Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRENNAT ANNEXATION & ZONING ( ENCLAVE) - ANX160005 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 10 Chair Kirkpatrick rejoined the hearing at 9:09pm. PROJECT: Rennat Annexation and Zoning — ANX160005 Project Description: Proposed short-term rental regulations and associated Land Use Code changes. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave an overview of this proposed City -initiated annexation, including some history of property. He shared some of the comments received from neighbors regarding density of development, traffic issues, number of residences that could potentially be built, and congestion in the area. Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 citizen email had been received with concerns about the traffic, noise and road access. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hansen asked to see a proposed zoning map; however, the proposed zoning doesn't completely reflect the structure plan. Planner Kleer explained how the zoning would evolve with this annexation; Chair Kirkpatrick pointed out that we are required by the LUC to recommend land annexations once it becomes compliant with State statutes. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council annex and zone the Rennat Annexation and Zoning - ANX160005, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. Other Business Several Board members and Planning Director Gloss thanked Chair Kirkpatrick for her service to the Board and to the City of Fort Collins. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18pm. r' C ron Gloss, Planni g Director Ch Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 9 the neighborhoods surrounding the Old Town areas should also be regulated, and she questioned the STIR rates that were presented because her own neighborhood rate seems much higher. Renee Choury, 318 Whedbee Street, believes her neighborhood is suffering due to the number of existing rentals and businesses. She is in favor of limiting the overall number of STIR businesses. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Sawyer responded to some of the citizen concerns by saying that adjustments are being made all the time to the proposal, and City Council will hear this proposal on January To, 2017. Planner Frickey also responded that the map representation is accurate. Ms. Sawyer added that one individual cannot own more than three STRs. Additionally, parking standards are based on the type of housing, so parking requirements will vary, which can be more problematic in the Old Town area. Board Questions Member Schneider asked what the "grandfather" date will be; Ms. Sawyer responded that this licensing date is still being determined. He also asked about the distinction between short-term and long-term rentals; Ms. Sawyer responded that this distinction will require another process and will require public input. Member Hobbs asked whether there is any distinction in the code as to the housing type that can be considered for an STR; Planner Frickey responded that most multi -family homes or apartment complexes do not allow sub -letting, but owners could rent out their apartment under a short-term basis under the current regulations. She added that a 3-license limit per owner/entity is being proposed. Member Schneider asked if the existing owners had been subjected to the inspection process yet; Ms. Sawyer responded that this will occur soon, but the only requirement now is to have sales tax and lodging licenses. Ms. Sawyer acknowledged that this proposal will need more time for continuous improvement. Member Schneider also inquired about the no parking restrictions in the TOD areas only; Ms. Sawyer responded that this could be changed. Board Deliberation Member Schneider doesn't have any issues with the proposal and agrees that there is a need for regulation. He feels this proposal is a good compromise, but he would like to change the parking requirement for the TOD. He will support sending this proposal to Council. Member Hobbs agrees that this is a policy decision and the P&Z is simply making a recommendation to City Council at this time. He also stated that there is a stark distinction between primary and non -primary owner types and uses, which may result in the distinction between residential and commercial use. He feels we have a responsibility to people who bought homes in Fort Collins not expecting to see commercial uses in their neighborhoods. He also feels that the availability of investments is limited but doesn't want to encourage investment in short-term rentals due to lack of affordable housing. He will support this proposal for primary owners but not for non -primary owners. Member Hansen feels that this is new territory and is still unsure how it the LUC will be impacted; he supports the proposal and would like to continue to address the parking standard by removing this exemption from the TOD. Member Carpenter thanked the citizens and staff for their work during this process; she feels this proposal is a good start to addressing this topic, but she also questions the parking for STRs in the TOD area. