HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/20/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Mika] Torgerson
Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Bernth, Carpenter, Craig, Gavaldon, and Torgerson.
Member Colton was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Barkeen, Olt, Stringer, Reiff,
Schlueter and Defines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agendas:
1. Minutes of the October 17, and December 16, 2002 Planning
and Zoning Board Hearings (Continued), and the January 16,
2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. (Continued)
2. Resolution PZ03-03 Easement Vacation.
3. Resolution PZ03-04 Easement Vacation.
4. Resolution PZ03-05 Easement Vacation.
5. #48-02 2420 LaPorte Avenue Wireless Telecommunication Equipment
— Project Development Plan.
6. #47-95B Longview Marketplace at Shenandoah Project Development
Plan — Modification of Standards.
7. #6-03 Cambridge House Apartments — Modification of Standards
8. #24-98A Young's Creek Project Development Plan — Modification of
Standards.
9. #7-03 Recommendation to City Council for Three Amendments to
Text
Discussion Agenda:
10.#36-00 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development
Plan.
11.#53-85 Center for Advanced Technology, CSURF South Campus —
Overall Development Plan.
Member Gavaldon pulled Item #7, Cambridge House Apartments and Item #9,
Recommendation to City Council for Three Amendments to the text of the LUC.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 2
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda consisting of
Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Member Craig acknowledged an email letter that was distributed by Planner Olt
for the Longview Market Place. She stated that she had talked with staff and that
the concerns raised in the email don't directly affect the proposed modification of
standard, but should be addressed during the Project Development Plan stage.
Project: Cambridge House Apartments — Modification
of Standards, #6-03
Project Description: Request for a modification of Standard to the
Land Use Code for Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to
reduce the number of off-street parking spaces
from 213 to 181 for a proposed 18 dwelling unit
Project Development Plan. The project is
located at 1113 W. Plum Street.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning filled in for Planner Jones who was
unavailable. Planner Gloss reported that the Board did get a revised staff report
and in the staff report there are underlined sections which reference the changes
that were made from the initial staff report. Director Gloss also reported that the
Board received two letters tonight from neighborhood residents. The site is west
of the CSU Campus bounded by Shields Street on the east, south of Plum and
north of the commercial area on West Elizabeth.
The site development shows what staff is referring to as "scenario A," which
shows a conversion of part of the pool building into 6 units. The applicant has
agreed to, at the request of the P & Z Board, have more interactive space at the
ground floor. The applicant would be agreeable to having office, a possible
recreation room, storage, mechanical room and potentially other space on the
ground floor available for lease. Director Gloss reviewed site shots for the Board.
The apartments do have a parking permit program to ensure that they don't have
others using the spaces illegally. Planner Jones had done some analysis relative
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 3
to parking demand. Right now there is an existing demand for 105 spaces.
Based on the bedroom count, with 1,2 and 3 bedroom units and with the three
spaces rented to the youth group home, there is 165-space demand. There
would be an additional 6-space demand to it would rise to 171 spaces. The
proposed spaces in scenario A are 181 spaces. If scenario B were chosen where
6 spaces are lost, that would bring the number down to 175 spaces. From staff's
perspective, they believe that the modification request would not be detrimental to
the public good because the project is in proximity to Colorado State University
and other available off-street parking. This particular location relative to its
location and the parking facilities that are there today, show that parking can be
accommodated on the site. Staff is recommending approval of scenario A and B.
Bob Mechels, Vaught Frye Architects, representing the applicant gave the Board
a presentation. He stated that Director Gloss already showed the entire site shots
and renderings they have done. They feel that what they are proposing would be
beneficial to the neighborhood. Some highlights would be losing two curb cuts
onto a very busy arterial and also having to use the new standards in the Land
Use Code to screen the large parking lot. The applicant is proposing a very nice
building with the new component of the mixed use. If they can get the parking
variance, they would love to add the mixed use component. The uses that they
would consider would be very vehicle low impact and they would enhance the
pedestrian experience being that close to campus, encouraging biking and
walking.
