Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST ELIZABETH STREET REZONING - 2-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 17 The motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Approved by the Board March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 16 be a function of having 20 years between the developments of the plans. Absent any effort to have the neighborhood come forth with changes to the plan, he thought the Board should still use the Plan as its primary decision guide for this rezoning effort. Planner Waido also offered that at some point in the future the attitudes and perceptions might change regarding these deep lots. From a planning perspective, to get some additional residential next to a neighborhood commercial center and a major employment center would have some merit. The area is also under the auspice of a neighborhood plan and we would have to have the neighborhood agree with that perception. Member Colton thought that an appropriate avenue for Mr. Harder would be to talk to the other residents and maybe offer a plan for the entire area and see if they would agree. If so, an amendment might be appropriate for the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planner Waido replied that both Planner Barkeen and himself met with Mr. Harder last week and outlined that as a potential option for him. Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council denial of the rezoning request. Member Colton commented that there was some merit that given the fact that this does meet the plan and we should stay consistent with the plan. If Mr. Harder can get enough support from the neighbors to rezone several properties in the area. At this time he felt that the staff recommendation was appropriate. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she was very impressed, even when they did the East Side Plan back in 1980, that they were specific right down to the house numbers of every street so there was absolutely no interpretation. It was one lot after another and how they wanted it zoned. She appreciated that since we have gone through some other plans that were totally how do we interpret it and it was a real dilemma. If the Plan is that specific, she felt the Board should uphold that plan until the neighbors or staff deciding changes the Plan it needs to be changed. Member Colton added that he did not feel the conditions for a rezoning were met per the staff report. Chairperson Gavaldon agreed with Members Craig and Colton. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 15 Member Torgerson asked about the buffer district and why was there not a buffer between the commercial and the residential. Planner Waido replied that the uses were existing and eventually in the NCB zones abut single family housing. The boundaries were drawn after careful consideration during the planning process as to where the NCB zone should be and where the preservation or the low density residential should be. The shopping center was originally zoned IG, General Industrial and it was rezoned into a commercial zone as a result of the plan. That was actually a down zoning that went through on that property. Member Torgerson asked to see the map that the buffer areas were outlined in yellow. It seemed to be missing a yellow spot in this area and he wondered if that was a result to the intense opposition to the rezoning proposal on the Heider property. Planner Waido responded to the Board that in looking at the map, it is not, in every instance where you have a commercial corridor along a major arterial, that you have the predominantly residential areas buffered from that commercial with a buffer zone. The lines were drawn after careful consideration of a number of factors. If staff followed the logic that Mr. Harder is portraying we would have a yellow line all the way up and around all of the commercial areas. That did not happen because of the various reasons that were existing at the time when the zoning pattern was developed. Mr. Harder gave applicant's response. He stated again the points he previously made regarding being sandwiched between commercial and employment districts. He also stated that this area should be a buffer area. Chairperson asked if there has been any other change within the city like this and did the domino affect occur. Planner Waido replied that if the question is did the city rezone a property, which then allowed a change of use from residential to a higher intensity use. Subsequently, did another property come in and so on and so forth. He could not think of any case or cases where we rezoned a property and we had that type of domino affect. We have, however, through three neighborhood plan, the East Side Plan, West Side Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan, looked at older neighborhoods and identify those portions of the neighborhood that we felt were appropriate for redevelopment and those portions of the neighborhoods that need to be preserved. The most recent West Central Neighborhood Plan, the neighborhood residents and property owners, when coming across this type of area, did look at those areas differently than those did in this area. That may Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Hoffner stated that the current shopping center property does not affect their property because is at the back and north and does not have any access facing their property. She also disagrees with Mr. Harder that the vacant lot at 1004 East Elizabeth is not suitable for a residential property because the property at one time did have a single-family residence. It is common knowledge that Mr. Harder owns the adjacent commercial property to the east and to the north of the rezoning considerations and the plan for 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth will most likely play into a larger plan for all three properties. The broad definition for NCB makes the potential for all three properties combined to play a significant role in the decline of this residential area. Again she wanted to state her opposition to this request for rezoning. Member Craig asked Planner Waido if these property owners were at the table when the East Side Neighborhood