Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARSEE PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 14-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 33 Member Clements stated that she understood where the Board members were coming from and is supportive of overall planning and putting her weight behind the West Central Neighborhood Plan. She would like to have this plan in place before spot zoning occurs. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Walker, Strom and Clements in the negative. FIVE OAKS VILLAGE/CUNNINGHAM CORNER DETENTION POND. (TRACT C), REFERRAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - #4-83G Planner Ted Shepard gave a summary of the referral with Staff recommending approval. Member Strom asked for a summary of the response from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Shepard stated that the response from the neighbors that attended the meeting, as well as the formal response from the Five Oaks Village Homeowners Association, was positive. He added that they believed it was in the long term maintenance interest to go to more drought -tolerant species and to finish the pond. He stated that this pond needs to be established before the City will take over maintenance, which is two growing seasons and is through irrigation. Member Carnes asked if the path that connects to Gunnison Drive is going to be access granted. Mr. Shepard stated that there was no discussion regarding this. He stated the path is part of a platted multi -family project. This request does not include any platted easements and that it will wind its way through a private development. Glen Schlueter, City Storm Water Department, stated that in order for the City to take over the maintenance, Tract 2 will be deeded to the City so it will become public property. CITIZEN INPUT Eric Fellers, who lives north of the detention pond, stated that he has lived next to this unfinished pond for over 10 years and fully supports what the applicant is wanting to do with the pond. He encouraged the City to be financially involved in this pond. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 32 Member Cottier asked for more information about the restrictive covenants that expired. Ms. Marsee replied that the covenants stated that an additional two-story would have to be granted. The covenants were established in the early 1960s and would expire 20 years after that unless the neighborhood upheld them, which they did not. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Board needs to address the variance request as a separate motion. Member Walker moved to deny the variance request due to a lack of criteria for granting such a variance request. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she would not support the motion because the reason for granting a variance is that it would be detrimental to the public good and that the plan submitted is "equal to or better than" because the plan submitted has no visual impact. She believed that Ms. Marsee's points that moving the house either direction are significant and that if they were willing to commit income guidelines for affordable housing they would have the points made. The motion to deny the request did not carry on a vote of 4-3 with Members Cottier, Fontane, Carnes and Bell in the negative. Member Cottier moved to grant the variance on the grounds that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plans submitted are "equal to or better than" such a plan incorporating provisions for which a variance is requested. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Walker, Strom and Clements in the negative. Member Cottier moved to approve Marsee PUD Preliminary and Final. Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she was persuaded because of the nature of the surrounding area, which is primarily rental, and her interpretation of the point chart in not substantiating the requirement for a variance. ft Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 31 neighborhood. She believed this would be a more significant evaluation of the character of the neighborhood. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that, in reviewing the variance, there is a two part test, one being to decide whether the granting of a variance would be detrimental to the public good or would impair the intents and purposes of the LDGS and the other part being finding whether one of the four circumstances to exist regarding the granting of the variance, whether it be an unusual circumstance that creates a hardship or "equal to or greater than". He added that there is nothing in the Staff Report nor presented in the way of facts to support Item 3, that the project does not comply with Criteria A 1.2. He suggested that whatever motion is made, that this not be one of the findings. Member Strom responded to Member Cottier's statement by stating he believed there was more to a neighborhood character than visual character. He did not believe that one or two additional cars would be a problem but, on the same basis, he does not find anything unusual about this property compared to other properties in the neighborhood. Member Fontane stated that the majority of the housing is rental units and the character of the neighborhood has already been set. Member Walker stated that there was no finding of fact along those lines and if that were the case, it is an illegal situation which the Board cannot base their case on. Member Carnes concurred with Member Cottier that it would not alter the appearance of the neighborhood. He added that if this were to set a precedence for doing this elsewhere in the neighborhood, he believed that the only place to have this would be on a corner lot. He believed that a basement apartment would be the most affordable in the community. He was concerned about the future redevelopment of the neighborhood if this should occur. Member Strom responded to Member Carnes' comment regarding placing this on a corner lot, that there is no requirement that an apartment has to have direct access to the street or alley. Ms. Marsee stated that the setbacks on the sides of the houses are not wide enough to allow for a garage. She stated that if they moved their house west they would receive more points on the chart and if they moved it towards Prospect, they would be in another zoning area. She stated that they are capable of doing this application under the standards required because of the size yard they have being a corner lot. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 30 Chairman Clements asked if there were any neighborhood comments or concerns regarding the revised plan. Mr. Ludwig stated that Staff did not receive any calls regarding the revised plan. He stated that initially the applicant proposed a two story addition which Staff had concerns with meeting the architectural compatibility of the neighborhood. He stated that in discussions with the applicant, it was suggested that a basement apartment be proposed. The majority of the letters received opposed a second dwelling unit being added, not just a two story addition. Member Walker observed that the point is set up to suggest, in this situation, what is being asked to be done is somehow more than the system is comfortable allowing. He believed that this proposal is overstepping the limits of what the system is interpreted by the LDGS. The criteria isn't there to grant a variance. He was uncomfortable with this project and believed it was not in character with the residential area. Member Bell commented that she could relate to the applicant wanting this project however the spot zoning aspect should not occur. Member Walker stated that in the meetings with the West Central Neighborhood Committee, which he is the P&Z liaison, this type of area is one of the areas that is of concern in the planning process because the older ranch style homes need improvements. But how is the vitality kept in this neighborhood. Member Cottier stated that this was a problematic situation. She stated that the Board grants variances to the point chart quite often. She had concerns with the compatibility with the neighborhood and has no opposition if there is no objections to the physical appearance of the residence. She appreciated the idea of wanting to preserve the character of the neighborhood however, if this is one of the few owner -occupied structures in the neighborhood, this would be another inconsistent criticism. Member Strom commented that if he were to vote for a change in the point chart for this property, he would question what grounds he would have for not voting for all the neighbors to do the same thing. Member Cottier replied that she, personally, would review them on a case -by -case basis based on the architectural impact in terms of changing the physical appearance of the 00 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 29 Member Cottier made a motion to recommend to City Council to adopt the Implementation Ordinance. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. MARSEE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #14-95 Planner Mike Ludwig gave a summary of the proposed project with Staff recommending denial due to the project failing to meet Criteria 1 of the Residential Uses Point Chart and All Development Criteria A 1.2 of the LDGS.. Jeani Marsee, 1320 Southridge Drive and applicant, stated that this project did meet 90 of the 100 points required for approval. She stated that they would rent this apartment to a single mother or father with a child, not to several single college students. She added that the neighborhood was in favor of this project. She believed that they are complying with regulations and that they would removing one car from the street with the addition of a garage. She stated that the majority of the homes in the area are rental units. CITIZEN INPUT Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association and member of the West Central Neighborhoods Advisory Committee, stated that the association opposes residential zoning changes such as this project. This area is currently the most densely populated area of the city. She questioned how much of the City's population and density loads should the neighborhoods next to CSU carry. How much longer will city policies, which are transportation and air quality driven, attempt to dictate that this area of the city is to bear the brunt of these policies at great sacrifice to the quality of our neighborhoods. She stated that they request that the Board deny approval of this project. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairman Clements asked what is the current mechanism for a citizen complaint should there be illegal renters in the neighborhood. Mr. Ludwig replied that the process would be through the Building Inspections and Zoning Department as a zoning violation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 22, 1995 Page 2 The following items will be heard at the June 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: 20. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Adoption of the Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Management Plan 21. #60-91M Pinecone PUD, The Tower Shoppes - Final 22. #42-89C Timberline Farms PUD - Diamond Shamrock Cornerstore - Preliminary Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that an updated resolution of Item 13 was distributed to the Board which includes the existing irrigation lateral, not just the one that was shown on the new plat, and the exhibits. He stated that this item will not need to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Director Blanchard pulled Item 11 from the Consent Agenda and requested that it be placed on the June 5 discussion agenda. Member Cottier moved that Item 18, Huntington Hills Pud, Fifth Filing Final be moved to the Consent Agenda. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Bell abstained from voting on moving Item 18 to the Consent Agenda due to a conflict of interest. The motion passed 5-0. Member Strom arrived at this time. Member Fontane moved to approve Consent Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Fontane moved to approve Consent Item 18. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting - May 22,1995 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairman: Rene Clements Phone: 221-0406 (W Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone: 221-3953 (H) The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Walker, Strom, Cottier, Clements, Fontane, Carnes, Bell. Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Olt, Eckman, Ludwig, Ashbeck, Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion agendas. The Consent Agenda items are as follows: 1. (Continued) Minutes of the November 14, December 19, 1994 and January 23, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. 2. #15-95 Prospect Greens PUD - Preliminary 3. #16-95 Choice Child Care, Enlarged Daycare PUD - Preliminary and Final 4. #17-96 Rafferty's PUD - Preliminary 5. #75-86R English Ranch PUD, 6th Filing - Final 6. #11-94B Westbury PUD, 2nd Filing - Final (Continued) 7. #81-93C Indian Hills Village PUD - Amended Final 8. Resolution PZ95-12 - Abandonment of a Portion of Indian Hills West PUD and a Portion of the Indian Hills Village PUD 9. #81-93B Indian Hills Village PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary and Final 10. #53-85AK Centre for Advanced Technology, 17th Filing, Phase 2 - Final 11. # 5-96 Rocky Mountain Auto PUD - Preliminary and Final (Continued) 12. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 13. Resolution PZ95-14 Easement Vacation 14. #63-7913 Resolution PZ95-13 - Abandonment of Lake Street Townhomes PUD 15. #23-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding Boxelder Sanitation District, Expanded Lagoon System - Referral Discussion Agenda: 16. #19-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Eastside/Westside Design Guidelines 17. 18. #14-95 #11-81M Marsee Residential Addition PUD - Preliminary and Final Huntington Hills PUD, Fifth Filing - Final (Moved to Consent Agenda) 19. #4-83 Cunningham Comer/Five Oaks Village - Referral of an Administrative Change.