HomeMy WebLinkAbout403 S WHITCOMB PUD - FINAL - 86-88 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 35
DATE: February 21, 1989
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Albertson -Clark
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on January 5,
1989, Denying the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record, and after
consideration, either uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On January 5, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Board denied the 403 S.
Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan on a 4-2 vote, finding that the
proposed use was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, failed to meet Criteria #5 of the All Development Chart of the
Land Development Guidance System.
On January 19, 1989, an appeal of that final decision was made for Stephen
McGinnis, the Appellant, by Lucia A. Liley of March and Myatt, P.C.
Description of Project
The 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan consists of a proposal
to construct a 528 square foot addition to an existing garage for the sale
of antiques and collectibles at a single family residence. The site is
located at 403 S. Whitcomb, which is the southwest corner of the
intersection of Whitcomb and Magnolia Street. The site is zoned R-H, High
Density Residential.
The proposed Preliminary and Final Plan was evaluated against the absolute
criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Based on this
evaluation, staff found that the project failed to meet Criteria #5 of the
"All Development" Point Chart of the LDGS, which states "Is the development
in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan,
including but not limited to: Master Street Plan and other adopted street
policies; Open Space Plan and other adopted open space policies?"
The elements of the Comprehensive Plan that were reviewed by staff for this
project were the Land Use Policies Plan and the Goals and Objectives.
The Goals and Objectives document of the Comprehensive Plan states the
following objectives for achieving preservation and development of unique
qualities and characteristics of all neighborhoods:
-2-
"Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business
activities which have a significant negative impact upon predominantly
residential areas."
Other objectives for achieving maximum compatibility between land uses are:
"Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods
against intrusive and disruptive surrounding development," and;
"Protect older residential areas from encroachment by industrial and
commercial uses which may impair the viability of the residential
neighborhood."
These goals and objectives are intended to discourage the premature
conversion of property to an inappropriate land use and to encourage the
maintenance and stability of viable, older residential neighborhoods. The
introduction of a commercial use, regardless of its scale or magnitude,
begins to create pressure for the conversion of other residential uses,
threatening the area's viability as a residential neighborhood.
The Planning and Zoning Board denied the 403 S. Whitcomb Preliminary and
Final Plan on a 4-2 vote at the January 5, 1989 Board meeting, finding that
it was not in conformance with adopted goals, objectives and policies of
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Appeal
The Appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
(a) Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence on
the record;
(b) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter; and
(c) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its
authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
Scope of Council Consideration of Appealed Preliminary and Final Plan
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are three -fold:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence on the record?
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its
authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter?
Cite -orney •
SIB _�c
M E M O R A N D U M
Cit-v of Fort Collins
DATE: February 17, 1989
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Stephen J. Roy, City Attorney4(
RE: Appeals Procedure/403 South Whitcomb P.U.D.
This is an appeal by Stephen McGinnis of a Planning and Zoning
Board decision on January 5, 1989, regarding property located at
403 South Whitcomb.
APPEALS PROCEDURE
Preliminary Considerations
The procedure for appeals to City Council is established in the
Code at Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, a copy of which is
attached for your reference. Also attached is a copy of Ordi-
nance No. 174, 1988, which recently amended the Code regarding
the appeals procedures.
Any "party -in -interest" may appeal to City Council the final
decision of any board or commission to which the appeal proce-
dures are applicable. Proper grounds for such appeal, as set
forth in Section 2-48 of the Code, must be alleged.
The Code provides that any appeal to the City Council is an
appeal on the record of the hearing before the board or commis-
sion. The record is to include: (1) the detailed minutes of the
proceeding before the board or commission; (2) all exhibits
received by the board or commission; and (3) a verbatim trans-
cript of such proceedings before the board or commission, at the
option and expense of any party -in -interest. New evidence is not
to be considered on appeal.
Prior to the actual consideration of the appeal and after the
introduction of the agenda item, the appeal process should be
explained to those in attendance. I would be glad to handle that
introduction, if the Mayor so desires. Following the introduc-
tion, Council should take up the question of whether the stated
grounds for appeal are sufficient. This should be done by
motion.
The determination of the sufficiency of the grounds should be
made according to the criteria in Section 2-48 of the Code, which
are:
,00 LaPorte Avenue - P. O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6520
City Councilmembers •
February 17, 1989
Page 2
(1) Abuse of discretion, in that its (the board's)
decision was arbitrary and without the support of
competent evidence in the record.
(2) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter;
(3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority
or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and
Charter.
b. The board or commission substantially ignored
its previously established rules of procedure;
C. The board or commission considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substan-
tially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board or commission improperly failed to
receive all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant.
The stated grounds in this appeal are as follows:
(1) Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board was arbitrary and with-
out the support of competent evidence in the
record.
(2) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter.
(3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter.
It is my opinion that the grounds for appeal appear to conform to
Section 2-48 of the Code, but the ultimate determination of this
question is up to Council.
As provided in Section 2-48 of the Code, if the Council deter-
mines that the appeal is founded upon legitimate appealable
grounds, the Council should next consider the particular allega-
tions of error. Presentations relevant to other allegations
should be made in the order of presentation established in Sec-
tion 2-55 of the Code. The time for presentations may be limited
so as to eliminate presentations or discussions that are inordi-
nately time-consuming or unnecessarily repetitious. According to
Section 2-55 of the Code, the order of procedure is as follows:
0 •
0
City Councilmembers
February 17, 1989
Page 3
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and pre-
sentation by City staff.
(2) Presentation of argument by the appellant and any
party in interest in support of the appellant.
(3) Presentation of argument by any party in interest
who is an opponent of the appeal.
(4) Motion, discussion and vote by Council.
Parties -in -interest may designate one or more speakers to present
summary and argument on their behalf. All participants must
limit presentations to arguments or summary of the evidence
presented at the lower board or commission.
As mentioned above, new evidence should not be received at the
hearing as to any of the grounds for appeal. The same rule
should apply to all other parties in interest besides the appel-
lant.
The applicable law to be applied in making the decision consists
of the relevant portions of the LDGS. The LDGS provides, in
Section 29-526(D)(5) as follows:
5. Is the development in accordance with the adopted
elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including but
not limited to, Master Street Plan and other
adopted street policies, Open Space Plan and other
adopted open space policies?
The pertinent portions of the LDGS and the Comprehensive Plan and
the Goals and Objectives are attached to or cited in the Agenda
Item Summary for your use in making your decision.
Upon conclusion of the presentation of the appeal, Council should
vote to uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the Board.
SJR:sam
Attachments
•
ADMI]NISTRATION
3) Consideration of water and real property
acquisitions by the city restricted to con-
sideration of appraisals and other value es-
timates and consideration of strategy for
the acquisition of such property.
(c) No Final legislative action shall be taken by
the city in executive session. Such final legisla-
tive action may be taken only in an open meeting.
(d) Executive sessions shall be closed to the
general public, but the City Council may permit
any person or group to attend such sessions.
Code 1972. § 2-2(B))
Charter reference —Executive session, Art. II, § 11.
Cross reference —Personnel. pensions and retirement. Ch.
21,
Sec. 2-31. Open meetings.
Except as otherwise provided 'herein, all regu-
lar and special meetings of the City Council shall
be open to the public. The City Council shall have
the power to cause persons to be removed from a
City Council meeting if any person fails to com-
ply with the requirements of the presiding officer
in maintaining order during the meeting.
(Code 1972, § 2.2(C))
Secs. 2-32-245. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. APPEALS PROCEDURE'
Sec. 2-46. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when
used in this Division. shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this Section.
'Croea referenew—Appals from the Liquor Licensing Au-
thority. § 3.36; appals from the Building Review Board may
be heard by the City Council, 1 5-312; appeals from the deer
lion of the city regarding alarm permits to the City Council, §
15.36; appeals from the determinations of the Building Re-
view Board regarding alarm permute to the City Council, §
15.411bi; disapproval of pawnbroker's license may be appealed
to the City Council- § 15-265(c> applicant for license regard-
ing places of entertainment may appeal the decision to the
City Council, § 15.298; appeals from the denial of the second-
hand dealer's license to the City Council, § 15-318; appeals for
denial of a license for a mobile home park may be appealed to
the City Council, § lM6.
3upp. No. 1
161
-i 6
.-appellant shall mean a party -in -interest who
has taken an appeal from a board or commission
to the City Council by the filing of a notice of
appeal.
.-applicant shall mean the person who or orga-
nization which submitted the application to the
board or commission whose decision has been
appealed.
Final decision shall mean the action of a board
or commission by vote of a majority of its mem.
bers when no further rehearing is available be-
fore such board or commission.
New evidence shall mean any evidence relating
to the proposal or application which was the sub-
ject of final decision by a board or commission
and which was not presented at the hearing be-
fore such board or commission.
Party -in -interest shall mean a person who or
organization which has standing to appeal the
final decision of a board or commission. Such stand-
ing to appeal shall be limited to the following:
(1) The applicant;
(2) Any party holding a proprietary or posses-
sory interest in the real or personal prop-
erty which was the subject of the decision
of the board or commission whose action is
to be appealed;
(3) Any person to whom or organization to which
the city mailed notice of the hearing of the
board or commission;
(4) Any person who or organization which sent
written comments to the board or commis-
sion prior to the action which is to be
appealed;
(5) Any person who appeared before the board
or commission at the hearing on the action
which is to be appealed;
(6) The City Council as represented by the re-
quest of a single member of the City Council.
(Code 1972. § 3A-2)
Cross reference —Definitions and rules of construction gen-
erally, i 1.2.
0 •
5 247
FORT COLLINS CODE
Sec, 2-47• Certain appeals to be taken to City
Council.
Appeals from the following boards and commis.
sion, permitted under the provisions of this Di-
vision, shall be taken to the City Council in the
manner as set forth in this Division:
(1) Building Review Board;
(2) Fire Board of Appeals;
(3) Landmark Preservation Commission;
(4) Planning and Zoning Board;
(5) Storm Drainage Board;
(6) Zoning Board of Appeals.
(Code 1972, § 3A.1)
Editor's note —Subsection (4) formerly referred to the BWld.
ing Contractor Licensing Board, which is no longer in exis.
tence, being replaced by the Building Review Board pursuant
to Ord. No. 93, 1987. The editor has, therefore, deleted former
subsection (4) and has renumbered subsections (5)-47) as (47 -46).
