HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/02/2002Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Bernth, Torgerson, Colton, Carpenter, Craig, and Gavaldon.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Waido, Jones, Shepard, Barkeen, and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the August 16 and October 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings.
2. #14-02 PFA Station #14, Project Development Plan.
Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a
recommendation to City Council on the following item:
3. #"2 Poudre School District & Timbers PUD, Annexation and Zoning.
Discussion Agenda:
4. #11-02 Liberty Common School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review.
5. #18-02 Caribou Apartments, Modification of Standard.
6. #20-02 Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards.
Member Craig pulled Item #2, PFA Station #14, Project Development Plan, from the
consent agenda for discussion.
Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 1 and 3. Member Craig
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
Member Craig commended Georgiana Deines for her hard work and accuracy on the
October 18, 2001 meeting minutes.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 2
Project: PFA Station #14, Project Development Plan, File #14-
02
Project Description: Request for a 7,700 square foot fire station on a
38,659 square foot lot in the Westchase
Development. The property is located at the
southeast corner of Timberline Road and Westchase
Road and is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood. The request includes a request for
modification of Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use
Code.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig stated that her concern was the placement of a fire station, a public
facility, in a neighborhood center. She questioned whether or not that met the intent of
the neighborhood centers which are to have community facilities rather than public
facilities.
City Planner Troy Jones replied that there had previously been several plans on the site
and that a church is still possibly planned for the site. He stated that the neighborhood
center that ended up getting approved as part of the plan showed two separate uses of
the neighborhood center, labeling the northern piece as a fire station and the southern
piece as a day care center or other approved use. The site is labeled as a neighborhood
center, 2.36 acres, City fire station and day care center or other allowable uses as
defined in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Member Craig stated that she interpreted the language slightly differently and wondered
if the fire station was required to go in the site.
Planner Jones replied that if the PFA had not chosen to purchase the site and the
developer needed to sell it to someone else, the language would have allowed it to
become something else as long as it continued to be one of the uses listed as
permissible neighborhood center uses.
Member Craig stated that both the staff report and Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
cite 'community facilities." The Land Use Code does not list a fire station as a
community facility but as a public facility. The point of the neighborhood center is to
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 3
provide a place where neighbors can gather, in some way, and this may not provide
that. Member Craig stated concern about blurring the line between community and
public facilities and stated that opening the door for a public facility to be placed in a
neighborhood center could result in the loss of purpose for a neighborhood center. She
asked if there was perhaps a community room at the fire station that would be open to
the neighbors to use.
Planner Jones showed a graphic from the original land planners who had done the
original neighborhood center as it was approved with the original Westchase
development. The original sketches showed an outdoor gathering space.
Member Craig asked what the size of that space was.
Planner Jones replied that he was unsure but the criteria for the outdoor gathering
space isn't very specific about the size, it just says "a publicly -accessible outdoor space
such as a park plaza, pavilion, or courtyard shall be included within or adjacent to every
neighborhood center to provide a focal point for such activities as outdoor gatherings,
neighborhood events, picnicking, sifting, and passive and active recreation." The issue
of size, therefore, never came up.
Joe Carter, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that
the PFA applicant, engineers, and architect are present. He corrected the staff report
stating that the footprint of the structure is 7,700 square feet; the entire size of the
structure is larger. He stated that the use is allowed in the LMN zone. The fire station
was approved when the Westchase Filing One PUD was approved.
Bob Poncelow, Poudre Fire Authority, stated that this station would be a prototype
design station developed in a cost -saving effort. He stated that the building of Fire
Station #10 included a community room in the basement which has a capacity of about
50 people and is equipped with AN equipment, tables and chairs, and is available for
use by the community for free. He stated that the room is heavily used, a lot by the
homeowners associations and other neighborhood groups. The same thing was done at
Station #12, with a walk -out basement, which is also heavily used. With this success,
the Board of Directors has specified that the prototype design would continue with the
community room. This station will not have a walk -out basement but will have a
wheelchair lift to make it ADA compliant. The room will be available, free of charge, for
the community to use. Mr. Poncelow added that firefighters tend to think of the station
as their second home and are usually very involved in the community and neighborhood
around the station. The PFA has a policy of "community fire stations."
