CITY OF MONTROSE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 107 S Cascade Ave., Montrose, Colorado 5:00 p.m., June 28, 2017

Transcription

1 CITY OF MONTROSE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 107 S Cascade Ave., Montrose, Colorado 5:00 p.m., June 28, 2017 The 11:00 rule will be enforced. All public hearings scheduled and noticed to be heard today must begin prior to 11:00 p.m. or they will be rescheduled. If the Planning Commission is discussing an agenda item, but has not voted on the item before 11:00 p.m., the Planning Commission may take a vote to decide whether to vote on the agenda item or to continue the item to the next meeting. The Planning Commission may also vote to consider discussion and action on additional agenda items that require action in a specified time period due to legal requirements. All remaining agenda items, not heard due to time constraints, will be placed first on the next Planning Commission Agenda. 1. Approval of the minutes dated May 24, 2017 and June 14, Additions or Deletions. 3. ANX17-03 MIAMI ROAD FARM ADDITION. This is a continuation of the proposal for initial zoning for the proposed Miami Road Farm Addition. Miami Road Farm LLC is the applicant. 4. CUP17-02 LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 20, TOWN OF MONTROSE, KNOWN AS 840 S 1 st STREET. This is a request for a conditional use permit to build a triplex in an OR zone. Karin Stanley is the applicant. 5. VAR17-10 LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 20, TOWN OF MONTROSE, KNOWN AS 840 S 1 ST STREET. This is a request for a variance from front setback requirements. Karin Stanley is the applicant. 6. Other Business. 7. Next Time July 12, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment.

2 The Montrose City Planning Commission held a meeting on May 24, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Act (C.R.S , et.seq.). PRESENT Doug Glaspell, Josh Freed, Gary Seitz, Karen Vacca, and City staff Garry Baker, Ty Johnson, Scott Murphy, Sharon Dunning, Christine Allen, and Stephen Alcorn were present. ABSENT Anthony Russo, Tom Busker, Andrew Boyko GUESTS Marian King, Brody Bennett, Charlie Doman, Kathryn and William Angell, Jerilyn Sheldon, Larry and Marty Simmons, Bryan Wachle, Stephen Edmonds, Felicia Winograd, Janet Eckerdt, Lori and Rich Webb, Kenneth and Sharan Witte, Bob Ray, Gary Bell, Kim Holaday, Art and Carol Towers, J Rawson, Elain Rowan, E. Mark Keller, Cathy Hermanns for Ann Capone, Eldon and Dee Markus, Vickie Marietta, Norm and Lexie Stevenson, Cara Fandel, John Renfrow, Charles Terry, Ethel Brown, Paul and Lynn Lewis, Sara Lokey, Sarah and Tim Judkins, Dave Storter, Regina Roland, Linda and Frank Mesaric, Kris Lakin, Ken Alexander, Christiane Hawkins, Ben and Maureen Burnet, Les Gofforth CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Doug Glaspell called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Josh Freed moved to approve the minutes of the May 10, 2017 meeting as submitted. Gary Seitz seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS There were no changes to the agenda. RZ ROAD. This is a proposal to rezone a City-owned property on Sunset Mesa. Garry Baker introduced this item. All public requirements have been fulfilled and the official files and exhibits were entered into the record. This is a recommendation to City Council.