Cross references —Building Review Board, § 2-101 et seq.;
Landmark Preservation Commission, § 2.276; Planning and
Zoning Board. § 2.351; Storm Drainage Board, § 2.411; Zon-
ing Board of Appeals, § 2.441. Fire Board of A
9.2(1), 9-3. Appeals, 4 §
Sec. 248. Appeal of final decision permitted
A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Coun-
cil the final decision of any board or commission
to which this appeal procedure applies in the man-
ner provided in this Division. Grounds for such
appeal shall be limited to allegations that the
board or commission committed one (1) or more of
the following errors:
(1) Abuse of discretion, in that its decision was
arbitrary and without the support of com-
petent evidence in the record;
(2) Failure to properly interpret and apply rele-
vant provisions of the Code and Charter;
(3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
C. The board or commission considered
evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly mis-
leading; or
d. The board or commission improperly
failed to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant.
(Code 1972, § 3A-3; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 1, 9.1-87)
Sec. 2-49. Filing of notice of appeal.
An appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of
appeal of the final decision of a board or commis.
sion to which this Division applies with the City
Clerk within fourteen (14) days after the action
which is the subject of the appeal. Such notice of
appeal shall include the following:
(1) The action of the board or commission which
is the subject of the appeal;
(2) The date of such action;
(3) The name, address, telephone number and
relationship of the appellant to the subject
of the action of the board or commission,
(4) The grounds for the appeal, including spe-
cific allegations of error to be considered on
appeal.
(Code 1972, § 3A-4)
Sec. 2.50. Review of notice of appeal by City
Attorney.
Within five (5) working days of the date of the
filing of the notice of appeal, the notice shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney for any obvious
defects in form or substance. The City Clerk shall
notify the appellant in writing by certified mail
of any such defect in the notice of appeal within
ten (10) working days from the date of filing of
the notice of appeal.
(Code 1972, § 3A-5)
a. The board or commission exceeded its Sec' 251. Amended notice of appeal Permitted.
authority or jurisdiction as contained An amended notice of appeal may be filed by
in the Code and Charter; the appellant at any time prior to the time for
b. The board or commission substantially mailing by the City Clerk of notice of the appeal
ignored its previously established rules to other parties -in -interest as contained in § 2.54.
of procedure;
Supp. No. 1
162
I
a
-\D.MINISTRATION
Such amended notice of appeal shall be :n the
-ame form as the original notice of appeal.
Code 1972. � 3A-6)
Sec. 2-52. Cost of appeal.
The appellant shall be charged a fee of seventy-
five dollars $75.) for the cost of the appeal to be
paid to the City Clerk at the time of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
Code 1972, § 3A-7)
Sec. 2-53. Record on appeal.
Any appeal to the City Council shall be an
appeal on the record of the hearing before the
board or commission. The record provided to the
City Council shall include the following:
(1) Detailed minutes of the proceedings before
the board or commission from which the
appeal has been taken;
(2) All exhibits received by the board or com-
mission at the proceedings;
(3) A verbatim transcript of such proceedings
before the board or commission, or any por-
:on thereof, at the option and expense of
any party -in -interest.
(Code 1972, § 3A-8)
Sec. 2-54. Scheduling of the hearing.
In the event of an appeal, the City Clerk shall
schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the
City Council as expeditiously as possible. The City
Clerk shall provide the appellant and all other
parties -in -interest fourteen (14) days' written no-
tice of the date, time and place of the hearing as
well as the grounds for the appeal as contained in
the written notice of appeal.
(Code 1972, 4 3A-9)
Sec. 2-65. Procedure of the hearing.
(a) At the hearing on the appeal by the City
Council, the following procedure shall be followed.
(1) There shall first be a determination by the
City Council, by majority vote of its mem-
bers, whether the written grounds for ap-
peal conform to the requirements of 1248.
Supp. No. 4
256
If the grounds do not so conform, the ap-
peal shall be denied.
(2) If the grounds do so conform, the City Coun-
cil shall next consider any allegation that
the board or commission improperly failed
to receive all relevant evidence offered by
the appellant as described in § 2-48(3,d. If
the City Council finds that such error oc-
curred, it shall remand the matter back to
the board or commission for rehearing in
light of the previously excluded evidence.
(3) If the City Council finds that such error
regarding the failure to receive evidence
did not occur, it shall then consider the
merits of any additional allegations of error
which conform to the requirements of §
2-48.
(b) The presentation of evidence and argument
on the merits of the appeal shall be made in the
following order, subject to such limitations, in
time and scope as may be imposed at the discre-
tion of the Mayor:
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal
and presentation by city staff-,
(2) Presentation of evidence and argument by
the appellant;
(3) Presentation of evidence and argument by
opponents of the appeal;
(4) Public discussion;
(5) Motion, discussion and vote by the City
Council.
(Code 1972, § 3A-10; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 2,
9-1-87)
Sec. 2458. Alternative actions available to the
City Council.
The City Council shall consider an appeal based
upon the record on appeal and relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter. New evidence shall not
be considered on appeal. At the conclusion of such
hearing, the City Council shall uphold, overturn
or modify the decision of the board or commis-
sion; provided, however, that the City Council
163
Cl
§ 2-56 FORT COLLINS CODE
may instead remand the matter for rehearing as
provided in § 2.55(aX2).
(Code 1972, § 3A-11; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 3,
9.1.87)
Secs. 2-57-2.70. Reserved.
ARTICLE III. BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS'
DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Secs. 2-71-2-80. Reserved.
DIVISION 2. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Sec. 2-81. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created the Fort
Collins -Loveland Airport Authority, pursuant to
the state Public Airport Authority Act hereafter
referred to in this Division as the authority.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11-4-86)
Sec. 2-82. Membership; term.
a) Except as otherwise agreed between the cit-
ies of Fort Collins and Loveland, the board of
commissioners of the authority shall consist of six
(6) members. three 13) members to be appointed
by the City Council of the City of Loveland and
three (3) members to be appointed by the City
Council of the City of Fort Collins. Such appoint-
ments shall be made by separate resolutions of
the respective municipalities.
(b) Appointments shall specify the term of of-
fice of each individual in order to achieve over -
•Charter referencw—Appaiotiw boards, Art. IV, § 1; Water
Board. Art. XH. 17.
Cross references—Opae anatings, 12.621 st seq.; all meet.
ings of boards of the city at which formal action is taken shall
be open to the public except certain meetings of the Water
Board. the Personnel Board and the Building Review Board, 1
2.656; Board of Elections created, § 7.26; Personnel Board
created, § 21-26; Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pen.
sion Plan, § 2142; Board of Trustees of the Police Officers'
Pension Plan created, § 21.57; Retirement Committee creat-
ed, § 21.86 et seq.; Liquor Licensing Authority established, 1
3.31 et seq.; Massage Licensing Authonty created, § 16.16 st
seq.
Supp. No. 4
164
lapping tenure. Each member shall serve a term
of four (4) years without compensation.
(c) All members shall be subject to removal by
each respective City Council. If a vacancy occurs
on the authority, it shall be tilled by the respec-
tive City Council for the remaining unexpired
portion of the term.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11-4.86)
Sec. 2-83. Functions.
The authority shall exercise all of the powers
and perform all of the duties and functions of an
airport authority, as set forth in Title 41, Article
3, C.R.S.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11.4.86)
Sec. 2-84. Officers.
The authority shall elect officers pursuant to
the state Public Airport Authority Act.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11-4-86)
Sec. 2-85. Right, title and interest to remain
with cities.
Nothing in this Division shall be construed to
assign, convey or otherwise transfer to the au.
thority any right, title or interest in the Fort
Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport or any im-
provements situate thereon, nor to grant to the
authority any of the rights, privileges, powers or
functions of an authority as they apply to the
airport, but all of such matters are hereby re-
served unto the cities, except as may hereafter be
granted by separate agreement or instrument.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 114-86)
Sec- 2 M Minutes; annual report; work plan
It is required that minutes be kept for each
authority meeting and that such mir.,;-es be Filed
with the City Clerk of each municipality prior to
the next regular meeting of the authority. On or
before January 31 of each year, the authority
shall file a report with the City Clerk of Fort
Collins setting forth the activities of the author-
ity for the previous year. On or before November
30 of each year, the authority shall file a work
16
0
•
ORDINANCE NO. 174, 1988
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-53 AND SECTION 2-55
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO APPEALS PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has determined that
it is it the best interest of the citizens of the City that Section 2-53
and Section 2-55 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be amended
regarding the procedure for the bringing of appeals to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-53(2) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) All exhibits, including, without limitation, all
writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs, photographs
and other tangible items received or viewed by the
board or commission at the proceedings;
Section 2. That Section 2-55(b) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) The presentation of argument on the merits of the
appeal shall be made in the following order, subject to such
limitations, in time and scope as may be imposed at the
discretion of the Mayor:
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and
presentation by city staff;
(2) Presentation of argument by the appellant and any party
in interest in support of the appellant;
(3) Presentation of argument by any party in Interest who
is an opponent of the appeal; and
(4) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council.
Section 3. That Section 2-55 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (c), to read as
follows:
(c) No person making a presentation to the City Council
shall be subject to cross-examination except that members of the
City Council and the City Attorney may inquire of such person for
the purpose of eliciting information and for the purpose of
clarifying information presented.
6
ti,
•
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
Published this 5th day December, A.D. 1988, and to be presented for final
passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
KlJCity Cl
Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D.
1988.
Mayor Ll
ATTEST:
1
\,e
City Clerk
DeMopment Services
•
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
Planning Department
February 16, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of City until
THRU: Tom Pet o"niirector '
James M. Davis, Director of Development Services
FROM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior Planner 9
RE: Staff Response to Appeal of 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and
Final Plan
The following is a response to the issues specified in the Notice of Appeal
filed on January 19, as well as those supplemental items listed in a February
15 letter from the appellant's attorney. Please note the items that are direct
citations from the Notice of Appeal. The staff response to each item is
underlined.
A. "Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the
record."
Appellant's attorney further alleges the following:
"Although the staff cited three specific goals of that document (Goals and
Objectives Document) to support their assertion, no competent evidence was
introduced to show the relevance of these goals to this specific project."
"Statements unsupported by any evidence were made by staff and
Boardmembers that commercial uses have a negative impact on older residential
neighborhoods."
