HomeMy WebLinkAbout1124 W. MULBERRY ST. - ADDITION OF TWO PERMITTED USES - 34-09 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 13
A. Adding the office and bed and breakfast establishments with six or fewer beds to
the existing house and property at 1124 West Mulberry Street in the N-C-L zone is
found to comply with the compatibility standards of Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use
Code
B. Adding the two proposed uses to 1124 West Mulberry Street is found to comply
with the criteria of Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code in that such addition:
(1.) Would be appropriate to the zone district;
(2.) Would conform to the basic characteristics of the zone;
(3.) Would not have any adverse impacts on the district;
(4.) Would not be detrimental to the public good;
(5.) Would not be forwarded to City Council for Text Amendment.
C. Adding the two proposed uses to 1124 West Mulberry Street is specifically
conditioned such that the uses must be contained within the existing structure.
And subject to the recommendation that states: Staff recommends approval of adding office and
bed and breakfast establishment for six or fewer beds as a permitted use for the existing
structure at 1124 W. Mulberry Street, subject to the bed and breakfast establishment being
reviewed as a PDP by the Planning & Zoning Board as a Type Two review.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Chair Schmidt noted that when it moves toward the B&B option, they would have to come back to the
Planning & Zoning Board. There would also be neighborhood meetings at that time so that gives
neighbors further opportunity for input. Shepard said If the motion to approve is carried forward then the
next task for the applicant would be for the applicant to come down to the zoning department and go
through the change of use process. If the Alexander Agency moves and say an attorney or an
accountant moves in that would not require a change of use. If it were to become anything but an office
or a B&B, it simply would not be permitted.
Member Campana asked if it changes to a B&B would it be a Type 2, requiring Board review. Shepard
said yes. Director Dush agreed. Eckman referred the Board to the recommendation on page 9 of the
staff report.
Member Carpenter made the comment that there are a lot of advantages that go with eligible landmark
designation and it is something the applicant may want to look into.
The motion passed 7:0.
Project: North College Public Infrastructure Funding Plan
Project Descri[pbon:_Staff is requesting the Planning and Zoning Board forwaxct a recommendation to
City -Council to approve the North College Infrastra-cture Funding Plan by
Recommendation: Staff recommends appr i tt=st the North College Infrastructure Funding Plan.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Pete Wray reported in July 2009 staff received direction and supp om the North College
Citizens Advisory Board (CAG) and City Council to proceed in finalizing the North Coltege,Infrastructure
Funding Plan (Funding Plan). The purpose of the Funding Plan is to establish a comprehensive list of
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 12
Alexander said the bump out was there when his dad purchased it. He's not sure at what point that was
modified. There are no plans to build anything else.
Member Stockover said he's been thinking about the intent of this procedure. He remembers the
conversations about how we need a process in place for site and use specific purposes. He knows they
have to be very careful with this process but what he sees here is they're examining possible future
needs (B&B) and that goes against their initial intent. This application is "jumping" a whole step. This
process should be more what we have for this person/this use today. That is concerning to him.
Member Lingle said that part would be speculative. Is there anything in the wording of the LUC that
prevents the Board from doing something that's speculative? Eckman referred the Board to LUC Section
1.3.4(A) criteria listed on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the staff report. Eckman added the Board can review on a
case -by -case basis and the Board is not required to refer them to City Council for a code amendment. It
must fit the compatibility criteria of the LUC in Section 3.5.1, it must not be considered for a text
amendment, and it must not be detrimental to the public good. Eckman said with regard to limiting it to
this particular applicant, it's an addition of permitted "use" not a permitted user.
Chair Schmidt said with regard to Stockover's comments, in this particular case it's so specific to this
building. The building being what it is (a historic structure); it's not going to change. She doesn't have a
problem with either use. (She noted other applicants who ultimately were not ready to proceed with the
permitted use (lawn mower repair business on 525 S. Taft Hill.) Shepard noted that particular applicant
went through an amendment when a lease did not go through and staff made the judgment call that the
new use was so similar they both fit under the condition of permitted use'that was granted by the Board.)
