HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST ELIZABETH STREET REZONING - 2-02 - REPORTS - FIRST READING-?ft- 2 51- IZA 3Z-7-1-1 57-
1008 �A5T -Z-,ZAS-=-T-,
J9�1.
L S T S I D tCc�L4—p—'LA"-R
POL
SITE
CCR
77 1
I
Ij I { : ; �y" •I ZONING 1 LAND USE BCLPlDAAY
L. AFE PRELIMINARY A140 LtAy 9E
AO:USTED UPON DETAILED STUDY AT
,' , •7 \• - "� �` �` 1 i TIME OF UIPLEMENTATIOr!
i: rim
?tm ttr t�tt�Itll�tr�tt� ttq�tltl.t '.A __ ',a
—1 uD-
�i , , I .I ,, I r� ;,' EAST SIDE
✓L�I
� � L—L [_d i�_ i
NEIGHBORHOOD
� I I �'� I 1
�-" , , . �}.�, • : ! �;/ � PLANIS
NP All,
r
-,—, PROEFrIATION
a�eam�.:��`i �i ILA - _ _..•_ .-_
F M-
_I —i�
�F7'FC�
, 1 I
tL
1 ' ' , — — I — - •Sf -\/ 'o ! -
w.l
n 1
W �I, II Z1i , .II I �It, - II I ! �I Vi -Jy II 1i., ' I I a 1^/•'I� 1 r1 'l;' ,��
_il II13I'!I,h' l,,i �
Is,r rl �• Iyl 1 T1 1 '.!.. !� -.-�- i1 I o la
NPR
I •' I I � � •. .. ' I I ! ', -_ '' i'PlrfraE-r\PU �
I�f I
_
BUFFER r$L
PARR J B
u _NB - L r i n 1 _I
�i r'1' 1 I _ ul _ - .T'iT.c --
r 1-
1 N
BL
.... w r�m
aal.l ®llaltmtr.w r.AtDea troll tto vl t
-I
I�iL I 1 !I
I
•:1I 1_ I j_ -.. _ I � I I
PROPOSED LAND U?E AREAS
I91C'�I 1 I I 1 ._ ' .�. • I - ' .. .' I i I i 1• •PESE: •li �N .r
P+:tf1E:+
I"
L R,.: I
ITV,I � I 1 I I il'(I, I� I1, ^• \ �_ ..__ ....: ...�..•.......
e li I P.R dIS!(+-E C - O i. \ D -
_'ittl I rma mt tits l tv t m t m t to 111111t 111011 am is 1111111111111 no an ,, FIGURE J
East Elizabeth Street Rezonine Petition
April 1, 2002
Paoe 5
of Fort Collins as wrong as ours. and our property is certainly not in a normal or traditional
single family neighborhood. We have also confirmed that our property meets all the criteria
necessary for rezonine. We also believe we have requested the proper NCB buffer zoning for
our property, which is also the zoning recommended for and will be used to correct the property
adjacent to ours (Baker property). In fact, I guess you could say our situation was the model for
the NCB zone.
We are very happy that we finally have an opportunity to come before the Council on
April 16`h. We really look on this situation as a correction that is long overdue. as is the case
with the property adjacent to us on the east (Baker).
I appreciate the opportunity to give you all this information, and hope it is not considered
to be an imposition.
Sincerely,
Paul F. Harder
PFH/cet
Enc.
East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition
April 1, 2002
Page 4
When I went before the Planning and Zoning Board. I was only able to deliver half of m%
presentation due to time constraints. That is really the reason for this letter to the Council. It is
just impossible to present all the relative and important information and facts necessary in the
time allotted, particularly in a distorted situation like ours.
Probably the most important issue that I was unable to address was the Staff Report. This
report states that our property is considered a Quasi -Judicial Rezoning, and that it should meet
certain criteria as outlined in Section 2, Parts A. B. and C. In Part A. it states that our property
should be "consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan". As we know, our property was
designated to be part of the Lemay Avenue corridor back in the 1960's, and certainly the
requested NCB buffer zone would be allowed. Another statement made in Part A is that "the
proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the zone districts recommended for these properties".
Actually, if you read the ESNP, the proposed zoning for property adjacent to commercial in a
residential area is the NCB buffer zone that we are requesting.