Public Input
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 4
There was no public input
Public Input Closed
Member Craig stated that she would support the PDP, after hearing Mr. Poncelow's
comments. She did ask staff to look into her concerns about the community versus
public facilities issue.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of the modification of standards
to Section 3.5.3 (13)(2)(a) request for the PFA Station #14, citing the reasons in the
staff report.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of PFA Station #14, Project
Development Plan, File #14-02.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Colton stated that he appreciated Mr. Poncelow's discussion of the community
rooms and was glad to see that as part of the project.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Liberty Common School Addition, Site Plan Advisory
Review, File #11-02
Project Description: Request to construct a 19,000 square foot
gymnasium and foyer addition to the existing school
building. Located at 1725 Sharp Point Drive, within
the Prospect Park East Business Park and zoned I,
Industrial.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 5
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Chairperson Gavaldon noted that the Board would need to make a motion to rescind
their April 4, 2002 hearing vote of denial on this project before any testimony could be
heard.
Attorney Eckman pointed out that the Board would need to make certain that the
applicant is willing to waive the 30-day time limit that has passed. Without the waiver of
that time limit, Attorney Eckman stated that the Board would be ill-advised to rescind
their prior decision.
Member Bernth moved to rescind the April 4, 2002 vote on the Liberty Common
School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review, File #11-02.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion.
City Planner Bob Barkeen gave a brief staff presentation. He stated that the Planning
and Zoning Board had denied this project at the April 4, 2002 hearing by a unanimous
vote. He stated that the proposal is for a 19,000 square foot gymnasium and foyer
addition to the school, located at 1725 Sharp Point Drive. Planner Barkeen showed the
proposed site plan and elevations. He stated that the plans had changed since the April
hearing, dealing mostly with the addition building facing. He stated that the new materia
will be tilt -up concrete panel construction, with the exception of the foyer. Previously, it
was just going to be painted. The applicant is now also adding some brick facing to the
southern elevation. The foyer addition will also be faced with brick accents.
Peter Cast, president of the Colorado non-profit organization that owns the building and
leases it to the school, stated that the applicant is willing to waive the 30-day time
period.
Mark Osborn, The Neenan Company, gave the applicant's presentation. He presented
the Board with a materials board displaying the proposed materials to be used on the
addition. He showed slides of the previously -proposed images as well as the new
images. He stated that he hoped the Board would reconsider their vote and hoped the
compromise would work.
Mr. Cast stated that the addition is a combination gymnasium and multi -purpose room.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 6
Public Input
John Slack, WW Reynolds Companies, 1600 Specht Point Drive, gave his input to the
Board. He stated that he was representing the architectural review committee for the
area and he proposed approval of the project as submitted. He stated that the
committee had recommended the brick additions which have been adopted.
Public Input Closed
Member Craig asked about the colors on the materials board versus the ones on the
slides. '
Mr. Osborn replied that some of the digitizing process did not allow the colors to come
through appropriately. The colors will compliment the red brick.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if this property was in the E — Employment, or I —
Industrial zone, and what the percentage is if it is split.
Planner Barkeen replied that the parcel is split pretty much in half between E and I. He
reminded the Board that this is a site, location, and extent review and it was not
reviewed based on the specific standards within either of the zone districts.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the applicant considered expanding the brick around the
other two sides of the building, giving it more compatibility to the existing building.
Mr. Osborn replied that there is currently only a limited quantity of the matching brick in
existence. A non -matching brick would have to be used to enlarge the brick area.
Another option is to wait until more of the matching brick is produced.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the applicant would be open to adding more of the
matching brick.
Mr. Osborn replied that there is also a cost issue with adding more brick.
Mr. Cast stated that more brick could not be added and still have the project completed
in the summer.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the paint was 10-year or 20-year paint
Mr. Osborn replied that it is a minimum of 10.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 7
Mr. Cast stated that the other consideration on the west side of the building was the
distance from any public sidewalk. There is over 200 feet of space and it is right next to
the loading access for the building. It seemed that brick may not need to be used in that
area. He added that on the corners of the building where there is paint and not brick,
there is more landscaping.
Member Carpenter asked if all the paint would be texturized.