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the adoption to the LUC changes for Short -Term Rentals to include parking restrictions in the TOD zone district, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 3:1, with Member Hobbs dissenting. Planning 8 Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 8 Public Input Lisa Derbyshire, 709 Garfield, has several concerns with STRs, including definitions on parking, response time to complaints, and if they should be treated as residential or commercial properties. She does not feel that City outreach has been adequate, recognizing that STRs will be difficult to enforce. Maggie Dennis, 315 W hedbee Street, stated that she doesn't feel that STRs are comparable to "bed and breakfast" establishments. She feels that her neighborhood is less protected than other areas that only allow primary rentals. She asked what some of the STR limits are (in terms in owner rentals, parking requirements, etc.) Terry Usrey, 1940 Larkspur Drive, is familiar with issues concerning Air BnBs, but he now has a concern with the distinction between primary and non -primary enterprises. He also has concerns about occupancy loopholes, so he is requesting that STRs be prohibited, including any potential "grandfathered" STRs. Michelle Haefele, 623 Monte Vista Avenue, is opposed to the proposed ordinance, saying this is fundamentally a zoning issue, and these are lodging businesses that do not belong in residential neighborhoods. She suggested that the definitions in the LUC be revised and simplified. Any STRs should only be allowed in those zones that are already approved for primary STRs. Sue Ballou, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, which was originally all owner - occupied but is now 70% rentals. She would like to see the STR regulations also applied to long-term rentals. She is in favor of the proposal. Lisa Eaton, 320 E. Mulberry Street, is a STIR landlord and recognizes this is an on -going issue across the nation. She feels this is more of a residential use, and she is supportive of her own STR. Reed Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth Street, suggested that the proposed ordinance isn't ready for approval yet. He has a concern that neighborhoods are changing over time, and resident expectations are being compromised. He doesn't feel that STRs belong in neighborhoods. Margit Hentschel, 216 Wood Street, has had a lot of interaction with the City of Fort Collins, and she believes this project is very negative for the community. She has lived close to a STR in the past and had a bad experience overall, adding that there will be an exponential number of people impacted. Diana Clements, 737 Hinsdale Drive, owns an STR and is in support of this proposal because she feels our city should offer a safe place for non-residents to come together. She believes having STRs is a nice compromise for non-residents who want to experience Fort Collins on a personal level. Margaret Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, is not in favor of STRs because the parking requirements do not compare favorably to those governing long-term rentals. She believes this proposal isn't ready for Council presentation. Whitney Cranshaw, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, and he questions the distinction between long-term and short-term rentals, saying there isn't enough regard for the needs of the neighborhoods. He also stated that fees shouldn't be restricted to low -density areas only. Tamela Wahl, 311 Whedbee Street, is not opposed to STRs but is opposed to this two -pronged approach, because she feels it applies different standards to neighborhoods, making it discriminatory. She also thinks there are some issues with the classifications on the map that was provided, saying that Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 7 included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. Board took a short recess at B:OOpm and returned at 8:1Opm. Project: Short -Term Rental Land Use Code Requirements Project Description: Proposed short-term rental (STR) regulations and associated Land Use Code changes. Recommendation: Approval Chair Kirkpatrick recused herself due to a conflict of interest; Member Carpenter will chair in her absence. Secretary Cosmas reported that several items had been received on this item since the work session: • 1 citizen email requesting non -primary STRs be classified as commercial rather than residential; 1 citizen email in opposition of the proposed ordinance; 1 copy of the ordinance with proposed changes (from City Attorney); 1 copy of the ordinance with the changes incorporated (from City Attorney); and • 1 additional citizen email in opposition to STRs. Staff and Applicant Presentations Ginny Sawyer, Program and Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins, gave a detailed presentation of this recommendation. She explained some of the history, including the changes to the Land Use Code: • Definitions of primary residence (lives in a dwelling unit for 9 months or more); • Definitions of short-term rental units (one party at a time for less than 30 days); • "Party" is a reservation paid for a single group; • Owner -Occupied could include a carriage house onsite or a 2-family dwelling, and will also be considered primary; • Parking requirements (1 off-street parking for 2-bedroom except for TOD); and • Zoning limitations — owner -occupied can be allowed anywhere; non owner -occupied will be limited to zones allowing lodging establishments. Ms. Sawyer discussed the public outreach and where STRs would be allowed, noting there is a concentration of STRs in the downtown area due to amenities. She added that this ordinance will also propose a "grandfather" clause for any existing STRs. She is also proposing that each STR be inspected to ensure compliance with minimum housing standards. Some may have to go through the existing APU process to reach compliance. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that no licensing procedures are being considered at this time, so citizens should focus their comments on LUC topics. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 6 Public Input Terry Usrey, 1940 Larkspur Drive, has a concern about this project related to Transfort traffic, saying that perhaps there should be a requirement for a transfort pullout. He is in favor of on -site security. Kyle Schinkel, 1510 Lakeside, has a concern with the density and parking issues, citing the number of residences close by. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Van Dyken responded that a pull-out was considered but would require a wall, and that could restrict accessibility. She noted that there is a bus stop just across the street. Regarding security, the owner will responsible for managing the property, and a 24-hour help number will be provided. Planner Holland added that he would be willing to talk to Transit staff about the bus pull-outs for consideration. There is a residential parking permit program to review if they feel their neighborhood needs assistance for spillover parking, which may be an issue. Member Hansen asked how a bus pullout would be accomplished while still maintaining continuity of the sidewalk. Planner Holland responded that a bus pullout along the frontage would leave them in the tree lawn, the tradeoff being the tree spacing. Nicole Hahn, with Transportation Services, stated that congestion in general has been an issue, since density is increasing. She believes that pedestrian, bike and transit levels of service are already exceptional in this area: close to campus and other amenities and they meet the required level of service. Board Questions Member Hansen asked about parking in the area in general and whether parking issues are due to non- residents; he also asked if any parking studies had been done. Planner Holland stated that no recent parking studies of garages had been performed, but this will be a future consideration. The current requirement of .75 parking spaces per bed was adopted as a result of a study developed and adopted by City Council. He added that the District parking requirements were different (.6 parking spaces per bed). Ms. Van Dyke added that both Local and District were operating under the old code standards that had no minimum parking requirements. Member Hansen asked about garage placement; Planner Holland showed the closest building to the east side, the Campus West condos, which present a good transition, articulation of design, acceptable massing breakup and style of design. Board Deliberation Member Hansen has a concern with the bike parking in the units; he feels that this could present a future issue. Member Carpenter thinks that the protection of bikes is important but has a concern with the indoor space requirements. She likes the outdoor amenities, is in favor of having an on -site manager, and was pleased to note that this proposal has no modifications. Member Schneider agreed with Member Carpenter's comments. Member Hobbs also supports the project, saying that this high -density project fits well in the area. Chair Kirkpatrick also likes this project, commenting that the massing was well done; she is not completely supportive of the way the parking garage is situated and its visibility, saying that perhaps this could be reviewed in the next project phase. She asked if street maintenance is different in the winter with the possibility of ice and snow; Planner Holland stated that the adjacent sidewalk owners would be responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear. Ms. Hahn added that this consideration is in the future plan. Member Hobbs suggested that some sort of "green" wall might also be added to break up the texture of the walls. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the West Plum Housing Project Development Plan PDP160029, with the condition that an on -site manager be available 24 hours a day, and based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 5 Project: West Plum Housing, Project Development Plan PDP160029 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 63-unit, 233-bed multi -family residential building. The site is located on 1.2 acres at the southeast corner of West Plum Street and City Park Avenue and is in the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District. A 5-story building is proposed with 180 parking spaces integrated within the building structure. Recommendation: Approval Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief overview of this project_ He then introduced Stephanie Van Dyken, Landscape Architect with Ripley Design, who gave a detailed presentation. The Applicant is EdR (Education Realty), a company that develops but also manages collegiate housing communities. She showed slides of the site location and discussed the neighborhood outreach that was performed. She discussed the flow -lines, the sunlight conditions, outdoor amenities, intersection elevations, the massing study for context, the views from various angles, sidewalk angles, and bicycle parking locations (both outside and inside rooms). Staff Analysis Planner Holland recapped the key points, including how City Plan principles are being applied, character sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods, height and density setbacks, compatibility, massing and transition, edge variation, landscaping setbacks, parking garage placement, and tree placement. He discussed building design, emphasizing a row -house element and a relatable architectural style with strong residential character elements. He presented a pictorial view, showing the east side of the building, which indicated that shadowing criteria was properly met. The shading impact is within code requirements related to snow and ice buildup, so he does not consider this to be a substantial adverse impact. The parking requirements were also met; Planner Holland showed a graphic of the recently - adopted bus route for the area, noting that there are