Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPETERSON PLACE (611 S. PETERSON) - PDP ..... PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING - 35-00 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 12 Planner Olt replied that is being discussed. This was the first he know about the second unit and based on the parking code requirement for a two family dwelling that would require 1.5 spaces for each one bedroom unit and 1.75 spaces for each two bedroom unit. Discussion was held regarding continuing this item to answer all the questions regarding parking and the second unit in the basement. Member Gavaldon moved to continue Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan, #35-00 to the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Directing staff to work with the applicant on the issue of the second residence in the single family home and also address the parking issues. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation, #38-02 Project Description: Annexation and zoning of a C my enclave that is completely rrounded by properties that hav, een annexed into the City. The request area is composed of approximately 220.22 acres of priviely and publicly owned property generally located south of West .Drake Road, lying to the west and east I'South Taft Hill Road, and including the South Taft Hill Road right-of-way. The recommended zoning is a combination of the UE, Urban Estate and the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Froseth replied that it was. Member Gavaldon asked how many parking spaces there were. Mr. Froseth replied presently two and a driveway. The existing curb cut that is there is going to be realigned and moved over and there will still be one space of off-street parking. Member Gavaldon asked if there would still be two units in the single family home and two parking spaces that will be used between the two bedroom and the single bedroom in the basement. Mr. Froseth replied that was correct. Member Gavaldon asked Planner Olt what our process says on that. Planner Olt responded that this was the first he knew about the legal apartment in the basement. Staff considered this a single-family residence and that would require one off-street parking space, which it has on -site today and then there is public parking or street parking. Member Gavaldon asked if the current driveway would go away to allow the sidewalk to come through. Planner Olt replied that the site plan shows a sidewalk and a parking pad. Member Gavaldon asked about the parking for the units in the back. Mr. Froseth stated that there would be one extra for a guest. It was a concern at the neighborhood meeting that there was not enough parking, so they added an extra parking space. Member Gavaldon asked if they would be willing to have that parking space designated for the house. Mr. Froseth replied that would be fine. Chairperson Torgerson asked bout the new information about the second unit in the existing house and would the applicant not need a modification to the parking standards because a non -conforming parking status is being created on the front lot. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 10 Ms. Weiss stated that she also is a landscape architect and has looked closely at the landscape plan. The fence that is proposed does not address the problem of windows looking out onto the adjacent properties because they are all above the fence by quite a distance vertically. As far as the planing is concerned, they have done a lot to address the alley but have done nothing to Peterson Street. As well as to the north, she did not think that any of those plants would be able to grow in that environment. There is not enough horizontal space and it is too dark for those plants to survive. They put a lot of effort to nothing there. She thought that as a city we need to think whether or not we want our alleyways to become roadways. She does not want to see this happen to their neighborhood and is very distressed about it. Public Input Closed Ms. Froseth gave her rebuttal to public comment. She stated that the project meets or exceeds the requirements for the stated reasons. It meets the intent of the land use guidelines. In regards to the concern regarding solar shading, specifically, the plate heights were lowered and are no higher than most single family one story and a half buildings throughout the neighborhood. The setbacks are no different than any single-family residence on any single-family lot. The kiosk is actually a small pedestal that is required by the city to identify the site. It is not large at all and sits adjacent to the 4-foot walkway. It is an address marker. Mr. Froseth presented a map showing the NCM zoning east of College to Smith Street. The yellow markers show the properties that are over 10,000 S.F., which could be possible development, sites. Of the identified 15 properties, 4 are already developed. Of the 11 that are left, two are under 11,000 s.f. and could be a one or two unit project. That would leave nine that could qualify for a possible 4-plex. He thought there was a feeling that there would be mass development in the area and he just wanted to make the point that there are not that many properties that qualify. Member Gavaldon asked about the existing home and was it a single residence or two residences. Mr. Froseth replied that there is a one -bedroom apartment on the lower level that has been there since they bought the property. There are two bedrooms on upstairs on the main floor. Member Gavaldon asked if the basement apartment is a legal apartment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 9 If this project is starting and allowed to happen, what it will create is a real transition in the neighborhood. Their neighborhood right now has a lot of diversity; there are a lot of single family residences living next to a lot of rentals. They live there because of that diversity and because of those issues, but he thought that there was a fine line with a neighborhood with a lot of single family residences in it and projects like this. All this is going to do is to turn