3 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 2 The subject property is a acre strip of land on top of Sunset Mesa west of Sunset Mesa Road. This is a proposal to rezone the property from P Public to R-2 Low Density District. The land is vacant and underutilized. The proposed new zoning will allow development by a private owner. R-2 zoning allows densities down to a 7,500 square foot lot. The R-2 zone is roughly consistent with surrounding residential properties. The City of Montrose is the applicant. This is property that the City Council has made available for land trade or sale. The City is looking to acquire land west of NuVista Credit Union and the Quality Inn Hotel, and this property is planned to be used as a trade for that land. The benefit to the City for developing this land is that with more people living there it will discourage illegal activity with passive security. There are vandalism issues on Sunset Mesa and more people discourages illegal activity. Also a plus for residential development in that area is the very easy access to public parks. Staff feels proposed rezoning meets the criteria and is recommending approval of the request. Felicia Winograd, 1680 Chipeta Road, approached the podium to speak about the proposed rezoning. She is a relatively new owner of this parcel and chose this property due to its location adjacent to the park system. Her biggest concern is that she will no longer have access to the park from her property and hopes the new developer will grant them access. When asked about the low density zoning, she stated she is not opposed to development. Garry Baker encouraged them to bring their detailed questions to City staff. Doug Glaspell added the City is only doing this to make the property available to sell, and there will be further public meetings at the time of development. Dee Marcus approached the podium to speak about the proposed zoning. Ms. Marcus stated she owns property at the south end of Sunset Mesa. Her lot and the surrounding lots are 4 acres, and she wonders how 7,500 square foot lots will blend in. Garry Baker answered in order to develop the property, the developer will need to do a similar notification about their specific plan and we don t know what that is going to be. They will be required to submit a sketch plan and there will be another meeting when that happens. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Josh Freed stated he felt R-2 zoning, depending on how it gets sketched out, is an appropriate designation. Gary Seitz stated he agrees with Josh. Josh Freed moved to recommend to City Council approval of R-2 zoning for RZ17-04, acres on top of Sunset Mesa known as Road. Karen Vacca seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. ANX17-03 MIAMI ROAD FARM ADDITION. This is a proposal for initial zoning of the proposed Miami Road Farm Addition. Miami Road Farm LLC is the applicant. Garry Baker introduced this item. All public requirements have been fulfilled and the official files and exhibits were entered into the record. This is a recommendation to City Council. This is a proposal for initial zoning. The property is not yet annexed into the City. The annexation hearing is scheduled to go to City Council next month. The Miami Road Farm Addition is located east of 6720 Road, between Miami Road and Sunnyside Road. The proposed zoning is R-3A Medium High Density District with B-4 Neighborhood Shopping District areas both on the north and south ends of the property. This annexation is initiated by the landowner and his intention is to develop the property. A

4 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 3 detailed map of the proposed development was not submitted with the annexation request. The current use is agricultural. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates most of the area of the Miami Road Farm Addition as Residential Mixed Density Medium. Neighborhood commercial nodes are not specifically located on the Miami Road Farm Addition, but commercial areas are designated nearby. Flexibility in small location adjustments for commercial areas such as these is needed in the implementation of a Comprehensive Plan. The landowner bought this property with the expectation, based on the Comprehensive Plan, to develop it as a residential area. It will be a different road network in the future where both 6700 and 6800 Roads will connect. The criteria is pretty simple for initial zoning and Staff is recommending approval of R-3A and B-4 zoning for the Miami Road Farm Addition. Garry Baker distributed some written testimony from neighbors to the Planning Commissioners, and the Commissioners took time to read the testimony. Doug Glaspell stated some concerns he read are about traffic, and asked if there is a plan for a traffic circle. Scott Murphy replied a roundabout at Miami and Hillcrest is in the works. Doug asked if traffic will be addressed. Garry Baker replied traffic will be addressed at the time of development. The developer declined to comment at this time. Chuck Terry, 3240 Holly Way, approached the podium to discuss the proposed initial zoning. His property is in the Columbine Point Subdivision, adjacent to this proposed annexation. Mr. Terry has concerns about high density zoning which might adversely affect the property values in the subdivisions around it. Gary Bell, 3225 Ivy Drive, approached the podium. Mr. Bell stated his opinion is that high-density urban development is nothing but slum development, adding apartment buildings in this community are all run down. He feels he does not want to live near people who do not care about their property and their type of lifestyle. Mr. Bell stated Don t have to worry about safety factor, guns are loaded and ready, we can take care of them ourself. Linda Mesaric, 300 Sage Drive, approached the podium. Ms. Mesaric is also concerned about the high density. She feels apartment buildings and small lots in a more rural setting are not ideal. Garry Baker was asked to address what can be built per acre in this zoning. Garry responded he has seen some conceptual plans for this project. What this zoning allows for is some flexibility, allowing single family homes, duplexes and multifamily residences. In terms of size, a single family home has a minimum of a 6,250 square foot lot, a duplex is 9,375 square feet, and the lot size requirement for multifamily is 2,900 square feet per unit. There is a 35-foot height limit in all zones. The developer will also have to provide for landscaping, parking, etc. Larry Simmons, 510 Holly Drive, approached the podium. Mr. Simmons is concerned about the zoning, as well as the height of the buildings. Garry Baker reiterated the height restriction is 35 feet for all residential development. Janet Eckert, Road, approached the podium. Ms. Eckert prepared a letter which she read to the Planning Commissioners. She is concerned about the B-4 and R-3A medium high zoning of 165 acres, and feels it is not compatible with what is already there. She is also concerned with the impact of additional traffic. She would like the developer to remove the 10 acres of B-4 zoning and make it low density residential, and would like the high density zoning to be reduced to a lower density zoning.

