Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMERA CORNER INC PUD PRELIMINARY - 34 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESr1 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 27, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, City Attorney Steve Roy, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Cottonwood Farm - Upper Meadow (a Miramont, 1st Filing - Final, Case #54-87H; Item 2 - Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, 1st Filing - Final, Case #18-92A was continued indefinitely at the applicant's request; Item 3 - Sunstone Village PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary & Final, Case #57-86K; Item 4 - Chili's PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #6-87E; Item 5 - Park South PUD, Second Replat - Final, Case #46-88E; Item 6 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Filing - Final, Case #60-91E; Item 7 - Best Buy - Final, Case #29-92A; Item 8 - Stone Ridge PUD - Final, Case #21-92A; Item 9 - Hampshire Court Subdivision - Final, Case #31-92A; and Item 10 - Pi Kappa Phi Living Center - Referral of Administrative Change to Fairview PUD, Phase lI Revised, Case #72-79C was pulled for discussion. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - 1216 Maple Street Multi -Family Use Request - Site Plan Review, Case #19-84C; Item 12 - Camera Corner Inc. PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #34-92; Item 13 - Huntington Hills PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary & Final, Case #11-81G; and Item 14 - Abandonment of the Undeveloped Portion of the Indian Hills West PUD for Rivendell School. Chairman Strom pulled Item 4 - Chili's PUD - Preliminary & Final, Case #6-87E. Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Items I, 3, and 5-9. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 7-0. CHILI'S PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - Case #6-87E Steve Olt gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval with a condition. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 20 It seemed to him that the whole idea of a home occupation use is that the principal use of the property is residential, the home occupation is incidental, and the property retains its character as residential. In his opinion this property can no longer be considered residential due to the increase in use. If this project were to be approved he would like to see it remain under the restrictions of home occupation, because to expand the use would defeat the purpose of the home occupation guidelines. Member Cottier asked if there were any distinction between the number of employees allowed for different types of home occupations? Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that there was no distinction. Member Cottier then wondered why the Bryce Dental Clinic was allowed to have 1 dentist and 4 employees? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that particular home occupation was in violation and came through a PUD process to correct that violation. Mr. Roy stated that such use shall be conducted entirely with the dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants living there with not more than one other employee. Member Walker asked for a clarification on sales on the property. Mr. Roy responded by stating that there shall be only incidental sale of stock, supplies or products conducted on the premises. Member Walker asked that the interpretation of incidental sales, stocks, supplies or products that is only in regard to the fixing of and replacing a piece to a camera. Mr. Roy stated that incidental could mean secondary sales. The better meaning would be furtherance of the primary occupation that is carried on. Member O'Dell asked if a client were to bring in a camera to fix that was broken beyond repair and Mr. Donaldson suggests purchasing a camera that he had for sale; would that be considered incidental. Mr. Roy stated that maybe another word besides incidental should be used and that a refinement of the wording should be worked on. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 21 Member Walker stated that the strict interpretation of home occupation was that the home was located on an arterial in such a way that the character was thought to be residential. Member Walker would like a clarification of signage on a home occupation. Mr. Roy responded stating that there should be no exterior advertising other than identification of the home occupation. Chairman Strom felt the question that needs to be addressed is how best does one protect against adverse effects on a residential area. He understood how the Donaldson's came to the decision that 44,000 cars a day is enough and move there home elsewhere. The Donaldson's do have the option to just move out and place the property on the market and then we're faced with what would be constructed on the corner. It has been hard for him imagine over the long term that very many people would want to use that property as a principal residence. Member Walker felt that this project is a viable way of protecting the neighborhood and would suggest to consider the issue of retail sales in some increased but limited way. Member Clements -Cooney asked if it were in the Board's ability to pass the preliminary with the condition that staff revisit the home occupation guidelines before final approval and update the Board on that agreement? Mr. Peterson stated that staff could come back with some suggested wording. Member Walker moved to approve Camera Corner PUD, Preliminary, with the conditions that staff, applicant, and neighborhood meet and refine the suggestions from the neighborhood; and with the clarification and specific wording on the number of employees and retail sales. Member Walker commented that the Board has worked this through but would like to see more time spent with staff. He stated that his motion was made with the intent that this property remain as a home occupation. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Walker added to the motion that variances were not necessary. Mr. Peterson stated that if the Board was going to do something that they need to make a finding of equal to or better than with conditions that are laid out in the home occupation scenario. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 22 Member Walker added that this was an equal to or better than proposal. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the addition. Member Cottier wanted to know what the motion stated with respect to number of employees? Member Clements -Cooney added that staff and Mr. Donaldson should revisit that issue and bring it back before the Board at final. Member Walker would like to leave that area open because he feels that needs more thought and time taken on that issue. He is open to some retail sales, and perhaps more employees. Member Carroll stated that this project, had he made the motion, would be granted on Preliminary with the condition that the final comply fully or substantially with the restrictions placed on home occupation. At this point there has been nothing indicated to him to grant anything other than the restrictions on home occupations, but he is open to comments from staff, the applicant and citizens. Chairman Strom recapped the motion by stating that it is to approve a preliminary that is in favor of at least the concept that is proposed. Taking into consideration the language of the 10 conditions from the neighborhood, the possibility of allowing as high as four employees, and leaning towards some sort of retail. Member Walker agreed. Member O'Dell stated that it is important for staff to be fairly conservative in their recommendations and interpretations of those goals and objectives. She felt it was up to the Planning and Zoning Board to balance the interests of the owner, neighborhood, and the City. She felt that this project was not intrusive and disruptive to the neighborhood. Mr. Donaldson stated that he understands the Board is asking for full compliance with the home occupation standards; however, he does not feel that full compliance with the standards supplies him with enough flexibility to survive. He stated that he is hearing about what is best for the City and what is best for everyone else, but ultimately he is looking for a modest way out of the situation that the City has put him in. He stated that he was unclear of the position the Board was taking. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 23 Chairman Strom replied the Board was some what unclear of exactly the procedures to be taking as well. The Board has stated that they feel this project can be worked out, and that the final language needs to be hammered out in something other than a public meeting forum. He felt that the motion leaves the flexibility to do what Mr. Donaldson has asked to be done, but the Board would like to review the final language before they finalize it. The motion to approve Camera Corner PUD Preliminary passed 7-0. HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD. FILING TWO, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. Case #11-81 G Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark presented a description of the proposed project recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Mark Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills Corporation, stated that this project which was started in the early 80's was abandoned due to financial difficulties and previous developers. He stated that the project was a request for 110 single family lots on 28.0 acres which are approved plats and the only approval that is being asked for is the approval of the construction and master plan update on that portion only. PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Wynne Pressley, 213 Tralee Court, asked for a brief summary of what needs to be resolved and how much longer till construction takes place? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the first condition which needs to be resolved relates to a final development agreement being written and all plans need to be signed. Secondly, a mitigation plan regarding the drainage channel and the wetlands area all be calculated and that some mitigation be provided to offset the wetlands loss. Mr. Palkowitsh stated the first phase of the construction will start at Saturn Drive. There are some very important elements that will be taken care of in the initial stage of construction; such as, the 50 foot dirt pile that will be depleted immediately. On the north side there are some very unfavorable commercial uses that are going to require fencing and that would be done in the first phase in order to create some mitigation. Member Walker asked what the area above the detention area was going to be used for? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 12 CAMERA CORNER INC. PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. Case #34-92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the project recommending denial. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the residential unit was a part of the application or has it been eliminated? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the residential unit was a part of the application and that no credit was given for mixed use. The reason for not giving credit for mixed use was because staff does not feel that a basement apartment geared to family members and would serve as a significant use. Therefore, staff did not give credit for mixed use; thus the project did not receive the 50 percent that is required on the point chart. Mr. Doug Donaldson, Applicant, stated that he, his family and his business have resided on the corner of Prospect and Shields for the past 8 years. During their residency he felt that they met all of the City of Fort Collins Home Occupation License requirements. Since his family established their home/business in 1984 on the comer of Prospect and Shields they have seen two major capital improvements which have drastically changed the property and the quality of family life. The widening of Prospect Street and the expansion of the intersection impacted our property by taking a loss of approximately 2,000 square feet of property off of Prospect Road. They have experienced a substantial increase of automobile traffic, air pollution, noise