Member Rollins said she appreciates Stockover's comments. He brings up a very good point of being
very careful if it is a speculative use. She's comfortable with both uses in this particular case.
Lingle said prior reviews have been for a specific use. This one is two uses; the next one might be four.
He thinks the Board should look at whether they'd like to tighten it and not allow speculative
considerations. He would agree with Schmidt and Rollins in this case —it would be easier to support their
request because it's easy to see a B&B in that house. In light of the fact that we don't have any specific
language that gives them grounds to deny he's not comfortable with doing that tonight.
Member. Carpenter said it makes her more comfortable to'have the recommendation that it be reviewed if
it goes to a B&B in a Type 2 review.
Member Campana said -that Stockover raises a good point and in this case he agrees with other
members that as recommended it addresses the concerns of the neighbors and maintains the integrity of
the structure. He also appreciates that it'll come back to the Board should it convert to a B&B.
Chair Schmidt asked Director Dush to place the number of uses allowed with the addition of permitted
use process on an upcoming worksession agenda.
Member Smith said one of the biggest enemies of historic preservation is economic obsolescence so to
find an old building that has a new use is often the best way to preserve an old building. When thinking
of the alternatives (high density residential); this is probably a great way to achieve conservation. He's
okay with this request.
Member Smith made a motion to approve the two permitted uses at 1124 W. Mulberry Street,
# 34-09, and in support of the motion he adopts the findings of fact and conclusion on page 9 of
the revised staff report:
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 11
and it is their position that they would not want any addition that would significantly alter the exterior. The
building has been slightly modified over the years --the east side enclosed porch acts as a "bump out" for
one of the offices. Director Dush said in the staff report this property was identified as being individually
eligible for local landmark designation. There is quite an extensive process if they wanted to do an
addition or a demolition. Dush said an addition would require an amendment (notwithstanding the
required historic preservation review) and would require they come back for a review.
Member Lingle asked what would happen if this were not a historic building. Would the permitted use
process restrict a significant addition? Eckman said per the staff report, page 11, Findings of Fact and
Conclusion, paragraph 11 C says no. The two proposed uses must be contained with the existing
structure. Chair Schmidt asked if this were another situation that didn't have that clause, what would
occur. Eckman said if it didn't have that clause you could add on or build a new building on the property.
He said in this particular case, due to the clause, you cannot.
Member Lingle said staff would have to evaluate other proposals taking that into account but the Board
would need to keep in mind that something could be added onto in a significant way that could impact
the neighborhood. Eckman said correct.
Member Rollins said with this type of a process we could be very restrictive and add those types of
conditions. It is part of this very special use. Shepard said correct and that is why the Planning & Zoning
Board review is required.
Member Carpenter asked if this building is nationally, locally, or both (historic preservation) eligible.
Shepard said he's not sure. Director Dush said the way he understands it, the determination was just for
local eligibility. Carpenter said it's the local determination that has "teeth" and that's why she asked.
Dush noted they have not petitioned for that designation.
Chair Schmidt said she presumes that they would not have both uses at the same time —B&B upstairs
and office downstairs. Schmidt asked the owner to address the concerns of neighbors and outline his
plan for the property. Alexander said the only reason he asked for the B&B use was sometime in the mid
90s someone approached his father and he has about 15 pages of plans that they drew up for that use.
He thinks it could work as a B&B. He does not, however, plan to open a B&B nor operate both at the
same time. He said a future owner may but they would be restricted to what's allowed in the granting of
this request.
Alexander said he appreciates the positive comments made by his neighbors. The alley access is an
interesting one. We do have an alley problem but it's not with his clients or with his employees. People
come up and down the alley on a daily basis and take the easier path through his driveway to get onto
Mulberry or Shields. There is a problem but it has not been created by his office use.
Alexander said as far as the use being non -conforming for many years, he certainly has not flown under
the radar. He's on a corner that's very visible and he's been in City offices to speak with the appropriate
staff for the past 10 years.