Mr. Osborn replied that both would be.
Member Carpenter stated that it would look much better with the textured finish as
opposed to flat. She stated that she would support the project because the applicant
has solved most of the problems to make the building compatible.
Member Bernth stated that this will be an improvement over most of the buildings in the
area and he would also support the project.
Member Meyer stated that she would support the project but stated that, in general, the
charter schools need to bring enough information to the Board to allow them to make a
good decision.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the project based on the
improvements. He added that there is still room for improvement despite cost and time,
which are not factors considered by the Board.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that the civic pride about the architecture of schools
has dwindled and this school was no exception, but the project does meet the location,
character, and extent standards under the purview of the Board.
The motion to rescind was approved 7-0.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Liberty Common School Addition, Site
Plan Advisory Review, File #11-02, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in
the staff report.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that this project did not raise the bar as high as she would have
liked to have seen it, architecturally. She stated concern about building buildings quickly
despite what the look like.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked someone to check on the life of the paint
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 8
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Caribou Apartments, Modification of Standard, File
#18-02
Project Description: Request for modification to Section 4.22(D)(2) of the
Land Use Code to permit a secondary use within the
Employment Zone District to occupy 100% of the land
area within a development plan, in excess of the 25%
permitted. The site is located at the southwest corner
of Timberline Road and Caribou Drive.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearino Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
City Planner Bob Barkeen gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He
stated that this modification request is for a residential project. The project is located at
the southwest corner of Timberline Road and Caribou Drive. The property is about 10
acres in size and this would be the only proposed use. There are three considerations
when looking at this request: the proposal can not be a detriment to the public health
and safety, the proposal should advance or protect a standard promoted by City Plan
(affordable housing in this case), and the proposal should maintain the general standard
of the zone district. Planner Barkeen added that the zoning area as a whole will still be
below the 25% threshold established within the Employment zone district; therefore the
intent of the zone district will still remain with the approval of this modification. There are
no site plans associated with this request.
Member Colton asked, if this project were approved, and we still wanted this area to be
75% primary uses, that no other secondary uses could be added on any of the other
vacant parcels.
Planner Barkeen replied that this request is only for this particular parcel. If another
vacant parcel wanted 25% of their land area as a secondary use, that would be
permissible under the Employment zoning code.
Member Colton asked how much of this area is undeveloped.
Planner Barkeen replied that he did not have an acreage breakdown, but probably
about 25%.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 9
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the PDP for this site would be a Type I or Type II
hearing.
Planner Barkeen replied that it would be a Type II hearing, as are all secondary uses
within the Employment district.
Attorney Eckman noted that the Board had to find the request for modification to not be
detrimental to the public good but could find one or the other of the other two criteria
true, not necessarily both.
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant's presentation. She stated that
about 45% of the proposed 192 units would be affordable. She asked Ken Waido, of the
Advance Planning Department, to speak regarding the need for affordable housing in
the community.
Ken Waido stated that the project is guaranteed to have an affordable component
through part of its funding mechanism, a private activity bond issued by City Council.
This project received this funding because it meets the rental market affordable housing
need, it is a mixed -use project in that it will also contain market rate units with no
physical difference between those and the affordable units. This is a highly -desirable
project and is greatly supported by staff and the Affordable Housing Board.
Ms. Ripley stated that this is an appropriate location for multi -family housing because it
is right by job opportunities, shopping, schools, recreational opportunities, etc. It will
also support the workplaces in the Employment zone.
Public Input
There was no public input.
Public Input Closed
Member Carpenter asked what percentage of AMI is being targeted for the rents on this
project.
Mr. Waido replied that 50% and 60% of AM[ is being targeted.
Member Craig asked how long the units would remain affordable.
Mr. Waido replied that the City requires a minimum of a 20-year commitment. This
applicant has committed to 20 years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 10
Member Craig asked if this was just a formality prior to this project being submitted. She
stated that she would hate to grant this modification and then the affordable housing
goes away and this large parcel could be used for secondary uses.
Planner Barkeen replied that one of the findings is related to affordable housing and, if
approved, the project must be affordable.
Attorney Eckman stated that a condition of the modification could be made to make sure
the project remains affordable as has been represented.