"Moreover, the staff and Board failed to address and consider the issue of the
impact on the residential neighborhood of existing renter -occupied structures
versus owner -occupied structures with limited commercial uses."
Staff Response: The Planning and Zoning Board properly considered the
evidence in the record in _making the decision to deny the 403 S. Whitcomb
PUD Preliminary and Final Plan.
The obiectives cited by staff support the goal of achieving preservation and
development of unique qualities and characteristics of all neighborhoods. These
goals and obiectives are intended to discourage the premature conversion of
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fart Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
0 •
Ms. Wanda Krajicek
Re: 403 South Whitcomb
February 15, 1989
Page 4
particular areas are located in what I believe is
referred to as the buffer area. But the intent in the
West Side Plan for conversion areas is to retain those
areas primarily for single family uses."
Note that, although the staff member informs the Board
that the Plan has not yet been fully adopted by the
Council, she does not state that it is inappropriate to
apply the standards of the West Side Plan and, in fact,
goes on to describe in detail why the project does not
comply with the Plan.
(4) Discussion by Boardmember Kern at the January 5,
1989 Planning and Zoning Board hearing:
KERN: "Just in general. While many of the conditions
that are necessary for a small business to operate in
an RH zone have been met, the reasons for my voting for
denial is three fold really - one, it is hard to
maintain and regulate on a small scale; secondly, the
use resides with the land over which we have no control
and third, I think that retail commercial use is
incommensurate with both the present zoning and that
proposed in the Westside Neighborhood Plan."
The initial two reasons cited by Mr. Kern are practical
reasons which are not land use standards which need to be met in
the LDGS. Of the last two statements - present zoning and the
Westside Neighborhood Plan - the first is inaccurate and the
last, inapplicable. The property is in the R-H zone which allows
any uses approved in a PUD; the issue is not one of
inappropriate zoning, but compliance with the LDGS which Mr.
Kern does not discuss. The Westside Neighborhood Plan is not an
adopted plan and cannot legally be the basis on which a project's
approval can be given or withheld.
III. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
Provisions of the Code and Charter.
See Nos. 1 and 2 above.
0 LAL/lam
cc: Mr.
Ms.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
.!
Luci A. Li ey
Stephen McGinnis
Sherry Albertson -Clark
property to
an inappropriate land
use
and to
encourage the maintenance
and
stability of
viable older
residential
neighborhoods
Conversion of a
residential
use into a
commercial
use creates
nressure
for
further conversion
of other
residential
residential
owner -occupied
uses threatening the
neighborhood The
or consists of
viabilitv
consideration
rental
of
units
the area's continuation as a
of whether the area is
is irrelevant Impacts on a
neighborhood are not
measured by
the
property
ownership patterns
but by the
existing and
proposed
land uses of
that
neighborhood
The Whitcomb Street neighborhood as well as other older residential
neighborhoods in proximity to the downtown provide an ambiance of
appearance and a quality of life than can no longer be recreated These
neighborhoods consist of many older structures grid street networks and mature
lantln s and landsca In . Such uni ue characteristics rovide an alternative
to newer residential areas where it may be appropriate to introduce
commercial uses into residential areas• however, the introduction of commercial
uses in _ older neighborhoods threatens the viabilitv and stability of these
established residential areas, as well as the very characteristics that makes these
areas such an appealing part of our community,
B. "Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter."
The appellant's attorney further alleges the following:
"The Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in allowing the introduction
into the record of a substantial amount of information pertaining to the West
Side Plan, discussing specific elements of the West Side Plan and taking the
West Side Plan into consideration when voting on the project."
Staff Response:
The Planning
and Zoning
Board was correct
in
evaluating
this
proposal against
the All Development
Chart of the Land Development
Guidance
System and denying
the 403 S
Whitcomb
PUD Preliminary and
Final Plan
for
failure to comply
with Criteria
#5 of
the All Development Chart
which
states
"is the development
in accordance with the adopted
elements
of
the
Comnrehrnsivc Plan including
but ^ot
limited to: Master Street
Plan and
other
adopted street
Dollcies• Open
Space
Plan and other adopted
open
pace
policies?"
The
Board's basis for
denial of this
groiect was
the proiect's
failure to comply
with
the All Development
Criteria
of the Land
Development
Guidance System
The
West Side Plan
was not cited in
the Board's
motion
to deny this proiect
C. "Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board or commission
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter."
Staff Response: The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing and
was within its authority to deny the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and
Final PUD for its failure to comply with the All Development Criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System
i
-2-
r •
l
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 5, 1989 0
The continued
1988,
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board
for December 19,
was called
300
to order
at approximately 6:35 P.M., in the
Council Chambers,
LaPorte _Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Board members
Shepard, Dave
present included:
Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell,
Sanford Kern, Jan
Frank Groznik
Edwards,
Lloyd
Jim Klataske, and Alternate Rex
Burns. Members
and
Walker were absent.
Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Linda
Ripley, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Rick Ensdorff, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman.
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the remainder of the Discussion
Agenda which included 403 South Whitcomb, Harmony Road Access Plan, and
The Timan Master Plan.
#86-88 403 SOUTH WHITCOMB
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the project. The applicant
requested a 528 square foot addition for the sale of antiques.
Steve McGinnis, applicant, stated his business involved the purchase and sale of
antiques. He needed a variance for the sales. There would be no exterior
storage and he would have no more than one employee. The parking problem
C was resolved by the addition of two parking spaces in the backyard for
personal use.
Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the item was reviewed as a PUD not a home
occupation due to the retail sales clement and because the RH Zoning District did not permit retail uses. The project met the required 50 percent on the point charts and the issue of parking had been resolved. The project met all
requirements except compliance with the comprehensive plan; therefore, staff
recommended denial.
Member Edwards asked if this was a hardship case. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated
we were looking at a PUD review, not a variance, and this was not reviewed
on the basis of hardship.
Member Kern wondered what the Westside Neighborhood Plan recommended.
Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the Plan had not been adopted but this particular
area was a "conservation area" and the Plan's intent was to retain single family
use in the area.
Member Shepard asked if the retail use was limited to the addition and if the
approval ran with the land or the owner. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted it ran
with the land and it was difficult to regulate the size of retail sales.
Mr. Eckman noted that the approval would run with the land.
( There was no public input.
J
•
•
City Attorney
- 6j"Mft,
���w
Cite of Fort Collins M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 23, 1989
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney o
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision/
403 South Whitcomb P.U.D.
I have examined the appeal of Steven McGinnis with regard to the
above -referenced matter and find no obvious defects in form or
substance.
WPE:whm
cc: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning
,00 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520
MARCH 8e MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ART111-114 L. MARCH, JR.
110 EAST OAK STREET
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. BRANDIES, JR.
FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 805242880
RICHARD S. GAST
(303) 482-4322
LUCIA A. LILEY
TELECOPIER (303) 482-2962
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LOUISE F. MILLER
January 19, 1989
Ms. Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Co 80521
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision
on the 403 South Whitcomb PUD
Dear Wanda:
D
JAN19'38
lC1°S'FS�IUR E, MARCH '
Ifl Ofl-1fl8.1
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS. CO 80522
our office represents Stephen McGinnis who desires to appeal.
to the City Council the January 5th decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board (the "Board") denying a commercial use of his
residence. Mr. McGinnis resides at 403 South Whitcomb, Fort
Collins, Colorado 80524, telephone number 224-2436.
The general grounds for the appeal based on Section 2-48 of
the Fort Collins Code are as follows:
1. Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of.
the Planning and Zoning Board was arbitrary and without
the support of competent evidence in the record;
2. Failure to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; and
3. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Board or commission exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter.
Additional specific information regarding the nature of this
appeal will be sent to Council prior to the hearing.
h i IQ�loj. t 4
Ms. Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
January 19, 1989
Page 2
It is our understanding that the next Council meeting date
at which this appeal most probably could be heard is February 21,
1989. We would appreciate being notified as soon as possible of
the final appeal date. Thank you.
LAL/mrc
Enclosure: $75.00 appeal fee
pc: Stephen McGinnis
•
E
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT,, P.C.
By
ci A. Li lav
•
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
HO EAST OAK STREET
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. BRANDIES, JR.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880
RICHARD S. GAST
(3031 482-4322
LU CIA A. LILETELECOPIER
(303) 482-2962
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LOUISE F. MILLER
February 15, 1989
Ms. Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1909-1981
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision
on the 403 South Whitcomb PUD
Dear Wanda:
The following information is intended as a supplement to the
appeal filed with your office on January 19, 1989 in the
above -referenced matter.
I. Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board was arbitrary and without the support
of competent evidence in the record:
City staff cited Appellant's failure to comply with
Criteria #5 of the LDGS as the ground for denial of the
project. Criteria #5 requires compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, a part of which is the Goals and
Objectives document. Although the staff cited three
specific goals of that document to support their
assertion, no competent evidence was introduced to show
the relevance of these goals to this specific project.
Goals cited were:
(1) Protect against the intrusion of incompatible
commercial and business activities which have a
significant negative impact upon predominantly
residential areas;
(2) Protect the character of new and existing
residential neighborhoods against intrusive and
disruptive surrounding development; and
(3) Protect older residential areas from
encroachment by industrial and commercial uses which may
impair the viability of the residential neighborhood.
r�
Ms. Wanda Krajicek
Re: 403 South Whitcomb
February 15, 1989
Page 2
Statements unsupported by any evidence were made by staff
and Boardmembers that commercial uses have a negative impact on
older residential neighborhoods. These statements are
incompatible with the cited goals and objectives which do not
automatically assume any commercial use is inappropriate, but
rather require specific evidence and finding of "incompatible
use," "significant negative impact," "intrusive and disruptive
surrounding development" and uses which "impair the viability" of
residential neighborhoods.
Moreover, the staff and Board failed to address and consider
the issue of the impact on the residential neighborhood of
existing renter -occupied structures versus owner -occupied
structures with limited commercial uses.
II. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board or
commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in
the Code and Charter.
The Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in
allowing the introduction into the record of a
substantial amount of information pertaining to the West
Side Plan, discussing specific elements of the West Side
Plan and taking the West Side Plan into consideration
when voting on the project.