Alexander said he's been privy to conversation about City plans to put a right turn lane and if that
happens 18 feet of his property along Mulberry will disappear. That might have been the time to ask for
a spot rezone that would have been much broader than what he's asking for tonight. It would be a
significant enough impact on the property making it less residential. That project is on hold but he
doesn't think it's °off the boards" entirely.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 10
a change of use has come up. She'd like to see "some kind of stance" on what the uses in neighborhood
should be.
End of Public Input
Board Citizen Response & Questions
Chair Schmidt asked Shepard to answer the questions raised. She noted the property would not be
rezoned commercial —she asked him to explain "addition of permitted use" and conditions when it is
applicable. Shepard said the addition of permitted use recommendation is conditioned that it be in this
house as you see it today. This would not follow that you could tear this building down and build a "glass
tower". The whole philosophy behind this process is that the Board gets to evaluate compatibility.
Compatibility is achieved by this house. Compatibility would not be achieved by demolition and
replacement by something else.
Shepard said the underlying zoning would not change. This process is supposed to be a little more
precise not allowing for all uses listed on a zone district -wide basis. That's why this applicant, over the
years, chose and was perhaps advised not to do what we call a "spot rezone". There are examples of
spot rezoning in town —a transmission repair shop in the NCM zone that was conducting that business
back in 1997 when we rezoned the city.
Shepard said in terms of setting precedent, the Board gets to look at addition of permitted use requests
on a Type 2 case -by -case basis evaluating it on its merits and its compatibility in a particular situation.
Shepard said the applicant, if successful this evening, will have to apply to the zoning department for a
"change of use". The change of use will determine on the number of offices. They will work with the
applicant on a square footage/number of room basis to establish a reasonable upper limit on the number
of employees. He's been in the house and said the second floor would probably not lend itself to a high
occupancy office situation. It would probably be a professional office with one client at a time.
Chair Schmidt asked what requirements would have to be met for parking. Shepard said there is a
generous amount of parking on this property. That would be reviewed at the change of use time.
Chair Schmidt asked what the zoning is and what areas will stay residential. Shepard said there was a
comment regarding °the push" to relocate commercial to the Mason Corridor. He is not aware of any
"push". Mason Street Corridor is supposed to be a draw —a "pull'. This process is one lot/site specific
only. It does not attempt to reanalyze the Westside Neighborhood Plan. There is no overall vision or
planning exercise to alter or change either the Westside Neighborhood Plan or the NCL zone.
Chair Schmidt said she thinks the City enforces codes on a complaint basis. If a violation exists and a
complaint is received, the enforcement officer would address it. She asked Shepard to speak to the
neighbor's concern about non -conforming. Shepard said it hasn't been in violation for 35 years. At the
point where it evolved from a home occupation to a strictly an office is when it became a violation.
Chair Schmidt asked if there was any way the individuals' concern about alley traffic could be addressed.
Shepard said no more than what's happening presently. Alley's are public right-of-ways and are
designed to provide access. Whatever is happening with the level of activity in the alley is probably what
one could expect in the future.
Member Lingle said he understand that permitted use is both site and building specific in terms of
character. We have a sense of comfort that the building could not be demolished and an office building
be rebuilt. He asked could there be an addition. Shepard said he spoke with historic preservation staff
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 9
commercial development. That said if a B&B really is a B&B as Board member Smith /the Code
suggested then he personally feels that's a compatible use of this property. He doesn't know exactly
how an office is described but if it is also what they expect (8-5) that is also a compatible use. He does
acknowledge that commercial development can be made compatible but it does need to acknowledge
what's going on in a neighborhood. He personally feels that Mr. Alexander does acknowledge that
compatibility issue and the proposal as presented is a compatible proposal.
Siu Au Lee lives at 939 Pioneer Avenue in the Mantz neighborhood. She said she has no issue with Mr.
Alexander —he's a good neighbor. Her question is once the addition of permitted use is granted, what is
the exact zoning of that particular property. Does it allow for other buildings to be built there? What if a
new developer comes and decides to tear down the building? There are some issues that are not very
clear. Are you changing from NCL to commercial? What if he sold the property, what's going to
happen? Is there any way to write some protection into it? Will it keep its zoning designation and keep
this very special thing (addition of permitted use)? Because of their "steamed rolled" experience, they
really want clarification. What does it mean in the future?