this property, which is currently a potential single family live in residence, although it has been a rental unit for about 15 years. Projects like this are going to make a big transition of the downtown neighborhood. It is going to take single family residences out of contention and it is going to transition them into a high -density rental neighborhood. He did not know if that was a very good intent for really preserving the downtown. He thinks the transition is a very big issue and he feels that projects like this are really going to affect the impacts of property values of the single-family residences. They can't believe that some one would really want to live next door to this and go walking in your backyard and you have four units of houses five feet from your fence line looking down at your backyard. It is unbelievable to him how that could even happen. Doug Buffington, lives at 628 Peterson and agrees with Mr. Hendricks on all his points. One additional point is the ongoing use of the neighborhood. They all moved there for the same reasons, the wonderful diversity, the access to downtown and all those great things. They have tried very hard to work on the design and accommodate the neighborhood. His concern is the long-term domino affect. In the aerial photo, there were about 4 lots similar to this one. Considering if this one, who would want to look at that in their back yard, so the best use of the lot next door and next door are going to be developments like this. He asked the Board to consider that when they are making their decision here. Marilyn Weiss, 605 Peterson wanted to express her sadness and distress about this project. From the plans that she has seen there seems to be a kiosk on the landscape plan that did not show up on the site plan. If you consider that this is only a 50-foot lot in its width, what they are proposing is a parking space off of Peterson to accommodate this rental house, which is a single-family house that has two units in it right now. They are going to have a 4 foot sidewalk, a 7 1/2 foot wide parking space, a kiosk which leave a horrendous front to Peterson Street. She believes that in the Land Use Code they are supposed to provide 1.75 spaces for a single-family residence, off street parking. This really only provides one and it does not even align with the present curb cut. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 8 Ms. Froseth closed by saying that they were pleased to present this project. They do feel that it is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. She also felt that it meets or exceeds all code requirements. PUBLIC INPUT Phil Hendricks, 605 Peterson Street, just north of this project, stated that he had been concerned about this for quite sometime. They have lived and worked downtown for twenty years. They feel that the downtown is one of the best neighborhoods in Fort Collins. There a lot of new discussions about new urbanism and diversity. Themselves and many of their neighbors are upset about this project. As a neighborhood group, they fought the alley houses back in the 80's and put a stop to those. Because of many reasons, significant issues with traffic, compatibility with the surrounding historic neighborhoods, density and many other issues. As a neighborhood and other folks in downtown, they submitted a four -page letter and a 14-page attachment to that explaining their issues they see with this project. Being a landscape architect, he does feel this is a very poor project for downtown. They object to the statement made by planning that this project meets the design standards of the Land Use Code. He did know feel that they have met either the land use guidelines or the intent of the land use guidelines. You could go back to those 18 pages and understand that they have objections, or at least their opinion as to why it does not meet guidelines. They felt some of the larger areas are access, circulation, parking, solar, shading and it disrespects the historical and cultural resources of downtown. Infill development is not something that is compatible. Transportation issues of turning an alley into a street or roadway. There is also compatibility with the adjacent residences that is a high -density multi -family unit in the backyard is not compatible with the adjacent single-family houses. The staff report states that this project is in conformance with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. He quoted from page 15, "if the East Side Neighborhood is allowed to decline or is unduly disrupted by unwise land use conversions, substantial changes in traffic patterns with in the study area, or other external factors, all the above concerns will suffer along with the neighborhood. It is clear that a plan to preserve and enhance this neighborhood is in the best interest of its residents, property owners, businesses and in deed all of Fort Collins." The East Side Neighborhood Plan also talks about infill developments and why it is an unwise land use conversion for the neighborhoods in downtown. Some of the other issues that were brought up and talked about were — they believe that there a lot of lots in downtown that are sub dividable under the current land use plans. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 7 Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. Planner Olt reviewed slides of the site and surrounding properties. Susan Froseth gave the applicant presentation. She stated that she and her husband were representing themselves as owners of the project. Ms. Froseth is also the architect on the project. Ms. Froseth gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the Code would allow up to a 4-plex unit. Ms. Froseth reported that on October 9, 2000 a neighborhood meeting was held to open the lines of communication with the neighborhood and get design input. At that time they introduced a proposal for three -two bedroom townhome units with 6 parking spaces on grade. Including one that was accessible. As a result of the neighborhood meeting, they came away with the neighbors wanted them to reconsider the design. The project was redesigned in its entirety. It was downsized to two -two bedroom smaller townhome units with a two -car garage and a single studio unit above the garage. A landscape architect redesigned the landscape plan and they were very happy with what she came up with. On January 24, 2001, a sub -committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission to receive comments and specifically get some design input reviewed the project. The comments were overall favorable, there were no significant design changes suggested. On February 13, 2001, staff agreed to facilitate a courtesy neighborhood meeting to show the neighbors the new design. The new design included showing the neighbors the site plan, elevations, the landscape plan and the architectural scale model of the site and buildings, which addresses scale and massing. Ms. Froseth stated that the footprint for the proposed two two -bedroom townhomes is similar in size to the existing house on Peterson Street. The existing garage on the site is larger than the garage that is proposed. Ms. Froseth highlighted specific features that were related to the general development standards of the Land Use Code and how the design meets or exceeds those standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16. 2003 Page 6 Member Gavaldon recommended to City Council approval of the Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning with a zoning designation of Lo"ensity Mixed -Use Neighborhood, LMN, #47-02. Citing facts and conclusions on page 2, numbers 1, 2 and 3. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Carpenter would be supporting the motion. This is what we need to do to get this parcel into the city. She appreciated the public coming out and encouraged them to pay attention and come out when there is a Project Development Plan application. That is the pint where they really have input about what happens to this piece of land. Member Gavaldon commented tha he�telt that what would be going into the east of Stoneridge is similar. There would not be development that would disrupt their neighborhood. Their chance is still there to make a difference and he encouraged the neighbor dod to continue to participate in the process. He would be supporting th, motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reminded the public that this is a recommendation to City Councjf,and the first reading of this application would be March 18th. That would be another opportunity for their input. Chairperson Torgerson commented that they had heard a lot of really good input tonight, unfortunately a lot of it was irrelevant to what was being heard tonight. He also explained that the Neighborhood Resources Office has staff that could also help in the process. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan, #35-00 Project Description: Request to subdivide the existing lot at 611 Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new residential building containing 3 dwelling units on the rear lot adjacent to an existing alley. The existing single family residence on the front of the property is to remain. The property is zoned NCM, Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (September Sth only), 2, 3, 4 and 5. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Strauss Lakes Development Annexation & Zoning, # 47-02 Project Description: Recommendation: Hearin Request to annex approximately 17.79 acres of privately owned property located on the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road. The requested zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use, Neighborhood. Approval Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Jones showed an aerial photograph of the property and the surrounding uses. The site was recommended to be zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and that is consistent with what the Structure Plan. shows. Public Input John Trowbridge, lives in the Stoneridge Townhomes which is adjacent to this property. Mr. Trowbridge was concerned that this zoning would permit a trailer park. They were interested in the type of use, type of buildings, density and commercial uses. They were interested in knowing if any environmental impact statement has been done. He was mostly interested in what the use would be. Planner Jones responded that from a zoning standpoint, LMN is one of our residential zone districts, which are low density and which do allow mobile home communities as a permitted use. It is not to say that this will become a mobile home park by any means, that is just one of the long list of permitted uses that is allowed within that zone district. Given the topography, he would be very surprised if it would be physically possible to put mobile homes on this site. The density that is permitted within the LMN zone district is between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. At the annexation stage we do not get into what is being proposed and we don't get to the environmental analysis. An annexation is Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Bernth, Meyer, Torgerson, Gavaldon. Members Colton and Craig were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, McWilliams, Barkeen, Moore, Sanford, Schlueter, Dodge, Stringer and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Meyer nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Vice Chair. The motion was approved 5-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the September 5, October 17 (Continued), and November 4, (Continued), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes. 2. Resolution PZ03-01 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ03-02 — Easement Vacation. 4. #55-02 Streamside Annexation and Zoning. 5. #54-02 Peterson Annexation and Zoning. 6. #47-02 Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #35-00 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan. 8. #38-02 South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation and Zoning. 9. #18-02 Caribou Apartments — Project Development Plan. John Trowbridge, citizen pulled Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning for discussion.