Public Input
None.
Member Gavaldon asked how many parking spaces would be lost by putting in
the five -story building.
Mr. Mechels responded that the current parking lot has 175 spaces. With the
modification and restriping, would put them at 181 spaces. In scenario B, there
would be mixed use under the building and they would lose 10 spaces. That
would bring them down to 171. There is some potential to put in some carports
and pick up another 4. There would be a net loss of 6. That would put them at
175 spaces.
Member Gavaldon asked about the restriping and were they restriping the parking
lot for compact cars only?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 4
Mr. Mechels replied that it would be what the Code allowed. In the Code it allows
for 60% of the spaces to be full-size and 40% compact spaces. That is still an 8-
foot space.
Member Gavaldon asked how long the parking program has been in place.
Mr. Mechels replied two years.
Member Gavaldon asked if they have had any problems with activities at Moby
Gym.
Mr. Mechels replied no. There is also a letter in the packet from the previous
owner that owned the building for twenty years stating that he never sold over 102
permits. There is quite a long course history, because of its proximity to campus
is very little.
Member Gavaldon asked how many trees would be lost.
Mr. Mechels replied that they would lose two existing and they are adding 6 to 8
new trees, plus green area and shrubs and bushes.
Member Gavaldon asked about the caliper of the trees
Mr. Mechels replied about 12 inches and maybe 30 to 40 feet tall
Member Gavaldon asked if the City Forester had looked at them.
Mr. Mechels replied no.
Member Gavaldon asked about the process for the modification since they were
going to lose trees. Should the Forester be brought in this early in the process?
Director Gloss replied that if it appears to the Project Planner, in his professional
judgement, that they are significant trees, staff would bring in the Forester.
Normally it is done during the Project Development Plan stage.
Member Gavaldon felt this was a gray area because the modification would take
our trees.
Mr. Mechels replied that the City Forester is very good about mitigation and if a
tree has to be taken out it will be mitigated. He may require a larger caliper new
tree. The owner would be more than willing to do that.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 5
Member Gavaldon asked if the parking spaces would still be leased to the group
home.
Mr. Mechels replied that they are accounted for in the revised count
Member Gavaldon asked about the two entrances being closed on Shields and
redirecting the traffic onto Plum. He asked if the traffic had been looked at.
Mr. Mechels responded that as far as Traffic Engineering goes, they would
actually prefer that the vehicles would exit and enter from a lower volume street
Member Craig asked why they were removing two trees
Mr. Mechels replied that because of the 30-foot setback requirement, that would
push them on top of the first tree. Then when you add the thickness of the
building, that would put them on top of the second tree. If they do go to a mixed -
use building, the setback requirements are reduced significantly and the setback
may be reduced. That may be at the sacrifice of the public plaza space and the
green space in front.
Member Craig asked if the Project Planner could look into that if it would save a
12-inch tree.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman reminded the Board that just because we are
looking at modifying this parking requirement does not affect the layout of the
buildings or the trees. That would all come up at the PDP stage and there is no
vested right to put these buildings where they are just because of this parking
space modification.
Member Meyer asked is what they were doing was building a new addition with no
additional parking.
Mr. Mechels replied that in essence yes. What they would like to do because they
have such a parking vacancy, is take advantage of the parking that is there and
utilize it to a greater extent. They would then put a facility in that is in the nature
and spirit of the Land Use Code and the new development standards.
Member Bernth recommended approval of Scenario B of the Modification
request based on the findings of facts and conclusions outlined in Section
5, specifically B and C.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 6
Member Gavaldon was looking at the implications of what a modification does. In
looking at this modification as it stands and we reduce the parking standards and
go forward with a new variable of a project, he sees issues with that. He would
not be supporting the motion. He thought reducing the parking to do this project —
he thought there was a middle road that needed to be explored. He felt that
making this site tighter would have a 'boomerang" effect in the area.