Member Colton asked if a modification would only apply to a specific proposal and
would not carry on to a parcel if that proposal did not go through.
Attorney Eckman stated that it would only apply to this project.
Member Colton asked if Mr. Waido could comment on the supply of employment land
versus housing in Fort Collins.
Mr. Waido replied that statistically, it looks like there is a lot of Employment and
Industrial ground, however, a lot of it is owned by single owners, such as Anheuser-
Busch. He stated that he could not answer the question directly.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that a modification could be submitted without a
project and asked how it could then apply only to a specific project if none was yet in the
works.
Mr. Waido replied that modifications are often processed separately because of the cost
of producing a PDP.
Attorney Eckman replied that a modification could be requested for Overall
Development Plans or Project Development Plans which are pending approval at the
time, or for ODP's and PDP's which the applicant intends to file, provided that such
plans are filed with the Director as development applications within 1 year following the
determination of the Board on the request for the modification.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of the modification request to
Section 4.22(D)(2) for Caribou Apartments, File #18-02, on the basis that it
substantially addresses an important community need expressly defined in the
City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically affordable housing, and that it is not
detrimental to the public good with the condition that the project remain
affordable as defined in the City's Code.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 11
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he had toured affordable housing in Chicago
and noted that one of their biggest failures was the lack of integration of affordable
projects with market rent projects. It is good to see that that is being addressed here.
The proximity of the project to other uses is also important. He stated that he would
enthusiastically support the project.
Member Colton stated that he would support the project and its affordable housing
component but he did question the 25% logic. He stated concern about affordable
housing being considered more beneficial to the public good than other uses which may
be equally as good.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion as well but wanted to
draw the Board's attention to the map in the staff report which showed the concentration
of affordable apartments in this area.
Member Colton stated concern over decisions favoring housing over employment
Mr. Waido stated that there are three private activity bond -supported projects in that
area. The other affordable housing projects in the southeast part of town are part of
Rigden Farm and Provincetowne.
Member Craig stated that this is a perfect location for this project and that she could
overlook some of the employment issues for that.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards,
File #20-02
Project Description: Request for modification of standards to Section
3.5.3(B)(2) which requires that no vehicle use area be
located between the building and the street; and
Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) which requires that a
commercial building be located no further away from
a minor arterial than 15 feet. The property is located
just southwest of the intersection of Boardwalk Drive
and Mason Street.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 12
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending denial. He stated
that the applicant would like to go off the existing setbacks along Mason Street, which
has set the precedent for parking between the building and the street. The Land Use
Code, however, requires that the building be 15 feet away from the street right-of-way
and that no parking should occur between the street and the building. Another
consideration is the Mason Street Transportation Plan which will allow fine-tuning of
some of the land uses in order to have activity centers around transit stops. Staff is
recommending denial of the request because it feels like the Mason Street Corridor
implementation would be better served to have the buildings meet the Code rather than
have the modification granted.
Terrance Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that
the prime concern of the land owner has been creating a site design that works with the
City's desires but is also economically viable and harmonious with the neighboring
buildings. He stated that they would be willing to provide a pedestrian shelter and would
provide a pedestrian -friendly site plan with the parking between the street and the
building.
George Holter, property owner, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that
they do have possible tenants for the building, including some that would need rear -
building garage access. He asked when the Mason Street Corridor would be built in that
area.
Planner Jones replied that it is likely within the next 2 or 3 years but that is not definite.
Mr. Holter stated that his other properties include buildings with nicer exteriors that will
look good well into the future. He stated that renting the back side of the building, in
using the plan that would meet Code requirements, would be very difficult.
Mr. Hoaglund stated that the spirit of the Land Use Code is to get the building fronts out
to the street which will happen with the proposed site plan to a greater extent than to the
plan that meets the Code. Mr. Hoaglund also suggested allowing on -street parking on
streets such as Mason. He stated that this project is not detrimental to the public good
and granting the modification request will allow a plan that promotes better pedestrian
connectivity between the proposed site and adjacent uses and the pedestrian
connection to the Mason Street Corridor.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 13
Public Input
There was no public input.
Public Input Closed
Member Craig asked Planner Jones if he had any pictures of any other retail buildings
along Mason Street.
