Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 SOUTH SHERWOOD - NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW - 51-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 8 Member Mickelsen stated that she has a hard time looking at a proposal for a design which is toting it's architectural compatibility to structures that are existing, but are eyesores to the neighborhood due to their bulk and size. She felt the intent of the West Side Neighborhood Plan was to look at the size and design of the single family houses in the neighborhood and to respect them, and use that as a criteria to measure future change. Member Mickelsen also noted the list of issues in the staff report that staff felt this proposal does not meet. Member Mickelsen moved to deny this project of the Referral of the 620 S. Sherwood Street NC$ Site Plan Review. Member Davidson seconded the motion and added his concern with the rationale that because you have case ugliness siting around you, that would justify future ugliness when the change in codes and regulations has taken place to try and protect the architectural history and beauty of the Old Town Area. If we allowed this rationale to continue, there would be no Old Town left. Member Strom stated he would support the motion, and wished there was a stronger set of guidelines that applied specifically to this property. He felt that staff has made a good case that this particular proposal is so far out of context with the neighborhood that he thought it was in conflict with several All Development Criteria of the LDGS. Member Walker felt that the zoning NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District, was key in that it suggests that the neighborhood should be conserved. That does not imply that there cannot be things done, but implies that there is a certain amount of conservation ethic that needs to be taken place here. Part of that ethic is to respect the character of the neighborhood. He finds this building utterly without character, and does not relate at all with the character of the neighborhood. He felt they were maxing out the site to the point that having to request variances for this or that. He felt that this would be a nicer building and more in character if the rooflines of the block were respected in the older houses. He thought the City should look at some of the parking issues in this area, and the parking ratio was unrealistic when it comes to an area with a very intense use, such as around the University. Member Walker would be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 7 Chairperson Walker asked about the trees being removed with this proposal. Mr. Olt replied it was his understanding was yes, the majority of the trees would be removed. Chairperson Walker asked what kind of trees were they? Mr. Olt replied he did not know. Chairperson Walker asked if the trees were healthy. Mr. Olt replied that he was not sure Tim Buchanan from Forestry has been out to look at them yet. Mr. Cucarola added that he felt there was some mis-information. He submitted a site plan to the City and they were very specific about what trees would be torn out. Only three trees would be torn out. He stated that they already got an evaluation from tree foresters in the City. He stated that all the trees would be staying except for two which are dying and have very large root structures that is affecting not only the property next door and its foundation, but also cutting into the pipes. The other tree being removed is in the back between the alley and where the parking lot would be. He felt the landscaping issue had been resolved with what the Planning Department wanted. He also offered to add additional trees along the side that was requested. In regards to the fence, they are not tearing out any fence, they are adding a fence on their property line for screening for headlights for when the cars pull out of the parking lot. Member Bell asked for clarification of the parking space situation. Mr. Olt responded they would be providing eight spaces. Member Bell asked if that fell within the prescribed guidelines. Mr. Olt replied specifically yes, the parking section of the code requires a certain number of parking spaces for four -bedroom units. In this case, all three bedroom units by city code require that two parking spaces per unit be provided. Member Davidson asked if it would be realistic that that criteria was based upon the assumption that most apartments would be family apartments, and not student dwellings. Mr. Olt could only guess, and that that assessment is relatively accurate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 6 Jeff Squires, lives immediately north of the property and was concerned with the encroachment of high density in the neighborhood. He spoke about the number of alley houses that have gone up (6 alley houses and 2 more on the way, within 1 block of this property) and felt they did not need a 4-plex. He spoke of the college students that would live there and had concerns with the number living in each unit, the noise from partying, and where they would park their cars. Mr. Squires had concerns with the traffic in the alley that already accesses a sorority, a fraternity, and the 16-plex building next to it. Mr. Squires felt that this is not an asset to the community; the alley houses have been designed to be an enhancement to the neighborhood, and this building is not. Mr. Squires felt taking out trees was not good for the community, and the trees add quality of life to their neighborhood. He did not see why this could not be a duplex, or make modifications to what is currently there. He felt with upkeep and picking better tenants, the property would stay in good order. He also felt that the owner should fix the existing fence and not tear it down, and challenged the applicant to get