Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRAHAM BED & BREAKFAST PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 26-89 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCILt Devel*ent Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Members of City Council FROM: Tom Peterson, Plann' Ctor VIA: James M. Davis, Development Services Director RE: Graham Bed and Breakfast P.U.D., Additional Clarification DATE: November 8, 1989 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions from City Council regarding the Graham Bed and Breakfast P.U.D. Specifically, the memo addresses the P.U.D. planning process, the evaluation of the P.U.D. request, and the sidewalk along Prospect Road. HISTORY Mrs. Graham owns a large, two story house at 730 West Prospect Road. On April 24, 1989, Mrs. Graham appeared before the City's Conceptual Review team proposing a conversion of her single family home into a four room bed and breakfast facility. A bed and breakfast facility is not allowed as a "use by right" in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone dis- trict. In order to reconcile her request with the existing zoning, Mrs. Graham faced the option of rezoning the property to R-H, High Density Residential, or apply for a Planned Unit Development. Mrs. Graham elected to apply for a P.U.D. As is typically required for P.U.D.'s which are anticipated to have an impact on surrounding properties, the bed and breakfast request was presented to the neighborhood for review and comment. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 1, 1989 to obtain citizen input and comment about the proposal. A copy of the neighborhood meeting minutes is attached. On June 5, 1989, the Graham Bed and Breakfast P.U.D. was submitted to the Planning Department for formal review. SITE INSPECTION During the review process, the site was inspected by the Planning Dcpart- ment, the Engineering Department, and the Forestry Division of the Parks and Recreation Department. The purpose of these inspections was to conduct a ',00 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box �8,0 • Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6730 comprehensive review of the property, determine the character of the surround- ing area, investigate the extent of the public improvements, and evaluate the condition of the existing landscaping. Based on this review, the following was concluded: 1. The driveway was not paved, but had sufficient space for four park- ing spaces. 2. The landscaping was bountiful and mature with several significant trees located in a landscaped island in the middle of the driveway. 3. There was no sidewalk in front of the home. SITE EVALUATION Staff evaluated the bed and breakfast request for impacts on the surrounding area and on the existing public improvements. During these deliberations, Mrs. Graham was consulted for further explanation. It was revealed that her "market niche" was to capture those travelers who had a preference for small, cozy, home -like accommodations versus the larger, impersonal hotel. Further, Mrs. Graham impressed upon the Staff that her guests would likely be partici- pating in events held at either the Holiday Inn on West Prospect Road or the C.S.U. campus. Since these destinations were within walking distance of the bed and breakfast, the guests would, in all likelihood, walk rather than drive. Based on these assertions and the site inspections, the Staff concluded the following: 1. The driveway would not have to be paved, and remain in gravel. 2. No additional landscaping would have to be provided. 3. A sidewalk would be required in front of the home. 4. Dedication of 20 feet additional right-of-way for the future widening of Prospect Road to arterial standards. According to Section 29-679 of the Zoning Code, required public improve- ments shall be required to be installed prior to the issuance of a certifi- cated of occupancy or a change in occupancy via the P.U.D. process. Sidewalks are required along arterial streets. The pedestrian nature of the proposed use led Staff to conclude that a sidewalk should be installed in front of the proposed P.U.D. to assist patrons to their likely destina- tions. It was later found that for this type of development, the City Attorney did not believe it was justified to require the right-of-way dedi- cation based on impact of the development. Therefore, the requirement for dedication was dropped. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PARTICIPATION Normally, the sidewalk would have been constructed by Mrs. Graham at her cost. However, in this case, the applicant had contacted the Engi- neering Department to sign up and participate in the 1989 Sidewalk Improvement Program. This program is designed to assist property owners in the construction of sidewalks in the older portions of the community where there may be gaps in the sidewalk system or where sidewalks are non-existent. Mrs. Graham signed up for both the subject P.U.D. prop- erty at 730 West Prospect Road and the property to the east, 720 West Prospect, also under her ownership. With the construction of sidewalks for both these properties, a sidewalk connection would be established from the bed and breakfast to the inter- section with Whitcomb Street, a logical route to the campus. Please refer to the attached map illustrating this connection. The cost to the property owner who volunteers to participate in the program is 50% of the total sidewalk construction cost. The program is open to both residential and commercial properties. The Planning Staff believed that Mrs. Graham's participation in the Side- walk Improvement Program was a win -win situation. As a condition of the P.U.D., only the frontage of 730 West Prospect was required to be improved. As a result of the Sidewalk Improvement Program, Mrs. Graham also elected to improve the frontage of 720 West Prospect, her adjoining rental property. The result was an increased intensity of land use through the P.U.D. process for Mrs. Graham, a required sidewalk in front of 730 West Prospect, a volunteer sidewalk in front of 720 West Prospect, assisted by an established program set up for the very purpose of con- structing sidewalks in older neighborhoods. Staff viewed the requirement of the sidewalk and method of payment as three distinct issues. First, the sidewalk was required because Mrs. Graham placed a heavy emphasis on the fact that the majority of her guests would be pedes- trian -oriented towards the conference facilities at C.S.U. and the Holiday Inn. As a result, the requirements of the Parking Lot Development section of the Zoning Code were waived by the Planning Department and did not require the parking and driveway to be paved. Secondly, the sidewalk in front of 730 West Prospect would provide pedestrian access along the north side of the arterial. It is anticipated that the sidewalk will be eventually completed and connect from Whitcomb to Shields. Again, please refer to the enclosed map for an illustration. The opportunity afforded by the P.U.D. application allowed for the installation of a sidewalk so that, over time, Prospect Road, as with all City streets, will have sidewalks for safe pedestrian travel. Third, we believed that it was fair and equitable that Mrs. Graham have the same opportunity as any other resident to participate in the Sidewalk Improve- ment Program. Her eligibility to participate was not jeopardized by the fact that the improvement was a requirement of the P.U.D. To summarize, we believed that assisting Mrs. Graham in the construction of the sidewalks was appropriate. In addition, careful consideration was given to waiving the parking lot paving requirement. The Planning and Zoning Board addressed the issue of the sidewalk requirement and agreed with Staff that it was a reasonable requirement. The Board did not address funding techniques. P. Graham CSU Student Housing �■ a ■un■ �■ ■■ a ■ , a■ , !'■■q r s e t Rgaa ■. ■■ ■,1 ■■1 .■....a My .� ■ a . .a . .. ■.■.■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■.. GSU 11111-1011111■ i .udentusing ........■.......■■■.■■■■■■■■. = 2 - 3 ft. walk ■�■��■����������� = 4 ft.+ walk I u...■.,b.Islas gleam all77 a,u Holiday Inn * asphalt type walk in front of apts.