Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARINE SPORTS WEST AND HARRIS MACHINE PUD FINAL - 43 92 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 33 DATE: December 15, 1992 STAFF• Kirsten Whetstone SUBJECT: Appeal of the November 16, 1992 Final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider provisions of the Code overturn, or modify the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: the appeal based upon the record and the relevant and Charter, and after consideration, either uphold, decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. On November 16, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD- Preliminary and Final. On November 19, 1992 an appeal of the final decision was made by John J. Haggerty, Attorney, resident of Prospect Springs, a residential area east of the subject property. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD is a 2,000 square foot boat engine mechanic repair and machine shop in an existing accessory shop building on a 0.5 acre site located at 921 E. Prospect Road. The principal use of the property is as an existing single family residence, which will continue to be occupied by the property owner. The accessory building will be leased to the two owners of the repair and machine shop business. The proposed PUD was evaluated against the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart and the All Development Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. The PUD achieved a score of 50% on the Auto Related Point Chart, which is the minimum required score. Planning staff found that the proposed PUD addressed the applicable criteria of the All Development Chart of the LOGS. Furthermore, the concerns raised by the neighborhood at a Neighborhood Information Meeting held on October 14, 1992, had been addressed by the applicants. On this basis, staff recommended approval of the PUD with one condition related to expiration of the PUD. In voting to approve this proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board concurred with staff findings and recommendations and believed that the applicants had addressed both the staff's and individual concerns about compatibility. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final with the following condition: Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and because of the potential for future residential development in the area, the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall expire should the rr' Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 5th day of January, A.D. 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Comma y Planning and Environmental rvices Planning Department City of Fort Collins December 2, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members TH: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Tom Peterson�yector of Planning FM: Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner,) RE: Staff Response to the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board approval of Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD, Preliminary and Final. The following is a response to the issues specified in the Notice of Appeal filed on November 16, 1992 by John J. Haggerty, Esq., a resident of Prospect Springs, a residential area east of the subject property. Please note that the items are direct citations from the Notice of Appeal. The staff response to each item is in bold type. "The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent evidence in the record. 1. The Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) as adopted by the City of Fort Collins states as its purpose "to improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare" by pursuing several objectives. Two of those objectives are: (a) To foster a more rational pattern of relationship between residential, business, and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (b) To protect existing neighborhoods from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. 2. In granting this PUD the Planning and Zoning Board included a sunset provision as follows: Because of the existing neighborhood, and because residential development in and Harris Machine PUD discontinue for a period of residential character of the of the potential for future the area, the Marine Sports West shall expire should business 12 consecutive months. After a 'S1 North Coll e acrnue f�.l�. Buy ��ll F�v-t lAiin, k-0 til!;22-0;80 • (303) 221-r`i discontinuance period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be reviewed and subject to the PUD process. This condition was also recommended by staff. Staff response: Staff concurs with the appellant that items (1) and (2) above, are true. Staff did recommend the condition of approval, called the sunset provision by the appellant, as listed above in (2). 3. Appellant believes the Board abused its discretion because the evidence in the record does not support the granting of this PUD. Staff response: The Board did not abuse its discretion in approving the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD. The evidence in the record supports approval of the PUD. The Board heard testimony from the applicant and the public and received written information from staff that the PUD (business) would be conducted and operated in such a manner as to conform to the requirements and restrictions of the PUD. In approving this PUD, the Board found that the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS had been met and that the proposed use is compatible. 4. The subject property is in the middle of residential use and the type of activity being conducted is not compatible with residential use. The granting of this PUD does not foster a rational pattern or relationship between residential and industrial, nor does it protect the residential areas from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. Staff response: The Board determined that the proposed PUD, was compatible with the area and did not represent harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. There are a number of non- residential uses, some conforming, some not, in relative proximity to the property in question, including an insurance office, a diesel repair business, and auto body shop. 5. In 1967 this area was zoned R-P. As nonconforming uses ceased operation, the area became more and more in line with the Zoning. It would appear that by granting this PUD, the Board has taken a giant step backwards. Staff response: By granting this PUD, the Board considered the