CITY OF MONTROSE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 107 S Cascade Ave., Montrose, Colorado 5:00 p.m., July 26, 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 June 14, 2017 and June 28, 2017. 2. Additions or Deletions. 3. VAR17-11 LOT B-1, SUNRISE CREEK AMENDED (RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOT B), KNOWN AS 1805 S HILLCREST DR. This is a request for a variance from sign regulations. John Hatfield for San Juan Eye Center is the applicant. 4. VAR17-12 LOT 1 AND PART OF LOT 2, MONTROSE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPOMENT SUBDIVISION (COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE), KNOWN AS 100 APOLLO ROAD. This is a request for a variance from front setback requirements. DOWL for River Valley Family Health Center is the applicant. 5. Other Business. 6. Next Time August 9, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment.
The Montrose City Planning Commission held a meeting on June 14, 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. 24-6-401, et.seq.). PRESENT Doug Glaspell, Josh Freed, Karen Vacca, Anthony Russo, Tom Busker and City staff Garry Baker, Ty Johnson, Sharon Dunning, Christine Allen and Andrew Boyko, were present. ABSENT Gary Seitz, Scott Murphy GUESTS Janet Eckerdt, Jim Little, Larry Simmons, Ed DiCamillo CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Doug Glaspell called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the May 24, 2017 meeting were not available. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS Garry Baker stated for the record the original meeting agenda had an error stating the Miami Road Farm Addition continuation would be heard at this meeting. That item was continued to the June 28, 2017 meeting. An updated agenda was posted, and there were no changes to the updated agenda. VAR17-04 LOT 1, PINNEY MINOR SUBDVISION, KNOWN AS 230 S. SAN JUAN AVENUE. This is a request for a variance from rear setback requirements. James Little 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. The applicant s property is located on San Juan Avenue between South 3 rd and South 2 nd Streets. The applicant is requesting a variance from 4-4-22 (C)(2) of the zoning code to allow an
Planning Commission June 14, 2017 Page 2 accessory structure be less than 10 feet from the rear building line of the principal structure. The code states that accessory use structures or buildings in residential districts may be located on those rear and side property lines which do not abut a street if the structure is at least 10 feet from the rear building line of the principle structure and does not occupy more than 30 percent of the rear yard area. The applicant s lot does not allow for the accessory structure to adhere to that dimensional standard. Staff feels criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request. Doug Glaspell asked if the variance would include a condition to apply for a building permit within a one year time frame. Ty responded the variance can include that condition. James Little, 230 S San Juan Ave., approached the podium to speak in favor of the proposed variance. Mr. Little stated the house is set so far back on the lot that it does not allow the accessory structure to meet the requirements. Josh Freed asked about the support letter, and if there was anyone that did not want to sign it. Mr. Little stated he asked all adjoining neighbors, and everyone he asked signed the letter. They were all in support. The two adjoining neighbors have garages on their property lines. Josh asked about setbacks from other properties, and if those other structures are on the property line, will there be buildings against each other. Mr. Little stated the garages on the adjacent properties are on the other sides of the properties from his. He added he is adhering to the side setback requirement. Anthony Russo asked what is behind the applicant s property. The reply was that it is a residence in a single family housing subdivision. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Josh Freed moved to approve VAR17-04 for Lot 1, Pinney Minor Subdivision known as 230 S San Juan Ave., a variance to rear setback requirements, because the Planning Commission believes the request meets the criteria, with the condition the applicant apply for a building permit within one year. Anthony Russo seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. ANX17-06 PANORAMA VIEW ADDITION. This is a proposal for initial zoning for the proposed Panorama View Addition. Tim and Sarah Judkins are the applicants. 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 for initial zoning to City Council. The Panorama View Addition property is approximately 8 acres located at 67074 and 67078 E Miami Road, located southeast of the intersection of 6700 Road and Miami Road. The current use is agricultural and residential. This property is in the process of annexation, and the property