In Part B. it states that a rezoning is allowed if "warranted by change in the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property". Of course, all the property around us has
changed. The Lemav Avenue corridor has been one of the most active areas of change in the
City. The hospital has influenced a lot of this change, and that is true with respect to our
property. After we had purchased our property, the present shopping center on Lemav was
developed on our north boundary. The large commercial building adjacent to the back of our
property. which was originally retail, was purchased by the hospital and remodeled into a
medical center. Just recently, a 125-car parking lot was added to the west end of this property. I
believe this is as close as change can be. The only property that has not changed is our property,
and a very few properties to the west of us. We have already mentioned this situation, where a
so-called mistake in zoning negated our right to even ask for change.
In Part C. it refers to "additional consideration for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings". The report
actually states that "uses such as multi -family, medical and professional offices. could be
included within this area and be compatible with the existing uses". It then goes on to say that
the lots are narrow and may pose a problem with setback and buffering. That is why we have
joined both properties to give a 130-foot frontage.
As you can see, our properties meet all three of the criteria necessary to recommend
approval of a rezoning. The irony of this situation is that Mr. Hyder's request for zoning 20
years ago actually sparked the beginning of the group that, alone with others, was responsible for
the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP). From the ESNP, the new NCB buffer zone was
created to solve the problem of residential property jammed against commercial property. To
solve that problem, you create a buffer to cushion the commercial property from infringing on
the residential. So from conflict comes solutions. Our point here is, this new idea with its noble
purpose was not used in the single family area where it is needed the most (our property).
In every rezoning request there are two parts. The first part is whether the present zoning
is correct, or should it be changed. I believe we have demonstrated that there is no zoning in all
East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition
April 1.2002
Paae 3
If we look at the ESNP map, we see that this new buffer zone (yellow color) has been
used extensively to separate higher zones from higher residential areas, but has not been used at
all in the single family (NCL) area, except for the Baker property at 1040 East Elizabeth. if the
proposed correction is made. At the very eastern edge of the ESNP, all of the property is NC
(Neighborhood Commercial colored red) or E (Employment colored blue), yet none of the single
family residential property has been buffered. As you can see, our property is at the very eastern
edue of this situation and has been impacted the most. This is not consistent with the
recommended purpose or use of the ESNP as it applies to the rest of the East Side area. If you
study the ESNP, it would seem that our property would have the most need and be the best
qualified for a buffer zone in all of the East Side.
This explains why our situation is so distorted and there is nothing like it in all of Fort
Collins, because our property was not allowed to develop normally as originally planned, and
then when new zoning regulations were adapted, they were not applied equally and similarly in
our area. What this all amounts to, is that we have been denied the reasonable use of our
property.
Right now. a big "positive' is that the hype, hysteria, fear, and anger that existed 20 vears
ago seems to have finally subsided. We know now that commercial zoning was never planned to
expand west on Elizabeth to Stover Street, and that would not have happened. Mr. Barkeen. with
the Planning Department, told me that he had received only two telephone calls inquiring about
the rezoning on all three of these properties. A neighborhood meeting was called and, out of
approximately 140 notices that were sent, only eight interested parties attended, two of which
were my daughter and my partner. One party had not received a notice and I assume was not in
our area. Of the five left. only one person spoke out with concern about the zoning — the renter
just west of our property at 1002 East Elizabeth. The renter. Katty, rents from her mother who
owns the property and lives in Kentucky. All of the "interested parties" lived within two blocks
of our property. There was really no one from the "Elizabeth and Laurel Residential Area" that
had been so concerned and so active 20 years ago. Again, at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, the only person who spoke before the Board with any concern was Katty. the renter just
west of us. I would like to qualify Katty's "position". Mr. Hyder told me that when the
Rezoning Notices were placed on the properties, Katty asked him what was going on. She made
the remark that she really didn't care what was being proposed; she liked having this open lot
next to her and was going to oppose anything being done with the land. Mr. Hyder said he
thought that was an odd thing to say, since she must know that he and his property are also a part
of the rezoning request.. Since all of the interested parties at the neighborhood meeting lived so
close, the real question asked was what could or would be built on the property to be rezoned.
No one claimed or argued that the property was NGL single family residential. I believe that the
owners living in this area on the north side of East Elizabeth from Robertson Street to Morgan
Street, realize they are in a "transitional area" adjacent to commercial and business property.
The normal and real single family "detached" neighborhood is west of Morgan Street on
Elizabeth, where residential homes face residential homes.
East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition
April 1.2002
Page 2
for a long time in which existing homeowners are not "displaced". even though they may no
longer live in a "residential" neighborhood.