background of the property and the existing neighborhood and determined that the PUD is compatible with the surrounding area and is less intensive than the previous non -conforming use. 6. Finally, the Board, as well as the staff, must have recognized that this PUD is not a compatible use with the existing area, otherwise there would not have been a need for the "sunset" condition. Staff response: Staff recommended the "Sunset" condition to address concerns raised at a neighborhood information meeting about future businesses that might choose to locate in this building and to protect the character of the neighborhood while recognizing the nature of the existing building and the existence of similar land uses to the west of this property. In this recommendation, staff recognized that this PUD is not the ultimate development for this property, but rather an interim use by an owner who has lived on the property for over 25 years. A "sunset" provision also gives the neighborhood, staff, and Board more review authority over future uses. For example, this PUD is for marine engine repair, if converted to "auto repair" then such conversion would require public review. Therefore "sunsetting" is a protective measure not an admission of incompatibility. "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter." 1. The LDGS sets forth specific criteria that must be met in the PUD for approval. If any of those criteria are not met, then the PUD can not be approved. With respect to this PUD, there are two specific criteria that must be answered in the affirmative. Those two criteria are: a. Have all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as to social compatibility of the project been resolved? b. Are all repair, painting and body work activities, including storage of refuse and vehicular parts, planned to take place within an enclosed structure? Staff response: Staff concurs with the appellant that the statements made in (1) above, are true. The first criterion listed in (a) above, is the first criterion of the All Development Chart of the LDGS and in its entirety reads as follows: 1. Have all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as to the social compatibility of the project been resolved, or have the processes outlined in Administrative Guidelines for "Identifying Impacts on Social Compatibility" been followed? (see attached Appendix D for the administrative guidelines.) The second criterion listed in (b) above, is the second absolute criterion of the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart of the LDGS and reads correctly, as listed in (b) above. The Board received written information from staff that these criteria were answered in the affirmative for the PUD. A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 14, 1992, following the administrative guidelines for identifying impacts on social compatibility as mentioned in (1) above. The Board heard testimony from the applicants and received written information from staff that the PUD (business) would be conducted and operated in such a manner as to conform to the requirements and restrictions of the PUD, which are a direct result of concerns (noise, smoke, odors, hours of operation) raised at the neighborhood meeting. The Board determined that the PUD was able to respond affirmatively to criterion (1) above. The Board heard testimony from the applicants that repair work will be conducted inside the building, that no painting or body work activities will occur at the site, and that no storage of refuse and vehicular parts will occur outside of the building. The applicants testified that there will be boats parked on the site, while the engines are being repaired. They also testified that occasionally an A -frame hoist, located outside, is needed to remove the engine or stern drive from the boat but that all repair work will be conducted inside the building. The Board determined that the PUD was able to respond affirmatively to criterion (2) above. 2. The staff recommendation indicated that all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as to social compatibility had been resolved. However, that is not the case. As noted in the staff's recommendation, "compatibility with a residential neighborhood was one of the main issues raised at the neighborhood meeting". Staff response: This has been addressed in the response to (1.) above. 3. As noted above, the PUD does have prohibited activities occurring outside of the enclosed structures. Boat engines are removed by use of the A -frame and this is done outside. Also, the testing of small engines is done in a large water tank which is located outside. Finally, there are normally 3 to 5 boats parked at various locations outside. Staff response: The Board heard testimony from staff and the applicants concerning the use of the A -frame, the testing of small engines in a water tank, and parking of boats. The Board determined that these activities are not prohibited by the PUD. 4. During Board discussion on this proposal, two of the Board members felt that the proposed PUD did not meet the criteria for Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses. when you apply the facts of this situation to the criteria noted in (b) above, the appellant believes the Board failed to properly apply the relevant provision of the Code. Staff response: The Board did not fail to properly apply the relevant provisions of the Code. The Board heard testimony and received written information from staff concerning requirements and restrictions of the PUD and determined that the operation of the PUD (business) could be conducted and operated in such a way that the criterion noted in (b) above could be answered in the affirmative. APPENDIX D IDENTIFYING IMPACTS ON SOCIAL COMPATIBILITY In order to facilitate citizen participation in the development process which would be meaningful to individuals at the neighborhood level, the City of Fort Collins requires informal meetings between citizen groups, developers and City staff on development projects perceived as having sig- nificant neighborhood impact. The City of Fort Collins urges citizens to attend and actively participate in these meetings. Within the participa- tion framework provided below, the citizens give direction to the develop- ment of their neighborhood by delineating neighborhood values, goals, and objectives; by participating in choosing among alternative project designs; and by participating in the approval and modification of project plans. It is during the conceptual planning stage that the City staff sounds out,the neighborhoods on an informal basis before time and effort have been expended by the developer to submit a formal development application. City staff bring professional expertise to the process by providing not only technical knowledge of City policies, plans and standards but also social skills in dealing with group meetings, conflict resolution and the provi- sion of information. The process for citizen participation in the concep- tual planning stage of development shall be as follows: 1. At the Conceptual Review meeting with City staff, the Planning Director will identify the project as having significant neighbor- hood impact. 