Planner Jones replied that he did not have any photos but stated that Pro Discount Golf,
which is north of Troutman, is up to the street but that is the only building on the street
without a parking area between the building and the street.
Member Craig noted a couple other buildings that are pulled up to the street on that
block.
Member Carpenter asked how many vacant parcels there were along the block, south
of Horsetooth.
Planner Jones replied that this parcel, and a couple across Mason are vacant.
Mr. Holter replied that this is about the only vacant parcel and noted that the buildings
that are pushed up to the street on that block are on corners.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Hoaglund if he had reviewed the Mason Street
Corridor Plan.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that he had
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if he had been able to incorporate his design to meet the
goals and visions of the Mason Street Corridor Plan.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that he understood that there would really not be much activity
right in this area, as the site is right between two transit nodes. The building could be
modified to put store fronts on the back side of the building if the plan does happen.
Chairperson Gavaldon suggested that Mr. Hoaglund review the plan a bit more
thoroughly to determine what the intent was.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he could appreciate the market concerns about
rental feasibility. He asked if it would be possible to put the building up to the street with
parking between the building and the railroad tracks, behind the building.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 14
Mr. Hoaglund replied that that does not currently meet the client's criteria because the
building needs to have some rear garage door bays.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson suggested putting garage bay uses in the center of the
building and have a center loading area.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that he was not sure.
Member Bernth asked what the percentage of built -out land like this is (with parking
between street and building) between Horsetooth and Harmony on the west side of
Mason.
Planner Jones replied that there is quite a bit of land like that, particularly between
Horsetooth and Troutman.
Member Bernth asked if this would be a Type I or Type II review if this modification is
granted.
Planner Jones replied that he thought it would be a Type I in that it is a commercial use
in a commercial zone.
Member Bernth asked if it would be possible to condition the modification because if he
would be inclined to vote for the modification, he would like to see what the building
looks like before final approval.
Attorney Eckman replied that he would not recommend that the modification be
conditioned on bringing a Type I hearing into a Type II situation.
Planner Jones stated that if it is a retail situation, it is a Type I use, but there are a lot of
uses that would be Type II reviews.
Chairperson Gavaldon reminded the Board that the staff recommendation was for
denial.
Planner Jones stated that if the Board is inclined to approved the modification request,
the staff report does not contain the findings they would need, but the letter from the
applicant does. If the Board does not want to approve it, the staff report would contain
the findings to cite.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Kathleen Reavis had a chance to review this proposal to
provide more insight.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 15
Planner Jones replied that he had met with Kathleen, Tom Reiff, Mr. Holter, and Mr.
Hoaglund met to discuss the Mason Street Corridor. Kathleen agrees that it would be
bet to adhere to the Code in this circumstance.
Member Colton asked how the Mason Street Plan would view pushing the parking to
the area between the building and the railroad tracks.
Planner Jones replied that we are not far enough in the process to know the answer.
Member Colton asked Mr. Holter where the truck loading and unloading would occur
with the proposed site plan.
Mr. Holter replied that the site plan presently shows the area as parking spaces but they
would have garage doors with hydraulic lifts.
Member Carpenter stated that she was struggling with this project, particularly because
it is not certain which side buildings should be pulled up to once the Mason Street
Corridor is in place. She stated that if there was a lot more vacant land for development,
perhaps the Code should be followed; however, this building being pushed back would
not make any difference as to how Mason Street Corridor works. She stated that she
was leaning toward granting the modification since all of the buildings would have to be
dealt with anyway and since there is no definite direction on which way the buildings
should front.
Chairperson Gavaldon suggested continuing the project to look at a more feasible
design that would meet the applicant's needs as well as the Mason Street Corridor
needs.
Member Carpenter stated that she would normally agree but it seems like we don't
know what the needs of the Mason Street Corridor are going to be yet.
Planner Jones concurred but stated that the issue could be explored more closely over
the next few weeks.
Member Meyer agreed with Member Carpenter.
Member Craig stated that she was concerned about creating "backs" again because this
area was going to have two visual corridors from which this building could be seen. She
stated that the decision should be based on the Land Use Code criterion which is the
build -to modification to Mason Street, not to the Corridor.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 16
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the context setback applies to this situation as it
would seem there is an established contextual setback in this area and perhaps a
modification would not even be required.
