Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/15/20051. 2. 3. #17-05 4. #32-981 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Chairperson Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Stockover, Torgerson and Meyer. Staff Present: Wray, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Virata, Aspen, Barnes and Deines. Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning Pete Wray reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: Minutes of the May 19th, June 16th and July 215t, 2005 Planning 5. #33-98E 6. and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) Resolution PZ05- 11 — Easement Vacation. Harmony Oaks — Project Development Plan. Pinecone PUD, The Tower Shoppes, Sonic Drive -In — Project Development Plan. East Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning. Recommendation to City Council Regarding a Land use Code Text Amendment to Clarify Annexation of Illegal Uses. Discussion Agenda: 7. #30-05 Hellenic Plaza Rezoning. 8. #35-05 Interchange Lands First — Annexation and Zoning. 9. #35-05A Interchange Lands Second — Annexation and Zoning. 10.#35-05B Interchange Lands Third — Annexation and Zoning. 11. Recommendation to City Council to Approve Changes to the Land Use Code Regarding the Definition of "Family", Occupancy Restrictions, and Changes to Both the Boarding House and Home Occupation Regulations. Member Schmidt moved to approve consent items 2, 3, 5 and 6. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 2 Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Item 2. Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Torgerson declaring a conflict of interest. Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Item 4. Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Lingle declaring a conflict of interest. Project: Hellenic Plaza Rezoning, Amendment to the Zoning Map from MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Project Description: Request to rezone 1.267 acres from MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to CC, Community Commercial. The request is for rezoning of a property located at 635 South Shields Street, being the northwest corner of South Shields Street and Birch Street. The property currently contains one vacant building. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending denial of the project Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studios gave the applicant's presentation. He spoke about the similarities between the CC, Community Commercial and the MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. He stated that both zone districts allow multi -family dwellings, boarding houses, sororities, fraternities, both have retail or office type uses, artisan studios and galleries, personal service shops that could include such things as a print shop, tanning salon and health club. The CC zone district allows all types of food service uses from a full scale restaurant to a coffee shop and fast food restaurant. However the MMN does not allow that use and that is the primary difference between the two zoning districts. Mr. Brookshire spoke about City Plan and stated that in various areas of City Plan they talk about edges and nodes and defining different districts. Being located on Shields Street and the various uses being looked at along that street between Mulberry and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 3 Elizabeth, we find that in itself serves as an edge to the higher density residential development to the west and then the CSU campus to the east. There are some single family residential neighborhoods right on the corner of Mulberry and Shields, however those have commonly been known as 'rental properties' and not a quieter subdivision which is geared towards a single family homeowner. One of the things that should also be looked at with the land uses in the area is what exists. Directly north of their site is also zoned NCB, which allows more commercial related uses. On the corner of Mulberry and Shields Street is a 7-11 which serves food, coffee and gasoline, which basically could be considered a fast food restaurant in some respects even though there is no seating or dining in that area. To the south on Elizabeth Street there is a Mexican food restaurant, and Japanese food restaurant and the plaza that is on the south side of Elizabeth Street has a sandwich shop and a bagel shop and similar uses like that. The neighborhood that they are in and amongst has all of these various uses that we are talking about the zone districts including. Mr. Brookshire stated that what they could potentially see happening on this site could be a very pedestrian oriented mixed use project that would include office spaces, small retail type uses and multi -family living to the western side of the property. The Land Use Code talks about bringing the projects to the front and to the street and being in this area where there is a high use of pedestrian traffic going to CSU on a daily basis, they could bring their buildings right to the front and meet all of the intents that the Land Use Code sees the West Central Neighborhood growing. Mr. Brookshire reported that their intent was to have a small coffee shop and small deli. They can see plazas that could front onto Shields Street or the corner of Shields and Birch in this scenario. He stated that they have an interest in a specific coffee shop. Mr. Brookshire showed slides and stated that the current zone already provides the same uses that they are discussing here tonight. Member Lingle referenced a letter in their packets that spoke to mixed -use and the only thing referenced in the staff report is just the coffee shop. He asked what other things they were proposing as part of their development. Mr. Brookshire replied that there are no specific uses that are beyond that that are known at this point in time. The intent would be more office oriented. The intent is to have a multi -family component to the project and in a site plan concept that would be located to the west, which is compatible to the neighbors to the west and other multi- family developments in the neighborhood. The Shields street side, fronting on the street, would be the mixed -use component. They could see something very similar to the project that is going to be built at Cambridge House where there are ground floor units that are available for rent for commercial uses, and living units above. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 4 Member Lingle asked that at this point it would just be a free standing coffee shop Mr. Brookshire replied that it would be part of a larger building that would include the other tenants. What is prescribed in the MMN zone, all of the uses would comply with their proposed idea of tenants, and it is just one particular tenant that would not comply with the MMN zoning. Member Craig stated that the mixed use is also confusing to her because in MMN we want mixed use and if Mr. Brookshire is talking about doing a mixed dwelling unit with residential above and the coffee shop below, that still would not fit into the MMN zone? Planner Olt replied no it would not; the mixed use dwelling is a permitted use in the MMN zoning district as a Type I and that would be a residential unit, but then you would have a non-residential type of use that is a permitted use in the district such as any one of the personal business shops. The restaurants are not a permitted use, therefore they could not be the non-residential use in that mixed use dwelling, it would have to be something off the list of permitted uses in that district. Member Craig noticed that convenience retail stores are allowed in that district which is pretty close to this coffee shop but that still is walk in buy and walk out. Is that why this doesn't fit the criteria? Planner Olt replied that was correct. Member Lingle asked about the coffee pastry shop that is defining it as a fast food restaurant that would not be permitted. Planner Olt replied that that type of use by city definition is defined as a fast food restaurant, anytime that you have an opportunity to go in and buy an item and sit down. That is a specific land use and it is not permitted in the LMN zoning district. Member Craig asked if it were left MMN, could the applicant come in with a modification to try and get the coffee shop in, but continuing with the residential mixed use effect. Planner Olt replied that land uses are not modifiable. PUBLIC INPUT None. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 5 Member Schmidt stated that if the zoning was changed and the applicant came in with a free standing coffee shop that would be O.K. in the CC zone. It would not have to be a multi -use building. Member Stockover replied that we could also lose the property to a McDonald's or Burger King or anyone of those types. Planner Olt replied that in the CC zoning district as a Type 1 Administrative Review under commercial and retail uses fast food restaurants without drive in or drive -through facilities are permitted. Yes, a freestanding coffee shop, deli, pastry shop would be permitted but would not be allowed to have a drive through or drive in. Planner Olt added that a listed permitted use in the MMN zoning district as a Type 1 administrative review is a convenience retail store without fuel sales. You could not have a 7-11 similar to the one two blocks to the north, but you could have convenience retail store that would look like that. Member Schmidt asked if it would have to have a mixed use house component. Planner Olt replied no, a free standing retail store could occur. Member Lingle asked if the rezoning could be conditioned in any way to limit or place expectations on what the development would be geared toward. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that our code does allow for conditional zoning, so although we have tried to avoid that, the Board can impose conditions on zoning. Member Lingle said that it would seem that if this coffee pastry shop was 10% of an overall mixed use development would be considerably more favorable than a rezoning that would allow a stand alone fast food or a convenience store type of use. If they had the capability of doing that it would influence how he would look at it. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that whatever zone district use that applies to the property has to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, so it may require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to do that which is possible but would need to be added to the recommendation to amend the Structure Plan and perhaps the neighborhood plan. The other way you can justify zoning, even though it may not be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, is if there have been changed circumstances in the neighborhood since the zoning was developed and designated for the property. He did not know that one could make the argument that there are changed circumstances in this neighborhood or not. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 6 Interim Director Wray added that there has been extensive public process through City Plan, West Central Neighborhood Plan and the Campus West Study area in defining the designated uses and ultimate zoning. The intent of those decisions was to focus the student village and retail mix in and around the West Elizabeth and Shields intersection further west in that district and not strip out the commercial, retail and restaurant activity all the way along Shields so there was a more defined transition between the Campus West District and as you go further north into the residential areas knowing that there is that CSU interface between that. That is one of the reasons that staff is not supporting this is because of the restaurant component that is not allowed in the MMN. Member Stockover stated that his only flaw in that is that he does not see Campus West changing. There is no more room there and there are existing buildings and he sees resistance to change there and he looks at the proposed plans and sees and improvement to the area. Where does staff see the change in Campus West happening? Director Wray replied that he thought that we have already seen some change in the Campus West area; staff has developed long term plans. Staff recognizes that infill and redevelopment is going to take some time and it is going to take consolidation of parcels in some places and or selling for redevelopment some of the existing