The City Plan. at that time, was that this property just west of Lemay (defined by the dark
line shown on the left edge of the NC and E zones) would be zoned for use as business. office.
apartments, and higher necessary uses to support the "Hospital Area". This propert was
annexed as part of the First Lemay Annexation in 1967. and all of our property was to be a part
of the L.-may Avenue corridor. In 1968, Dr. Backus built the first medical building on the north
side of Elizabeth (North-West comer of Lemay anc-lizabeth). In 1975. he built the second
medical building, just west, which is 1040 East Elizabeth. This property is the zoning "mistake"
that you are being asked to correct (Baker property shown in yellow with red lines on Site Plan).
The property just west of Baker is the Hyder Property. 1008 East Elizabeth, purchased in 1961.
The property just west of Hyder is the Harder -Conlon property, 1004 East Elizabeth. purchased
in 1974. All three of these properties are shown in a red circle on the Site Plan and are before
you for rezoning at this time.
Our property has been in a very distorted and unusual zoning situation for the past 20
years. In fact. it is so unusual that there is no other property like it in all of Fort Collins. What
has happened is that all the property around us, except on the west, has been allowed to develop
normally as part of the Lemay Avenue corridor, but ours has not. This has created a "finger" or
peninsula of NCL (single-family) sandwiched between two high intensity zones: commercial
and employment.
To understand how this unusual situation happened, we must go back to 1980. There was
a group of people in the neighborhood to the west of us concerned about the commercial
development going on at the time. Their fear, and what was said at the time, was tha°
commercial development was going to continue west down Elizabeth Street all the way to
Stover, and absolutely destroy the neighborhood. So their initial purpose was to halt further
growth along Elizabeth Street. They did accomplish this goal, and that is why our property on
the north side of Elizabeth Street did not continue on a normal growth pattern.
This was actually the beginning of what was to become the "East Side Neighborhood
Group". Their fear and anger was so "real" and so stror:_ that it motivated them to expand their
purpose into the study of the planning and zoning for the whole east side area, thus the East Side
Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) we have today.
Since the main purpose of the ESN Group was to limit the impact of commercial
development on residential neighborhoods. a new zone called a "buffer'' zone was created. This
is the zone we are proposing for our property. If we read in the ESNP manual, we see that the
recommended use of this buffer zone is for properties adjacent and abutting commercial or high
intensity areas to form a buffer, or "cushion', between the residential areas. Our property is in
this position, not only adjacent, but also sandwiched between two higher zones.
East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition
TO: Fort Collins City Council
FROM: Paul F. Harder. Owner and Representative for the Properties
Phone T (970) 223-2408
DATE: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Rezoning of 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street to NCB (Buffer)
The purpose of this letter is to inform the City Council of the unusual circumstances and
history about these properties as it pertains to this zoning request. When the East Side
Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted, the property adjacent to and east of our property was
zoned NCL (single-family). There was a medical building on this property (Baker Property) at
that time and the owner had the proper zoning for this use. This NCL zoning "mistake" literally
took away his existing property rights and therefore his building was `'non -conforming". At this
same time, the property surrounding the Baker property with similar zoning and similar use was
rezoned Employment (E). Since no individual notices were sent to property owners, Mr. Baker
was not aware that his property had been "down -zoned" until recently, and has requested a
correction. This request (1040 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning) is before you now.
The effect of this "mistake" was to deny us the opportunity to go before the Council to
request a correction in the same NCL (single family detached) zoning on our property. which is
located in the "heart" of the Lemay Avenue corridor with commercial zoning (shopping center)
to the north, and employment zoning (Hi -Density apartments) to the south. Our property is
literally in the same location as the Baker property. Our property is surrounded by commercial,
business, and apartment uses. and yet we were told by the Planning Department that they would
not accept our application because the property to the east was zoned NCL (mistake). as was the
property to the west. This, we were told. was "spot zoning" and was not allowed. I am sure you
realize how happy we are that this "mistake" has come to light and we have the opportunity to
speak up and be heard.
I have included two enclosures with this letter (ESNP map and a Site Plan) to help to
understand some of the comments I will make. I have also "colored" the zoning so that it is
easier to recognize.