5 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 4 Lori Webb, 1140 Rossehl Lane, approached the podium. Ms. Webb stated the property being discussed is right across the road from her property. She does not have a problem with the development, but would like to see it be zoned R-1 or R-1A. She is concerned with traffic, who will pay for road improvements, and properties going down in value, among other concerns. She stated she feels the City is trying to make a lot of money off a little bit of land. Tim Judkins, 1580 Jupiter Road, approached the podium. He is currently building a home at Miami Road. Mr. Judkins thanked Janet for her comments. He said he showed up to get information. He is hoping to raise his children in a great environment. His concern is that the current zoning lacks taste or lacks the zoning that the local community would like to have. R-1 or R-2 might be more in line with the local environment. He does not feel all people who live in apartments are bad and you don t need to arm yourself, but at the same time these people are not staying home, they are getting up and driving to work. This could be a substantial impact to the roads. His other concern is lack of foresight of a commercial development area. The location seems like a dangerous prospect. He feels a more progressive development would put the commercial in a more central location. He requested the Planning Commission reject this proposal, and come back with some options that might make more sense for this community and the City in general from a population and traffic standpoint. John Renfrow approached the podium. Mr. Renfrow stated his father was the developer at Columbine Point, a neighboring subdivision. It took a lot of time to get the homeowners in the neighborhood together. He recommended the Commissioners take some time. When his father went through the process the first time it got denied, but they put some neighborhood meetings together and now Columbine Point has sold all but 2 lots. Garry Baker commented the City s Comprehensive Plan has had this area designated as urban for 20 or more years. Montrose is surrounded by large lot development. The City s need to grow can be stopped if we were to perpetuate that kind of development. Cities need areas to grow at urban densities. This is the reason there is a Comprehensive Plan. Brian Wachle, Road, approached the podium. Mr. Wachle is one of the partners in the new development. He stated he first wanted to listen to the comments, which he feels are very valid. Six generations of his family have lived and ranched in the area. For this project they looked at and followed the Comprehensive Plan and have really studied the code. They want nothing unsafe and are willing to do what it takes to make a safe city. There is no profit in low income cheap apartments and this has never been in the plan. When they get to the development stage the sketch plan will be out. He think it meets the master plan, and requests the Planning Commission approve the zoning. Lexie Stevensen, 1208 Peppertree Drive, approached the podium. Ms. Stevensen asked the Commissioners allow a show of hands to see how many people present do not want high density. Garry Baker stated he would discourage anything that encourages crowd dynamics. Under the public hearing format people should speak for themselves at the podium. Rich Webb, 6720 Road, approached the podium. Mr. Webb said he would like everyone to remember how long it took to get the roundabout in, and the mess it created in traffic. He feels there is no way to conceive how much traffic there is and how much traffic there will be. He encouraged everyone to go out there a look at the amount of traffic that goes through 6720 Road. He also wanted to point out there is commercial land over on Hillcrest, and nobody wants to build there. His point is if you cannot keep businesses in downtown, he doesn t feel businesses on 6720 Road will be successful. This is about being realistic about what is best for Montrose. He is not against growth but wants it done intelligently. He asked when the next meeting regarding this issue will be held. Garry Baker replied the annexation hearings are scheduled for June 6, 2017 and second reading on June 19, 2017 before the City Council.