The Council should consider the following pertinent facts:
(1) From the Staff Report of December 19, 1988:
"The policies, goals and objectives have been further
refined and supported in the proposed Downtown Plan and
Westside Neighborhood Plan. While these plans are not
adopted they do provide additional policy refinement for
the older core neighborhoods." (emphasis added)
Query: How can plans which have not been finalised or
legally approved by Lhe CiLy provide "additional. policy
ref i nemer t" in judging wliot.her a specific proposed land
use legally complies w.iLh existing land use regulations?
r -�
Ms. Wanda Krajicek
Re: 403 South Whitcomb
February 15, 1989
Page 3
(2) Discussion of specific provisions of the West Side
Plan and Downtown Plan taken from the December 19, 1989
Staff Report:
"Both the Downtown Plan and the Westside Neighborhood
Plan, identify the block on which the proposal is sought
as being for residential land use. Furthermore, the
Downtown Plan recommends that a business such as an
antique sales be located in the existing retail core of
the downtown.
The West Side Neighborhood Plan, recommended for
adoption by the Planning and Zoning Board in July,
identifies this side of Whitcomb Street as a
conservation area. The conservation area is intended
Primarily for single family residential uses. Other
uses allowed in the conservation area are churches,
schools and public/quasi-public recreational use
accessory dwelling units (basement apartments); group49
homes; and multi -family dwellings."
(3) Discussion at the January 5, 1989 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing:
KERN: "We know that often LDGS is
not always
convenient for development in established neighborhoods.
Its application appears to be for new ones. However,
in this case there are guidelines established in the
Westside Neighborhood Plan. What do they say relative
to this kind of (unintelligible)?"
STAFF: "First of all, I would like to clarify that the
Westside Plan hasn't been fully adopted by the City
Council, so therefore it is not yet an element of our
Comprehensive Plan. It was recommended for adoption by
your board in July. In the Westside Plan this
particular area is identified as a conservation area.
Apparently there was some question about that at work session. We have confirmed that i.t is in your
our
conservation area. the
The properties that are directly tj)
the east of this on the east side of Whitcomb to
familiarize you with the area include Aggie Liquors, a
fairly large, two story office building, and what was
previously a single family home which appears to have
been converted to an insurance sales office. Those
Member Kern moved to deny the project based on the staff recommendalinn.
Member Klataske seconded.
Member Kern added that he voted against the project because it was hard to
regulate and _maintain on a small scale. The retail use was not compatihlc
with the neighborhood.
Member Burns asked if the applicant could pursue this as a variance under the
Board of Adjustment. Paul Eckman stated no, because it was a use not a
property improvement. Member Burns could not support the dcnial but would
support an alternative motion that limited the project.
Member Edwards indicated he supported staff because the area needed to stop
commercial development at some point.
Member Shepard stated she was against denial because she felt the project
should be approved with limitations. The other side of the street was
commercial. A limited business would not impact the neighborhood adversely,
in her opinion.
Chairperson O'Dell supported denial to maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Motion to deny passed 4-2 with Members Shepard and Burns voting against.
#87-88 HARMONY ROAD ACCESS PLAN
Rick Ensdorff introduced Ruth Clear and Eric Brakkc who will be handling
his workload until his position was filled.
He described the
project as
an effort between the City,
State, and County
which utilized a
broad view
of transportation planning. The area in question
had much vacant
ground so
the project identified signal
locations to provide
efficient traffic
flow. If approved
the next step would
be approval if an
Intergovernmental
Agreement.
Neighborhood meetings were
held.
Member Kern asked if either side of 1-25 was identified for future signals and
whether backup of traffic on the interstate would be corrected.
Mr. Ensdorff noted signals allowed easier access and would alleviate the
backup problem.
Member Shepard asked about U turns on Harmony at stop lights. Mr. Ensdorff
indicated the option was available.
Mr. DeMathcs, the State Highway Department representative, addressed the
deeded access questions. He indicated the State began buying land in 1941 to
protect major highways/parkways/expressways.
There was no public input.
Member Edwards moved to approve the Plan. Member Kern seconded. The
motion carried 6-0. e
-2-
1 Oveir vent Services (�
1 /
maa�mw��
Cite of Fort Coi(ins
AIENIORANDUhI
TO: Planning and "Zoning Board
FROM: Sherry .Aibcrson-Clark, Senior City Planner t
D.aTE: January 5, 1989
RE: 403 S. Whitcomb PUD
Several recent developments in the
application for 403 S.
Whitcomb PUD
have
occurred and I wanted to inform
you of these changes.
The applicant
has
submitted calculations to substantiate
Point Chart E "Business
receiving energy conservation point3
for
Service
additional parking spaces for
Uses" (see attached);
is providing
two
his
restrictions on the proposed PUD to
own parking use and
is proposing several
mitigate impact on the
neighborhood.
Point Chart E:
Based on a review of the energy calculations with Felix Lee of the Pcrmits
and Inspections Division, the proposed addition would exceed the minimum
requirements of the nwdcl energy code for non-residential buildings and could
provide an average savings of 60",'0. Energy savings arc obtained through the
use of' increased insulation and energy -efficient construction materials and
through minimizing the amount of glazing in the addition. On this basis, staff
is awarding the applicant four points on Point Chart E. This addition
provides a total of - 50% on Point Chart E, which meets the minimum
requirement for this chart. Thus, Criteria #2 of the Business Service Use
category is satisfied.
Parking:
The applicant is proposing to provide two additional parking spaces at the west
edge of the property, along Magnolia Street, for the use of his own vehicles.
This parking, along with the proposed three spaces in front of the proposed
addition, would provide adequate parking for the project. The Magnolia spaces
and driveway cut would be required to be designed to City standards. The
existing fence in this location would be relocated, being placed along the front
and western sides of the proposed spaces. This would provide some screening
of these spaces from the adjacent property to the west.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
0 ( 0 .-
•
Page
Prnroscd iiusincss Restrictions:
Staff has met '.cith the applicant to discuss ways of further rcducin(; the
potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood. As a result, the
applicant has proposed the following items as ways of further mitigating any
impacts on the neighborhood that could result from the introduction of '.'I
commercial use into a residential area:
I. The retail use would be conducted solely by the inhabitants of the
residcr.tial building and limited to one other employee.
The retail use would be limited to the proposed 523 square foot addition.
3. No exterior storage of material or equipment used for the retail use would
be permitted.
The reasons for the staff recommendation for denial of this project were
originally based on the project's failure to meet the required points on Point
Chart E; failure to meet Criteria #5 of the LDGS, which requires compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan; and the project's failure to satisfy Criteria =35
regarding adequate parking. The applicant has now adequately addressed the
Point Chart and the parking issues. In addition, the applicant has proposed
business restrictions to provide further mitigation of the impacts of the
proposed commcrcial use. While staff believes that these business restrictions
do mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed project, the issue ol,
introduction of a commcrcial use into a residential area still exists.
Therefore, staff is still recommending denial of this proposal on the basis that
the project fails to meet Criteria #5 of the LDGS, which states "ls the
development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive
Plan, including but not limited to: Master Street Plan and other adopted street
Policies; Open Space Plan and other adopted open space policies?"
w 3 5.
BUSINESS
SERVICE USES
For All Crltera
Criterion
a. Transit route
b. S. College corridor
c. Part of center
d. Two acres or more
e. Mixed -use
f. Joint parking
i
g. Energy conservation
i h. Contiguity
i. Historic preservation
j.
k.
I.
' VW — Very Well Done
'
POINT CHART E*
Appiicable c, I* L illy
II II IV
IS 'he
C:,'erion
lac^�h
C.rc:e
t e
Ccuect
Scere
s ����• ���
20
X00
Multiplier
2
_
�X:M
LIXIX
--
LX____
4
�
g
X
X
2
3
6
X
X2
3
d
6
X
X
X
1
-
2
0
3
3
_
6
X
2
0
4
g
X
�(
X
1
C
0
5
10
2
0
2
—
1
2
0
1
2
0
1112101
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points
-24-
Totals
`� VI
VN1= v1I 50 %
vn
1�1
•
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF December 19,, 1988
. STAFF DEPORT
PROJECT: 403 S. Whitcomb PUD, Preliminary and Final - #86-88
APPLICANT: Stephen McGinnis
403 S. Whitcomb
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Stephen McGinnis
403 S. Whitcomb
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clark
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for preliminary and final PUD approval
for a 528 square foot addition to an existing garage for the sale of antiques
and collectibles at a single family residence, located at 403 S. Whitcomb. The
site is zoned R-H, High Density Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 528 square
foot addition to an existing garage, for the sale of antiques and collectibles.
The existing residence on the site would remain. The proposal is not supported
by Point Chart E "Business Service Uses" nor the "All Development" criteria of
the LDGS (more specifically, compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and parking capacity requirements). Furthermore, the proposal is not in
conformance with adopted goals, objectives and policies of the City's Compre-
hensive Plan.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P 0 Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • t3C3) _' c-
SERVICES. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
•
403 S. Whitcomb PUD - Preliminary and Final #86-88
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 2 10
COMMENTS
1. Backeround:*
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RH; existing single family residences
S: RH; existing single family residences
E: BG; existing offices, Aggie Liquors
W: RM; existing single family residences
The structure located at 403 S. Whitcomb is the residence of the applicant. This
proposal is for a 528 square foot addition to the existing garage to house the
antique and collectible sales use. The residential use would continue.
The site, which is located on the west side of the 400 block of Whitcomb, is
zoned R-H, High Density Residential. The R-H District is for areas containing
such uses as high density residential (single and multi -family), standard
restaurants, medical clinics, office and personal service shops. Retail uses are
not permitted in the R-H District.
2. Land Use:
The proposed land uses were reviewed against the applicable point chart and
the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
1. The project was evaluated by Point Chart E 'Business Service Uses" and
achieved 41% of the applicable points. This category of criteria requires a
minimum of 50% of the applicable points be achieved to support the proposed
land use change. Points were awarded for applicable criteria as follows:
Criterion B. S. College Avenue Corridor - full points were awarded based on
the site location outside of this corridor.
Criterion C. Part of Center - no points were awarded since the project is
outside of the Downtown (defined as the DDA district) nor is it part of a
shopping center or office park.
Criterion D. - Two Acres or More - no points were given since the site size is
less than 2 acres.
Criterion E. Mixed -use - no points were given since both the residence and the
retail use would be occupied by the same user, therefore the proposed uses
fails to meet the requirement that both uses be "significant."
