Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout420 424 W OAK ST AND 120 S SHERWOOD ST PUD PRELIMINARY - 40 92A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 N • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES December 17, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataskc, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Chairman Bernie Strom and Member Joe Carroll joined the meeting at approximately 8:15 P.M. Staff members present included Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbcck, Mike Herzig, Janet Meisel, Joe Frank and Georgiana Taylor. Planning Director Tom Peterson joined the meeting at 7:45 P.M. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the November 16, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Fire Station 010 PUD - Preliminary and Final, #58-92; Item 3 - English Ranch Subdivision, 2nd Filing - Final, #75-86H; Item 4 - The Gates at Woodridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #55-87H; Item 5 - The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #55-871; Item 7 - Rocky Mountain Battery & Recycling • P.U.D. - Extension Request - 2 years; Item 8 - South Glen P.U.D., Third Filing - Extension Request - 2 years; Item 9 - PZ92-19 Access and Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11 - Appleridge PUD, 2nd, Amended Final. Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Resolution PZ92-18 Adoption of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program Design Standards and Guidelines as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan - 49- 91; Item 13 - Choices 95 Shields Street Improvements from Laurel to Prospect, #59-92 Item 14 - Fort Collins Senior Center P.U.D. - Preliminary, #146-79L; Item 15 - Greenstone P.U.D. - Overall Development Plan, #54-92B (Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting); Item 16 - Greenstone P.U.D. - Preliminary, #54-92C (Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting); Item 17 - 424 West Oak P.U.D. - Preliminary, #40-92A; Item 18 - Amigos at Shields PUD - Preliminary, #47-90A; Item 19 - Overland Hills West - RF Site Plan Review, #38-90D (Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting). Vice Chairman asked if anyone from the Board or the audience would like to pull an item for discussion. There was none. Member Kiataske moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 420-424 WEST OAK STREET AND 120 SOUTH SHERWOOD STREET P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY, #40-92A Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval. Member Carroll asked if the at 420 use would stay the same. Mr. Olt replied yes. Member Carroll asked if a home was going to be built at 120 S. Sherwood. Mr. Olt replied yes. Member Carroll asked why the Sherwood Property and the property at 420 W. Oak part of the PUD. Mr. Olt replied that the residential property on Sherwood was included because the three lots were under one ownership and they wanted to include them all so they could identify the uses on the three properties at this time with this PUD. The residential property on Sherwood could be a use -by -right, 420 W. Oak was included in this PUD at this time because there are shared parking requirements. The off-street parking requirements for the office uses straddle the property line. For the two properties to use these common parking spaces, 420 had to be included in the P.U.D. Member Carroll asked what physical changes were going to be made to 424 W. Oak. Mr. Olt replied that the plan did not suggest any changes, that it would remain in it's present state. Externally you would not see any changes to the property. Member O'Dell asked if there was access to 120 S. Sherwood from the alley in the back, and was there a garage that opens at both ends. Mr. Olt replied that there is a recorded access easement off of the alley down into the property into the parking area as defined on the site plan. There is a drive-thru garage. 120 S. Sherwood has a driveway off of Sherwood and they also have access off of the alley to the back of their property. Chairman Strom asked if the easement also served properties on the north. Mr. Olt replied it was partially on those properties as it was described. The recorded easement straddles the property lines. There is 8 feet on the properties being 416, 420 and 424 West Oak. There is 5 feet on the properties to the north. Larimer County is the first property off the alley and then single family residences. Chairman Strom asked for the applicants presentation. Shane Arington, representing the applicants, stated they support the recommendation by the Planning Staff for the approval of this project. Mr. Arington stated that this project embodied the spirit and principals of the West Side Neighborhood Plan by encouraging revitalization of the neighborhood and that revitalization, they felt was accomplished by the ongoing renovation/refurbishing of the old houses and 23 creating a new residence that reflects the historical character of the area. Also, by strengthening the economic basis of the neighborhood through the proposed conversion of 424 West Oak to low intensity office use, thereby giving this structure a continuance and providing incentive to others to work or live in the neighborhood. Mr. Arington stated that in their effort to maintain and reflect the character of the neighborhood, they have adopted a plan design that they feel was sensitive to adjacent properties in terms of architectural compatibility, landscape conservation and improvements and impact minimalization. There were no proposed architectural changes to the building structure to 424 West Oak, they were conserving the structure of what was now a residence and proposing an alternate use of the structure to be limited to professional use with the exclusion of medical and dental uses. All existing trees were to remain, the off street parking area would remain a greenspace through impervious turf paving block, which would allow grass to grow up through the paving blocks and decreasing the drainage run off toward the downtown core of Fort Collins and diminishes the commercially intrusive look of a big asphalt or concrete parking lot area. Mr. Arington went on to say that in their effort to conserve the structures, at the same time want to improve the quality of life for the inhabitants, therefore, at 420 they intend to improve safety with an approved addition, adding access to basement and mechanical systems from both the upstairs apartment and the first floor architectural office. Both 420 West Oak and 424, they have proposed the addition of handicapped access ramps located at the rear of the buildings. Mr. Arington stated that at the proposed residence at 120 S. Sherwood reflected the Victorian style common to the area. It has been designed to be energy efficient and received an energy score rating of G93. This proposed structure would be the most energy efficient home evaluated