Member Craig thought that it looked like staff went out there numerous times
counting the lot and making sure that the lot was empty. What she was curious
about is if people are trying to avoid the cost of the parking permit and are parking
on the street instead, was that looked at when staff went out there. Was there a
lot of parking on the street and the lot empty.
Director Gloss replied that the parking availability on Plum Street is limited
because of the width of the street and there a are a lot of other apartments around
here. From staffs perspective, there is not really a supply of readily available of
parking around this site for residents. Given the numbers we have seen through
survey information, it appears that tenants must be using this lot, because there
are not any other opportunities out there.
Member Meyer was having difficulty with this because the Board just go done
beating up on someone two blocks north of this one over six parking spaces. She
could not argue with the statistics that there are empty parking spaces, she just
knows that there are rules here, and there must be some reason for the rules, but
when the Board got upset over the lack of 6 parking spaces and now we are
talking about 38. Member Meyer stated that she has a hard time coming to grip
with 6 spaces two blocks north that are a problem and 38 across from Moby Gym
are not a problem.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was having a hard time reconciling those
two projects too. He obviously would be supporting the other project and he
would be supporting this one too. It seems clear just based on the current
situation that there is a surplus of parking and the addition of this building and that
urban environment would be a great improvement to the Campus West District.
He sincerely hopes that the main level becomes something that would contribute
to the pedestrian environment rather than mechanical space or a bike shop.
The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative
and Member Colton absent.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 7
Project: Recommendation to City Council for three text
amendments to the Land Use Code in
Conjunction with the Conversion and Re -Use
of 2201 South College Avenue (Old
Montgomery Wards), #7-03.
Project Description: Request for three Text Amendments to the
Land Use Code for Sections 4.17(B)(3)(b) to
allow Grocery Store as permitted use in C,
Commercial zone district; Section 5.1.2 to
change the definition of Grocery Store from a
maximum size of 25,000 to 45,000 square feet;
Section 5.1.2 to change the definition of
Supermarket from a minimum size of 25,001
square feet to a minimum of 45,001 square
feet.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Gavaldon pulled this item from the consent agenda for discussion. He
was concerned with the parking.
Planner Shepard reported that in his conversation with the Traffic Operations
Engineer, the comparative data that the Board received from both the applicant's
traffic consultant, and from the information Eric Bracke pulled from the ITE, 6`h
Edition, was that the trip generation rates for a supermarket and for a retail store
are higher than the trip generation rates for the Whole Foods at 45,000 s.f.
across all the categories.
The level of service at College Avenue and Rutgers is at "A" at both the A.M. and
P.M. peak. There are no transportation infrastructure deficiencies in the area.
There is cross access throughout the entire center, although this particular
property is technically and legally not part of the center, the cross access
easements have been preserved. There are opportunities for access to the
Mason Street Corridor and opportunities for access to the Natural Resources
Research Center. It is within the level of service for bikes and pedestrians for the
South College Heights neighborhood and the Centre for Advanced Technology.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 8
There was no public participation.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Recommendation to City
Council for the three text amendments to the Land Use Code, #7-03. He
cited the finding of facts and conclusions on page 6 and 7 of the staff
report.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Project: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project
Development Plan, #35-00
Project Description: Request to subdivide the existing lot at 611
Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new
residential building containing 3 dwelling units
on the rear lot adjacent to an existing alley.
The existing single family residence on the
front of the property (facing Peterson Street) is
to remain. The property is located on the west
side of Peterson Street, between East Laurel
Street (to the south) and East Myrtle Street (to
the north). The property is in the NCM —
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density
Zoning District.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig excused herself on this item due to a conflict of interest.