Michelle Hafele lives in the Mantz subdivision directly across Mulberry. She thanked Mr. Alexander and
Mr. Shepard for addressing some of their concerns. But like Ms, Lee and Mr. Sanderson, she has
concerns about setting precedence. What does this mean for another non -conforming use? The present
site has been in violation of the zoning ordinances for some time and it has been known to the City it has
been in violation. Allowing these permitted uses is basically rewarding this violation. They would like
some "side bars' on it. This use has been compatible —it's not raised anyone's concerns. What they
want to know is would any future use of the building look, sound, and smell the same essentially no
change in the way this property operates in their neighborhood. She has some concerns that a B&B
would not be entirely compatible. it might be the sort of B&B that would attract the crowd that does not
go to bed early. You just don't know how that would work out.
Furthermore, Ms Hafele said Mr. Alexander spoke of an office building. She does not want to see this
building torn down and something built there that would be an office building. The language in the letter
they received said the existing building. She's like some assurance in that regard. The building does
have historical significance and they would not like to see the building torn down and an office built
because that's a permitted use. In some of their conversations, she thinks their intent is to not just to
come into conformance but to sell the property for the permitted use. They want assurance that it will be
like it is presently.
Mark Olson lives at 515 Wayne and shares an alley with the subject property. He said Mr. Alexander
has been a very good neighbor for the 9 years he's been on his property. But she also shares the
concerns that everyone else has expressed. He asked if under the proposed change what number of
offices would be permitted in that building. He asked, in general, what percentages in the neighborhood
could be converted to something like this. If this does set a precedent, could that happen to every house
or is there something in place that would keep a certain percentage residential?
John Harris also resides in the Mantz Subdivision. He just wants to echo the same comments made by
others —specifically the precedence setting and what's to stop the whole neighborhood from being
converted. The other question he had is how the City allowed this violation to go on for 35 years. Are
there properties all over the City in this situation? Mr. Alexander is a good neighbor but he wants to
know how for 35 years it has been non -conforming.
Kirstin Olsen lives at 515 Wayne Street. She just wants to echo the concerns her husband had. She'd
like to know how many offices would be in there. How many people could actually be occupying the
neighborhood? In the 9 years they've lived in the neighborhood, this is the third time someone wanting
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 8
neighbors had to say, he felt that was the only sticking point that he had. As a result, he contacted Mr.
Shepard and asked to remove that item from the list. It was not as important to him as the office use.
He thinks this project has a positive impact on the neighborhood. The commentary from the neighbors is
that they've never had a problem with me. We've been there 30 plus years and have not had any
complaints about the office, how it's been run, or how it looks. If it's an approved use, he cannot imagine
anything that would detract from the neighborhood —certainly better than a large student rental.
He thanked the Board and said he hopes the application makes sense and is approved by them.
Board Questions:
Member Smith referred to the Land Use Code (LUC) definition of bed and breakfast (B&B). Does a B&B,
require that there's a residential unit in which the owner lives? If not, is it more like a hotel? Shepard
said he doesn't exactly know. He has a feeling that there are a variety of situations and what he's seen
in Fort Collins is that the owner does live there. He does not know about zoning enforcement on that
issue.
Director Dush said the Code says it's occupied by the operator —not necessarily the owner. Smith
understands the difference is an on -site operator.
Public Input:
James Murphy, who just recently bought a property within 100 feet of the site, said he was told that the
City was trying to move all the businesses that were new businesses downtown and that neighborhoods
like this could not be turned back into commercial properties. He's concerned about the additional traffic
that would happen in the alley that runs along his property. He thinks this would set precedence and
would open it up to others who would want to open up a B&B. The fact that it's at a busy intersection
does not affect the fact that it would make a beautiful home. He doesn't understand why the change —
it's already operating as a business. He'd rather see commercial uses along the Mason Corridor. He's
not in favor of the request.