properties over a long period of time. Member Carpenter asked if there was another zone besides the CC zone that would allow basically what he wants to do without opening it up to any kind of restaurant. She thinks that this is different because they won't be cooking food, it would just be a sandwich and bagel shop which she feels is different than a restaurant. Director Wray replied that what they are proposing is what would allow them to have their proposed uses, which is not allowed in the MMN. Member Craig commented that it was important that we remember that a lot of citizens took a lot of time to put together the West Central Neighborhood Plan. From what Director Wray has told them and what she has read in their staff report, the feeling is that residential is strongly wanted in that area and that Shields not become a strip of commercial. Even though this is a coffee shop, we don't really know what the whole lot is going to develop out as. Member Craig moved to recommend denial of the request to amend the zoning map from MMN to CC. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 7 Member Stockover would be supporting the denial, but he just wanted to note that in his mind he really struggled with this one. What is making him vote the way he is is that it is such a small portion of the development, the one coffee shop. If we change the zoning, there is no guarantee we are going to get what we saw on the slide today. He did not think that he would be doing his job of supporting the public good by putting that risk out there. Vice Chair Lingle concurred with Member Stockover and thought that made a lot of sense. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Meyer declaring a conflict of interest on this item. Project: Interchange Lands First — Annexation and Zoning, #35-05 Interchange Lands Second — Annexation and Zoning, #35-05A Interchange Lands Third — Annexation and Zoning, #35-05B Project Description: Request to annex and zone 15.55 (1s), 34.08 (2nd) and 12.7 (3`d) acres located south of East Mulberry Street and east of Interstate 25 and the Southeast Frontage Road. The recommended zoning is C, Commercial. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation on all three Annexations as a group. He stated that the annexation request has been initiated by the City Council and the applicant in this case is the City of Fort Collins City Clerk. The City Clerk has been designated by annexation agreement to have the power of attorney to initiate and apply for annexation of this Interchange Business Park. The annexation agreement was entered into willingly by the original developer of the Interchange Business Park and it has been recorded at Larimer County as well as the city of Fort Collins. We have reviewed this request by both State Statute and the Land Use Code, which requires that each annexation have no less than 1/6 contiguity, which all three do. There is also another annexation pending in this area called Waterdale also known as Sunflower. PUBLIC INPUT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 8 Don Brookshire, 3207 Kittery Court, Fort Collins asked if Waterdale was part of this application. Planner Shepard replied that the Waterdale Annexation which is to the east has been initiated by the City Council and has been to first reading and is not up for consideration tonight. It is awaiting second reading which is scheduled for November 15t" Mr. Brookshire commented that these annexations strike him as a bit odd if we refer back to our previous discussion and the goals of the city. In approving annexations like this in a sense promoting an urban sprawl, whereas City Plan really points towards infill development that projects like this take away from. Wendy Wayker, Avery Park Neighborhood asked if the Board has had input from the Sunflower neighborhood on this item. She asked what kind of impact this will have on them with traffic and noise. Would this be a huge burden on these people who have moved out of the city to get peace and quiet out there. Chairperson Meyer replied that yes, there has been input by the Sunflower neighborhood. Ms. Wayker asked about the impacts on that neighborhood. Planner Shepard replied that an annexation occurs as is. An annexation is not a development plan, it is not granting any additional building permits and an annexation does not create traffic. An annexation is merely an expansion of the corporate municipal boundary that enlarges the jurisdiction of the city of Fort Collins into what is known as the Growth Management Area. That is an area between the city, right outside the city, that we have jurisdiction with Larimer County. If upon annexation and you wake up one day and you are in the city, there should be no new traffic because of the annexation. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Torgerson recommended approval to City Council of Interchange Lands, First Filing Annexation and Zoning, #35-05. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval to City Council of Interchange Lands, Second Filing Annexation and Zoning, #35-05A. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 9 Member moved to recommend approval to City Council for Interchange Lands, Third Filing Annexation and Zoning, #35-05B. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council to approve changes to the Land Use Code regarding the definition of "Family", occupancy restrictions, and changes to both the Boarding House and Home Occupation regulations. Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding changes to the Land Use Code that would be part of a multifaceted approach to address occupancy limits and neighborhood quality. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator gave the staff presentation. He stated that the package coming before the Board just dealt with changes to the Land Use Code. Mr. Barnes reviewed the changes that the Board needed to provide a recommendation on tonight. Change to the definition of "Family". As currently defined a family is any number of people related by blood, marriage or adoption, or an unrelated group of not more than three people, or two unrelated adults and their related children if they have any. There is no section in the code that currently deals with the maximum occupancy in a dwelling unit. It is all contained in the definition section of the code. Staff is proposing to simplify the definition of 'family" so it no longer talks about un-relatedness or the two unrelated adults and their related children'. A family now is simply an individual living alone, or any number of persons who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other dually authorized custodial relationship living together as a single housekeeping unit and sharing common facilities. As a method in how to limit occupancy in a dwelling unit, staff has proposed amendments to section 3.8.16 of the code and requirements are being replaced in that a dwelling unit can be occupied by only one family, or by 3 adults and their dependents. In addition to the family occupying a dwelling unit, you can have a family and a caretaker. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 10 Another Section of the Ordinance before the Board is the removal of what is perceived as a home occupation loophole. Currently a dwelling unit can be occupied by an unrelated group of not more than three people. The home occupation ordinance currently allows people to rent rooms to two additional people provided the home is owner occupied. What that means is that it is sometimes possible to have a house occupied by five unrelated people as long one of the persons there is the owner of the home under the current definition; that person plus two other people, even though they are unrelated, constitute a legal family. That family, since it is owner occupied, can rent out rooms to two other people. Staff is proposing to delete that section of the home occupation ordinance. The next Section of the Ordinance deals with Boarding House regulations. These were intended to insure that Boarding Houses do not provide a "loop hole" in single family neighborhoods. Staff is proposing that occupancy, separation and parking regulations be adopted with the intent of maintaining the character of single family neighborhoods. Mr. Barnes pointed out that in the Agenda Item Summary that the Board received earlier; the Ordinance contained just one option. Staff has provided the Board with read before information that contains three additional items. Mr. Barnes reviewed the additional options with the Board. Mr. Barnes stated that lastly, the code changes proposed involve de -criminalizing the current violation of the three unrelated ordinance. Right now all violations of the Land Use Code are criminal misdemeanors. The ordinance provides provisions that would de -criminalize and make violations of the ordinance a civil infraction. That would allow the city the ability to prosecute these with a lesser burden of proof on the evidence and give staff a little more flexibility on how the code is enforced. Member Lingle asked about the de -criminalizing item previously discussed and was that really a P & Z land use issue. Mr. Barnes replied that it was in the code now and any change to the Land Use Code has to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation before it can go to City Council. There is a section in the Land Use Code that deals with enforcement and that is where the current language is. Member Lingle asked about the separation requirement for Boarding Houses and how that would be dealt with in regards to existing structures that are either currently used as Boarding Houses or were more than likely built as Boarding Houses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Barnes replied that any legally existing use would be grandfathered in, so in the LMN zone you have two Boarding Houses and they were currently 800 feet apart, we would not require one of those to be shut down. Those would legally be grandfathered in as non -conforming with regards to the separation distances. Any new proposed Boarding House in the LMN zone would have to be whatever the distance is, from any existing Boarding House. You only get grandfather privileges if you can show that the use was legal at some point in time. Member Schmidt asked if the word "adult' was defined anywhere. Mr. Barnes replied that it was contained in the ordinance as well. Adult is simply a person 18 years or older. He referenced section 7 of the ordinance. PUBLIC INPUT Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice Lane gave comments to the Board. Mr. Gavaldon stated that there were some good merits to this and he felt that there was things we can benefit from but he wanted to highlight some concerns that maybe a pitfall. First, could this be a back door enforcing the three unrelated without following the proper channels and procedures and processes. Mr. Gavaldon also asked about emancipation of someone under the age of 18, which would put them into adult status, tax paying status and so on. He asked the Board to look at the "familia" status and how it applies and is there any discrimination and is there any perception of singling out. Secondly, looking at the areas that Boarding Houses can be, he thought that there was some good merits in good separation, and maybe the separations maybe a little too far. We need to understand why the separation is at the number of feet that the staff is advocating. Mr. Gavaldon asked the Board to really look at these points to see if this is really the way we want it followed and is it really addressing the issue at hand. He thought protecting neighborhoods is great and there is value to it. He thought there were other opportunities and ways that we can still maintain but still have Boarding Houses available. Margaret Parliament spoke about the owners rental licensing and the idea of taking that away. A famous teacher once talked about when you give rights to someone, you basically take rights away from someone else. She would like everyone to think about that in this proposal. No one really wants to be disturbed by noisy neighbors or renters and she can respect that. If you are taking somebody's property rights to eliminate that kind of situation when there are other remedies on the books that are enforceable that is what she is questioning. Lets look at three examples of unintended victims to this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 