Criterion G. Energy Conservation - no points were awarded since the applicant
has not sought credit for energy conservation.
1
403 S. Whitcomb PUD - Preliminary and Final #86-88
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 3
Criterion H. Contiguity - full points were awarded for having contiguity to
existing urban development on all sides of the property.
Therefore, the project fails to achieve the necessary 50% of points and to
satisfy Absolute Criterion #2 of the Business Service Uses. The applicant has
not provided any justification to grant a variance to this criterion. Therefore,
the project is being recommended for denial based on the proposals failure to
achieve this absolute criterion.
2. Based on a review of the Goals and Obiectives, Plan, staff does not believe
that the or000sed land use is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
The Goals and Obiectives document of the Comprehensive Plan states the
following objective for achieving preservation and development of unique
qualities and characteristics of all neighborhoods:
"Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activities
which have a significant negative impact upon predominantly residential areas."
Other objectives for achieving maximum compatibility between land uses are:
"Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against
intrusive and disruptive surrounding development," and;
"Protect older residential areas from encroachment by industrial and commercial
uses which may impair the viability of the residential neighborhood."
These goals and objectives are intended to discourage the premature conversion
of property to an inappropriate land use and to encourage the maintenance and
stability of viable, older residential neighborhoods. The introduction of a
commercial use, regardless of the scale or magnitude of the use, begins to
create pressure for the conversion of other residential uses, threatening the
area's viability as a residential neighborhood.
The policies, goals and objectives have been further refined and supported in
the proposed Downtown Plan and Westside Neighborhood Plan. While these
Plans are not adopted, they do provide additional policy refinement for the
older core neighborhoods.
Both the Downtown Plan and the Westside Neighborhood Plan, identify the
block on which the proposal is sought as being for residential land use.
Furthermore, the Downtown Plan recommends that a business such as an
antique sales be located in the existing retail core of the downtown.
The West Side Neighborhood Plan, recommended for adoption by the Planning
and Zoning Board in July, identifies this side of Whitcomb Street as a
"conservation area." The conservation area is intended primarily for single
family residential uses. Other uses allowed in the conservation area are
403 S. Whitcomb PUD - Preliminary and Final #86-88
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 4
churches, schools and public/quasi-public recreational uses, accessory dwelling
units (basement apartments); group homes, and multi -family dwellings.
Based on a .review of the Goals and Obiectives, staff finds that the proposed
plan is not in conformance with adopted City goals and objectives and does
not meet Absolute Criteria #5 of the "All Development" chart of the Land
Development Guidance System which asks "is the development in accordance
with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including but not
limited to: Master Street Plan and other adopted street policies; Open Space
Plan and other adopted open space policies." Furthermore, staff believes that
the introduction of a commercial use would be potentially intrusive and
disruptive on the adjacent, stable residential neighborhood.
3. Neighborhood Compatibilitv:
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 11, 1988 (see attached summary).
Concerns raised related to the issue of commercial intrusions in residential i
areas and the adequacy of parking. Both issues are discussed separately in the A
land use and design sections of this report and are the basis of the staff
recommendation for denial.
4. Design:
The existing residence and garage are situated on a 7,500 square foot corner
lot. The applicant proposes a 528 square foot addition to the front of the
garage to house the antique and collectible sales. The addition would retain
the same setback from the street as other existing structures in the neighbor-
hood and would be finished with the same cedar siding used on the residence.
The Whitcomb elevation of the addition would include a garage door, door and
window. Signage would be limited to the window of the Whitcomb elevation.
All existing landscaping would be retained, with the relocation of one existing
plum tree. The City Forester has requested that street trees be added along
the site's Magnolia frontage and the applicant has complied.
Although the proposed addition would retain a fairly consistent setback with
other existing homes in the area, the addition to the garage would change the
residential character and appearance of the site. Most garages in the area are
placed closer to the back of the lot, as is the existing garage, while the homes
are approximately 20' from the back of the sidewalk. With the addition, the
front of the garage is shifted 22' closer to the front of the lot.
The applicant is proposing two parking spaces in front of the addition for
customer parking. The applicant feels this would be adequate for the antici-
pated average of one customer per hour and his intended small-scale operation.
Staff is concerned that this may not provide adequate parking for customers;
furthermore, there is no off-street parking provided for the residence. The
only alternative for additional parking to support both customer and resident
parking would be on -street. Staff has not supported the use of on -street
parking as a way to justify meeting the parking requirements. Providing
1
l ` �
403 S. Whitcomb PUD - Preliminary and Final #86-88
P & Z Meeting - December 19, i 988
Page 5
customer parking on -street would compete with the needs of adjacent residen-
tial land uses. Therefore, staff does not believe there is adequate off-street
parking provided to support both the residence and the proposed antique and
collectible sales and that Criteria #35 of the LDGS ("Does the development
satisfy the parking capacity requirements of the City and provide adequate
space suited to the loading and unloading of persons, materials and goods") has
not been met.
5. Transportation:
Both Whitcomb and Magnolia Street are local streets. A traffic impact analysis
was not required because the traffic impact is considered insignificant.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed commercial land use is not in conformance with adopted goals,
and objectives of the City nor is it in conformance with the Land Develop-
ment Guidance System in that the project fails to satisfy Criteria #5 of the
"All Development" chart which requires compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan; fails to satisfy Criteria #35 regarding providing adequate parking, and;
fails to satisfy criterion #2 of the Business Service Use category which requires
that project earn at least 50% of the points on Point Chart E. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final, #86-88.
77-
14-01, 11 41
�Ilu
�I��tH:��
Al
W-1 =I..n
q�Im.
•
PROJECT NUMBER: P -1 je L . _/,�L--
ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
j APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
If no, please explain
Yes Na
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1 Social CcmocTicil!ry
2 Nelgnocrheoa Character
3 Cana use C,�nTIICTS
.. .^Cverse I^''.. ...
PLANS AND POLICIES
Cr —. __, • ., _ ...
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
o. Street Cc�,ac
10 Sacurity bantlnq
11 Water Hazaras
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. �;;,IS tk �IJ�E riaLara l
T2r" .
17 Ecc>-Sersinve t,recs
3. rigrlCWiL'rC: Lcna3
�
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19 Au Qucni v
20 Water 6 uuniv
21 N-,,se
22 GI:.,e
23. Vioranons
IV
24 EkTericr ;_larPf),q
25 Sewcae a wastes
SITE DESIGN
:2b C mmuni,v 0raon1Z0non
27 Site Orcjarnzonon
28. Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
X;Y
30 Privacy
31. Open Bocce Hrrengernent
32 Kuching re!gnt
33 \, cr .":- .;7 %!l .=mernt
3a venicu.cr Des:gn
35. Pcrklnq
36. Active kecreaTIonal Areas
37 Private uutaccr Areas
38. Peeestrian Convenience
39. Pedestrian Conflicts,
!,;:<
40. L anascaornq,Open Areas
41. Lanascaping;Builaings
42 LonascapngrScreenmg
X
43. Puolic Access
44 Signs
-12-
9
I
BUSINESS
SERVICE USES
i
For All Critera
i
i
j Criterion
a. Transit route
b. S. College corridor
c. Part of center
d. Two acres or more
e,�Iix�ed-
Nuseoint parking
nergy conservation
ontiguitystoricpreseniation'
j.
k.
I.
VW — Very Well Done
POINT CHART E
1
Applicable Criteria Only
II
NI IV
Circle
...5-a cn The�vm
Ccrrec,
c ccc
e Score
ti1u�t pI er
~: nr
X
2101
2
IX
X
0
4
8
X
X
2
3
D 6
X
X2®
3
6
X
X20
3
D
11 2 0
3
—
X-
1 .2
4
B
X
X 0
5
10
120
2
120
1 2 0
120
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points
-24-
Totals I�47vl
L f
��
VNI = VII
Vil
� 0
i0
i
e e o
o�
° a
o oo
�A Y5• Y � � �
�3 :Y.t 6 I raai F
Sfep , Ya�f5
Y
6�6
NEIGII13ORII00D MEETING SUNINIARY
On Tuesday, October 11, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. at Dunn Elementary School. a nci,h-
borhood meeting was held on the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD. In attendance at this
meeting was Stevc McGinnis, property owner/developer and Sherri• Albertson -
Clark, Project Planner for the City Planning Department. Six resi-
dcnts; property owners attended the meeting.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the
purpose of the meeting and an overview of the planning review process. Mr.
McGinnis then provided an overview of the proposed project, after which.
questions and comments on the proposed project were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the
developer and his representatives and/or staff, as well as comments made by
the residents.
Question: If one business goes into a residential area, could others also go in?
What would happen to the property values?
Response: Staff replied that this is a concern and that the introduction of one
commercial use could cause pressure for future conversions to non-residential
uses. This area is identified on the West Side Neighborhood Plan to remain in
residential use. Many factors play a role in determining property values.
Question:
Now is parking being
handled?
Would two spaces be enough?
Response:
Applicant responded
that two
would be adequate, based on his
anticipated
number of customers
at any one
time.
Comment: Parking is a concern to area residents and there is no enforcement
on the alley between Mulberry and Magnolia.
uestion: Arc apartments inspected to determine the number of people living
in them?
Response: Staff replied that this type of inspection would only occur with a
written complaint.
Comment: View this business as having minimal impact. Think area will
eventually become commercial. Would be concerned if there would be anv
outside display of collectibles or antiques.
Comment: If businesses go in, will eventually have to sell home. Then there
wouldn't be any incentive to maintain property.
Comment: Long-time residents concerned regarding change of use in the area.
Response: Mr. McGinnis replied that the proposed addition would be sided
with the same material to match the existing house.
Question: Why are the units in the 300 block of Whitcomb habitable?
•
•
•
Res nonse: Staff replied that didn't know and wasn't familiar with that
particular area.
Comment: Thinks. business would be okay, an improvement for the area.
Comment: Concerned about valuation of property, conversion of home to
commercial. Hopes this is not a foothold for bigger businesses to come into
the area. Likes the neighborhood.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.
•
•
No Text
•
•
0
December 30, 1988
Mr. Felix Lee
Buildinq Inspector
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHI7, ECT;!PLANNERS
CCNSTRUCTICN MANAGEMENT
5 �11 .r S..a.'uw Road
CO 80525
'13) ....