Steve Olt, City Planner stated that on January 16, 2003 the Board went through a
lengthy discussion on this project, it was discovered that there was a separately
rented out apartment dwelling unit in the basement of the existing single family
residence on the front of the property. At that point, the Board expressed some
concern about the parking requirements and did it meet the parking requirements
as a single family residence or duplex? With only one parking space being
provided on that lot associated with that existing structure that would not be
sufficient for the duplex.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 9
Planner Olt stated that he wrote a memorandum to the Planning and Zoning
Board dated February 6t" and is part of the staff report for this hearing. A duplex
is permitted in the NCM zoning district, which the structure is in; however, the
parking requirements would be different, additional above and beyond the single-
family residence. Since there is only one off-street parking space there now, the
Project Development Plan as submitted and previously considered does not
provide for sufficient parking for the existing buildinqThe Board instructed staff
to take the following action between the January 16 h meeting and tonight. "City
staff and the applicant must address the parking requirements associated with
the two dwelling units in existing single family residence. Staff must also
determine the legality of the second unit in the downstairs portion of the
structure."
As stated in the memorandum from Mike Gebo, the Building Code Administrator,
Planner Olt and the property owner met onsite at the house. Mr. Gebo
immediately determined that the house was originally built as a single family
residence and the city has no record as to the downstairs being converted into a
legal dwelling unit or apartment. Therefore it must be removed and returned to a
single family building status. The property owner verbally agreed to do that and
there is record since then, that he has taken the stove out of the basement,
thereby making it nothing more than a bedroom associated with the single family
dwelling. He did give the Board tonight a memo received from Mr. Gebo stating
that the house, by the city, is now considered a single family residence. Staff
does consider the Board's concerns addressed.
Susan Kruel Froseth, applicant on the project stated that her major point was that
the project was redesigned based on the neighbors concerns. The 14-page
letter referred to written by one of the neighbors — the project was redesigned
based upon those concerns. What was done was point by point, they went
through those concerns and in the redesign, try and address each one. They felt
they came up with a very good compromise keeping in mind that the site is
zoned for four units and they compromised to have two, two -bedroom
townhomes and a studio unit. Incorporating a garage so that the concern of on
grade parking would have been mitigated also.
Ms. Froseth concluded by stating that this project and the surrounding area fits
the city Structure Plan, Comprehensive Plan, key principle of promotion of growth
within a compact development pattern and an attempt not to foster urban sprawl.
Within keeping of the intended neighborhood plan set forth including a mix of
housing types. They are please to present this project which meets and exceeds
all stated City Plan requirements and is in the general spirit of City Plan. The
historic Landmark Preservation Commission felt the same way about it. No
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 10
special consideration, modifications or variance is requested. She feels this is a
positive design outcome, and a mindful approach and compromise to achieve an
infill project design.
Public Input
Phil Hendricks, 605 Peterson Street stated he has been a resident there for 18
years. He stated that as a neighborhood, they did talk a little about this. They
actually did submit a 14-page letter that was signed by many in the
neighborhood. In many issues, they do not feel this does meet the Land Use
Code. He was hoping by now the Board has gone through the letter and he
would like reiterate some of the issues.
This project is very problematic and they feel it goes against the context of the
neighborhood and the context of City Plan in many ways. The neighborhood
plan, which is a sub area plan of City Plan, speaks very highly of the preservation
of downtown. The downtown historic neighborhoods are an extremely valuable
resource that really needs to be protected. Projects like this do not really do
anything to protect that residential feel of these neighborhoods. In fact it will turn
these residential neighborhoods into medium to high -density rental
neighborhoods and will chase a lot of the single-family residents.
Some of the things the Land Use Code talks about are scale and mass. The
scale and mass of this is extremely inappropriate in this residential
neighborhood. It is a three -unit building, 30-foot high in the backyards of the
adjacent neighborhoods. They just don't understand how that fits into the context
of the neighborhood at all. There are privacy issues once this site is subdivided.
There is a screen fence around the property; well the screen fence is actually
below the window seals of the first floor windows. He did not know what kind of
privacy that screen fence is going to provide.