Planning Commission June 14, 2017 Page 3 owner is currently building a single family home. The annexation was triggered by the IGA with Montrose County, referring development proposals to the City. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the area of the Panorama View Addition as Residential Mixed Density Low. The property is surrounded by City limits. The requested zoning is R-1A, which is lower density than all the zoning around it. Staff feels the criteria have been met and is recommending approval of R-1A zoning for the Panorama View Addition. Tom Busker asked if there is a problem if the house being built is permitted in the County. Garry stated the permit was issued in the City, in partnership with the agreement with the County to not slow up the process for people who want to build one house. Tom asked if it will then not matter if the annexation happens or not. Garry replied the owners have signed an agreement to annex their property into the City and it is now out of their hands. The City will follow through and annex the property. Josh Freed asked about the R-1A zoning and the density of the property to the north, and if it is more appropriate to be matching the zoning. Garry stated he had conversations with property owners and they had no desire for more dense zoning. They are also be doing an administrative plat, and will be making the other property a little smaller. They want to do nothing more than build a house. Doug Glaspell asked if this also provides access to sewer. Garry stated they could but the City is not requiring they connect to the sewer. It is not practical as it would need to cross other properties on a large lot for one house. Ed DiCamillo, 67054 E Miami, approached the podium to speak about the proposed initial zoning. He is wondering what affect the annexation of this property will have on his property. Garry said Mr. DiCamillo s property is not part of this annexation at all. However, the City does have the authority to annex his property, as well as a couple of other pieces. Those properties are surrounded by City, and by state law the City has the authority to annex them. The City has chosen not to do so, but it is a possibility in the future. Mr. DiCamillo stated he does not want annexed into the City due to some restrictions. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Josh Freed stated he is wondering if in 10 years this property is going to request higher density zoning. Garry Baker stated the property owner made it very clear what their plans are. Tom Busker asked if there is any information on extending 6700 Road to Miami Road. Garry Baker said the City has a preliminary design for 6700 Road from Highway 50 at least to Ogden Road. It may have a roundabout. No roads are planned to be 4 lanes. Josh Freed moved to recommend to City Council that ANX17-06, Panorama View Addition, be zoned R-1A, Large Estate District. Anthony Russo seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission June 14, 2017 Page 4 OTHER BUSINESS None. NEXT TIME The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2017. ADJOURNMENT Anthony Russo moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:27 p.m. Karen Vacca seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ATTEST CHAIRPERSON
The Montrose City Planning Commission held a meeting on June 28, 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. 24-6-401, et.seq.). PRESENT Josh Freed, Karen Vacca, Anthony Russo, Gary Seitz, Tom Busker and City staff Garry Baker, Scott Murphy, Ty Johnson, Sharon Dunning, Christine Allen and Andrew Boyko were present. ABSENT Doug Glaspell GUESTS Mary and Dean Hall, Hedwig English, David and Sandra Geer, Lori Webb, Darryl Carlson, James Richardson, Lyle Clugg, Janet Eckerdt, Stan and Linda Regensberg, Art and Carol Towers, Sharan and Ken Witte, Elaine Moore, Brady Bennett, Val Doman, Ben and Maureen Burnet, Larry and Marty Simmons, Vickie Marietta, Rick Carson, Donald Hall, Les Gofforth, Elain and Randy Rowan, Mario Capolarello, Bill Haddock, Paul Lewis, Krista Thompson, Jerilyn Sheldon, Carolyn English, Nancy and Alec Grindleay, Gary and Louise Bell, Paul Magnani, Harold and Kathy Wacker, Fred and Debbie Matheny, Tessa Cheek, Ron and Barb Abbott, Bob and Rose Ann Owen, Bryce and Sara Lokey, Karin Stanley, Steve Niehoff, Tom Cheney, Dean Miller, Norm Stevenson, David Storter, Karen and Charles Terry, Linda George, Fred and Judy Ottman, Linda and Frank Mesaric, Chuck and Keri Alexander, Bill Faragher, Molly Lewis, W.D. Hess. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Josh Freed called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Anthony Russo moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2017 meeting as presented. Gary Seitz seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. The minutes for the June 14, 2017 meeting were not available. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS There were no changes to the agenda.