2. Within a reasonable period of time following the Conceptual Review meeting, the Planning Director shall attempt to notify the impacted neighborhood of the development proposal by written notice to the owners of property within 500 feet of the project and/or notifica- tion of applicable neighborhood/homeowners associations and/or press release. 3. A meeting will be held with the neighborhood prior to preliminary plan application. The developer and/or his/her representative is required to attend this meeting. The meeting will typically be held in the neighborhood, for example, at the nearest public school, church, or community center. A Planning Department staff memoer will be responsible for setting up and coordinating the neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is for the developer to inter- act with the neighborhood, and for the developer to inform and obtain feedback from the neighborhood on a specific development pro- posal in a relaxed atmosphere. 4. The developer makes application for preliminary plan approval in accordance with City Code. 5. Planning Department staff prepares a report reviewing the issues and recommendations of the informal public meeting for Planning and Zon- ing Board review. —67— DATE: December 15, 1992 2 j EM NUMBER: 33 business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. After a discontinuation period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be re -reviewed and subject to the PUD process. This condition was similar to one applied to a previous PUD (Altair PUD) which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1990 for a retail business. THE APPEAL The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent evidence in the record. 2. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code. SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and without support of competent evidence in the record. 2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in making its decision. NOTICE OF APPEAL N 0 V 9 9992 r,1 ii To: City Council, City of Fort Collins CkK From: John J. Haggerty, 933 East Prospect Street, Unit D, Fort Collins, CO 80525, Telephone 224-3041 Re: Appeal of the decision of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board decision (by 4 to 2 vote) to grant the P.U.D. request of Marine Sports West and Harris Machine (Keulen Subdivision); #43-92. This action was taken on November 16, 1992. The appellant, John J. Haggerty, has standing to bring this appeal because he was mailed a notice of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and because he spoke in opposition to the P.U.D. request at the hearing on November 16, 1992. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent evidence in the record. B. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. SUMMARY OF FACTS 1. The P.U.D. requested and approved by the Board allows for the operation of a boat motor repair facility and machine shop operation in a garage located at 921 East Prospect Road. The area is zoned RP therefore this is a non -conforming use. 2. Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that there is only one other non -conforming use in the area. Approximately one city block west of the subject location there is a diesel engine repair shop. This non -conforming use was in existence at the time this area was zoned in 1967 and has been grandfathered in since that time. Other non -conforming grandfathered uses that were in operation in this area in 1967 have since ceased operation. 3. Prospect Springs, a high density residential area, is immediately to the east of the subject property. This area is the most impacted because of its proximity to the subject property. To the west of the subject property on the south side of Prospect Street is residential except for the non -conforming use noted above which is located in back of a residence school. On the north side of Prospect is residential and a church and school are located approximately two blocks west. Spring Creek bike trial is located to the south of the property. cc: C y Ai4or v1n• 4. The nature of the business being conducted at this location requires that several boats be parked outside of the existing structure. There is an A -frame hoist approximately eight (8) feet high that is used to remove engines from boats. The engines are then taken inside the structure for repair. There is a large water tank that is used to test small engines after repair. This water tank is located to south end of the subject property. 5. Testing of the engines results in noise and plumes of smoke. It was this testing of engines that brought this zoning violation to the attention of the city zoning office in the early summer of this year. Additionally, several residents of Prospect Springs are exposed directly (within 20 to 30 feet) to this operation and although there is a six foot privacy fence in place, the boat storage, water tank and A -frame hoist are all visible from the second floor of their property and the noise from the running engines can be clearly heard and the smoke and odor from the engines interferes with the quite enjoyment of their property. ARGUXENT A. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent evidence in the record. 1. The Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) for Planned Unit Developments as adopted by the City of Fort Collins states as its purpose "to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare" by pursuing several objectives. Two of those objectives are: (a) To foster a more rational pattern of relationship between residential, business, and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (b) To protect existing neighborhoods from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. 