The landscaping goes with the mass of the project, the mass of the parking and
the mass of the building on site. There is a really inappropriate area to grow an
appropriate landscape that is going to buffer this project from this adjacent
neighborhood or from the adjacent land uses. Along with the scale, mass and
privacy is the density relating to what the neighborhood is. They currently live in
a fairly high -density neighborhood now, there are many rental units, and in fact
there is an apartment building right down the street. This is just going to increase
the density of this project. In fact it is taking out a single-family house and is
going to turn it into a medium density rental lot.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 11
There are some real issues with parking. The parking requirements are not
necessarily, they feel, are not met for this project. There is inappropriate
numbers for surface parking for the apartment building that is going in the back.
Currently two of the spaces are within a garage underneath one of the
residences. They could not find anything within the Code — he has a hard time
when looking at any rental unit downtown, which they do, very few renters are
using their garages to park their cars in; especially when they living in an
apartment that is 600 to 700 square feet. The garages are just going to become
storage sheds. Therefore those parking spaces are going to become unusable
and there won't be enough surface parking on the site.
The other is relating to the parking for the existing house on the front of the lot.
They have been told this evening that it is now a single family residence, it has
been a two unit rental — they have been in there house for 18 years and it has
been rented for that long. There is parking that does need to be provided for
that. In the most recent notes from Planning saying that one of the parking
spaces is going to be used in the back for the single family residence, and in the
Land Use Code he believes that the distances are too far from the single family
residence to its assigned parking space. The other is the parking for the front.
He believes that there is a parking space going in in the front yard of the
property. There is a current driveway on the south side of the house, that
driveway is going to be turned over to sidewalk use. That takes the parking
space out of there and he thought the most current plans show the parking
basically in front of the house to provide another parking space. Parking in front
of that house goes against the context of the rest of the neighborhood. They all
have driveways.
There are many other issues and he feels that this project will become a catalyst
for future projects like this in the downtown. He thought that if we were really
interested in preserving the neighborhoods in downtown, and have any long-term
vision of what the neighborhoods need to be, he hoped the Board would say no
to this project.
Madeline Weiss, 605 Peterson Street stated that she believed that the city staff is
disregarding the neighborhood. There is not enough parking and they feel the
developer is overbuilding for the site and is disregarding what they have asked
for. They went down from a four plex to a three plex; but they have not provided
any more privacy, buffering with landscape as well as provide enough parking.
She was not really sure how many bedrooms is now considered "legal" in the
single family house, but there needs to be a least 2.5 spaces of parking for a
three bedroom house. There is barely one right now. She does not know how
that situation is going to get any better with this plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 12
Judy Lovaas, 304 E. Myrtle, stated that she live just around the corner from this
property. The alley actually spills out into Myrtle Street. The amount of traffic on
the alley affects their lives a great deal and changes their life a great deal.
Because the representative of the architectural firm mentioned the "spirit' of the
neighborhood, that is what she wanted to speak about. The spirit of the
neighborhood is amazingly stable considering that they are a mixed rental and
home owned neighborhood. They have lived on Myrtle for 37 years. They are
thrilled to be the old people now and new families are coming in. It is very
difficult to buy a beginning home for young families. Their neighborhood has
provided that kind of mid -range price range with mixed values. If they are seen
as rental units, they are sky high in price and they are no longer attractive for
those young families. The ones that have been maintained as single family
homes are still very attractive.
When they first moved, the apartment building that is just directly next to this
property was the "rue" of the neighborhood. Now it have been there for almost
the 37 years they have been there. It has indeed changed the very center heart
of that block. It is the only apartment "looking" building there. The other rentals
are homes that may have a unit or two in them, but they are basically home
owned or rented to very few people. The block has felt very much with its lovely
Laurel Street School on one corner of it as though the neighborhood is
comprehensive and cohesive. The spirit of the neighborhood is as a friendly
family neighborhood, despite what everyone in the neighborhood regretted,
which was this long black like structure.