to date by the energy score program, boasting heating costs of only five cents per square foot per year. Mr. Arington closed by saying that they felt the project represented the best interest of the West Side Neighborhood Plan in that it allows existing buildings to survive, it also offers economic incentive for the neighborhood to survive and also it created a new forward thinking residence that also respects the character of the neighborhood and it's historical appearance. Vice Chairman Walker asked if the garage was 800 to 900 s.f. that the building took up. Mr. Arington replied about 800 square feet. Vice Chairman Walker asked if there was any intent of making the top floor of the garage an apartment. He was concerned about the intensity of the site. Mr. Arington replied that at this point in time, they have no desire to have it other than for storage. Mr. Don Richmond, owner of the property stated it was designed to have it called a carriage house style garage with storage of about 600 s.f., and they were reusing materials on the exterior to make this new garage. Vice Chairman Walker stated he was concerned about the grass Crete material and the wear and tear on it. 24 Mr. Richmond gave an explanation of the products used and stated that it provided a much better surface. Vice Chairman Walker asked if it would go all the way to the alley access. Mr. Richmond replied yes. Member Cottier asked if there were any slides of the proposed house. Mr. Olt replied that there was not, but they did have a rendering on a board. Mr. Richmond provided the Board with a rendering of the proposed house at 120 S. Sherwood. PUBLIC INPUT Elizabeth Nance, 209 S. Sherwood, stated that she read the West Side Neighborhood Plan and was confused about how proposed office conversion could maintain the residential character of the area. She was also confused about the owner saying that it would help stabilize the neighborhood. She had been watching the past couple of years and every piece of property in the neighborhood had been snatched up within a week by a family wanting to live in the neighborhood. It was a very desirable place to live. She would not like to see 424 West Oak turn totally into office space because it was a very nice home and if it was put on the market a family would like to live there. Ms. Nance went on to say that in the West Side Neighborhood Plan, one of the sentences that stuck in her mind was, "actions taken now as well as in the future would have a significant impact on the characteristics of the population and the stability of the neighborhood". Another sentence was, "every effort should be made to preserve the existing stable residential character of the neighborhood". This plan to her would be a point of no return for this block. If she were to buy one of these properties in the future, she would not be very attracted to the parking set up. This would be an office space block if this goes through and would not attract families anymore. She did not have a problem with the new home being built, and she did not have a problem with 420 remaining 1/2 office space. She has a very big problem with a lovely old home at 424 West Oak being converted to office space. The parking situation in the back will change the character of the neighborhood. Dan George, 425 West Mountain, stated he was in back of the proposed project. He stated that as far as the West Side Neighborhood was concerned, the idea was to conserve the structures. Being it was a low intensity use, he did not think it affected the spirit of the neighborhood. As far as the parking access, it traditionally has been an alley back there to access the properties adjoining and any improvements would be gladly welcomed because right now it is a gravel area and it would be nice to have some gravel back there so it would not be so muddy. He was in favor of this project. Susan Wholey, 123 S. Sherwood Street, asked that the Board not consider the plan as currently written and that the two story building at 424 West Oak Street remain a single family residence. Although the City Land Use Policy Plan has promoted mixed use development, creating opportunities to work, live, shop and recreate within a close proximity to each other, she sees this PUD proposed as allowing a place to conduct businesses and allow professional services to be conducted within a walking distance from one another. She also saw that the plan was pushing out of the block people who live there and would frequent those professional services 25 because of being of walking distance. She would disagree that the existing and proposed residential/office buildings would maintain a residential character of the neighborhood. Paul Reese, 123 S. Sherwood Street, has some concerns about this PUD with the parking and the ineloquent way to access the businesses. Part of his concern was, although these specific uses of the business at this time were considered to light intensity uses, in the future they gradually creep to more intense uses. There would be the need for signage in the front of the businesses, or in the front of the alley and that would very much change the character of the frontage on West Oak Street. Would there be a way of protection in the existing zoning that would prevent that from happening or at least regulate it? The broader issue was related to what Member Carroll had asked earlier, why were they looking at the three properties in this diagram. To him the specific use of these properties was not so much the issue and certainly the owner intends to preserve the structure and keep it within the West Side Plan but what he sees happening was a composite use of property. Where we have a garage that straddles the two existing properties, access to this garage at the back of this property, someone using this garage by coming through the alley and the parking lots of the businesses. To him, in the future, if this collection of properties were to go on the market it seems like it would appeal to someone that would be less committed to the residential character of the neighborhood and see this more of an overall office complex. He would submit to them, if they were moving to some sort of office complex that must be different than the idea of preserving residential character. His concern was in the future, where someone who did not have the commitment of Mr. Richmond, who has done wonderful things to improve these two properties, might come in and see this whole corner of the block as one existing opportunity to have a slightly higher density use and something different than what was proposed tonight. He wanted to be reassured that it could not happen without further review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Bob Getz, 131 S. Sherwood Street, had concerns about the plan. He did not have that much of a problem with the conversion of the other house to office space. He liked the idea of the residential house in the middle of the block on Sherwood. They were losing a residence but gaining a nice new residence that could be compatible with the old. The drive-thru garage sounded crazy to him. It was a covered bridge that would give access from Sherwood Street to the parking lot back there. He was concerned that the lot overlaps with the parking area. He was also concerned that there was not enough landscaping behind the new house to make it a separate and distinct property from the commercial property. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairman Strom asked for the question on signage be addressed and the question of what would it take to increase the intensity or change the PUD. Mr. Olt replied that there was no signage indicated on the site plan before the Board. With the final submittal they would have to look at signage more closely. Chairman Strom asked if there were maximum limits. Mr. Olt replied that it was subject to code and in a commercial setting there were limitations as to how much signage was allowed. Chairman Strom asked if it fell into the new signage guidelines. 26 n Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, replied that he was not sure whether it did. It may not because of its proximity to downtown. There would be a response to that at final. Mr. Olt replied to the intensity question. He stated that the PUD before them tonight addressed the properties at 420, 424 West Oak and 120 S. Sherwood. 420 W. Oak has an approval for multi- use there, being an architectural office, and it has limitations. It limits the uses from the professional office standpoint and it limits that structure to one dwelling unit upstairs. What the PUD was specifically asking for at 424 W. Oak was 1800 s.f. of professional offices. It did not identify the offices use yet, however, if they were to go to City Code there was a specific definition for professional offices. This PUD excludes uses that are allowed in that definition, being medical and dental offices. The PUD also indicates that there would be a maximum of 5 employees in the building. 120 S. Sherwood was being identified as a single family residence. Therefore, to try and incorporate other properties, and increase the intensity of uses would require the applicant to come back before the Board, evaluate the uses that would require an additional approval. To increase the intensity outside an approval with this PUD would not be able to happen without going through the process again. Member Cottier asked if parking on the street there was allowed. Mr. Olt replied that, parking on the street was allowed as an overflow situation. The primary minimum parking for these kind of uses have to occur on site. For the number of employees identified at 424 W. Oak, they would need 4 parking spaces, off-street. The existing architectural office has 3 employees plus the residents upstairs that would require another 4 spaces. They need 8 parking spaces off-street. This plan indicates 10. Parking is allowed on - street, but not as a primary source. Member Cottier asked about the clientele for services. They would be expected to park on the street then? Mr. Olt replied that the possibility was there. Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, also replied that steady clients would probably pull in the back. Architects offices were not notorious for a large number of customers to come to it. Most people would probably use the street to do business and that was allowed. Vice Chairman Walker stated that it was a correct perception that what they were creating here was a set of buildings that work as an office complex. His concern was they were creating an office complex. He did not think that they were maintaining residential character. Member Clements Cooney shared Vice Chairman Walkers concerns and she felt that what needed to take place was preserving the family character or the neighborhood character in this area. She agreed that this was converting a block into an office complex and did not see how that was going to enhance the neighborhood stability. She also has concerns about the parking in the back of the building. Member Carroll did not share those concerns He looks at neighborhood character, residential character as something different. It was very simple for the plan to say it shall be preserved residentially. That was not what it says. It says residential character, which means you could have other uses in the are besides residences. He thought that 424 W. Oak maintained residential character. He was not concerned with the parking and the garage. He did not share the office complex, if you define three offices that are in a row. He just did not see it. 27 P Member Cottier stated she was more concerned with the property on Sherwood and the likelihood of that converting to office also and the lack of landscaping in the back. Member Carroll agreed that the Board could not say that 120 S. Sherwood could never be converted to an office and no future Planning and Zoning Board could ever convert it to an office. Member O'Dell agreed with Member Carroll. The structure itself was not changing and the restrictions on the type of office could be reasonable based on its proximity to the existing offices. This plan was reasonable and acceptable in terms of the LDGS as well as the West Side Neighborhood Plan. Member O'Dell moved for approval of 420, 424 West Oak and 120 S. Sherwood Street PUD - Preliminary. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated she would be supporting the motion, but would like to see some additional landscaping added to the back of 120 Sherwood. Member O'Dell stated she would add that as a condition of her motion. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Chairman Strom stated he would be supporting the motion and relied on the PUD process and requirements to give a certain degree of protection to things they don't want to happen. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative. AMIGOS AT SHIELDS PUD - PRELIMINARY, #40-92A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval with 5 conditions. Member Carroll asked Ms. Clark to outline the changes from the previous plan which was tabled and this plan presented tonight. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the major change was there was a joint right -in curb cut on the north edge of the Amigos property that would be shared by both Amigos and Campus West. Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, stated that the main change was the agreement between Campus West and Amigos to work out a shared curb cut. They also had picked up some additional landscaping. They did not have any problems with the conditions Staff had put on the project. Mike Henninger, Amigos Restaurants, stated they were willing to dedicate the land in order for the Choices 95 plan to work and they were willing to make their design consistent with the Choices 95 plan. He felt that they have addressed the issues. 28