6 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 5 Norm Stevenson, 6720 Road, approached the podium. Mr. Stevenson stated he wants to go on record to say he is highly opposed to high density zoning. He feels it is not suited for that area. Sharon Witte, 1141 Rossehl Lane, approached the podium. She would also like to be on record as opposed to high density and business zoning as well. Karen Vacca asked if the Planning Commission has any opportunity to not approve the full density. Garry Baker replied the Planning Commission has more than one option. They can make a recommendation, choose to continue the item to a future date, or recommend no action, which is essentially a denial. Since this is on track to be annexed, that is not a good option. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Josh Freed commented he does not feel no action is a good idea. The community needs to grow, but the community is not behind this yet. Josh said he is pro- development, but also pro-community. He feels he cannot get behind something with this much animosity behind it and would much rather continue this item. Gary Seitz commented he has similar concerns. He is wondering if high density, potentially apartments, is the right thing for this area. He is thinking R-2 zoning is more appropriate. Karen Vacca stated she thinks the density level is too high and is with community. She would like to take time to look at it more. Doug Glaspell commented there is also nearby R-3 zoning and has a problem with that much R-3A. He is not much concerned with the business zoning. Garry Baker mentioned the Planning Commission can recommend a lower density zone than what is presented. Garry explained difference between the R-3 and R-3A. Josh Freed stated he does not have a negative opinion on apartment buildings and townhomes, and feels we do need those. He does not believe apartments breed bad people. We want to make sure as a board that we are pro-development and pro-growth, but he is not a fan of on the fly changes for development. It can change the profitability of the project. Garry Baker suggested the Planning Commissioners ask to hear from the developer. Gary Seitz added he would like to hear from the developer. Doug Glaspell reopened the hearing and asked the developer to approach the podium. Brian Wachle stated he has no ability to figure out alternatives right now. Josh Freed asked Mr. Wachle if he felt continuing the request for zoning, giving them time to reevaluate the zoning request, was a potential solution. Mr. Wachle replied he will have to do more study and discuss it with his partners. There is a window of opportunity. Garry Baker asked what the preference would be for a continue date: June 14, 2017 or June 28, 2017, or could continue to some uncertain date. Josh Freed agreed with Brian that there is time and energy put into this and a there is a window of opportunity and after time momentum dies off. How fast can this be looked at. Brian replied they can probably move quickly. Ethel Brown, Del-Mont Consultants, approached the podium. Ms. Brown stated she is engineer for this project. The plan is just conceptual at this point and the reason they picked R-3A is because it is more

7 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 6 flexible. There is no plan at this time, and there will still be more public input involved. This meeting is strictly for the zoning. Ms. Brown added the traffic studies are done at peak travel times. Josh Freed said as a Planning Commission their job is to set the boundaries. There is still those use-byrights and conditional uses that are in there that have to be taken into consideration. We also have a plan in front of us we have to take into consideration, but it doesn t mean that plan can t shift, or change hands, etc., after the zoning is in place. Tim Judkins, 1580 Jupiter Road, approached the podium. Mr. Judkins stated he understands the engineer s statement, and that R-3A is just a maximum in terms of what can be put there. But the community is here as somewhat gatekeepers, just as you are on the board. Realizing it is just one step in the process, there is a possibility this land could change hands to a developer with a different outlook or vision for the property. He feels there has not been much study done yet, and it looks like it has been drawn up on a restaurant napkin with dollar signs in mind and not the best thing for Montrose. He feels it should be opposed because this is not the right thing for this community. Garry Baker said in terms of scheduling the options are we can continue to a specific date, and the idea is the zoning would be less intensive than what is shown, or there is a consensus that this is okay, or a decision of no action and the process will start all over, if and when the developer brings a new proposal. The earliest for the new proposal option would be June 28. The annexation is still on track for June 19, 2017, however, and zoning is required within 90 days. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Josh Freed moved for ANX17-03, Miami Road Farm Addition, seek a continuance to June 28, 2017, with the guidance that the R-3A and B-4 both be looked at for suggestions of a lower density of something more amenable to the community. Garry Baker clarified to the audience that what that motion means is this item will be heard at 5:00 on June 28, 2017, and no additional letters, signs or public notices in the paper will be made. This is the notice. Josh stated his reason for this is time and efficiency. We are not trying to stifle development. Gary Seitz seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. CUP17-01 LOT 2, WOODGATE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a senior living facility in an R-3 zone. James Rawson is the applicant. Ty Johnson introduced this item. All public requirements have been fulfilled and the official files and exhibits were entered into the record. This property is currently zoned R-3. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow multifamily housing. The future land map in the Comprehensive Plan has this property designated as Mixed Density Low. The existing zoning of R-3 would allow for duplex development with a setback of 15 feet from Odelle Road. Ty has received some concerns about view sheds, but the plan this developer has is to set the building back significantly from Odelle Road. The site development shows 48 units, 3 stories high, and pedestrian connections to Rainbow Meadows and Woodgate Road. There is a 35-foot height limit. Staff feels criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request, with a few conditions which have been discussed with the developer. The conditions are the developer will 1) provide a sidewalk at least 8-feet wide connecting the development to Rainbow Meadows to the south, 2) provide a sidewalk at