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 2 ANX17-03 MIAMI ROAD FARM ADDITION. This is a continuation of the 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. Garry addressed the audience to clarify that despite the naming convention on the agenda calling this an annexation, the Planning Commission s authority on annexations is purely for zoning. This item is a zoning request only, and is continued from the May 24, 2017 meeting. Ethel Brown, Del Mont Consultants, approached the podium, stating she was there on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Brown stated the applicant has decided to withdraw the application for zoning at this time in order to have time to meet with the neighbors and address some of their questions. The applicant will be submitting a new application for zoning, which will include new noticing. The applicant will also be asking City Council for a continuance on the second reading of annexation ordinance in order to accommodate the time necessary to schedule the community meetings. Garry Baker explained after there has been an opportunity to meet with the neighbors, a new zoning application will be submitted. There will be new noticing for the Planning Commission meeting, which means all property owners within 100 feet will get letters, a new sign will be posted, and a public notice will be placed in the paper. Josh Freed suggested everyone take the opportunity to meet with the developer. We want to see growth, but we want to see growth that the community can support. CUP17-02 LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 20, TOWN OF MONTROSE, KNOWN AS 840/842 S 1 st STREET. This is a request for a conditional use permit to build a multi-family residence in an OR zone. Karin Stanley 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. The applicant, Karin Stanley, is applying for a conditional use permit to allow for a multi-family development at 840/842 S 1 st Street located in the OR Office Residential zone. Ms. Stanley is proposing to build a triplex with three garages located in the alley for parking. This property is designated as downtown mixed density high in the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is in character with surrounding uses as it is adjacent to a multi-family apartment building and retail on nearby Main Street and the downtown corridor as a whole. Staff feels the criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request. Tom Busker asked staff if there are any off-street parking problems, or if the 3 garages meet the requirements. Ty Johnson replied the proposed project would be required to meet the off-street parking requirement, and the concept as is does meet the requirement. Karin Stanley, Ridgway, Colorado, approached the podium to speak in favor of the proposed conditional use permit. Ms. Stanley stated she felt staff summarized the project well. She said
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 3 she would be happy to answer questions from the neighbors, and that the parking requirements were taken care of. Karen Vacca had some questions on the site drawing which were clarified. Erica Lewis Kennedy, 331 Pine View Drive, approached the podium. She stated she is the current power of attorney for 833 S 2 nd Street. Ms. Kennedy said she had requested a copy of the application from the City and did not receive one. She was able to download the packet from the City s website, however, there was now new information that wasn t posted. She was told the new information had only just arrived at the meeting. Ms. Kennedy stated she was concerned whether the applicant was the owner of the property, when the public notice letters were mailed to the neighboring property owners, if the property could be subdivided once it was built and then be sold as separate properties, and whether a survey and utility locate was done on the property. Garry Baker responded there is no minimum requirement for mailing of the letters in the code and the property could potentially be subdivided as townhouses or condominiums once it was built. Ty Johnson responded that survey and utility locates are not required for, or relevant to, a conditional use permit hearing. Ms. Kennedy went on further to express her concern that the site drawing was done by hand and not to scale, and on the application it states the alley is 20 feet wide, when she measures it to be 17 feet. She feels there will be a problem with turning radius and cars backing. Ms. Kennedy presented pictures of the alley to the Planning Commissioners (Exhibit A). Ty stated whether the drawing was to scale or not was not a requirement of the conditional use permit application. If this project goes forward, the parking and maneuvering space will all be part of the site development process and will be held to the City s standards. Ms. Kennedy asked if the conditional use permit and the variance are passed, would those deeds or restrictions be tied to the property. Her concern is the property could be sold and a different project built without further public comment. Andrew Boyko stated a conditional use permit historically runs with the land but is subject to conditions and can be revoked if those conditions are violated. Ms. Kennedy stated she was speaking on behalf of the owners of 833 S 2 nd Street and that they are in strong objection to this development as presented and asked the Planning Commission to turn down both the conditional use permit and the variance at this time. Janet Eckerdt, 14515 6750 Road, approached the podium. Her family s trust owns the house at 832 S 1 st Street, which is directly adjacent to the applicant s property. Her concerns are the density and the size of the lot, parking issues, and the narrow alley. She asked what the setback will be for the new building because she thinks the existing building is close to their common property line. Ty responded there is a 5 foot setback in this residential zone that will be enforced. Ms. Eckerdt said she would like to go on record to state she appreciates the applicant s efforts to do something nice. Anthony Russo clarified that this meeting is to decide whether to make a concession for a multifamily building on this lot. Ty stated that is correct, and it could not be more than a triplex given the size of the lot. A duplex is a use by right for this zone. Krista Thompson, 835 S 2 nd St, approached the podium to discuss the proposed conditional use permit. She owns the property behind the property being discussed. She wants to reiterate that