Plan was being developed. Were they asking at that time to be a buffer area? Planner Waido replied that there was a tremendous amount of citizen and property owner input that went into the development of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and he could not recall whether these property owners were involved. There were two primary factors that lead the city into doing detailed neighborhood plans. The first one was, what Mr. Harder mentioned, was the Heider rezoning, which is the property directly adjacent to the 1040 East Elizabeth that was on the consent agenda. That was an extremely controversial rezoning, with it being denied primarily out of the fear of the domino affect. The second factor was the change from a standard zoning approach, to regulating land use, to the development of the Land Development Guidance System; which gave the land use flexibility to allow proposals on any property, and the criterion and the system helped the city to make a decision of whether or not that proposal should be approved on that property. We started seeing a lot of things being proposed in older neighborhoods that did not make a lot of sense. That is what lead to the development of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planner Waido commented that somehow it has been put out that part of the justification for rezoning for these properties is the fact that they are recommending a rezoning on the 1040 East Elizabeth property and that these are in a similar situation. They are not, the 1040 rezoning is based on the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the reason we are rezoning it is because we made a mistake in 1997 and put that property back into the NCL zone instead of retaining it in the NCB zone. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 13 zoning situation anywhere in this area. He feels that it is easy to see and easy to support. Mr. Harder addressed the staff report. He referenced page 2 and the reference to the East Side Neighborhood Plan and that it includes a specific zoning pattern for this area focusing on preserving the single family residential and commercial areas and proposing land use buffers between areas of residential and commercial uses. They agree with that statement. The staff reports also states "that the rezoning request within the East Side Neighborhood Plan must demonstrate substantial compliance with the specific zoning pattern established by the plan." "The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the zoning districts recommended by the properties in the East Side Neighborhood Plan." He feels that is not a true statement and felt that they were not inconsistent, in fact they are probably the most consistent lands you could find. These two properties have to be the best two qualified properties to meet the purpose and use of the buffer zone in the entire East Side Neighborhood Plan. There is no other NCL residential property being impacted by commercial and business in this area like theirs is. Mr. Harder closed by saying that this is the first time in 20 years they have had a chance to ask the city to look at their property realistically, objectively and most importantly, honestly. The present zoning on this property is so wrong that it actually denies the reasonable use of the property. They have been paying their taxes, cutting their weeds for 20 years. What they really have is a vacant piece of property that has become a black hole. A recent appraisal was devalued by 20% because the appraiser said that this could not be considered a single-family residential area anymore. This has to be as bad as zoning can get. He asked the Board to consider all the facts and recommend that the zoning on his property be corrected to NCB. Katie Hoffner, who lives at 1002 East Elizabeth and is the closest property owner to the rezoning proposal at 1004. She felt that they would be the most affected by the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. It is her position that rezoning for 1004 East Elizabeth not be rezoned to NCB as it will devalue their property. Mr. Harder states in his petition and also stated here tonight that an appraiser devalued the property 1008 because it was not considered part of a single-family residential property. It therefore, states on the record what happens to the property adjacent to the NCB zone, the value declines. The only way they can protect their value would be to petition to rezone to NCB so they could recoup their property value which will also set into motion a dangerous domino affect and set a precedent for encroaching on the intentions and vision of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 12 is basically single family residential is sandwiched in between what is commercial on one side and E, Employment on the other. Mr. Harder pointed out to the Board the commercial to the north and the employment that is directly to the south of the property. Mr. Harder pointed out the zoning designations in the area and stated that buffer zones were being used all along the sides all throughout the East Side Neighborhood Plan to buffer the commercial from the residential. Mr. Harder referenced the site shots that Planner Barkeen presented and they showed the properties to the south which are apartments and doctors offices and nursing homes that run down for two blocks. He felt that the one thing that Planner Barkeen's presentation was lacking was site shots of the commercial property that adjoins these properties. The commercial is the foundation of the NCB, Buffer zone. The NCB Buffer zone came out of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the purpose was to buffer residential property from commercial property. That is what you will find throughout the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Harder, using visual slides, gave a history of the neighborhood, which began around the 1960's, and the zoning of the area and surrounding areas. He gave a history of how the area developed. He stated that there are other properties west of his lots that are in a similar situation where the commercial property sits right on their back and the apartments and the businesses are across the street from