8 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 7 least 8-feet wide connecting the development to Woodgate Road, and 3) include a public access easement for those connections so that they are open to the public. Josh Freed asked if the property is actually in the middle of the field with farm land on either side. Ty replied he would let the developer address that specifically. Josh asked about the condition of a sidewalk to Rainbow Meadows. Ty replied there is dedicated park land in Rainbow Meadows that provides connections through the subdivision. The sidewalk will provide connectivity to the Rec Center. Josh asked what Odelle Road will look like. It is extremely undeveloped and what is the access road for the property. Scott Murphy replied there will increased loading enough to warrant a traffic study. Nothing definitive at this point. James Rawson, applicant on behalf of the owner of the 18 acres, approached the podium. They propose to develop a senior center for adults 55 years and older, which will be independent living not assisted living. There are two parcels. The parcel to the west is owned by someone else and is not part of this development. They are proposing to develop the west portion of their parcel. Mr. Rawson stated they are willing to do whatever is necessary along Odelle Road to make this development happen. Kim Holaday approached the podium. They started this project over a year ago, and originally it was to be duplexes. They made an application to CHAFA for affordable housing for seniors, which they have to qualify for. CHAFA feels seniors feel safer in a building together. So they revised their plan to meet CHAFA s request. However, the property is not zoned to accommodate multi-residence. They do not have a plan for the second half of the property at this time. There will be about 50 units, with a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units. It will be at low density and will not be a huge apartment complex. They conducted a neighborhood meeting and 10 neighbors showed up. They made a presentation and talked through their concerns. Gary Seitz asked if it will be 3 or 4 stories. The reply was it will be a 3-story building. Doug Glaspell asked what the distance will be to the building itself. Ty replied it is 300 feet from the center of Odelle Road to the building. Doug asked about the back property line, and the reply was 98 feet. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Gary Seitz stated he thinks it is a need for this community. We have a lot of seniors in Montrose. He likes the plan. Josh Freed stated his only hesitation is the large building, although cannot disagree with CHAFA s findings. It is tasteful and the pedestrian access will lighten the traffic load. Is it ideal for the neighborhood, no, but can we accept it, yes. Doug Glaspell stated the height, with the large setbacks, does not appear to him to be a problem. Gary Seitz moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions stated by Staff. Karen Vacca seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS None.

9 Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 8 NEXT TIME The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 14, ADJOURNMENT Gary Seitz moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Josh Freed seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ATTEST CHAIRPERSON

10 The minutes from the June 14, 2017 meeting will be available at a later date.

11 City of Montrose Planning Services Miami Road Farm Addition Initial Zoning PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE ENTER THE STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD. Proposal: The Miami Road Farm Addition is located east of 6720 Rd., between Miami Road and Sunnyside Road. The proposed zoning is R-3A Medium High Density District, and B-4 Neighborhood Shopping District.This annexation is initiated by the landowner and his intentions to develop the property. The current use is agricultural. See attached maps. Schedule of meetings: May 24, 2017: Planning Commission Zoning Hearing June 6: Annexation Hearing, 1st Reading of Annexation Ordinance, 1st Reading of Initial Zoning Ordinance June 19: 2nd reading of annexation & zoning ordinance Total Size: Approx. 165 acres Applicant: Israel Waitman Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Direction Zone Current Use North R-1A, R-1 Residential East County Residential Residential South &West County Residential Residential Staff Analysis: 1. Below is an excerpt with the applicable provision of the Municipal Code regarding the zoning of new annexations: Section, (B), Zoning of Additions: The Planning Commission shall recommend to the Council a zoning district designation for all property annexed to the City not previously subject to City zoning, and shall follow the review procedure set out in Section in arriving at its recommendation. Proceedings 1