Planner Jones replied that it may apply but, regardless of that, there is still the vehicle
area between the street and the building.
Attorney Eckman noted that there is the hardship basis for a modification which reads
"by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations unique to such property..." 'The strict application of the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of the property provided those difficulties or hardships
are not caused by an act of the owner." Though the applicant has not made that
argument, it is another way for the Board to grant modifications if it thought that was
more fitting.
Member Colton commented that a modification was granted to Pedersen Motors.
Planner Jones stated, in relation to contextual setbacks, that under 3.8.19(B), it says "a
contextual front setback may fall at any point between the front setback required in the
zone district and the front setback that exists on a lot that is adjacent and oriented to the
same street as the subject lot." Therefore, the contextual setback could apply to this
project so the only modification needed would be to the vehicle area being between the
street and the building.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked the applicant if he could envision a solution that did
not have the parking between the building and the street.
Mr. Holter replied that it would be difficult to have the major parking lot and loading
docks on the same side of the building.
Member Bernth stated that he would support a continuance but suggested that the
applicant should focus more on the contextual setback, the hardship, and the fact that
this is an infill parcel.
Member Bernth moved to continue the Garth Commercial Plaza, Lots 3 and 4,
Modification of Standards, File #20-02, to the next Planning & Zoning Board
Hearing on May 16, 2002.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Colton asked what the reason for continuance would be.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 17
Director Gloss stated that it would be difficult to take the item to the May 16 hearing; it
would be June 6, 2002.
Members Bernth and Meyer stated that they would be fine with the June 6 date.
Member Meyer suggested asking the applicant if he could wait that long.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that he would wait.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that perhaps the Board was out of process. In
reality, a modification should not be tied to a specific plan at all. It is not appropriate to
offer suggestions about specific design advice on a modification.
Member Carpenter stated that the Mason Street Corridor Plan was a plan that the
Board had to adhere to, just as the Land Use Code.
Attorney Eckman replied that it is part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Jones stated that the Mason Street Corridor Plan is not clear on the issue of
how the building should be sited.
Attorney Eckman added that it had not been adopted as a regulatory tool so it would be
difficult,to implement the visions of the Corridor Plan through the Land Use Code. He
stated that the applicant may want to build the argument of the hardship standard for
the next meeting, if the item is continued.
Member Colton stated that he was still uncertain as to the reason for a possible
continuance.
Mr. Holter asked if it would be possible to continue the item to the next meeting, rather
than the June 6 meeting.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not be willing to not consider the Mason
Street Corridor Plan in this decision.
Member Carpenter agreed.
Planner Jones stated that staff could look at the issue regarding the Mason Street
Corridor Plan but added that two weeks or a month of staff discussion would not be
enough time to get all the input from other parties who will ultimately weigh in on the
Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 2, 2002
Page 18
Member Bernth stated that Kathleen Reavis would need to be present at the
worksession to discuss the item as the topic brings up larger issues that are going to be
faced with Mason Street.
Director Gloss stated that it is already on the agenda for the May 10 worksession.
Member Colton suggested continuing the item to May 16 but that a discussion should
happen at the May 10 worksession.
Members Bernth and Meyer agreed to change their motion to continue the item to
the May 16, 2002 Hearing.
Mr. Hoaglund stated that he would be open to that.
Member Meyer stated that "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game." She
added that the rules cannot be changed based on what may happen 6 weeks from now
with the Mason Plan.
Attorney Eckman stated that that is true by state law. He added that there are no
definite rules by which to abide in the Mason Street Corridor Plan.
Planner Jones stated that the reason the Mason Street Corridor Plan was part of his
findings of fact and conclusions was because we are in the process of trying to
implement an adopted plan. Because a modification is being requested and detrimental
to the public good is something that needs to be considered, the Mason Street Plan was
brought up.
The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that a new policy had been adopted where
presentations are not given on every item at worksessions. He stated concern about
that citing this item. It would have been more fair to the applicants to have had this
discussion occur at worksession and then they would have come to this meeting
prepared.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Approved by the Board 3/18/2004