Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout300 SMITH STREET, OLD TOWN COMMONS - FDP - 39-03B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 2010 Page 5 C. The Old Town Commons — Final Plan does not comply with Section 4.8(D)(5) of the District standards located in ARTICLE 4. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0 Eastside/Westside Design Standards Description: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make recommendations City Council regarding three Ordinances for potential Code changes related to a East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. Staff recommends approval of the Ordinances A and C Hearing Testimony, ritten Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Megan Bo said staff members Clark Mapes, Karen McWilliam and Peter Barnes are here tonight to discuss th Eastside/Westside Design Standards. They are eeking the Planning & Zoning Board recommenda " n to City Council to adopt the Eastside/We side Design Standards. Bolin said in January of this yea at the direction of City Council, st initiated a study to explore general concerns related to neighborhood ompatibility of new constructio The clearest, strongest concerns involve the removal of small, older h ses and replacement wit uch larger new construction. The fundamental question was whether the ity's current zoning r ulations warrant change to better reflect adopted policies of protecting establishe neighborhood ch acter. The ordinances have been developed from a extensi house meetings with property owners, and sta et it Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs mm with the City Council, and several work session wit th and Zoning Board, and Zoning Board of App Is. A C throughout the process in a series of 13 m etings. The Side Neighborhoods, builders, architect, real estate pr boards and commissions. public process including three public open h the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and the ittee. In addition there were three work sessions e Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning en Advisory Committee (CAC) advised staff C included residents from the East and West ofes 'onals, and representatives from the relevant The process identified several implementation options and at City ouncil's November 23, 2010 Worksession City Council direc d staff to prepare potential Land Us Code changes that Council will consider for adoption on Jan ry 4, 2011. Staff worked to develop ordl,,7es which are the topics tonight. A. Landmark Pres ration Commission Voluntary Design Assistance. Thi Ordinance would change the Municipal ode Section that defines the functions of the Landmark Pr ervation Commission (LPC), in or er to allow the LPC to offer non -binding design advice to intere d property owners regardin istorically appropriate design of new construction. It would also inc ase the /Blk ship of the LPC from 7 to 9 members. ce Averaging -Plus. This would change the way floor area limits are set for ho es in the rhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Mediu (NCM) zoning districts. House size limits would be derived from the average size o Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 2010 Page 4 Member Campana asked if she came forward with that today, would staff support the modifications. McArdle said he has not seen the justifications so she can't verify that. Shepard said we had a different planner on the original approved project so the institutional knowledge is perhaps just a little lacking this evening. He said they would go through the regular procedure for a request for modification —evaluate based on the criteria. The one that comes to mind is equal to or better than. They would ask the applicant to give them one exhibit that shows how the project would comply with the standard and another exhibit that shows what they would like to do —what you've seen here tonight. The Hearing Officer or the Planning & Zoning Board then makes their decision. Member Smith said we can't consider a request for a modification of standard on the spot as is being requested by the applicant. Unfortunately it is not something the Board can consider tonight. Shepard said that's correct. That is not the issue this evening. Shepard said having worked with this particular standard in the NCB and the NCM district. The fact that this particular lot is on the north end of the block speaks well to not violating anyone's access to sunshine. Schmidt asked if that was the main reason for that standard change in the Code. Was that change put in with that FAR because of sunlight standards? Shepard said it was put in with Round 2 of the Eastside/Westside Design issue. He said Round 3 will be the next item on tonight's agenda. It came into being to perhaps scale back a little bit on height, bulk and mass in the rear half of a lot in the affected zones. Member Hatfield said Bachman had been in compliance until they changed the Code after she was approved. Wouldn't a grandfather clause apply? Shepard said it normally would except in this particular case, the plan expired. Shepard said so we go back to square one for Code compliance. Member Schmidt said as a Board, they have a lack of options. She likes the plan as it was submitted. The best opportunity right now is for the applicant to resubmit another plan with the modifications. Although she knows that's not the option the applicant wants, she feels like it's one the Board might support. In the end run, it might give the applicant the best outcome. Member Campana said he agrees with Member Schmidt. He said in this case, it would be very difficult for the Board to approve an extension for a plan that does not comply. Chairperson Stockover asked if the same vesting applies on a re -submittal. McArdle said yes. Campana said the process would be the modification would be approved, then the project approved, you set your vesting standards and assuming you fulfill those requirements then it wouldn't expire. If not, you have that three year window to do what you want to do with the project. Member Smith said the rules they are bound by are very clear in this situation. While he's sympathetic to the situation, a lot of the rationale the applicant has provided includes issues that are really outside their purview. He supports staff's recommendation for denial. Member Lingle said he agrees with other members Member Smith moved to deny the Old Town Commons (300 Smith Street) One Year Extension on Final Plan, #39-313 and in support he adopts the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. A. The Old Town Commons — Final Plan Extension Request does not comply with Article 2 standards, as it is not in compliance with the Standards of Article 4 of the LUC. B. The Old Town Commons — Final Plan, as previously approved, continues to comply with the applicable standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC. Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 2010 Page 3 Board's Questions None Public Input None Board Discussion Member Smith asked if the burden of Code review fell on the applicant, staff, or was shared. McArdle asked for clarification —is he meaning staff foreseeing the impacts on developments if a development isn't completed by project expiration? Smith asked, "is the burden on the applicant or staff to know the "rules the applicant must play by?" McArdle said during Conceptual Review, staff educates the applicant on how they may not meet the standards. When they submit and they do their review —it's mostly staff making sure they meet the standards. They do expect the applicant to learn/know what the requirements are. McArdle said for this standard that came into effect after the application was submitted, it probably was overlooked that it was not mentioned to the applicant. McArdle asked Chief Planner Ted Shepard if he was aware of something that was not brought up to the applicant that could potentially impact them. Shepard said in the context of this particular item, it's because of the expiration extension request. Any applicant gets the rules in place at the time they apply. Once you make an application, the rules cannot change. What's unique about this particular case is that the project expired. There's a Code provision that should a project expire, it can only be extended if it meets all current Code. The only thing Shepard would add there's been a lot of evolution on the Land Use Code (LUC). The Board sees the annual Code changes. There's not been a year since 1997 where we haven't had some Code changes. Most of the time they are able to work with applicants based on the Code in place at the time they apply. This one is just a "sticky wicket" because of the expiration and the Code change —they're caught between those two Codes. Member Schmidt said she noticed the plans in their packets have the notation Phase 1 and 2. Does that have any impact on this project? If we're only looking at Phase 1 would that pass the FAR requirement? McArdle said Phase 2 would comply but Phase 1 does not but staff looks at the overall plan. The plan does not comply with the standard. Member Campana said he thinks it expires because the improvements haven't been put in. Shepard asked McArdle to go over the improvements that are at issue. Campana said typically if it's a new site, had they gone in to put curb, gutter, water, sewer, storm drainage, street lights and then you'd have a plan that wouldn't expire. Shepard said that's correct —it's vested. McArdle said the sidewalk improvements in the right-of-way, the parkway, driveways, street trees and the alley improvements are the improvements that have not been made. Member Schmidt said she heard the applicant request a three year extension but that's not something the Board can grant —isn't it usually one year at a time? Shepard said it's a one year extension. Member Schmidt said she'd like to go over what she thinks the procedure would be following staff's recommendation. Basically, because it doesn't meet the Code requirements as is and some of the improvements may also be somewhat lacking; if the Board denies this request, the applicant would need to resubmit a new plan using all the drawings she has. She would start anew. She'd be good for three years before she required an extension. McArdle said yes, if approved. Member Schmidt said the way to address the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement would be to ask for a modification. McArdle said that's correct. She'd also need a modification to the setback along the north property line. Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 2010 Page 2 There have been two administrative extensions for this plan to date; one on September 12, 2008 and the second on September 30, 2009. Staff has reviewed the project against the current applicable standards and finds that the project is not in compliance with Section 4.8(D)(5) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the rear floor area ratio limitation; therefore, Staff is recommending denial of this extension request. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planner Emma McArdle said the Old Town Commons, Final Plan, as previously approved, shall comply with all current applicable standards located in Articles 3 and 4 according to Section 2.2(D)(4) Extensions. The Old Town Commons, Final Plan, as previously approved, continues to comply with the applicable standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the Land Use Code (LUC). The Old Town Commons, Final Plan, as previously approved, does not comply with Section 4.8(D)(5) regarding rear floor area ratio. There have been two administrative extensions for this plan to date; one on September 12, 2008 and the second on September 30, 2009. Staff has reviewed the project against the current applicable standards and finds that the project is not in compliance with Section 4.8(D)(5) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the rear floor area ratio limitation; therefore, staff is recommending denial of this extension request. Member Schmidt asked what constitutes the rear lot. McArdle indicated what was there on an aerial view graphic. Applicant's Presentation Rosita Bachman, of Bachmann Enterprises, LLC, 8018 Fox Hill Drive, Longmont, CO 80501 said this is an in -fill project. She provided some historical perspective saying the project was approved prior to a moratorium and the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Bachman said she had not fully completed the requisite engineering because all services are already there. She asked that the Board consider the infrastructure in existence such as water and sewer taps, electricity, curb and gutters, and street design. She does not believe that granting the extension will be detrimental to the public good because: • It supports reinvestment in a key infill site • It creates an appropriate land use transition and provides a noise buffer • It mitigates noise from Riverside truck traffic • It provides a visual buffer from adjacent commercial buildings to the east • It enhances an important neighborhood gateway • It resolves an existing pedestrian system deficiency Bachman said with respect to LUC Section 4.8(D)(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lots are subject to a maximum FAR of .033 on the rear 50% of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. She requests the lot be grandfathered, the requirement waived, and project be given a three year extension. She believes the intent of the Code was for green field versus in -fill projects. She does not believe she is asking for unusual or exceptional relief but merely for a continuation of a project that has already been approved by the Board. Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, McArdle, Bolin, Mapes, McWilliams, Barnes, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the agenda noting item # 1, Minutes for the November 18`h Hearing has been pulled from the Consent Agenda. The minutes will be available for Board action at their January 201h meeting. Citizen participation: None Chair Stockover asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any item from the Consent Agenda. No requests were made so the agenda stands as revised. Consent Agenda: 2. Willow Brook Amended Overall Development Plan, # 27-10 Member Lingle moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Old Town commons (300 Smith Street) One Year Extension of Final Plan, # 39-03B 4. Eastside/Westside Design Standards Project: Old Town Commons (300 Smith Street) One Year Extension of Final Plan, # 39-03B Project Description: This is a request for a one (1) year extension, to October 5, 2011, of the approved Old Town Commons, Final Plan. The plan, approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in February of 2005, is for a three (3) unit multi -family dwelling (tri-plex) located at the southeast corner of Smith and Olive Streets. The applicant is responsible for the following public improvements before the use can become vested: sidewalk, parkway and driveway improvements located in the City's right- of-way and alley improvements along the east side of the site. The site is located in the NCM, Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District.