12 concerning zoning of property to be annexed may be commenced at any time prior to the effective date of the annexation ordinance or thereafter. The zoning designation for newly annexed property shall not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare (emphasis added). 2. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates most of the area of the Miami Road Farm Addition as Residential Mixed Density Medium. This is consistent with the land use plan. Neighborhood commercial nodes are not specifically located on the Miami Road Farm Addition, but commercial areas are designated nearby. Flexibility in small location adjustments for commercial areas such as these is needed in the implementation of a Comprehensive Plan. Below is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Table: Land Uses Residential Mixed Density Medium: The majority of the mixed-density medium residential land uses are designated in areas that are not yet developed. This district provides for a variety of residential types, mixed within a neighborhood, including single-family homes, townhomes, duplexes and triplexes. Neighborhood Center: This designation is intended for small mixed use commercial uses such as limited convenience shopping, office and professional services and public facilities (elementary schools, parks) that serve the immediate neighborhood. This district is intended to consist of only one to five one or two story buildings to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. Buildings are encouraged to be mixed vertically with street level commercial and upper level office and/or residence and should be located at the intersections of major and minor roadways. Density DU/Acre Min.: 6 du/ac Max: 10 du/ac Avg: 8 du/ac Max: 6 du/ac B-4 Appropriate zones R-2, R-3, R- 3A 3. Staff believes that the zoning proposals are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The subject property is located within Growth Area 2, the area where infrastructure is in place, or nearby, and is suitable for urban levels of development. 5. Staff finds that the proposed annexation and zoning will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare, and is therefore consistent with Municipal Code requirements. 6. Staff have had indications that there will be neighborhood opposition to this proposal. However, it is important to note certain facts: a. This area has been a designated growth area for urban development since b. The land is privately owned with certain development options as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. c. The area is within the City s sewer and water service areas. d. The proposed R-3A zoning is contiguous with existing R-3A zoning to the south across Sunnyside Rd. 2

13 e. The street network as well as other urban services will be expanded to accommodate the development when appropriate. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of R-3A and B-4 zoning for the Miami Road Farm Addition. Garry Baker, Senior Planner May 24, 2017: Planning Commission June 6 & June 19, 2017: City Council 3

14 B-2 MIAMI ROAD FARM ADDITION Acres Proposed Zoning Map MHR RD B-2 HIGHWAY 50 B-2 B-2 B-2 SAG E DR M I IAM RD HOLLY WAY R-1B IV Y D R R-1B YARROW WAY P R RD 10 acres B-4 R-2 R-1 16 acres B acres R-3A R-3A RL RL R-1A SUNNYS IDE RD R-3A R-1A R-2 Le ge nd H yd ro l o gy _ li n e R-1B Sewer Line R-1A LAY ER IN F O_ ON L Y SS _ MA IN L IN E 3O R SS _ MA IN L IN E 3G P R-2 R-1B SS _ MA IN L IN E 3N V SS _ SE R V IC E3 N V AB AN D ON E D sd e.wat ER.LinesPip es <al l o th e r v a lu e s> R-3A Li ne U se R-1A R-1A ,300 HIL L ST FRE EDOM WAY H yd ra n t L in e Ir ri g ati o n Ma i n Li n e Se rv ic e L in e C IT Y O F M ON TR O SE ZO N IN G R-1A 6800 RD AMERICAN WAY RAV E NS Map created R-3A E AV R-2 AL NATALIA WAY NIAGARA RD R-2 Fir e L i n e Wa te r_ Pr o j7 _ L in e.l yr SENATE ST RI R-3A MO N RD R-2 By -P as s Stu b L in e CONGRESS ST ME CREST D R WAY WINDS OR Bl o w Off P, C i ty-o w n e d P ro p e rty R -1, Ve ry L o w D e n si ty R -1 A, L a rg e E sta te s R -1 B, S m a ll Es ta tes R -2, Lo w D e n s ity R -3, Me d i u m D e n s ity R -3 A, M e d iu m H i gh D e n s ity ( Ap ts.) R -4, H ig h D e n si ty (A p ts.) R -5, Lo w d e n si ty/m a n u fa ctu re d H o u si n g D i str ic t R -6, Me d i u m D e n s ity /Ma n u fa ctu re d H o u si n g D is tric t R-1A MH R, M o b il e H o me R e s id e n tia l R L, R u r al L iv in g OR, Offi ce /R e si d e nti a l B-1, C e n tra l Bu s in e ss B-2, H i g h w ay C o m me r ci a l B-2 A, R e g io n a l C o m m e rc ia l EL E C 1,950 B-3, G e ne r al C o m me r ci a l T IO B-4, N e i g hb o r ho o d S ho p p i n g NW I- 1, Li g h t In d u s tria l I- 2, Ge n e ra l In d u str ia l AY 2,600 Feet N ot Z on e d C ou n ty Pa rc e ls C IT Y L IM ITS Miami Road Farm Addition