RE: ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE FOR 22X24 ADDITION TO "03 SOUTH WHITCOMB
Dear Mr. Lee:
FhQ following information reviews this structure for complirince to the
model energy code with the intent of claiming points on the Business
Service Point Chart required of the applicant by Lhc Planning Department.
The building is wood frame 24.0 X 22.0 totali,rg 528 square feet. We are
requesting six out of a possible eight points on the point chart in ques-
tion or 75% of the amount available.
To achieve these six points we contend that the design of this building,
being more thermally efficient, will reduce the consumption of none re-
newable fossil -type fuel, thus warranting the point chart consideration.
The following summary demonstrates an average savings of 6V over the
energy a build that complies with the model energy code consumes through
a normal heating cycle. This building is not air-conditioned.
Respectfully,
GEFROH .ATT INC.
F/edric jJ. Hattman
Vice President
kam `'++
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
403 SOUTH WHITCOMB
BUILDING ENVELOPE
Building Footprint 528 Sq. Ft.
?Llildinq Dimensions 24.0 Ft. X 22.0 Ft.
Floor to Ceiling Height of
Heated Space 12 Ft.
Temperature Differential 72° F.
Hcat i nrl Season 6600 Dugree Days
C01)1. 1,uM1'1.IAN1 Ila;e Unto Isar Ibis Uui Idin,l
�r;rble Vnlucs of Surface Aggreqat(.•
Walls U = 0.26
Roo F/CeiIind U = 0.07
Slab R _ 5.11
BASE CRITERIA
Building U = U 'gall X Area Wall + Uo Roof X Area Roof
o _
SPECIFIC BUILDING - Envelope Value
Wall
SURFACE AREA
0.26 x 1104 + 0.07 X 528
1632
0.198
Cedar Siding
R
= .8100
Insualled Sheathiriq
R
= 2.5000
Batt Insulation
R =
13.0000
Wood Studs 24 o/c
R =
4.3750
Gypsum Board 5/8''
R =
.5625
Door Metal lnsUljLed
R =
2.1300
Door Overhead
R =
5.2600
Assume M
of Wall
is Solid Wood Framing
R = 8.2400
Assume 90°s
of Wall
is Filled With Insulation
R = 16.8700
Glass -Wood
Frame and 5/8" Insulation Glass
UG= .49oo
Wall
Surfaces
-- Glass 30 Sq. Ft.
Glass
Wall 96 Sq. Ft.
Solid Wall
Wall 867 Sq. Ft.
Void Wall
Door 21 Sq. Ft.
Door
Door 90 Sq. Ft.
Overhead Door
Wall Uo =
UG X
Glass Area & USW X Solid Wall Area + UVW X
Void Wall Area + UD X
Area
Door + U_ X Area Door
SURFACE AREA
0.49 X 30 + 0.12 X 96 + 0.059 x 867 + O.19 x 90 + 0.46 X 21
110
14.7 + 1.1.52 + 51.153 + 17.1 + 9.66 104.133
110 = 110 = o.94
•
•
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
403 SOUTH WHITCOMB
Page 2
:WufiC
i1ing
1/2" Cypsum Board
R
= .450
Truss
R
= 4.375
stir iinum Insulation Over
'iruss
R
= 19.000
'
I uiation
R
= 30.000
Assume
10% of
Roof
is Frr:ming
R
= 23.825
Assume
90% of
Roof
Space is Void
R
= 30.450
URoof
=
UR Area Truss + UR X Arca of Intu!,:ticn
ROOF AREA
=
0.42
X 53 + .032 X 475
52
_
.033
Overall
Envelope U
Values = U�� X A,� -
l � X, ,.�r
5U %FACE
Base Data U = 0.
0
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - At design differenti,;l
Base Data AS X U X At = BTUH
o
1632 X 0.198 X 72 = 23266 BTUH
Building as Designed AS X U0 X At = BTUH
1632 X 0.075 X 72 = 8813 3TUH
Hourly Savings at Design Temperature
Design 8813 BTUH
Base 232—a6 BTUH = •37 Savings = 63;
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - Seasonal
Base Data AS X U0 X DD = MBTU/Season
1632 X 0.198 X 6600 = 2.133 MBTU/Season
Building as designed AS X U0 X DD = MBTU/Season
1632 X 0.075 X 6600 = 803 MBTU/Season
Design _ 808 MBTU __
Seasonal Savings Base ?..133 MBTU 38%
Percent of Fuel Savings 62% Per Season
rr j�V-7- -
STEPHEN MCGINNIS
�.,403- S.WHITCOMB
FT COLLINS,CO
303-224-2436
CITY OF FT.COLLINS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
re: 403-S.WHITCOMB
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A SMALL SCALE ANTIQUE BUSINESS OUT
OF MY HOME.
I AM UNABLE TO WORK AT A REGULAR JOB DUE TO MY PHYSICAL
LIMITATIONS. MY REHABILITATION CONSOLUR,LINDA PLAST
ERS, AND I
ARE WORKING ON A REHABILITATION PROGRAM TItAT CONSISTS OF A
BUSINESS IN MY HOME. DUE TO MY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS A BUSINESS
OUTSIDE OF MY HOME WOULD NOT BE FESIBLE.
I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ALTERNATE STANDING AND SITTING EVERY
20 MINUTES OR SO. I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LAY DOWN WHENEVER NECESSARY.
A BUSINESS OUT OF MY HOME WOULD ENABLE ME TO BE PRODUCTIVE
AND GIVE ME AN INCOME.
I BELIVE MY HOME BUSINESS WOULD NOT CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
OR PARKING PROBLEMS. I'M ASKING FOR A VARIUNCE FOR MY OWN USE ONLY.
I PLAN ON LIVING HERE THE REST OF MY LIFE AND I WANT TO CONTINUE
TO KEEP THE QUAILITY OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS NOW.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME,
�-.-t
STEPHEN MCGINNIS
0
•
•
•
0
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
'10; S>OUTH WH I TCOMB
fl,vie
.NUOf / (:.-; I 1 I gig
1 /" -,y(),';u,ll Board
L;SS
it i,iium Insulation Over
i"ruF,
I i L i )n
Assume 10.' of Roof is Frr:mi nd
Assumc 9O', of Roof Si: ace is 11c; i U
U R�Of = U Area Truss + U R X A,"I ' 1 �)Su i c:lt i 0n
<� R
I;OOF AREA ----
C.42 X 53 + .032 X 475
;2
Overall Envelope U Values U,1 X A',
U
0
ENERGY CCi;SUMP7ION - At design d i r ti 1
B ,lc D:,ta ,i.. X U X At = BTUH
0
1632 X 0.198 X 72 = 23266 BTUH
Building as Designed AS Y, U0 X At = BTUH
1632 X 0.075 X 72 = 8813 3TUH
Hourly Savings at Design Temperature
Design 8813 BTUH
Base 232— ,�6 BTUH = •37 Savings = 63
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - Seasonal
Base Data AS X U0 X DD = MBTU/Season
1632 X 0.198 X 6600 = 2.133 MBTU/Season
Building as designed AS X U0 X DO = MBTU/SL�ason
1632 X 0.075 X 6600 = 803 t1BTU/Season
Design _ 808 MBTU _
Seasonal Savings Base 2.133 MBTU 38"'
R = .450
R = 4.375
R = 19.000
R = 30.000
R = 23.825
R = 30.450
Percent of Fuel Savings 62% Per Season
STEPHEN MCGINNIS i
t
403- S.WHITCOMB
-------J F T C O L L i N S, C 0
303-224-2436
CITY OF FT.C�OLLINS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
re: 403-S.WHITCOMB
BR A IT #� CQNGERN,
WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A S.•IALL SCALE ANTIQUE $USTNESS OUT
OF MY HOME.
I AM UNABLE TO WORK AT A REGULAR JOB DUE TO MY PHYSICAL
LIMTTAT.I'1., _ My 9FLABILITATION CQNSOLUR,LIND4 PLASTERS, AND I
E1LI�'r� IC`.
T4AT CONSISTS OF A
l'r'::�`�'i'� 1]U ; }1' [CAL LIMITATIONS A BUSINESS
u`? ak��i �qf�tu(a
I N{LQ TO ii E ABLE Tp ALITE: 1���;� ��r�i?F��N �:U�pI'll
20 rircvurEs OR SO. I HAVE TO BEUQWN WH�.Ljgyr;j,
A BUSINESS OUT OF MY HOME WOULD ENABLE ME TO BE PRODUCTIVE
AND GIVE ME AN INCOME.
I BELIVE MY HOME BUSINESS WOULD NOT CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
OR PARKING PROBLEMS. I'M ASKING FOR A VARIUNCE FOR MY OWN USE ONLY.
I PLAN ON LIVING HERE THE REST OF MY LIFE AND I WANT TO CONTINUE
TO KEEP THE QUAILITY OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS NOW.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, .
��j L /L• L. r-.ter
STEPHEN MCGINNIS
no Z
nr�rn
C>r
OZM
COE
cl) rn
-q z
WAX
y rn0
yn�
�C
O�
�mn O
O M
-q m
Om
r- z
Z
m
i�
•
0
o Z
v a) cn A W iv cD �' m
c=r
p n m cj. am 3 ..wc 3 <� _ OD 2 c� o
wcOS� c 3cDm =r(9cD °O w�
c0ncn aO�iym!CD-00 nc�ioMCD0
CD w21 a ���2.D)o=7 joCDCD sa
w c C -� -.a —3 ,, 3 cn 0.0 r:w a
0-3 c m �`� E CCD'- o�� an^- m-0 A
O(n cD n Q ,. E o n C OS cn '-N a
cn CD
o co Ca Qw.LD.� 2=,0CD ww �00
CD C CO •• _ �. n 2 �_
w '0 3>0N-a��~wm .-n w^'.