pollution, vandalism and crime. As proposed for the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program they will lose an excessive 55 percent of the remaining front and side yards to highway; and almost all of the backyard due to the relocation and construction of the current parking area. He felt he would not be able to subject his family to these extraordinary and unhealthy conditions on a full-time residential basis. While those needs have been thrusted upon his family, Mr. Donaldson pointed out that his needs have remained the same. He felt that his needs are to continue the business in the same location, while providing a daytime residence as needed for the care of their four children. One of his daughters is autistic and one of his sons has an attention deficit (Hyperkinetic Disorder); both of these children require specific daytime care and attention for which he has been able to provide them from their current location. Mr. Donaldson stated that his business has been structured so he may implement his children's therapy needs and developmental programs during the day. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 13 The business is both financially and historically tied to the existing property. Mr. Donaldson felt that he could not afford to relocate his business elsewhere. The best scenario for which they investigated would be to relocate the business to South College. He felt that would put him out of business within six months. As a result of the capital improvements in the area, Mr. Donaldson wishes to move their primary residence; while continuing the business and secondary residential use at the current address. He felt that they have structured the elements of the PUD; such as the expanded retail, and number of employees to allow them any future development and still remain in strict compliance. Mr. Donaldson expressed that the Planning Staff stated that the PUD does not adequately meet the mixed use requirement. However, the PUD requirement states that credit should be given on the point system because the specifications of a residential use would dictate that it would be a significant use and not an accessory use. If this PUD was not given credit for the mixed use, then he feels that the project should be granted a variance under Section K (Variance Procedure). The variance states that the Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of the section under the following circumstances: Paragraph 2 - A strict application of any provision would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property; provided that the variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose of this section. As stated in the letter from the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, this project has been commended on the improvements, effectiveness and public spirited manner in which the business has been conducted. The Planning Staff report states that the proposed PUD is for a commercial or business use which introduces retail at this site and that retail sales are not permitted with an in home occupation. However, the home occupation license states that there should be only incidental sales of stocks, supplies or products conducted on the premises. There is no wording that excludes retail or wholesale sales as long as those sales are incidental in nature. Mr. Donaldson stated that the proposed PUD is clearly for both business and residential use and its characteristics comply with the spirit and intent of the objectives of the City. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 14 He felt they are forced into this situation as a direct result of the City's seizure of his property. He understands that the rights of eminent domain grants the City a legal right to seize privately owned property from a citizen at its discretion; however, with this right there's a corresponding civil and moral responsibility to help the victims of eminent domain. Mr. Donaldson felt that the LDGS was designed to deal with more dramatic land uses, then what they are proposing. Unfortunately, since they are not proposing any substantial or dramatic changes in the use of the land, he felt they are a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Mr. Donaldson stated that as a member of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association and as a resident he is very adamant about maintaining the character of the neighborhood. He proposed no changes to the architecture, landscape, parking, or current use of the property. The application is consistent with the economic development goals stated in the Goals and Objectives under the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. This project protects the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activities which has a significantly negative impact upon predominantly residential areas. It promotes the preservation and maintenance of older houses and buildings which do not merit official designation, but make an important contribution to the character and historical development of this city. Member Walker asked what exactly would be the nature of the change? Would the use be more intense? Is the apartment going to be set up to be rented to an unrelated individual? Mr. Donaldson responded that it was not the intention to rent the apartment to anyone. First of all, they can not afford to provide full facilities to make it a complete apartment. The residential use was indicated simply because of the daytime care of the children. Originally, the house was set up as a duplex; however the downstairs has a low ceiling and would not be considered a desirable place to occupy on a full-time basis. Member Walker stated that the change would be that the business be moved upstairs and the residence be moved downstairs. Mr. Donaldson stated that was the only change. The downstairs is not accessible to anyone other than himself. Member Walker made reference to the comment of adding more employees, and wanted to know if that meant expansion of the business? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 15 Mr. Donaldson stated that was in place so he would not have to come back in front of the Board if he were to hire some outside individual. It would be ideal to have someone to relieve him so he may take vacations etc.; however, there are no funds for expansion, no outstanding loans, no applications for loans, and the only expansion would be simply moving what is placed in store rooms out a little bit. There are no employees hired at this point. Member Cottier asked if the 4 employees included or excluded Mr. Donaldson? Mr. Donaldson stated that the 4 employees included him. PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Emily Smith, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the Association has consistently strived to preserve the existing residential character of the two RL zoned arterials. The Association has been and is adamantly opposed to changes which result in commercial use on these arterials; which go beyond the use allowed by the City of Fort Collins Home Occupation requirements. Non-residential/commercial use would have unacceptable and far- reaching effects, not only to our neighborhood but to other surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Association and Mr. Donaldson have spent an enormous amount of time in pursuit of a solution to his proposal, which would allow him business use of his property while maintaining permanent residence elsewhere. If feasible this would allow residents protection from intrusive commercial development which would have disastrous and far-reaching effects on the neighborhood. Since any approved change in land use remains with the property and not with the owner; therefore, it is our position to oppose any request in which the possibility exists for neighborhood decline unless protective restrictions and conditions are a part of that approval. In the Association's pursuit of a solution, they found that presently there are no mechanisms which insure future protection of residential character within the neighborhood. The Association's Board recommends their guidelines for this project should warrant serious consideration and approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. The guidelines require the applicant to write into the PUD all restrictions and conditions that apply to home business requirements and including limited residential use with the one exception that the applicant not be required to reside in the residence on a permanent basis. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 16 Since Mr. Donaldson has incorporated the restrictions and conditions requested by the Association, they are in support of Camera Corner PUD. Without the restrictions and conditions the residential character of Shields Street would be at risk. The Association also recommends that a rational constructive solution is necessary now, so that future proposals of this nature will not consume a large amount of staff, board members, and neighborhood's time. Member Carroll stated that these restrictions and conditions that the Association placed on approval of this PUD intended to preserve the business as an in home type business. One of the changes is that in an in home business only one additional employee is allowed and Mr. Donaldson is proposing three additional employees. Ms. Smith felt that one helper other than himself would be allowed. She felt that what the Association is proposing needs to be fine tuned by the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Carroll clarified that the Association recommended approval provided that the same conditions exist on the business as they would exist on a home occupation business, with the obvious exception that the homeowner or businessowner does not need to reside there. Member O'Dell asked if that one additional employee includes a family member? Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that is one additional employee that does not reside at the home. So it is a non -family member. Member O'Dell stated that an entire family could work at the business and have one additional employee. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted that retail sales as part of a home occupation is not permitted as a principal use. Retail sales permitted with a home occupation are things that are clearly incidental to the principal use. The illustration that was presented for a camera business would be if someone had Mr. Donaldson repair a camera and purchased a part or lens. That is acceptable within the realm of incidence. On the other hand if the intent is to advertise cameras for sale to the general public versus just new customers then that becomes a retail sale element that is not permitted under the home occupation requirements. Member Walker asked for a clarification of what was being proposed relative to retail sales? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Donaldson replied that the home occupation allows retail sales of specifically stock, supplies, or products conducted on the premises with no restriction. He would like to be able to do more retail sales. What has happened to him in his business over 17 years is that people come to him for advice and he needs to send them elsewhere to buy the product and it is kind of cutting his own throat. He would like to be able to advertise so he may be able to offset the cost of the project. There are currently around 44,000 cars a day that pass his property which provides a built in limitation for expanding the business. Currently the business invoices per day come out to 3.2 paid invoices. If that is considered half of the people who come in to the business that is only 6.5 people a day. Mr. Donaldson and his wife generate a substantial amount of trips per day and if they were to move their permanent residence elsewhere that would bring down the intensity of the project as far as traffic. Member Walker asked if Mr. Donaldson felt that the exterior signs should remain the same as they are currently? Mr. Donaldson stated that no change would occur to any exterior sign. Member Walker inquired if retail sales were to increase would you increase the verbiage of the exterior sign? Such as - Camera Sale etc. But that the suggestion of retail sales pertains to a client asking for a recommendation