John Sanderson lives in the Mantz subdivision at 1012 Sunset Avenue and 100 feet southeast of this
property. He's been before the Board before in opposition to the Shields Street Loft project. During that
project's required neighborhood meeting, they felt "steam rolled" by the developer. The Board voted to
deny the project as proposed based on the incompatibility of the mixed -use project right next to the
family neighborhood. The Board's denial was appealed to City Council and Council overturned it and the
project was approved with a few minor modifications which they considered irrelevant to their concerns.
He wanted to provide that background because they really felt that in that case the neighborhood
process did not work. In contrast, they did have a meeting with Mr. Alexander and while it was a little bit
tense at times; in the end, the proposal was modified. He wants to thank both Mr. Alexander and Mr.
Shepard for making the modifications to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Sanderson would like to speak briefly to the point that Mr. Alexander made to this being an obviously
commercial location. They were told three years ago relative to the Shields Street Loft project that this is
a busy intersection and nothing can possible happen here except more commercial development —an
expansion of what's already there. The fact is they live in a wonderful neighborhood. Five years ago it
appeared the neighborhood was moving toward what were largely rental properties. They have resisted
that trend. They have a wonderful community and they want to keep it that way. They interact on a
regular basis. They will continue to provide feedback into this type of process in order to maintain the
livability of their neighborhood.
What Sanderson asks, in the general sense, the Board take to heart the portions of the City LUC that
speaks to compatibility? They are humans, they have families, and they "feel" about their neighborhood
and want to maintain its livability. It is not a given that this intersection should be written off to large
Planning & Zoning Board
November 19, 2009
Page 7
Project: 1124 W. Mulberry Street —Addition of Permitted Use, # 34-09
Project Description: This is a request to add two permitted uses to the existing building at 1124 West
Mulberry Street. The two uses are office and bed and breakfast with six or fewer
beds. The site is a former residence/duplex, a former home occupation and is
currently the location of the State Farm Insurance Company — Daryl Alexander
Agency. The site is located at the northeast corner of West Mulberry Street and
Shields Street and zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. The
zone district does not permit office and bed and breakfast establishments with six
or fewer beds as permitted uses.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported the proposed additional uses are not permitted in the N-C-L district.
The request has been reviewed by the criteria of Sections 1.3A and 3.5.1 which address compatibility
within the zone district and the surrounding area. The zoning district does not currently allow the two
requested uses.
Applicant's Presentation
Daryl Alexander, owner of the building at 1124 W. Mulberry Street, is a State Farm insurance agent that
has been doing business there for the past 10 years. In 2000 he took over the business from his father
who operated his insurance business there since 1977 when zoning issues weren't quite as strict as they
were today. Back then having a home and insurance agency worked well together. Over time it became
just the agency. The zoning issue has been on his mind for quite a few years because it's been an
unresolved item. He's approached City staff to talk about the possibility of having it rezoned. The
response has been that he's not bothering anyone and nobody's bothering me —continue to do business
unless a problem arises but don't try to pursue a full rezoning because you're unlikely to get something
like that on a single site.
When he heard of the new process —addition of permitted uses, he was extremely excited because it's
exactly designed for this type of situation where a property can be used a different way from the rest of
the zoned district. He believes his property has been extremely well maintained and stands out as a very
nice location in an area where some homes have not been quite as well kept He believes that having
the addition of a permitted use for an office building and potentially a bed and breakfast. It's an ideal
location for that.
He said the property is less suited today as a residence as it is as an office. That is a busy corner with
extreme stop and go traffic all day and into the evening. There are very large lights on the corner and a
lot of light from the commercial property (7-11 & Gilsdorf Garage) that sits diagonally across the
intersection of Shields and Mulberry. He has a lot of unused space in the building and it would be nice to
use the property as an office —he would continue with what he's doing.
Alexander said they had a neighborhood meeting on October 121". Neighbors voiced some concern
about the addition of permitted uses that he had requested. The one that seemed to stand out the most
(personal and business service shops) and it is no longer on the agenda. As he listened to what his