15 2016 Comprehensive Plan FUTURE LAND USE Map MIAMI Miami Road Farm Addition 165 Acres MIAMI B-4 Area R-3A Area B-4 Area SUNNYSIDE 6700 Residential Mixed Density Low Residential Mixed Density Medium Downtown Mixed Density High Central Business Major Center 6800 Secondary Center Neighborhood Center* General Commercial Employment Center Miles k Urban Growth Boundary Future Community Park River Greenway Regional Park** City Limits Airport

16 City of Montrose Planning Services Staff Report Name of Proposal: CUP Location: Lot Size: Requested Action: 840 & 842 S 1 st St. (see maps) 1,875 square feet Conditional Use Permit to allow a multi-family development in the Office Residential (OR) zone Applicant/Owner(s): Karin Stanley Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: Zoning Land Use North: B-2 single-family residential South: OR single-family residential East: OR Park/Multi-Family West: B-2 Single-Family residential Background: Karin Stanley is applying for a conditional use permit to allow for a multi-family development for 840/842 S 1 st St. located in the OR zone. Karin is proposing to build a triplex with three garages located in the alley for parking. Analysis: Comp Plan: This property is designated as downtown mixed density high in the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Surrounding Uses/Context: The proposed use is in character with surrounding uses as it is adjacent to a multi-family apartment building and retail on nearby Main St. and the downtown corridor as a whole.

17 The conditional use criteria, outlined in of the Montrose zoning code, are as follows: (1) The use will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare. (2) The use is not materially adverse to the City s master plan. (3) Streets, pedestrian facilities, and bikeways in the area are adequate to handle traffic generated by the use with safety and convenience. (4) The use is compatible with existing uses in the area and other allowed uses in the district. (5) The use will not have an adverse effect upon other property values. (6) Adequate off-street parking will be provided for the use. (7) The location of curb cuts and access to the premises will not create traffic hazards. (8) The use will not generate light, noise, odor, vibration, or other effects which would unreasonable interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. (9) Landscaping of the grounds and the architecture of any buildings will be reasonably compatible with that existing in the neighborhood. Recommendation: Staff feels that the criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request with the following conditions Approval Motion Recommendation: I hereby make a motion to recommend approval of the variance. The variance application meets the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report. Denial Motion Recommendation: I hereby make a motion to recommend denial of the variance. The variance application does not meet the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report. Ty Johnson Planner I Planning Services June 28, 2017

18

19

20

21

22 City of Montrose Planning Services Staff Report Name of Proposal: VAR17-10 Location: Requested Action: 840 & 842 S 1 st St. (see maps) Variance from front setback requirement of 15 feet in the Office Residential (OR) zone Applicant/Owner(s): Karin Stanley Existing Zoning: OR Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: Zoning Land Use North: B-2 single-family residential South: OR single-family residential East: OR park/multi-family residential West: B-2 single-family residential Background: Karin Stanley is requesting a variance from the 15 foot front setback requirement in the OR zone to allow her proposed triplex to be located 5 feet from her front property line. Analysis: General: A five foot front setback with parking in the alley is a pedestrian friendly design that promotes walkability and conforms with the existing walkable character of downtown. The variance criteria, outlined in Section : (D) of the City of Montrose Zoning Regulations are as follows: (1) The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety and

23 welfare. (2) Unusual physical circumstances shall exist, such as unusual lot size or shape, topography, or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property, and violations of code shown by clear and convincing evidence that they were made in good faith, which make it unfeasible to develop or use the property in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter in question. (3) The unusual circumstances have not been created as a result of the action or Inaction of the applicants, other parties in interest with the applicant, or their or his predecessors in interest. (4) The variance requested is the minimum variance that will afford relief and allow for reasonable use of the property.. (5) The variance will not result in development incompatible with other property or buildings in the area, and will not affect or impair the value or use of development of other property. Recommendation: Staff feels all the criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request. Approval Motion Recommendation: I hereby make a motion to recommend approval of the variance. The variance application meets the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report. Denial Motion Recommendation: I hereby make a motion to recommend denial of the variance. The variance application does not meet the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report. Ty Johnson Planner I Planning Services June 28, 2017

24

25