acceptable time intervals for the bus routes. Street improvements were also met for the project, since the frontage was improved. This proposal includes an occupancy increase, which is supported by the 4-bedroom unit designs. Having an on -site manager was also added as a suggestion condition. Member Hobbs asked whether there are any other comparable projects that include bicycle spaces within each unit; Planner Holland answered affirmatively, saying he would have preferred having a separated space within a parking garage, but he believes this arrangement will also work. He added that the Applicant might add some amenities, like a bike wash in the garage or at the main entrance or an automatic sliding door for convenience. Chair Kirkpatrick asked about the building design for the bike parking "in -unit". Max Reiner, Project Manager with Humphreys & Partners Architects, stated that they are planning some bike storage areas, in addition to allowing for 1 bike in each location, although they could be stacked to accommodate 2 bikes. Regarding access to building, most residents will enter through the garage and use the elevator in the central corridor — this area will have replaceable carpet squares for maintenance. Hallways and doorways will be wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic plus bicycles. There was more discussion regarding the hallway width; the planned space was concluded to be adequate. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 4 goals, and approval will be contingent upon meeting these goals. He added that even changes of ownership will be subject to these requirements. Member Schneider asked if there is a time frame on maintenance of the leased parking spots, and Planner Frickey confirmed that the developer will have to maintain those in perpetuity. He also stated that a residential parking permit feasibility study was performed in the Library Park area in 2016, indicating that the area did not meet the threshold for requiring a residential parking permit program (area was not "parked up" at least 70% of the time during the day). At night, this is less of an issue. Member Schneider asked about zoning this block into 2-hour time periods; Planner Frickey said this is an option. Planning Director Gloss added that the Board can decide whether to mandate this as part of the modification approval. Member Carpenter asked what would happen if the year-to-year leases become unavailable; Planner Frickey responded that the PDP would require an amendment for a change in the parking requirement. He added that there are currently parking spaces available. Ms. Davis confirmed that there is one spot currently reserved in the Old Town garage, and they are on the waiting list for 3 more spaces. Eventually, each unit will have 1 parking space in conjunction with their unit ownership, and there will be a future sharing agreement with the FICA. The Land Use Code (LUC) prohibits unbundling parking from unit rental. Member Carpenter asked whether parking spaces will be required for the "live/work" feature of the project; Ms. Davis replied that, because the units are small, they anticipate that many employees will walk or bike to and from work, and she doesn't expect many external people onsite. Planner Frickey confirmed that retail is not allowed in the NCB zone district. Member Schneider asked if this project will be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission; Planner Frickey stated that it may in the future, but not for this modification request. Member Hansen asked if there are any provisions in the LUC that would allow ground -level parking with 3 stories above for a total building height of 4 stories; Planner Frickey responded that a 4- story building would exceed the height limit in the NCB zone district. Member Carpenter asked whether the car sharing would be limited to only building residents; Mr. Davis responded affirmatively. Member Hansen asked if transit passes could be provided as part of ownership; Ms. Davis responded that this is an option. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs stated that the site is similar to a TOD site because of the characteristics of the location; he feels that the Colorado lifestyle is such that people do have and use cars, so they will need to be stored somewhere. He also stated that a total of 6 leased spots (1 for each unit) would be adequate. Member Carpenter agreed with that analysis, saying that she feels there is a car storage problem, but providing 1 parking space per unit would be agreeable. Member Hobbs clarified that he believes the "car -share" vehicles would be used by residents for quick trips, but residents would still require space to store their own cars. Member Schneider suggested this proposal is still less than the 10 required, and they will still need some handicapped spots. Chair Kirkpatrick is in favor of this project, even though this is an infill sites; she is in support of the modification and in having the 6 leased spaces. She added that she would like to see a neighborhood impact study performed prior to this project coming back during the Project Development Plan (PDP) phase. She clarified that this modification could be approved with the condition that 6 parking spaces be secured for car storage (one/unit) plus a transit pass be issued to each resident. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard, with the condition that a total of 6 total parking spaces be leased by a city -owned parking garage and that a transport pass be included in each unit ownership. Chair Kirkpatrick amended the motion by requesting a Neighborhood Impact Study be performed prior to the PDP phase. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 3 Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey provided an overview of this proposal. Laurie Davis, with Davis Davis Architects, gave a detailed presentation of the modification request, starting with the goals of the project. She explained the reason for the modification request and shared some history of "net zero" building living, which is basically healthy living free of toxins. Her company is seeking alternative compliance in lieu of onsite parking. She discussed the project goals of the Institute for the Built Environment, detailing the 7 performance categories of healthy living: place, energy, water, materials, health/happiness, equity and beauty. Her proposal would reduce the required 10 parking spaces to 6, plus 2 on -site "car share" spots (and would also include an additional 4 reserved spaces in the Old Town parking garage). She added that there would be 7 new on -street parking spaces on Oak Street. She demonstrated why the requested modification meets the code criteria, citing 4 justifications: 1. It is equal to or better than the code requirement; 2. The benefit to the City is huge, as it will promote the "walkable city" concept; 3. Relative to sustaining urban objectives, the lot is too small to provide code -recommended parking; and 4. Is in conformance with LUC1.2.2. She concluded by saying this modification will result in a "green", sustainable building site that will help Fort Collins meet its sustainability goals. Staff Analysis Planner Frickey gave an analysis of the project, discussing the merits of the Applicant's justification. He analyzed the distance from the site to local amenities and businesses (i.e. transit, grocery stores) and compared this to other similar sites. While this site is not in the Transit Overlay District (TOD), it is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone district. He concluded that this project is in alignment with other projects, including carbon -neutrality and City-wide goals. Public Input Renee Choury, 318 Whedbee Street, stated her perception that parking is becoming more difficult around Library Park and along the College Avenue corridor. She doesn't see an increased use of the parking garages. She feels that these issues should be addressed today rather than in the future. Cathy Norman, 226 Remington Street, stated that a lot of growth is occurring and it seems like many projects are requesting modifications to parking, which results in neighbors having to give up personal parking. Business owners have been struggling with providing client parking. She feels that this proposal may detrimentally impact future business. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Davis responded by reiterating that this proposal would provide 7 parking spots that did not formerly exist. She added that limiting parking actually increases the density and livelihood of businesses. Planner Frickey clarified that Townhomes at Library Park and 215 Mathews do indeed meet the parking requirements. Board Questions Member Hobbs asked for clarification on the long-term link to the "net -zero" vision for this property; Planner Frickey responded that there will be a requirement for the building owner to meet the City-wide Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience, noting that the Natural Habitat and Buffer Standards for Prairie Dog Management will be postponed until the January hearing. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from November 10, 2016, P&Z Hearing 2. Continuation of Gateway at Prospect Addition of Permitted Use and Overall Development Plan #ODP160001 to January 12, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. WilMarc Medical PDP #160033 4. Rennat Annexation and Zoning — ANX160005 5. Harmony Commons Hotel Public Input on Consent Agenda: A citizen requested that the Rennat Annexation be removed from the Consent agenda and put on the Discussion agenda. Chair Kirkpatrick stated that it will be heard at the end of the Discussion agenda. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the December 15, 2016, Consent agenda, with the exception of the Rennat Annexation and Zoning. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard 7. West Plum Housing Project Development Plan PDP160029 8. Short -Term Rental Land Use Code Requirements Recommendation to City Council Project: 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard Project Description: This is a request for a Modification to the parking standard for a mixed -use project consisting of four 2-bedroom units and two 1-bedroom, live/work spaces. This development must provide 10 parking spaces on -site per Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a). The applicant proposes leasing four parking spaces at the nearby Old Town parking garage and providing two on -site electric vehicles that will act as a car share. All of the building's energy needs would be handled through solar panels and a series of geothermal ground loops. The building will be net -zero energy usage. If the Planning and Zoning Board approves the modification, it would be valid for one year, by which time a Project Development Plan must be submitted incorporating the modification. Recommendation: Approval Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair Gerald Hart, Vice Chair Jennifer Carpenter Jeff Hansen Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221.6515 (Too 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing December 15, 2016 Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider Absent: Hart and Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Prassas, Holland, Wray, Sawyer, Frickey, Kleer, Wilkinson, Hahn, Virata, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.