way the code reads. Member O'Dell then stated it would be up to the school owners themselves to create more buffering. i P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 27 Member Carroll moved Abandonment of the Undeveloped Portion of Indian Hills West PUD for Rivendell School finding that the two criteria under the ordinance have been met. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS REFERRAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO PARK CENTRAL PUD TRACT Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed Administrative Change. Mr. Shepard pointed out that the applicant or appellant is not present and would respectfully submit that the Board continue this item to the August 3rd meeting. Member O'Dell moved to continue the Administrative Change to Park Central PUD, Tract C. Member Klntaske seconded the motion. The motion to continue passed 7-0. REQUEST FOR PER EXTENSION Mr. Peterson asked for a continuation until the August meeting of the Board for the four final approvals that were on last month that did not complete their development agreements. Member Walker wished to know what the items were? Mr. Peterson stated that the items are as follows: Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Later Day Saints Church, Redeemer Lutheran Church, and the Speights Veterinary Hospital. Member O'Dell moved to approve the continuation of the PUD Extensions. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.