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 4 it is a dead-end alley and so a lot of traffic ends up pulling in to her lot to turn around. She also has a problem with the noise, and is concerned about 3 units with 3 garages. She asked when there will be other hearings regarding this property. Garry Baker responded there will not be any more public meetings on this. If a decision is made tonight the rest would be purely administrative. The public is always welcome to discuss any application with City staff. Brian Wachle, 16370 6420 Road, approached the podium. Mr. Wachle stated he has two buildings in downtown Montrose. He feels there must be room for the triplex or the applicant would not be trying to do that, but there may need to be some adjustments in the parking. He would support this project as long as they can show the lot and the square footage works with some adjustment to the parking. He feels it will be a bonus to the area. Molly Lewis, 833 S 2 nd St, approached the podium to speak about the proposed conditional use permit. She stated she has lived there for 24 years. She thinks it is a noisy neighborhood now with the hospital helicopter and the Horsefly Pub. She wants to go on the record as being very much against the density, is against having a triplex, and is against the conditional use permit and the variance. Karin Stanley, applicant, returned to the podium to address a few comments. She explained the property was acquired through a 1031 exchange and per her attorney the ownership was transferred to KJS Real Estate LLC. She is the sole owner of the LLC and said she has no intention of selling the property. Ms. Stanley discussed the parking, and that she has changed the plan to three 1.5 car garages, giving a little more maneuverability in the alley. Regarding the noise, she feels the nature of the triplex would attract a different kind of clientele and combined with a newer building the noise emanating from the property will not be as great. She had the property surveyed and discussed the property lines and setback questions. Tom Busker asked if the provisions of 1031 force her to build a triplex. Ms. Stanley replied no, she could build only a duplex, or even leave it as is, but she was trying to address the supposed need of more housing density in the core of old downtown. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Anthony Russo commented the motion should address the ownership of the property as a condition. Andrew Boyko suggested they could impose a certain condition that would restrict it until it is actually fulfilled. Once fully granted and they qualify for those conditions it does run with the land. The Planning Commissioners discussed the proposed conditional use. Gary Seitz stated he feels there is a great need for rental units in the downtown core and would support this with certain conditions, but does understand the parking concerns. He feels it is more beneficial to put in the triplex than to do nothing. Tom Busker also feels greater density downtown is good, but doesn t think putting in a triplex that compounds problems is a good idea. He does not feel he can support the conditional use permit. Josh Freed said we re looking at approving a conditional use and we need to focus on what it is. We re not talking about site plans or any of that. If we look at criteria number 3: are streets, pedestrian pathways and bikeways adequate to handle traffic generated by the use with safety and convenience, and we feel that it is okay then I think we proceed. If we do not then we need
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 5 to take it back to the drawing board. Josh added he can support the request with some restrictions. Karen Vacca agreed with Josh, stating she feels all the parking problems can be taken care of if they rearrange the site. Gary Seitz moved to approve CUP17-02 for Lots 1-3, Block 20, Town of Montrose, known as 840 and 842 S 1 st Street, a conditional use permit to allow a multi-family residence in an OR zone, because the Planning Commission feels it meets the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report, with the conditions that the applicant apply for a building permit within one year, and the site plan meet the requirements designated by City staff. Anthony Russo seconded. There were 4 votes for the motion. Tom Busker voted against it. The motion carried. 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. Ty Johnson introduced this item. All public requirements have been fulfilled and the official files and exhibits were entered into the record. This is for the same applicant and property as the previous item. 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. This type of urban design with a 5 foot front setback with parking in the rear is a very pedestrian friendly design. It is something that promotes walkability and conforms to the existing character of downtown. Staff feels all the criteria have been met and recommends approval of the request. Karen Vacca asked how the extra footage up front is really going to help, unless it is going to be used as garage space in the back. The question was referred to the applicant. Karin Stanley, Ridgway, Colorado, approached the podium to speak in favor of the proposed variance. Ms. Stanley stated the variance was actually suggested to her by the Planning Staff so that the total area of the garages would not occupy more than 30 percent of the backyard space. Her reason for shrinking the garages was to gain more backyard space. She has been adjusting to try to get as much of everything as she can in the space, including parking and landscaping. She thinks what she has now makes it all work. Anthony asked staff about the 30 percent back yard space, and if it would be possible to bring the garages forward to give more room in the alley, or if that would need another variance. Tom then asked if that would allow them to make the building bigger. Ms. Stanley replied she has no interest in expanding the building. What she is not clear on is if there could be a variance of the 30 percent rule. Ty replied the applicant could move the garages forward and it would help in the alley. If necessary the applicant could apply for a variance from the 30 percent dimensional requirement in addition to this variance. Josh asked the applicant if there is a 5-foot front setback would she be interested to look at the idea of easing the property to the rear. The applicant stated yes there would be maybe another 5 feet in the back if the 5 foot setback in the front is approved.