The zoning on our property has been distorted for long time. To understand this. it is
necessary to explain some of the background and history of this area. The property directly
south of us on Elizabeth was the CSU Agronomy Farm and was brought into the City for
development in the 1960's (zoned E-Blue). This land was developed quickly because it was
open and available. At the same time, the property to the north of us was established as
commercial (zoned NC -Red). The property directly east of us on Elizabeth developed as it
became available because there was existing housing. This has been a zoning policy (courtesy)
FISCHER & FISCHER,LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
125 SOUTH HOWES, SUITE 900
GENE E FISCHER, rt POST OFFICE BOX 506 TELEPHONE (970) 482.4710
ERIK G. FISCHER,rc FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FACSIMILE (970) 482-4729
80522-0506
USA R. MARKS
April 5, 2002
Mayor Ray Martinez APR 5 2002
City Council Members
Via Facsimile to: 224-6107 C;l,
Re: Rezoning Request 1004-1008 E. Elizabeth
Dear Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council:
I have been asked by my long time clients, Paul Harder and Dr. Bob Conlon, to review their
rezoning request involving two properties known as 1004 and 1008 E. Elizabeth.
I have been involved over the years of my practice with literally hundreds of rezoning requests.
It appears that the situation with these properties is unique in the City and does not exist elsewhere
in the City.
Clearly, the Baker property should never have been "down zoned" from high density
residential to single family residential: This has been labeled a mistake and after twenty years, it
would be difficult to determine why this occurred.
The properties known as 1004 and 1008 E. Elizabeth clearly appear in my opinion to be
entitled to the requested rezoning and probably should be zoned E similar to much of the surrounding
property. My clients will accept the rezoning to be included in the Buffer Zoning.
I have also reviewed the staff comments on this rezoning request. I must respectfully disagree
with all comments and do not believe that these comments can be supported by the actuality of the
unique situation.
I will not attend the actual hearing in front of the Council. I agree with Mr. Harder's letter and
the statements made therein which appear to be irrefutable.
Thank you for noting my comments, and I hope the requested rezoning will be approved.
These lots in this area are not usable with single family zoning. „
;c)tilly submitted,
E. Fischer
GEF/jr
xc: Paul F. Harder
Dr. Robert Conlon
Materials Submitted
by
Gene E. Fischer, Attorney
Representing
Property Owners
Paul Harder
and
Dr. Bob Conlon
r.
n
i
*NOT' 'ONINO 1 LAND USE BOUNDARY
LIN E PRELIMINARY AND MAY BE
ADJL •D UPON DETAILED STUDY AT
J TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION
EAST SID
}
T [.j __�il I�! �, �:� !
- r ;y ,�F� f NEIGHBORHOOD
Z.I ; c
PLAN
B1 N,
N[� y O t
PRESERVATION
AREA
I
J 1 1r
-1`�lIJ f•«i !�l_`1, 1/['('rI L— ! 1 ' 1 �i!wi
�FJ ! .... .. ,
_i ■ 1
%(M
i ILE
j � ,._,i
w!
W @IL15
-Ii 44
Np
I-RL ]'ii' T1'R7 A{;E'{}. _ ...i' S , r• I,i } 0B L-
t - DUFFER r BL
.AREA -
,
I' i'
I _ ,
91
R L U
LL}
r
}I c r 1
� Il
,. t}t .eiilgtt imlim ttwt/O Usk #fttlji:.:
If I
1
r
I_ 1
E i r r ! LAND USE AREAS
let �' SE
PRE SF.R'JA I ION ARFh
DUFFER APE.A
ix
FRINGE ARFA
' ' I �� - li) '1 �.� ' .>• alJ 1 t<..r ai (]EP A.�r1v
r 1 t
11�1 cl ra
ill
1 if
i I QISIf EEC t ii i : iId A u nr
tool =4mlmtll/Imlrl�tA10.-
I .i - I •II ['; I� I' �'1 FIGURE 4
9
Lu
-all
ul:
4P
.............
.. . ... ..............
-EAST
.......... ....
it
lj�
i 4l
4-,
........... ....... . ...........
I w
r II
...........
41,
flsl pill, 's I 11r,
1; Q 1,
ti
EAST SIDE
GHBORHOOD
1PLAN
jl
,
re. j I d
MOW G
TRANSPORTATION MAP
It
LEGEND
Mew
Q 0 a I
.........................
FIGURE 5
1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning
Structure Plan Exhibit
Map not to scale
March 21, 2002
Prepared by the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department
1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning
Adjacent Zoning Exhibit
Map not to scale
March 21, 2002
Prepared by the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District
Division 4.8(E)
(2) Landscape/Hardscape Material. A maximum of forty (40)
percent of the front yard of a lot may be covered with inorganic
material such as asphalt or cement concrete, paving stone,
flagstone, rock or gravel.
(3) Site Design. In the N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer
District, permanent open off-street parking areas shall not be
located any closer to a public street right-of-way than the distance
by which the principal building is set back from the street right-
of-way. This provision shall not be construed to preclude
temporary parking in driveways.