2. In granting this P.U.D. the Planning and Zoning Board included a sunset provision as follows: Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and because of the potential for future residential development in the area, the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall expire should business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. After a discontinuance period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be rereviewed and subject to the PUD process. This condition was also recommended by staff. 3. Appellant believes the Board abused its discretion because the evidence in the record does not support the granting of this P.U.D. 4. The subject property is in the middle of residential use and the type of activity being conducted is not compatible with residential use. The granting of this P.U.D. does not foster a rational pattern of relationship between residential and industrial, nor does it protect the residential areas from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. 5. In 1967 this area was zoned R-P. As nonconforming uses ceased operation, the area became more and more in line with the Zoning. It would appear that by granting this P.U.D., the Board has taken a giant step backwards. 6. Finally, The Board, as well as the staff, must have recognized that this P.U.D. is not a compatible use with the existing area, otherwise there would not have been a need for the "sunset" condition. B. The Planning and Zoning Board tailed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. 1. The LDGS sets forth specific criteria that must be met in the P.U.D. for approval. If any of those criteria are not met, then the P.U.D. can not be approved. With respect to this P.U.D., there are two specific criteria that must be answered in the affirmative. Those two criteria are: (a) Have all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as to social compatibility of the project been resolved? (b) Are all repair, painting and body work activities, including storage of refuse and vehicular parts, planned to take place within an enclosed structure? 2. The staff recommendation indicated that all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as to social compatibility had been resolved. However, that is not the case. As noted in the staff's recommendation, "compatibility with a residential neighborhood was one of the main issues raised at the neighborhood meeting. 3. As noted above, the P.U.D. does have prohibited activities occurring outside of enclosed structures. Boat engines are removed by use of the A -frame and this is done outside. Also, the testing of small engines is done in a large water tank which is located outside. Finally, There are normally 3 to 5 boats parked at various locations outside. 4. During Board discussion on this proposal, two of the Board members felt that the proposed P.U.D. did not meet the criteria for Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses. When you apply the facts of this situation to the criteria noted in (b) above, appellant believes the Board failed to properly apply the relevant provision of the Code. The appellant respectfully request this Body review the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to the subject P.U.D. and reverse the decision of the Board and deny the applicant's request. John J; `,Hagg yam` 933 East Prok3pect Street "D" Fort Collins, CO 80525 C1' Ci City of Fort Collins M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 23, 1992 TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney RE: Notice of Appeal of John J. Haggerty Pursuant to Section 2-50 of the Code of the City, I have reviewed the Notice of Appeal filed on November 19, 1992, by John J. Haggerty regarding the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine (Keulen) Subdivision. It is my opinion that this Notice of Appeal complies with the requirements of Section 2-49, and I have found no obvious defects in form or substance. WPE:whm 300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-F ;20 City Clk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 Laporte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on November 16, 1992, regarding the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine (Keulen Subdivision), Case #43-92. The meeting is fully accessible to handicapped persons. You may have received previous notices on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. Written comments are also welcome. If you have any questions, require further information, or wish to submit written materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office or the Planning Department at 221-6500. 4�v , vi� . an a ­M. Krajice City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: December 1, 1992 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Appellant/Applicant .100 LaPorte Avenue 0 P.O. Box 580 9 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 • FAX # (303) 221-6329 RESOLUTION 93- OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RELATING TO THE MARINE SPORTS WEST AND HARRIS MACHINE PUD WHEREAS, on November 16, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board ("the Board") approved the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD Preliminary and Final Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 1992, an appeal of the Board's decision was made by John J. Haggerty; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 1992, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal and heard arguments from the appellants and other parties -in -interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the appellant's notice of appeal dated November 19, 1992, conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. Section 2. That the decision of the Board approving the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD Preliminary and Final Plan is hereby overturned by the Council for the following reasons: The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code because the Board overlooked the fact that certain activities, including the outside removal of motors from boats the testing of motors in an outdoor test tank and the storage of boats pending repair were being conducted in violation of Criterion No. 2 of Activity "D" (the Auto -related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart), which criterion requires, in order to achieve the minimum applicable points, an affirmative response to the question: Are all repair, painting and bodywork activities, including storage of refuse and vehicular parts, planned to take place within an enclosed structure? (Emphasis supplied.)