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 6 Erica Lewis Kennedy, 833 S 2 nd Street, approached the podium stating she would ask the Planning Commission to vote against the variance. She said unless there is a condition with this variance, there is nothing legally binding them to move the garages forward and this is the only time that the public can weigh in. She did agree that moving the garages forward would ease some pressure in the alley but stated she was nervous without the actual schematics. Kristy Thompson, 835 S 2 nd Street, approached the podium. She feels moving the garages forward from the alley may ease the issue a bit, but she still feels the traffic in the alley will be a problem. Since it is a one-way alley she feels there will be encroachment on her property. Scott Murphy was asked to weigh-in on anything being done about alleys. Scott stated work was being done on a case by case situation. They are looking very closely at access but there some things they cannot do. They are trying to pave one alley a year to try to improve the roads. Widths are generally bound, and the standard is usually 20 feet wide but functionally sometimes ends up at 17 or 18 feet because of power poles. Anytime they do improvements in alleys they are replacing utilities. Generally there is a big backlog for improvement work in alleys. Gary Seitz asked if the Planning Commission were to approve this 5 foot front setback, could they make a condition that the garages be pushed forward. Garry Baker stated that if the applicant is okay with it, he would suggest they put a condition of a 10 foot setback from the alley right-of-way line on the back. Josh asked if there was a turnaround spot at the end of the alley. Erica Lewis Kennedy returned to the podium to answer the question. She stated the City of Montrose placed 3 or 4 large rocks at the end of the alley, and there is a gas locate pole and three DMEA power poles. Garry Baker stated there is a row of trash cans on the south side of the alley that are well off of the fence. If the fence is on the right of way, those cans are at least 5 feet into the alley creating a big constriction. Molly Lewis, 833 S 2 nd Street, approached the podium. She stated if the cans are right on the fence the garbage collectors will damage it because they have to lift up and swing out. She returns the cans to the fence after the garbage truck is gone. She stated she is 72 years old and cannot haul the heavy cans out to the front in the snow. Josh asked her if she has an opinion on the front setback issue. She stated she doesn t want anything coming back to the alley. Brian Wachle, 16370 6420 Road, approached the podium. Mr. Wachle discussed having similar problems with his property and the alley. They realized their building is right on the right-ofway line. He stated it sounds like there is encroachment into the alley if it is only 17 feet, because the City owns 20 feet. Some people may be trespassing on City s ground. Erica Lewis Kennedy returned to the podium to make another statement. She stated the utility poles and the City of Montrose fiber optic are within the 17 feet. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Tom Busker asked Scott if problems in downtown alleys have been solved with signage. Scott said he has a strong feeling about signage. Studies show that signage can help about 10 percent, and generally people are going to do what they re going to do. This alley already has a no outlet
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 7 sign. Tom asked if the sign makes it a ticketable offense and was told no, not at this time. We would have to adopt another ordinance to make it so. Anthony stated he thinks the Planning Commission is in a position to put a condition on the variance to move the garages back from the alley. Gary Seitz said he agreed; it will give them more flexibility in the back. Josh, Tom and Karen agreed as well. Josh stated he thinks it s good that we can take some pressure off the back by bringing it closer to the front. Anthony asked to have the applicant state for the record that this idea is okay prior to the motion. The applicant was requested to return to the podium. Karin Stanley returned to the podium. Josh asked her if it were a stipulation of the variance to use the front setback to ease pressure on the back, would that allow her project to move forward. Ms. Stanley replied that would be just fine, stating they were absolutely right; it will ease the pressure in the back. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed again. Gary Seitz moved to approve VAR17-10 for Lots 1-3, Block 20, Town of Montrose, known as 840/842 S 1 st Street, a variance from front setback requirements from 15 to 5 feet, because the Planning Commission feels it meets the Code criteria based on the testimony presented at this hearing and in the staff report, with the conditions that the rear setback from the garage to the rear property line be a minimum of 10 feet, and the applicant apply for a building permit within one year. Anthony Russo seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS None. NEXT TIME The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2017. ADJOURNMENT Gary Seitz moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:24 p.m. Karen Vacca seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ATTEST CHAIRPERSON
Planning Commission June 28, 2017 Page 8 EXHIBIT A PICTURES OF ALLEY
City of Montrose Planning Services Staff Report Name of Proposal: VAR17-11 Location: Requested Action: 1805 Hillcrest Dr. (see maps) Variance from sign regulations to allow for two freestanding signs on one parcel Applicant/Owner(s): John Hatfield Existing Zoning: B-4 Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: Zoning Land Use North: P/R-2 park/single-family residential South: B-4 single-family residential East: B-4 vacant West: P vacant Background: John Hatfield is applying for a variance from sign regulations to allow for two freestanding signs on one parcel for the future San Juan Eye Center at 1805 Hillcrest Dr. Existing sign regulations limit each parcel to have no more than one freestanding sign. Analysis: General: 1805 Hillcrest has frontage on two City streets which allow the lot to have one additional secondary sign for a total of two primary signs and two secondary signs for a total of 260 square feet. The Hillcrest extension connecting Niagara to Oak Grove will bring increased traffic to the Hillcrest frontage of the San Juan Eye Center.