(4) Access. Whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new off-
street parking area located on such lot must obtain access from
such adjoining alley; provided, however, that such alley access
shall not be required when a new detached garage is proposed to
be accessed from an existing driveway that has a curbcut along a
public street, or when alley access is determined by the City
Engineer to be a hazard to persons or vehicles.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 89, 1999 §2, 6/1/99;
Ord. No. 165, 1999 §38, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 183, 2000 §§29, 30, 12/19/00)
Article 4, Page 60
Sapp. 9
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Conservation. Buffer District Division 4.8(E)
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
(a) All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6)
feet in length shall be constructed parallel to or at right
angles to the side lot lines of the lot whenever the lot is
rectilinear in shape.
(b) The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along
the front wall of the building, unless otherwise required
for handicap access. Such entrance shall include an
architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico.
(c) Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a
front yard setback that is at least ten (10) feet greater than
the front setback of the principal building that is located
on the front portion of the lot.
(d) A rooftop or second floor addition shall not overhang the
lower front or side exterior walls of a new or existing
building.
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the
front facades of all single- and two-family dwellings shall
be no higher than two (2) stories.
(f) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be
constructed on the rear portion of a lot which has frontage
on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of such new
dwelling shall face the street.
(g) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be
2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building
shall be 12:12, except that additions to existing dwelling
units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any
roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the
roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural
feature may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a
covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such a
porch is also considered to be the floor of a second -story
deck.
Article 4, Page 59
supp. 9
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District
Division 4.8(D)
(2) Residential. Any new dwelling that is proposed to be constructed
between the back of an existing dwelling and the rear property
line of the lot upon which both dwellings will be located shall
contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor
area. Such new dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District.
(3) Dimensional Standards.
(a) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for single-
family or two-family dwellings and fifty (50) feet for all
other uses, except that the minimum lot width for lands
located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan
Subarea and south of University Avenue shall be eighty-
five (85) feet.
(b) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks
shall not be less than twenty (20) feet, except that the
minimum front yard setback for lands located within the
West Central Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of
University Avenue shall be sixty (60) feet, and setbacks
from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not
be less than sixty-five (65) feet.
(c) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from
existing alley and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions.
(d) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all
interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or
building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion
of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior
side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the
minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction
thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen
(18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width
for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five
(25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(e) Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories.
Article 4, Page 58
Supp. 6
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District Division 4.8/B)
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
Public and private schools for preschool,
elementary, intermediate, high school, college,
university and vocational and technical education.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
Medical and dental clinics, professional offices
and personal and business service shops which
propose structural additions or exterior alterations
to the existing building, or the uses are to be
constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a
structure at the time of adoption on October 25,
1991.
2. Funeral homes.
(d) Accessory/Nliscellaneous Uses:
Wireless telecommunication equipment.
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted
uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director
pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited.
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor
area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000)
square feet. For the purposes of this subsection, "total floor area"
shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as
measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including
each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor
area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one
hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least eight
(8) feet located within any such accessory building located on the
lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor
area).
Article 4, Page 57
Supp. 6
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Consecration, Buffer District Division 4.8lB)
(a) Residential:
Single-family detached dwellings.
2. Multi -family dwellings up to four (4) units which
propose structural additions or exterior alterations
to the existing building, or the dwellings are to be
constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a
structure on October 25, 1991.
3. Multi -family dwellings containing more than four
(4) dwelling units per building at a density of up
to twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre.
4. Mixed -use dwellings which propose structural
additions or exterior alterations to the existing
building, or the dwellings are to be constructed on
a lot or parcel which contained a structure on
October 25, 1991.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Community facilities.
2. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except
neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
Parking lots and parking garages.
(3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning
Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
Fraternity and sorority houses.
2. Multi -family dwellings containing more than four
(4) dwelling units per building at a density of
more than twenty-four (24) dwelling units per net
acre.
Article 4, Page 56
Stipp. 9
Division 4.8, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District
Division 4.&B)
(c) CommerciaVRetail Uses:
Child care centers.
2. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices
and personal business and service shops, provided
that no structural additions or exterior alterations
are made to the existing building, or the uses are
constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which did
not contain a structure on October 25, 1991.
3. Bed and breakfast establishments.
(d) Accessory/Nliscellaneous Uses:
Accessory buildings and uses.
(e) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific
development plan that was processed and approved either
in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March
27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code
(other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision
plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any
multi -family dwelling containing more than four [41
dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to
all of the use and density requirements and conditions of
said site specific development plan.