The presence of another, which amounts to another long black structure, when
you combine the single family home, take out the back yard totally, and have the
alley become the street. It has been increasingly become a street as apartments
on the Matthews street side have become more dense. She hoped the Board
would think, when they think about this project is that when you add something
that will change the spirit of the neighborhood, the ripples that go out from that
are devastating to those who love it. She is also representing their son who has
bought the property at 318 West Myrtle. It is in their windows that the car lights
shine at night when they come out of the alley. She urged the Board to think
about the spirit of this neighborhood and the spirit of what was meant by infill.
They believe in infill, but on blank lots that have not been filled in. They did not
think it would be doubling or tripling up the people. That seems to them no infill
but congestion.
Mark Anderson, 704 Matthews Street stated that Centennial High School is just
around the corner which has 230 students right now and are going through a
procedure now to increase that to 270. And the last he had heard is that they are
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 13
going to do nothing about the parking situation, which is horrible in the immediate
neighborhood of that school. That is within about a block of the 611 Peterson
project. The other thing is that he lives in a 100-year-old house and has to deal
with the Historic Preservation Department, which can be good and bad. He finds
it fascinating that if he makes a minor modification to his house, all hell breaks
loose. But these people can chop their lot in half and build a large building.
Public Input Closed
Member Gavaldon asked about one of the speakers bringing up the comment
about parking for the single-family house. There was talk about it being shared
in the extra lot for the other development. Was that a moot point right now?
Planner Olt replied that is was a moot point. The six parking spaces that are
proposed with the new three -unit dwelling unit structure accessed off of the alley
would be for that structure only. Two in the garage and four surface parking
spaces outside. All of them can qualify for parking for the new structure because
none of the impede the other. That is actually one more space than what would
be required for that structure based on the number of bedrooms proposed. The
existing single family residence does currently have one single family parking
space off-street on the backside of the sidewalk. In essence it is on the lot and
that would remain and that would be one single family residence parking space
that is required.
What he would like to do with the parking, because it did come up from someone
about the number of bedrooms in the single family residence with the number of
bedrooms that are in that house would require at least 2.5 parking spaces.
Those numbers are based on multi -family dwellings. As the Code says, a single
family detached residence, which this is considered to be, for each single family
home there shall be 'one" parking space on the lot with greater that forty feet of
street frontage. This lot has 50 feet of frontage. That parking space is there now
and will remain.
Member Gavaldon asked how many "legal" bedrooms the single-family unit has
now.
Planner Olt deferred that to the property owner.
Ms. Froseth replied that the upstairs has two.
Member Gavaldon stated that this was now a two -bedroom house with one
parking space and it meets all the expectations.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 14
Ms. Froseth also clarified statements made that the building is 25 feet high
maximum and it is no higher than the existing house on Peterson Street. It was
mentioned that is would be of huge mass and scale and thirty feet high. That is
erroneous as it is shown on the plans. Also the finished square footage of the
entire project is 2,200 s.f. so that would give the Board a concept of how many
square feet finished the project is. That does not include the 400 s.f. garage.
Chairperson Torgerson thought that there was something in the Code about
parking in the front of your yard.
Deputy City Attorney replied that you have to provide a paved parking area,
which this has and would remain so.
Member Meyer asked about the basement living area and would someone be
checking to see if it turns back into an apartment at some point.
Planner Olt replied that would be on a complaint basis only.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Peterson Place Project
Development Plan, #45-00, also known as 611 Peterson Street citing the
staff report and the facts and conclusions on page 10. Items 1 through 6.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Bernth commented that he was not comfortable with this totally, but at
the same time they have adhered to every standard in the Code. He lives in the
neighborhood too, but finds it difficult to find any grounds to disapprove the
project.
Member Gavaldon commented that with due respect to the work done by the
staff and the applicant, they appear to be following the steps of the process.