12 possible scenario; a young family buys there first home, mother, father and two kids. They depend on both salaries to meet the mortgage payment and one of them loses their job and can only get a job that pays much less. They have a financial strain immediately. Through the current owners licensing rental act, they could rent a room to a married couple, which would then be four adults and illegal with this new situation. That would allow them a temporary fix to pay the mortgage and avoid foreclosure. Second example, a married couple that has raised their kids is now enjoying their paid off home and have lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. A sister comes to live with them and has medical expenses they are trying to help with. Another friend of the family is possibly widowed and they are in the situation of possible assisted living or into a situation where they would be living alone, but they could live in this house with the appropriate parking and share the expenses with their family so their medical needs can be met. Many foreclosures are due to medical expenses. Third, a twenty-two year old is in college and working part time and may save money and partner with their parents for a down payment on a four bedroom house with the appropriate parking. That person rents to a married couple and maybe another friend and they work together, they share expenses in terms of rent and utility bills. Should we really sacrifice the rights of each of these homeowners to appease the demands of someone who are really opposed to renters? It costs twice as much to drive a car as it did last year, we don't know what our heating bills are going to be this winter and money is tight and this is a way for people to keep their homes when Colorado is now second in the nation in foreclosures. Is it wise to deny a homeowner the right to use their greatest resource to earn money through hard times, so they can stay in the home rather than become a forclosure. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Schmidt asked if the separation distance is from physical structure to physical structure. Mr. Barnes replied it was from the property lines. It would be the nearest distance from where the crow flies from one property to the other. Member Lingle said that Mr. Barnes memo stated that the four options would be going to City Council and that the Board did not necessarily have to take a position on the one the Board would prefer. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005. Page 13 Mr. Barnes replied that the Board has a prerogative to make a specific recommendation on any of the four, or plug in their own values. The ordinance that goes to Council will include these options. Member Craig asked if staff had taken any position on any of the options. Mr. Barnes replied no. Member Lingle moved to recommend approval to the changes to the Land Use Code to City Council regarding the definition of "family", occupancy restrictions and changes to both the Boarding House and Home Occupation regulations. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Schmidt really did not want to zone in on any option, but stated that options three and four; the separation for the MMN is too low in those two particular options. She agreed with the memo they received today regarding moving the HMN out of the second category and it looks like every option has that but option one. When you get to options three and four, the 300 feet and the 150 feet is probably close. Member Lingle would urge staff and City Council as they discuss these that they be really careful about how they look at these separations. He thought they needed to be based on something that is defensible. He agreed with Member Schmidt's comments that the numbers included in option two seem more appropriate. He thought that as this proceeds on, there needs to be some real discussion about it. Member Carpenter agreed that the separation requirement be looked at carefully. Member Torgerson did not think that there are adequate laws but agrees there is a problem. Maybe it is enforcement and those laws should be reinforced. He did not think that changing the Land Use Code will solve this problem. The politicians will be applauded for responding and people love response, but he did not think this will do it. He did not think any of these options will do it. We need to fully enforce the laws that are on the books and put new laws on the books that will solve the problems. He did not think this would do it. He would not support any variation on the motion. Member Schmidt also had some of the same feelings that Member Torgerson has as far as the limitations we have and the only thing is that she feels that in some cases this is going to be a complaint driven ordinance. If you do have a family and they are in a financial situation for a brief period of time and they are renting to possibly another married couple and if everything is as wonderful as the person stated, there probably Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 14 won't be complaints filed and people will understand. Where as, this does give the option if people are abusing it there is some kind of recourse. Member Carpenter added that the piece of this that de -criminalizes is appropriate and also allow the city to be able to enforce it in a more appropriate manner. Member Lingle is not convinced that this is going to solve the problem at all, but that is not really the Board's job. He thought that some of the things that are being proposed can only help take some of the loop holes away and some of the vague language that allows the city to enforce the laws on the books better. For that reason he is willing to support it in general. Member Lingle asked if Member Schmidt wanted to ad an amendment to the motion to add an option. Member Schmidt replied that their comments would be on the record and that this would be studied a lot more by staff and City Council and she did not think there needed to be a motion on any particular option. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Torgerson voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. These meeting minutes were approved on January 19, 2006 by the Planning and Zoning Board.