3 Q C 0- CD O C a o 7 C7 �< cD o
O < n. .. p� CD t_n O C O a"c ,� S 0
CD S O -+_� O ��._O p �� wcn w
O N SD :30-0 (p 5 N- O O G') w
(D � C (D CD (D w O p C S (D a 0 O
a a � (0 CL 0 CL CD Q' � n (n n (�D o
CD S (n cn 0 _ ? _. S m
0 � � ° � � =► 0 CS j o O 'r � (D
CD w 3 (D N' + -��, n N 3 Q 00 O n C) cD
CD x cD S n ^' 0 D a, S .... cn O
� cn 0 .. c w (o cn O O -O
o cn
O cr«:: 0 0 :3 CD wj
^� ETo n crw
�o N �3-� m
CC � -o cD 3 — 0
3 o mQ Ow ET W 0< 3 Q�c m� -�3--'o 3
w�cw(�occw<CDCOw (n�0=� 0O_S
Sy n j S O (D CDCD(nD '0 3 a O O 0 ,� O� a•% (� C
crawCD =.��j CD 0. c�S�
�► � O ca ^' a ('^D w cD w O C w n CD (D ¢ CD
Sj
woo cD cD 3oy.w S o �cCcDm
CD
3n� 3-,0E;c�cn--x 0 0 cn
0' 0— O CD ' 0 C.
N 3= S O n
< a 3 cD a cD .- :T
w 0 a� w ��- 0 0-m 3 �� m S
(D 0 0 cD O S p w (a � w p -- a (p
3-0 cn'cc 3 -�� O w =- � Q
.. C 0 O� 3 -• (D C w S � • w (D cD
CD w c 0 m n_ p O a
c�v 2 BCD c 0c" —a
0 -0 0 : c 3 w cD Q7CD �v ° w
TQ.c0D � �, w a-cn � aC cn
CD c cD S w
n c<_D o cn CD CC ::r CD
cn a k a (= cn m � O
w Cc
O UQ cD O a c w to � cD
w�c�D C�a0i 0'..'< a �.w�p �00�
> > o
_ _ cww O�
0 0 �< cD O cD cn O a a a ai = O � ZZ
h
O
CL=3
O1
■ o
0
\ Cr -0r
U1 6 W N �' CD d
°.�ID
-" o1--.�
MM a
o`
ID c
W N
c m�
� �0 (a (0 N O
:3 c (n
CD CaD
00-0
T��nm.Q-YnDa
Noa(D
C
v�
O (
"toQ CD c
a CD O
:3
°w a CD
aCD o~:owc
° mm
-
c-9 53
0CD
N
c:3
cro�ca
o
CD (no
CD _Qn
CD Q j fD T. �
� C= En
3 =
n
c�
Q Q j M�
(D CAD
CD ' N a Cn
�
- CD
Q
CD
? — N W
, CS (Q Cn N � cr �
(p 0 CD
< cDC�� -`�oo�
n ,:«
�
����nDm
Cv I
�_. a<.c=rCD —m
oao
�o,�
3
on°
CD
CD0.MCL
CD
CD
cc73
OL
o(n
naCCD m o =
'5
3 0
co�
aanCD
-
�
3u
vo
w c
D cD0 CDCD 0m=w
��
CD 3'aT
w
fl CD < CD 3 �' Q C�h a
3 1
(D a CD
ON
(n N C1 'o
3 iu � CD
CD CDC a (D N 3 X
-0 cD
w v
O -� �• n <
to
n n
Q
fm CDp� CD O CD
�. o
a
n
-. (D
Cn
CD ._. n -. (n
_+
CND W
- _ CD CD (Q
.< CD
N CD M
U1 la W N
O
0 �cn 3 �v o 3 �-0 �m�ma�
(n CD . f (D z
CD
� o
v 3
� c CD
CD
CD -p O di N
c ru aCD a,.c --sue
(D a (Q
(D
< ci
CD
c o
Cn c
�.cD
Q n 0 cD 3 (D Q �' O
CD CC
'�3�—m�-00CCDD
c
N
-0 CD
a N
o
WC:CD
o6
CD
=*wc
cr N CD
M. CD O O CD �. � N CD
CD
CD
n • S
3
to (=n _ -• - 3
_ cD iv N
can CD
O
O
�
O
CD a
3-
Q '0 D O _ j O
-o c CD t"*
'w
-»
CD
t?
O a a CD 3
S : K � . CDCD
0 CD
2.aD
Q
cr
n (n CD
CDo ET
3
CD
3�o a
CD
'aan
cn 0
o�
3? 1
CD � C
vv fD
ocnCL
CD
a ,=< o :0
2
�-- =— -9'CD �.�
�'
CD -
W
CD % — �-- �—
c c
c
v
a �� (D� ��CD
�� < -0 v CD Cn = cD -�* 0
-`
CD
<
0-0
= O CD
CD Q c N r CD o �
o CD - N CD
CD
N
cD
m
3 N
-a %
CD
c� oCD °'3�
aQ
-°
°�-.
-.
v
CD o CD o• o = CD
..
= a> > —0
CD
2. o
v
-� cn a
0 3
s— �.. �rs�•1
. ...�,� � �S►:: �
.w:
_ •� �
• � � ,�
_ _ _ •.� �
' �' �/ / � • � '' t
1 ��_
a J. w
-� - o. ���
�1� � .a.
� �`
s � t,,
..'
'�' �
� ��
a i.f%
1 i``t �
%�c �.
� t� F�'
� .
�
� �� �` -" _
pM, a`. 'ate
� •]p
w.'eG_
_
i- �
•
continued
2. Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate envi-
ronment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk and building height, identity and historical character,
disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot, and visual integ-
rity?
3. Have the conflicts that are presumed to exist between the proposed
development and the surrounding land uses, as examined in "Administra-
tive Guidelines" pertaining to "Land Use Conflicts," been effectively
mitigated in the planned unit development?
4. Is the project designed so that the additional traffic generated does
not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development?
Plans and Policies
5. Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Com-
prehensive Plan, including but not limited to, Master Street Plan and
other adopted street policies, Open Space Plan and other adopted open
space policies?
LJ
Public Facilities, Services & Safety
6. Will the project's completion not generate a traffic volume which
exceeds the future capacity of the external street system as defined by
the City?
7. Is the development served by utilities with adequate capacity or have
arrangements been made for extension and augmentation for the following
services?
0 Water supply
0 Sanitary sewer
0 Electricity
0 Natural gas
0 Storm drainage
0
contiri-ed
No Text
•
. ✓ .��-� COIL
1�
•
Fey �ary 15, 1989
City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Planning and Zoning Board. •
Regarding 403 South Whitcomb P.U.D•
1. I am against it.
2. We are zoned as residential.
3. We bought our home 612 W. Magnolia in 1950.
4. Would revaluate our property.
5. Traffic
6. Parking which is impossible now.
7. If approved then anyone could put in a business.
a. Please leave our neigborhood zuned as residential.
Mrs. Florence M. Butler
612 West Magnolia
� f
403 SOUTH WHITCOMB
Laurie O'Dell: Sherry will you introduce the first item please.
Sherry Albcxts6n-Clark: The first item is the 403 South Whitcomb PUD and this
is a request for both preliminary and final approval. This request consists of
a 528 s.f. addition to an existing garage located at 403 South Whitcomb. The
purpose of the addition is for the sale of antiques and collectibles. The site is
zoned R-1t, High Density Residential.
O'Dell: Thank you. Is the applicant here to make a presentation.
Steve McGinnis: Good evening. My name is Steve McGinnis and I live at
403 South Whitcomb and I would like to propose a small home business. It
would be an antique purchasing service and sales. My lot is aircady zoned for
business services and I'm asking for a variance for retail sales. My business
would consist of a purchasing service. When a client is looking for a specific
Piece of antique or collectible merchandise I would try to find the item for
them. The retail sales would be small antiques and collectibles; items such as
cookie jars, depression and other glass, pottery, toys, etc. This will be a vcry
low-key and small-scale business. I have 25 years in the retail sales experience
and eight years of antique and collectible experience. I believe this type of
service and sales is very marketable. I'll be happy to comply with the home
Occupation Code the City of Fort Collins has. On January the 4th I met with
• Tom Peterson from the Planning and Zoning staff of Fort Collins and these
arc the restrictions that were set forth: The 500 s.f. condition, no exterior
storage or no more than one employee, and not a commercial institution. Duc
to my disability I will have to have one part-time employee to help with lift-
ing and other things I cannot do. My disability prohibits me from working a
regular job or having a business outside of my home. Having a home business
would enable me to be productive and give me an income. There should be a
letter there in your booklet about this, about my disability. And this business
will be for my livelihood.
One of the main concerns of the neighborhood and the City was the parking
problem that we have. During the meeting with Tom Peterson on January the
4th I believe we resolved the problem with three spaces in front for the cus-
tomer parking and two spaces in the backyard for my personal use. Referring
to the design, second paragraph, page 4 on the staff report: My proposed addi-
tion would stay in line with the setback of the existing homes on the block,
except for mine. My house sets back 10 foot further than existing houses on
the block but my garage sits 30 foot closer to the front of my lot and existing
garages on the block in the proposed addition setting in line with the rest of
the houses on the block. I don't feel this addition or business would change
the character of the residential neighborhood.
The addition will be cedar -sided to stay consistent with the existing house and
garage. The only sign will be in the window of the proposed addition and we
plan to plant three trees on the north side of the lot as requested by the City.
I plan on living here the rest of my life and would like to maintain the
quality of my neighborhood. I believe my service and sales would be
compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time.
O'Dell: Thank you Mr. McGinnis. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you .
a little bit later.
McGinnis: Okay.
O'Dell: Sherry, will you give us the staff recommendation please.
Albertson -Clark: One thing I'd like to clarify first of all. This is evaluated as
a Planned Unit Development. It has been reviewed that way by staff. The
purpose for that, and why this is not being reviewed as a Home Occupation, is
due to th-e retail sales element of the proposal. Home Occupations do allow
for a number of uses to be conducted in the home and limits things like the
number of employees, the extent of square footage committed to a home occu-
pation. However, retail uses, retail sales are specifically excluded from the
concept of a home occupation. This property is zoned R-H, which is High
Density Residential, and in that zoning district retail uses arc not permitted
uses. I'll read briefly from the R-H Zone. It does permit such uses as single-
family dwellings, two-family dwellings or duplexes, public and private schools,
boarding and rooming houses, fraternities and sorority houses, hospitals, stan-
dard restaurants, medical and dental clinics, offices and personal service shops,
etc. Many of those uses do have to go through what is called a R-H conver-
sion site plan and review which requires 2pproval by the P&Z Board. That
process allows you to convert what is a residential use to some of these other
non-residential uses. Again, retail uses are excluded from that zoning district;
therefore, the applicant's only option to pursue this was through a Planned
Unit Development. We did evaluate this under Point Chart E of the Land
Development Guidance System which is the Business Services Uses Chart and I .
have prepared for the Board an updated memo that I've given to you this cvc-
ning. Based on recent discussions with the applicant we have been able to meet
the required 50 percent on the Business Services Use Chart. We have worked
with the applicant to come up with some energy conservation points to give the
minimum 50 percent so they have now addressed that particular requirement.