to purchase equipment from another shop, then you would be able to present them with the stock that the business may have. Mr. Donaldson stated that there would not be any change to the sign whatsoever and that his assumption of changing his recommendation into sale was correct. Mr. Donaldson stated that staff had asked him exactly what he wanted and he replied that he would like to have his front yard back with all the trees and shrubs. He stated that he is searching for a means to mitigate the situation and continue the services for which he provides and protect the area. If this is not approved then it is either sell the property, change to commercial use, or rent the property. It appears that renting is the option and that is basically increasing the use. He felt that in weighing all of the risks that his project appears to be the best suited for that area. Ms. Smith stated the Association would allow such cases to be approved with certain safeguards to a very fragile neighborhood. She felt that it was not the Association's intent to endorse a more intense usage, but to allow for certain hardship cases. P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 18 Member Clements -Cooney asked how the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association came up with the 10-point system? Ms. Smith stated that they reviewed the home occupation guidelines and stated that the 10 points for which the Association came up with are the only positive solution for which everyone could agree upon. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the Association agreed that the home occupation guidelines need to be applied for employees? Ms. Smith agreed. Member Cottier felt that Camera Corner did meet the mixed use point chart; therefore she felt the variance did not need to be considered. The reason for that suggestion is because a similar request came before the Board 2 months prior and received an approval. Member Walker felt that this particular project brought up the point that there is a real lacking of how these types of projects are reviewed. He felt that there was too much difference between a project being considered to be a residential project, a home occupation project, or a commercial project. He stated that more of these types of projects would be coming through and that the definition of the different types of uses need to be further defined or have a median use defined. Chairman Strom stated that because this project does not have 2 acres it does not receive any points. On the other hand if one was to purchase adjoining homes in order to attain 2 acres then come before the Board and propose commercial use, he felt the effect on the neighborhood would be much worse than what is already proposed. Chairman Strom stated that the policy does need to be reviewed in terms of smaller scale developments that can not be considered infill development. Projects such as this could be considered adaptive reuse of the property to fit into its residential surroundings. Chairman Strom would like a verification on the traffic count of 44,000 cars passing by per day? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated she was unclear whether that was an accurate accounting of traffic flow through the area. Chairman Strom asked if the City were anticipating continued growth in traffic at the intersection of Prospect and Shields? Is the continued growth of traffic the reason for pursuing the 93-94 improvements? What type of physical improvements would be made to the intersection? P & Z Meeting Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 19 Ms. Albertson -Clark referenced the graphic that shows an additional 20 feet of right-of-way coming off the Prospect frontage which would be used for additional lane widening. There is also a significant need in the vicinity for bike lanes and currently there are no bike lane facilities available on the street. Shields Street is currently under evaluation in terms of bicyclists and pedestrian needs; whereas, the Prospect design has been finalized. Mr. Tom Peterson stated that the applicant's numbers of 44,000 is within the ball park. The two roads involved in the area are very significant, especially the intersection. Secondly, two bike paths are essential for that area. One path being on the street and the other wide enough for both pedestrian use and bicyclist. Chairman Strom asked if staff was exploring alternatives in terms of other routes to the University? Mr. Peterson stated that staff is in the middle of reviewing significant alternatives and is a great matter of concern to staff. Chairman Strom inquired about whether a neighborhood plan has been designed for that area? Mr. Peterson responded that the Planning Department has a large work program that is based on Council's goals and priorities. Staff has looked into the possibility in 1993-94 and proposed doing a neighborhood plan for the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood area. There have been a continuing series of issues in the neighborhood that staff believes they can only be addressed by a neighborhood plan and start looking at some very specific uses. The Planning Department's budget requested for that plan has not been approved and will not appear in the recommended budget that is going before City Council. If the department's schedule clears up in late 1993, then the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Plan will be looked at to incorporate that in house. Member Carroll stated that it was his understanding that the applicants will be reimbursed not only for the actual property that the City takes for use, but could also be compensated for the value of the remaining balance of the property. Member Carroll understood the neighborhood association being comfortable with that property continuing as a home occupation, because there will be no increase in the intensity. He stated that it appeared to him that Mr. Donaldson would like to increase the use potentially. The business is going to move from the downstairs to the upstairs, which is a better part of the house; conduct on site sales; and the possibility of adding two more employees.