Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout403 S WHITCOMB PUD - FINAL - 86-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • JANUARY 5, 1989 The continued meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for December 19, 1988, was called to order at approximately 6:35 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, Jan Shepard, Dave Edwards, Jim Klataske, and Alternate Rex Burns. Members Frank Groznik and Lloyd Walker were absent. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Linda Ripley, Sherry Albcrtson-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. 086-88 403 SOUTH WHITCOMB Sherry Albcrtson-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 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 element 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. 0 There was no public input. Member Kern moved to deny the project based on the staff recommendation. 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 compatible 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 denial 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 Brakke 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 I-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. DeMathes, 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. -2- 403 SOUTH WHITCOMB Laurie O'Dell: Sherry will you introduce the first item please. Sherry Albertson -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-H, 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 already 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 very 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 are 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. Due 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 the 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 are 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 approval 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 eve- 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 are 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 with 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 is recommending denial of the project. I would like to make it clear to the Board that we do feel that we have ade- quately 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 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, what was previously a single-family home that appears to be converted to an insurance sales office. Those particular areas are located in what I believe is referred to as the buffer area. 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 • • 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 the integrity of our older neighborhoods and indeed it is right directly across the street from some commercial uses but it's clearly on Mr. 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.