them. Mr. Harder read from the East Side Neighborhood Plan. `The buffer areas are intended to provide a cushion between the fringe area and the preservation areas. Predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity, non retail, non residential uses." `The fringe area, this includes the predominant non residential areas fronting South College, Lemay Avenue, Riverside Avenue and portions of the downtown business district." Along with that, page 24, Section 3.2 it talks about where the buffer areas would be used. "Land Use Conversions and added accessory uses such as home occupations are anticipated in the buffer area." "Close proximity to more intense fringe tends to make many sites less desirable for most single family residential uses." That is the just of the purposes and the use in close proximity to the commercial. They are sandwiched between the E, business apartments and the commercial uses. Mr. Harder stated that there is no separation between the commercial uses and their property. There is about 8 property that are squeezed between the high and heavy zoning districts. There is no other property owner in this extreme Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 11 vacant, the other contains a single family residential dwelling. The sites are designated as Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Barkeen visually pointed out for the Board the properties using an aerial photograph. He stated that the properties were currently zoned NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density District and the request was to rezone the properties to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. Planner Barkeen showed slides of and reviewed for the Board the surrounding area. Planner Barkeen gave the Board information on the Structure Plan designations and the East Side Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 1986. Planner Barkeen stated that the Planning Staff was recommending denial of this application. The recommendation is based on the East Side Neighborhood Plan, which is still a valid Plan and has been incorporated into the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan as an element of that Plan. It is also one of the findings that the Board needs to make in order to recommend approval of such a rezoning. Planner Barkeen reported that a neighborhood meeting was held for this application. Member Craig asked Planner Barkeen to report on what he felt the neighborhood concerns were at the neighborhood meeting. Planner Barkeen responded that the concerns were the continued transition of the Buffer District on down to the west of these lots. Paul Harder, who lives at 737 Rochelle Circle and is one of the owners of the properties gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Harder was there to discuss what he calls the "distorted" zoning on the properties at 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth. After reading the staff report, he is at odds with the Planning Department and their position. Mr. Harder referenced the vicinity map in the staff report and the map in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. He stated that he would use the two maps to try and explain the unusual situation that does not exist anywhere else in the East Side Neighborhood and as far as he knows does not exist anywhere else in Fort Collins. Mr. Harder gave a visual presentation of the maps to the Board and stated that this is a situation where the NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density which Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 10 Member Colton moved to continue the item, Walgreens at Drake Crossing' hopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A, to the next Plannin and Zoning Board meeting, April 4, 2002. Director loss stateed and the packet ha been printed. The following meeting had been anticipated that the next meeting has already been advert'd for cancellation a to lack of items which would take the item into a first meeting in May. Attorney Eckman sta that the item could be contin d to the next meeting because all interested D ons are in attendance. Member Craig seconded Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked to preserve existing trees, to the ex Chairperson Gavaldon and M ber Craig ag would champion a modific 'on if the building from the line if trees coujdbe saved. to work on designing the project ly feasible. Member Craig stated that she up further than 15 feet away Member Carpenter ated that the street that had to meet t4 build -to requiremenIg co d be moved to an interior street and asked i hat would help. Member C stated that this building would not have an interior s et to build to. motion was approved 7-0. Project: East Elizabeth Street Rezoning, #2-02 Project Description: Request to rezone two parcels of land located at 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street from NCL — Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District to NCB — Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District. The properties are located north of Elizabeth Street, just west of Lemay Avenue. Together they total .77 acre in size. The properties are currently zoned. One of the parcels (1004 East Elizabeth) is Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Colton, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Meyer, and Gavaldon. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Stanford, Hamdan, Waido, Alfers, and Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ02-03, Easement Dedication. (WITHDRAWN) 3. #48-01 Seven Oaks Academy's Little Acorns, Project Development Plan. 4. #35-96A Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION — CRAIG) Recommendation Items: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 5. #46-01 1040 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning. Discussion Item: 6. #2-02 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning. Member Craig pulled Item #4, Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A to discussion. Director Gloss stated that Item #2 was to be withdrawn from the agenda. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 3 and 5. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.