(f) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in
this zone district but which was permitted for a.specific
parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations
in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997;
provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute
a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
(2) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to
administrative review:
Article 4, Page 55
Sapp. 9
r/
Division 4.5, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer Districlool
DIVISION 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B)
Division 4.8
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District is intended for
areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more
intensive commercial -use areas or high traffic zones and that have been
liven this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to
Building Permit review, provided that such uses are located on
lots that are part of an approved site -specific development plan:
(a) Residential Uses:
Single-family detached dwellings.
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Group homes.
4. Multi -family dwellings up to four (4) units per
building, provided that no structural additions or
exterior alterations are made to the existing
building, or the dwellings are constructed on a
vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a
structure on October 25, 1991.
5. Boarding and rooming houses.
6. Mixed -use dwellings, provided that no structural
additions or exterior alterations are made to the
existing building, or the dwellings are constructed
on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a
structure on October 25, 1991.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
Places of worship or assembly.
2. Public facilities.
3. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan.
Article 4, Page 54
Supp. 9
Page 2 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition
The reason that the petition is being made at this time is that we as owners must make
some changes in our lives and these properties are a large part of that (in golf terms, we
have all reached the age of "Super" seniors and beyond). Mr. and Mrs. Hyder (1008)
hired a professional appraiser to evaluate their property, and both their yard and home
are in excellent condition, but the value of their property was discounted 20% because
the Appraiser said their home could no longer be considered as being in a "Single
Family residential neighborhood". No one has or would propose to build a single family
detached home on the vacant lot (1004), nor would any Lender approve a loan for that
purpose. It is really not possible to start any kind of reasonable planning for this lot at
this time under the present zoning.
We Owners realize that we have been "passed over" during this time of change in the
Zoning and use of the Properties around us. Our petition is not so much to change
Zoning, but to correct it. It is our understanding that the Zoning on the Property
adjoining to the East (1040 E Elizabeth) is to be corrected to NCB (Buffer). In studying
the requirements and purpose of the NCB Zoning in the Land Use Code, it is proper and
reasonable for this location and situation. Bob Conlon lives at 725 East Elizabeth and I
lived at 704 Garfield Street (behind him), so we both recognize what a really fine
residential neighborhood is to the West of these properties, and the need of a "Buffer
Zone". This NCB Zoning would also be consistent and compatible with the NCB
Zone buffering the West side of the Commercial property adjoining our property.
Our purpose for this Zoning is that we can move forward with the planning to become a
useful part of our neighborhood and community. We appreciate your consideration of
this matter so important to us.
Sincerely,
Paul F. Harder
EAST ELIZABETH STREET REZONING PETITION
February 8, 2002
TO: Fort Collins City Staff, Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board,
Fort Collins City Council and other interested parties.
FROM: Paul F Harder, Owner and Representative for the Properties.
Phone # (970) 223-2408
SUBJECT: Rezoning of 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street to NCB (Buffer). This
Property is located at the very eastern edge of the "East Side Neighborhood" and is
impacted by the Riverside-Lemay Shopping Center to the North, and the Poudre Valley
Hospital Area Medical, Office, Business, and Apartment development to the East and
South. All of the Property on this Eastern Edge is Zoned Commercial (NC) or
Employment (E), which is essentially business; except for a small "finger" of property on
the North side of East Elizabeth Street (zoned NCL residential). This is where our
property (1004 and 1008) is located, completely "sandwiched" and surrounded by
commercial and business development.
In section 3 (Buffer Areas) of the East Side Neighborhood Plan the statement is made
that "the close proximity to the more intense Fringe Areas tends to make many sites less
desirable for most single family residential uses". It then states "a wider range of land
uses is appropriate in these areas" and goes on to explain these low intensity Buffer
uses. Certainly, our property qualifies as being in such a "more intense Fringe Area".
These properties have been owned for (1004) thirty years and (1008) forty years.
During this time we have experienced all this planning and growth with the necessary
changes in zoning encircling and even jumping over the top of our property. In recent
history, the Hospital purchased the Commercial Building adjoining our property to the
North, changing it into a Medical Center. They then acquired land to the West and
developed it into a Parking Lot. The zoning for this Parking Lot development is
designated as NCL (residential), but this, of course, is not correct. By constructing this
Parking area, the complete West side of the Commercial Shopping Center is effectively
NCB (Buffer) Zoning. Actually some of the Hospital employees from this development
walk across our property as a short cut to the Hospital and a restaurant and businesses
to the South.