a survey that would give him the right to do that. Arlis Squires, 616 S. Sherwood stated that she had offered to buy 620 S. Sherwood several years ago, and the owner was not interested. He was just interested in getting as many tenants in there as he can. In the eight years they have lived in their house, to her knowledge, the house next door has not been painted inside or out. It has plumbing and electric problems that have not been fixed. The tenants have complained repeatedly to them about broken pipes. The lawn has never been mowed or watered in the eight years they have lived there. Sometimes there are as many as eight cars parked in the little driveway. There also has been up to 10 dogs in the backyard, and the dog poop in the backyard has never been picked up. Mrs. Squires stated that they have contacted the landlord several times with no response. He does not live in Fort Collins, and does not have any property management and he does not do it himself. She suggested that he get a property manager. It is no more maintenance that a regular home and the reason it is high maintenance is no one ever maintains it. She questioned how his apartment building would look in five years if it is not maintained. She voiced her concerns about the trees being cut down that are at least 100 years old, trash, parking, and that she believes that the landlord is aware of these problems, but does not care. Andres Bantham, 617 S. Sherwood Street felt that this particular project would fundamentally change the feel and the character of the neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 5 Mr. Olt replied just height, but they had extensive input relative to the character of the building and a presentation by staff as to the nature of the structure. Mr. Cucarola submitted photo boards of other flat roof, and larger scale buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Cucarola stated there was also a sorority house and the Larimer County Correction Center in the area and believed these buildings should be considered in the architectural character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cucarola reviewed other heights of buildings in the neighborhood. Chairperson Walker asked where the 18 foot height limit came from. Mr. Olt replied that in the zoning district, there is a height restriction of 1 foot of side setback for every three feet of height of the building. Mr. Cucarola is showing 6 feet of setback on each side of the building, therefore, it cannot be higher than 18 feet. Chairperson asked to build something with 24 feet in height, how much setback would be needed. Mr. Olt replied 8 foot setback, either side, another two feet. Member Davidson asked about the 16-plex next to this property, and how did it accomplish the dimensions it did. Mr. Olt replied that the building preceded the NCB Zoning District, which is only 5 years old, and it could of even of preceded the West Side Neighborhood Plan which was adopted in 1988 and the rezoning of this area, took affect in 1991. Member Davidson, asked about the sorority house and most likely they were also preceded the WSNP and the rezoning. Mr. Olt replied that was conceivable. PUBLIC INPUT Walt Skowron, property owner at 625 S. Meldrum had concerns with parking and the number of cars for this development. He believed this apartment needs 12 parking spots and was concerned with cars and visitors parking in the alley. He felt that there should be a quality of life for the people who live around there and the parking problem in the area should be addressed and dealt with. Mr. Skowron was also concerned with safety and how the fire department would access the building with a bunch of cars parked in the alley. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 4 intent of the West Side Neighborhood Plan, specifically relating to the Land Use Plan section (East Buffer Area; pages 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16). Staff was recommending denial of the project. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the issues. Mr. Olt replied the land use was not in question. The issues were the architectural design and character, bulk, scale, mass, compatibility to the existing neighborhood. Mark Cucarola, applicant, gave a presentation of the project. Mr. Cucarola reviewed his three objectives for the project; retain the trees in the center of the lot, along with a maximum amount of open space between the required parking and the building itself; to be able to maximize the allowable zoning of a 4-plex; and, thirdly, to be able to construct this in such a manner that did not require any type of variances. Mr. Cucarola stated the issues were design character, and compatibility. He stated that this was a neighborhood block that has a significant amount of mixed owner -occupied and tenant rentals. Mr. Cucarola stated that the existing house was very old and a high -maintenance type of unit and from his view point, it is beyond it's economic life and beyond reason to even renovate. He would like to improve the property as a whole, but a fairly nice building there that would allow for a high -quality life for the tenants. Mr. Cucarola stated that he submitted revisions to the plan a month and a half ago, that would possibly be more sympathetic to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cucarola stated that suggestions make in meetings with the staff and then submitted were denied. Member Strom asked Mr. Cucarola if he requested a height variance and was he denied. Mr. Cucarola stated he applied for the variance on December 20th, to get the height variance, which would be 6 feet higher than the 18 feet now, which would make it 24 feet, which would be the minimum they could have for a gable type roof or a hip -type roof. That was denied. Member Strom asked by whom. Mr. Cucarola replied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Member Strom asked if this was an architectural denial in addition to height. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 3 recommend to the Council, action to be taken on it, but that the Council itself, as the elected body and directly responsible to the voters, would be the body that would actually adopt and approve. The first section of the proposed ordinance would make it clear that the Planning and Zoning Board is in a role of making a recommendation to the Council with regard to the adoption of Master or Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Eckman reviewed other changes to the code that were in violation of the City Charter. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Bell moved to recommend adoption of the amendments to City Council. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Member Strom asked if Mr. Eckman had been through the code, and was there any conflicts in terms of the charge of the Planning and Zoning Board from other parts of the code. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he did not think in the code itself there was any internal conflict in the code. This was to help clear up some conflicts between our code and our practice, and the State Planning Laws. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Mickelsen voting in the negative. 620 SOUTH SHERWOOD STREET - NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW. #51-95 Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff report stating this was a referral item and was a request to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 4-plex building on the property that is located at 620 S. Sherwood. Mr. Olt stated that staff review had determined a number of All Development Criteria in the Land Development Guidance System that have not been met with the plan as presented to staff. Mr. Olt showed slides and reviewed the project and surrounding neighborhood for the Board. Mr. Olt stated that the project is not it conformance with All Development Criteria A1.2, A2.2, A2.7, A2.11, and A2.13 of the LDGS. The project also does not conform to the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1996 Hearing Page 2 15. #31-95 Hearthfire Overall Development Plan 16. #31-95A Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary 17. #21-95A Prospect Park PUD - Final (Continued until April 8th Hearing) 18. #50-95 Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary 19. #7-95 Country Club Farms Rezoning 20. Recommendation to City Council to Amend the City Code with regards to the Function of the Planning and Zoning Board Director Blanchard stated that Item 20 would be first on tonight's discussion agenda, followed by 620 South Sherwood and the Hearthfire CDP and Preliminary. The remainder of the projects would be continued until the April 8, 1996 Hearing. Member Davidson pulled, Item 4, BMC West - Preliminary and Final Member Strom had revisions to some of the minutes. Member Strom moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, excluding item 4, and noting the corrections to the minutes. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Clark Mapes of the Advanced Planning Department gave an update on City Plan and upcoming City Plan meetings. Deputy City Attorney Eckman gave the staff report and stated this item was in conjunction with City Plan. He stated that this item was to amend the Code so as to specifically superceed certain of the provisions of the State Planning Laws that have not been followed in the past. The main emphasis would be that the State Planning Laws provides that the Planning Commissions of statutory cities and of home rule cities that don't overrule that — the Planning Commissions adopt these Comprehensive Plans and pass them on to the governing boards of the City's City Council's for subsequent approval. In the State Planning Laws system, the Planning and Zoning Board does the actual adopting of the Comprehensive Plans (referred to as Master Plan's in the State Law's), and our practice has been that the board would review the City Plan and I PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 25, 1996 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Lloyd Walker Phone: 491-6172(W) 221-0489(H) There was no Vice chair elect at this hearing The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Mickelsen, Colton, Strom, Bell, Davidson, Walker Staff Present: Haas, Shepard, Oft, Ludwig, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Herzig, Blanchard, Eckman and Deines. Agenda Review: Director Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's, which consisted of the following: 1. Minutes of the August 21, September 23, October 21, November 13, November 20, December 11, December 18, 1995, January 8, January 22, and February 11, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continue the November 13 Minutes). 2. #53-85AM The Centre for Advanced Technology PUD (C.A.T.), 18th Filing, Allnutt Funeral Chapel - Final 3. #53-85AN The Centre for Advanced Technology PUD (C.A.T.), Amended Overall Development Plan 4. #1-96 BMC West PUD - Preliminary and Final 5. #16-89H Stetson Creek, Second Filing PUD - Final 6. #16-891 Stetson Creek PUD, 3rd and 4th Filings - Preliminary 7. #16-89J Stetson Creek PUD, Third Filing - Final 8. 952-91 B Fossil Creek Office park East PUD - Preliminary & Final 9. #13-82BR Oakridge PUD, 3rd Filing, Block 1, Lot 2 (Carrabba's Italian Grill PUD) - Final 10. #75-86U English Ranch South, First Filing PUD - Preliminary & Final 11. #42-89D Timberline Farms Cornerstore PUD - Final 12. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval DISCUSSION AGENDA: 13. #51-95 620 South Sherwood Street - NCB Site Plan Review 14. #2-96 University Centre PUD (University Mal[) - Preliminary (Continued until April 8th Hearing)