The sign variance criteria, outlined in Section 4-4-28: (D) of the City of Montrose Zoning Regulations are as follows: (1) The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. (2) The variance requested is the minimum variance that will afford relief. (3) The variance will not result in signage incompatible with other properties in the area and will not affect or impair the value, use of development of such properties. (4) Strict compliance with the regulation presents practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, and the variance sought falls within the spirit of the sign code as a whole.. 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 July 26, 2017
City of Montrose Planning Services Staff Report Name of Proposal: VAR17-12 Location: Requested Action: 100 Apollo Rd. (see maps) Variance from front setback requirement Applicant/Owner(s): Dowl Engineering Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: Zoning Land Use North: B-3 Vacant South: I-1 US Western Area Power Administration East: R-2 Single-Family Residential West: I-1 Rocky Mountain Therapy Services Background: Dowl Engineering is applying for a variance from front setback requirements of 25 in the B-3 zone to allow the front façade of the building to be located 23.5 feet from the front property line. The former building of the Montrose Athletic Club is being renovated and turned into the River Valley Family Health Center. As a result, the developer is working with the existing structure which is located on the setback line. The developer is adding a front vestibule to upgrade architecture of the building which will encroach 18 into the setback. Analysis: The variance criteria, outlined in Section 4-4-28: (D) of the City of Montrose Zoning Regulations are as follows: (1) The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety and 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 July 26, 2017
CONTINUOUS HANDRAIL/GUARDRAIL WITH GLAZED PANEL INFILL 20698 VESTIBULE LANTERN. STORFRONT AND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL 25' - 0" SETBACK BOARD FORMED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE RAMPS AND PLANTERS W WATER ENTRY STAIRS 01 DN TLT TLT CIRCULATION TLT ELEV VESTIBULE VITALS A HSKP UC EXAM 01UC EXAM 02 UC EXAM 03 WAITING AREA GREAT HALL CIRCULATION 20' SHELLED IT CONFERENCE BREAKROOM / KITCHEN OPEN OFFICE STAIRS 02 WAITING TLT LAB B UC PROVIDERS RECEPTION EXAM ROOM 08 VITALS B EXAM ROOM 09 EXAM ROOM 07 CIRCULATION UC EXAM 04 CONSULT EXAM ROOM 01 COPY / STORAGE TLT STORAGE EXAM ROOM 02 SHELLED HR OFFICE CIRCULATION TLT TLT LAB A DN PROVIDERS EXAM ROOM 03 15' EXEC OFFICE 01 BOILER ELECTRICAL STAIRS 03 PROCEDURE EXAM ROOM 05 EXAM ROOM 06 EXAM ROOM 04 15' UTILITY EASEMENT EXEC OFFICE 02 EXEC OFFICE 03 EXEC OFFICE 04 E E E G T 206 River Valley Family Health Center, Montrose Renovation PROJECT NUMBER: 16457.00 DATE: May 30, 2017 MAIN LEVEL PLAN COPYRIGHT 2016 - DAVIS PARTNERSHIP, P.C.
CORRUGATED METAL PANEL ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL VESTIBULE LANTERN. STORFRONT AND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL ROOF TOP UNIT SCREEN, CORRUGATED METAL PANEL CONTINUOUS 'EYEBROW' CANOPY OVER RAMP BRICK TO REMAIN TO BE CLEANED NEW INSULATED GLAZING, TYPICAL 1 AXONOMETRIC 01 - VIEW FROM NORTHWEST 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONTINUOUS HANDRAIL/GUARDRAIL WITH GLAZED PANEL INFILL BOARD FORMED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE RAMPS AND PLANTERS 2 AXONOMETRIC 02 - VIEW FROM NORTHEAST 1 1/2" = 1'-0" River Valley Family Health Center, Montrose Renovation PROJECT NUMBER: 16457.00 DATE: May 30, 2017 AXONOMETRICS COPYRIGHT 2016 - DAVIS PARTNERSHIP, P.C.