Not only have we experienced all the building around our property, we have also seen
the expansion of utilities, streets (especially Lemay), transportation (city bus stops right
in front of 1008), and a Neighborhood Park. All of this has of course changed the nature
of our "immediate" Neighborhood and the practical use of the Property.
City of Fort Collins
Elizabeth Street Rezoning
Zoning Code Division 2.9.4H
The rezoning request for 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street is being made because of
the changing conditions and character of the neighborhood. The parties have owned the
properties for more than 30 years, and have witnessed continued commercial, office, and
apartment development for the past 25'years. The property is presently completely surrounded
by commercial and rental properties. To the north is a commercial major shopping center
(adjoining), to the east are medical office buildings (adjoining), to the south is commercial
shopping, apartment building, and nursing homes (across Elizabeth Street), and to the west is
rental housing. Without question, the character of our "immediate neighborhood" has changed
from residential to commercial and business. V
Our present zoning is NCL, which basically permits single-family detached dwellings.
Since there has not been a single-family detached dwelling built within blocks of our property in
the past thirty plus years, and the only development has been commercial or business, it is
apparent that the present zoning is outdated and incorrect.
The medical building directly west and adjoining our property was incorrectly zoned
NCL at the time City Plan was adopted. Dr. Baker, the owner, informed us that the zoning is
going to be corrected and the new zoning will be NCB. This zoning allows small multi -family
and mined -use dwellings with limits on height and size and is "intended for areas that are a
transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -use areas". This is
exactly the position we find our property in.
Since our property is in the same enact location and "footprint" as Dr. Baker's, the NCB
zoning is the reasonable and proper zoning for our property so that its use can be a buffer from
the adjoining commercial and business development. It is our desire that our property can be
used and become useful to the community and ourselves.
The property is completely improved and is basically flat land and therefore the change to
NCB zone should not change the present environment. The amendment should result in a logical
and orderly development of the area.
Submitted by applicant:
Paul F. Harder
737 Rochelle Circle
Fort Collins, CO 80526
C
Reason for Request: (Please attach additional sheets if more space is needed.)
Please see attached letter.
Please attach listing of names and addresses of all persons owning land (as per
Larimer County Assessor's office on date of request) within 500 feet of any
portion of the area under petition for rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
t"
State of Colorado)
ss.
County of Larimer)
The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10 +Y)day of
-jGnUr,,r!�I , 7'9ZoO 1 .
BY the purpose therein set forth.
My co sy + �4'%.N&5_-71-- G_ U
e
' A(i (.r
9jfioFBL�4Q"
COt- Notary Public
Note: Filing of a petition to rezone requires a deposit of with the
City Clerk to defray the cost of the amendment.
Please return to the Planning Department - City of Fort Collins.
A.
B.
A
M
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REZONING PETITION
Petitioner:
Name Address
Paul F.-Harder 737 Rochelle Circle
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Owner:
Name Address
Paul F. Harder 737 Rochelle Circle, FC
Robert M. Conlon 725 Elizabeth Street, FC
(1004 E. Elizabeth)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald N. Hyder
Lela B. Hyder 1008 E. Elizabeth St., FC
(1008 E. Elizabeth)
To the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
I -(We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition and request -that. the
City Council ainend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins _by
changing the zoning of the hereinafter described parcel, containing .77 acres,
more or less, from NCL zoning district to NCB zoning district:
(Legal description)
1004 E ELIZABETH ST. (50X350) COM...385.5 FT W OF SE COR OF NE
13-7-69 W 50 FT N 350 FT E 50 FT S 350 FT TO BEG FTC
1008.E.ELIZABETH ST.°.(80X200) COM AT PT 305.5 FT W OF E 1/4 COR
13-7-69 TH W 80 FT N 200 FT E 80 FT S 200 FT TO BEG FTC
POL
ST SID6RAR
:r
I
WREL ELEMENTARY C I
1 -
L
JR
I� > �I
a
�J a
VICINITY MAP
#2-02 Elizabeth Street Rezone
1004 & 1008 Elizabeth St.
Type II (LUC)
01/22/02
I,
1"=600'
DATE:
Gl
ITEM NUMBER:
C. The subject property for the East Elizabeth Street Rezoning is designated as Low Density
Residential in the East Side Neighborhood Plan, an element of the City of Fort Collins
City Plan. The rezoning request is inconsistent with this plan.