A neighborhood meeting was held on this project in October and there were
several people that live in the area that were in attendance. The basic issues
that were raised at that time were parking and the issue of a non-residential
use being introduced into a residential area. As Mr. McGinnis indicated there
has been some additional work done on parking since the Board's initial staff
memo that you received several weeks ago. The applicant does have three
spaces proposed in front of the addition to the garage. Those spaces arc
located right in here. The drivecut into the spaces is actually the width of two
parking stalls. There is also the potential to park a third car here which
conceivably could be for long-term parking, such as an employee. The proposal
then would also add two additional spaces for the use of the residences, for
their own personal vehicles. Those would be introduced in this location here.
Those two parking spaces that would be head in, this is Magnolia by the way
along here and this is Whitcomb. In order to accommodate those spaces this
fence would be slightly relocated but fencing would still be retained along the
front of the spaces and along the sides so that would provide some screening
to the property directly to the west.
The remaining issue
then that was raised at
the neighborhood
meeting, as well
as the concern that
staff has had on this
project from the
beginning, is the
concern of land use.
The introduction of
a non-residential
use into what is •
essentially a single-family area has concerned staff. In addition to evaluating
the land use on the point chart basis from the Land Development Guidance
System, we do have other criteria in the Guidance System that require com-
pliance with our Comprehensive Plan; that require meeting things like parking,
adequate setbacks, landscaping, etc. The project at this point in staff's
viewpoint has met all of those requirements with the exception of addressing
compliance , wfth our Comprehensive Plan. The Plan, as you're aware, does
include such things as the Land Use Policies Plan, other elements such as the
Goals and Objectives. It will eventually include the Westside Neighborhood
Plan and the Downtown Plan. Based on staff's review of these elements of the
Comprehensive Plan we feel that the project is not supported on the basis that
it is a proposal to introduce a commercial use into a residential area. On that
basis staff ismrecommending-denial of Jhe-project:. ;
I would like to make it clear to the Board that we do feel that we have ade-
quatcly now addressed the Point Chart Requirements for the minimum 50 per-
cent to support the land use from the Land Development Guidance System
standpoint, and we also have addressed the parking requirements. The appli-
cant, as he indicated, has proposed several other business restrictions we are
supportive of. We feel that those restrictions such as limiting the number of
employees, indicating that there would be no exterior storage, and also
clarifying that the retail use would be limited to that addition, are all things
that help mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood; however, we still are
concerned about the potential impacts of introducing a commercial use into
what is a residential area. Finally, I would add that we have also received
one letter of opposition to the project and one phonecall and I've given the
Board copies of those as well.
O'Dell: Thank you, Sherry. Are there any questions of either staff or the
applicant.
Dave Edwards: Sherry, I'd like just to reconfirm or clarify that, though the
word variance might have been used by one person or another, that we are
looking at this as a PUD and not as a variance; therefore, we're not being
asked to define hardship or anything like that. Is that correct?
Albertson -Clark: That's correct.
Sandy Kern: Sherry, we know that often the LDGS is not always convenient
for development in established neighborhoods. Its primary application appears
to be for new ones. However, in this case, there are guidelines established in
the Westside Neighborhood Plan. What would they say relative to this kind of
development.
Albertson -Clark: First of all I would just clarify that, as the Board is aware,
the Westside Neighborhood Plan has not been adopted formally by City Council
so, therefore, it is not yet an element of our Comprehensive Plan. It was
recommended for adoption by your Board in July. In the Westside Plan this
particular area is identified as a conservation area. Apparently there was some
question at your worksession about that. We have confirmed that it is in the
conservation area. The properties that are directly to the cast of this on the
east side of Whitcomb, to familiarize you with the area, include Aggie Liquors,
a fairly large two-story office building, what was previously a single-family
home that appears to be converted to an insurance sales office. Those
0 •
particular areas arc located in what I believe is referred to as the buffer area. r
But the intent in the Westside Plan for conversion areas, is 'to retain those
areas primarily for single-family uses.
Edwards: Sherry, can I" clarify one other point too and that is that a PUD, if
granted, runs with the land and not the property owner.
Albertson -Clark: That is correct.
O'Dell: Any other questions? Jan.
Jan Shepard: The retail use you have said will be limited to the addition.
What will be the use of the garage behind the addition then?
Albertson -Clark: You could ask the applicant to clarify that.
McGinnis: The use of the garage behind the addition is simply for my bicycle
and things like that. It hangs around in the garage. And my tools and small
things.
Shepard: Also a question about Dave's comment saying that if we approve this
as a PUD that means it runs with the land, not the property owner. The
implication of that is if Mr. McGinnis were to move there would be an
approved retail use staying with that property. Correct?
Albertson -Clark: That is correct and one of the concerns that staff has also
raised in our original report is the fact that, although I think the applicant's
intent is to keep this fairly small scale, that sort of thing is very difficult to
regulate and someone else, if they were to acquire the property either through
a lease or through outright ownership, could continue the aspect of retail sales
there. The magnitude of that and the expansion of that is difficult for us to
keep tabs on or to really regulate until such time as we receive complaints
from individuals that might live in the area. In other words, someone could
come in and use that square footage, that 528 s.f. area, for a retail use, use
the parking that's proposed and maybe existing, and if the use changed slightly
and became more impact in terms of the intensity, the numbers of cars there,
it could create some negative effects on the neighborhood if there were
inadequate parking. We think the parking proposed is adequate for the kind
of use that Mr. McGinnis is proposing; however, there is the potential that
could expand somewhat if someone else were to own the property.
Tom Peterson: If I could
just
expand
on your questions just a minute. If the
Board were to approve this
in
a very
limited fashion,
in other words, a limita-
tion for example such as
strictly
to
an antique shop,
then the approval that
Sherry talks about would
be
for antique
shop. If,
on the other hand, you
approve just retail use of
the
facility
then the retail
use, which is just about
anything, would run with
the
land so
you can be more
restrictive.
Shepard: Could we approve it with the limitation it apply only to Mr. McGin-
nis?
Paul Eckman:
I don't
think that would be a proper
limitation really,
because
it's the nature
of the
land use you're looking at not
the nature of the
owner.
And that was
the one
condition that Sherry mentioned
is that we could
impose,
•
or you could impose, a condition that it be operated by the occupant and
thereby tend to keep it similar to a Home Occupation except that its got that
retail component to it. -
O'Dell: Any other questions? We'll open it up for public input. Is there any
one in the audience who would like to make a comment or ask a question
about this proposal? Seeing no one, we'll close the public input portion and
bring it back to the Board for final discussion and a motion.
Kern: Madam Chairman, I move that we adopt the staff's recommendation of
denial for- the 403 South Whitcomb PUD based on the conclusions they have in
their recommendation.
Klataske: I'll second it.
O'Dell: .Any final comments.
Kern: Just in general, while many of the conditions that are necessary for a
small business in a R-H Zone have been met, the reasons for my voting for
denial is threefold, really. One, it is hard to regulate and maintain at a small
scale. Secondly the use resides with the land over which we have no control.
And third, I think that retail/commercial use is incommensurate with both the
present zoning and that proposed in the Westside Neighborhood Plan.
Rex Burns: I have a question. If this was denied can this be pursued as a
variance under the Board of Adjustment?
Eckman: I don't believe it could be pursued as a variance there because it's a
basic.
Burns: It's not a variance in size, it's rather a basic character sort of thing.
Eckman: It's the land use and not the setbacks or location of property, or
improvements on the property.
Edwards: I'm going to support the motion though somehow the addition of 500
s.f. for this particular use in and of itself may not seem intrusive; however, in
that area, and with the changes that have taken place over the last five to ten
years and the commercialization that exists there, I think sooner or later we
have to say no to additional commercial or retail development in predominantly
a single-family residential neighborhood. It's a tough one because this appears
to be really just the extension of a home occupation. Nevertheless to approve
it would. have that approval run with the land regardless of the intention of
this particular applicant and I think, for the protection of the neighborhood as
a whole and, unfortunately at this time and on this particular property say
that we don't want to see any more intrusion of commercialization into a
residential neighborhood, that we have to take that stand now rather than
later.
Shepard: I'm not going to support the motion. I would rather approve it with
limitations that we discussed; such that it be limited to an antique use and
owner -occupied. I do have a concern about general commercial intrusion and
this land use applying to the land after you're gone, Mr. McGinnis. However,
in this particular case I would be willing to make an exception because I feel
0 •
that the other side of the street is very commercial and I don't think this is a
Significant- addition to any commercial intrusion in the neighborhood. And I
would also hypothesize that there's a lot of rentals in the neighborhood and it's
not just home owner -occupied. Therefore, I will not support the motion.
O'Dell: I will support the motion. I think we need to Support
ty of
our older acighborhoods and indeed it is right directly across the treet� from
some commercial uses but it's clearly on iylr. McGinnis' side of the street sin-
gle-family residences. And I think, because this does not comply with our
Comprehensive Plan, that I will support the motion.
O'Dell: Any other comments? Roll call please.
Burns: I was going to say that I will not support the motion and would sup-
port an alternative motion with conditions.
O'Dell: Now I think we're ready.
Kern: Yes
Edwards: Yes
Klataske: Yes
Shepard: No
Burns: No
O'Dell: Yes
O'Dell: The recommendation to deny is passed 4-2.
Fe0ary 15, 1989
City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Planning and Zoning Board.
Regarding 403 South Whitcomb P.U.D•
1. I am against it.
2. We are zoned as residential.
3. We bought our home 612 W. Magnolia in 1950.
4. Would devaluate our property.
5. Traffic
6. Parking which is impossible now.
7. If approved then anyone could put in a business.
B. Please leave our neigborhood zoned as residential.
Mrs. Florence M. Butler
612 West Magnolia
FEB 6 «89 I
te a , 0 4/ --d �r-. /
n
�- I-AZI
q
0