D. The subject properties and surrounding properties have not undergone significant change
since the adoption of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The rezoning request has not
demonstrated a significant change to warrant the rezoning request.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that the City Council deny the East Elizabeth
Street Rezoning #2-02, Amendment to the Zoning Map from NCL — Neighborhood
Conservation Low -Density Residential to NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
District.
DATE: April 16, 2002
3 ITEM NUMBER: 29
Additional Consideration for Quasi -Judicial Rezoning:
In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed zoning amendment, the
Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existin;
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for
the land.
Conceivably, uses such as multi -family, medical and professional offices, could be included
within this area and be compatible with the existing uses. These uses are already established
within the properties to the north and south of the site. It is, however, difficult to determine how
such uses may become compatible with adjacent single family residential area. The lots were
platted for residential buildings and are relatively small and narrow. It may be a challenge to
propose a use other than single family residential on this lot while still providing the necessary
setback and buffering to ensure compatibility with adjacent single family residences. The
adjacent single family lots are also very narrow and deep, with a minimal side yard setback.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to water, noise.
air, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of
the environment.
The parcels are not included within a mapped natural area, nor does it appear they contain any
wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas which would be impacted by future
development of the site. There does appear to be existing significant vegetation on the site, which
may need to be incorporated into a future site plan.
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The zoning pattern is following an orderly extension of the adjacent NCB zoning, however the
proposed zoning will permit the extension of non-residential uses into an area that is planned to
remain as single family development, pursuant to the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the East Elizabeth Street Rezoning, File #2-02, staff makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions:
A. The City Plan rezoning in March of 1997 for these properties to NCL was based on the
recommendations of the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
B. The subject property for the East Elizabeth Rezoning is designated on the City Structure
Plan as Low Density Mixed Use Residential Neighborhood. The rezoning request is
inconsistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan map.
DATE:
April
l ITEM NUMBER: 29
promote stability for the East Side Neighborhood. The Eastside Neighborhood Plan was later
incorporated as an element of City Plan, adopted by City Council in 1997. The Plan 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. These zone districts were developed as part of the Structure Plan then applied to this area.
The properties included within the rezoning petition were initially to be zoned RL — Low Density
Residential in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. These properties were later included within the
NCL — Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District. The NCL zone district permits single
family residential and parks and recreation areas as Type I (administrative) uses and group
homes, schools, churches, community and public facilities as Type lI (Planning and Zoning
Board) uses.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: NC; Existing commercial center
S: E; Multi -family residential
E: NCL; Existing single family residential
W: NCL; Medical offices (pending rezone to NCB)
The property was annexed as part of the First Lemay Annexation in June, 1967.
Quasi -Judicial Rezoning.
The properties included within the rezoning petition are less than 640 acres, and is therefore,
considered a Quasi -Judicial Rezoning. In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend
approval of a rezoning to the City Council, at least one of the following criteria must be met:
A. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or
The parcels are designated as Low Density, Mixed -Use Residential Neighborhood on the City of
Fort Collins Structure Plan. The existing NCL zoning and the proposed NCB zoning are
consistent with this designation on the Structure Plan. However, the East Side Neighborhood
Plan is an element of City Plan. Rezoning requests 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 zone districts recommended for these properties.
B. The proposed amendment must be warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding
and including the subject property.
An extensive analysis of the neighborhood was conducted during the preparation of the East Side
Neighborhood Plan. This planning process inventoried the transportation, housing, zoning,
historic buildings and land uses for the parcels within the study area. Development occurring
along the Lemay Avenue corridor (south of Albertson's), has been in conformance with the plan.
Land immediately surrounding the parcels and the parcels themselves, have not changed since
the implementation of the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2002, Ar
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes 0.77
Elizabeth Street Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
ITEM NUMBER: 29
DATE: April 16, 2002
ROM:
Bob Barkeep
ng the Zoning Map of the City of
;s of Land Known as the East
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommend deniahof the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: c��^'��`^' t
This is a 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 acres in size. One of the parcels (1004 East Elizabeth)
is vacant, the other contains a single-family residential dwelling. The sites are designated as Low
Density Mixed Use Residential on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan.
APPLICANT: Paul F. Harder
737 Rochelle Circle
Fort Collins, CO 80526
OWNERS: Robert M. Conlon
725 East Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Paul F. Harder
737 Rochelle Circle
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Donald N. Hyder
1008 East Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
KGROUND:
The rezoning request is inconsistent with the East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1986. This
Plan established a land use pattern for the area bounded by College Avenue to the west,
Mountain Avenue to the north, Riverside and Lemay Avenues to the east and Prospect Road to
the south. This Plan was developed as a tool to help preserve and enhance the quality of life, and