Whether he agrees with the facts or findings was something that he was not sure
he was comfortable with because of the concern he has with the size, scale,
massing and scope of the apartment complex. He was concerned that the
neighbors still have many concerns with this. He did not think that they were
coming in with a "nimbi" attitude, they bring good concerns. He commended the
neighbors with bringing up issues that were not addressed. If the Board would
not have heard from the neighborhood, they there would still be an illegal unit in
the basement of the single-family unit. He encouraged the neighbors to keep an
eye out, but try to be good neighbors if this is approved. He thinks the mitigation
with the neighbors could have gone a little further and this might of worked
better.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 15
Member Carpenter was also struggling with this, but the fact remained that she
could not find anything that has not been met in the Code. It appears that they
have met everything that they needed to meet in the Code. There are some
really nice things about this project as well. She thinks that the architecture has
been done really sensitively to fit into the neighborhood. She thought that
everyone was struggling with these neighborhoods turning over into — she thinks
that carriage houses and alley house are wonderful, but when the main house
becomes so subordinate to the house that is put into the alley, what is when she
has a problem with it. All that said, this meets the Code and she does not feel
she has the ability or anything that she can hang her hat on to deny it. She
would be supporting the motion.
Chairperson Torgerson echoed all of Member Carpenter's comments.
The motion was approved 5-0 with Member Craig having a conflict of
interest on the project and Member Colton absent.
Project: Center for Advanced Technology, CSURF
South Campus — Overall Development Plan,
#53-85AZ
Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for
116.7 acres located south of the University
Park Holiday Inn, west of the B.N.S.F. railroad,
east of Windtrail, and north of National
Technical University. Centre Avenue is a
collector street and runs north and south
through the site. There are two zone districts.
There are 96.5 acres zoned E, Employment
and 20.2 acres zoned MMN, Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending
approval.
Linda Ripley with VF Ripley and Associates representing CSURF gave the
applicant presentation. Ms. Ripley stated that they are not proposing any
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 16
development with this Overall Development Plan. It is simply the first step in the
process. Before they could bring a PDP forward, they would have to have a
current ODP on file. Since the original sunseted at a certain point with Ordinance
161 so they needed to start over. They view this as more of a house keeping
effort because and ODP no longer governs the land use, zoning governs what
land uses are permitted in the area and what is not. The access to this area has
been determined for quite some time, so it is really not determining access.
What it is doing is putting and ODP on record so at sometime they can go
forward with a PDP.
Ms. Ripley reviewed the Overall Development Plan for the Board, the
surrounding uses, the alignment of Centre Avenue and Rolland Moore Drive, the
connection next to Sundering Townhome neighborhood, Larimer County Canal
and the floodway and floodplain of Spring Creek, city bike trail, and the wetlands
She stated that they are not proposing any changes to the zoning that exists.
The ODP also does not allow development in the floodplain. If floodplain
regulations would change sometime in the future they would be subject to those
regulations. They have no intent or desire to not obey the existing floodplain
regulations.
Chairperson Torgerson asked for clarification about development in the
floodplain in this area. He thought that it was precluded in the floodway, but
allowed in the floodplain.
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility responded that he was correct. There is just
very little here that if not floodway.
Public Input
Gear Fisher, 608 Gilgalad Way, was representing 30 of the 33 homeowners that
live on that street. There were a number of issues they have that has to do with
one thing, which is the connection of Northerland Drive from the proposed
Rolland Moore Drive to the existing stub of Northerland Drive. It is about a 125-
foot extension that is proposed to meet up with Rolland Moore Drive. They
would propose that Northerland be capped where it is now and that the extension
would remain an open wetland area.
• Unnecessary traffic would increase for Gilgalad Way. There are already a
number of traffic issues with people who are just lost that find their way into
their neighborhood, and it is a long cul-de-sac. By the time they are halfway
down the cul-de-sac, they realize they are in "no where out' land and they
make it a point to accelerate down the cul-de-sac, turn around as fast as
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 17
possible and accelerate back out. They feel that would only increase with the
addition of the extension being added. One, people coming to events at the
Horticulture Center will find their way looking for parking and will find their way
into their neighborhood and either park there or realize there is no parking
and it is a residence and accelerate their way back out. Casual unnecessary
traffic that is generally will really increase and detriment their neighborhood
and their children often playing in the street.
Parking spillover from the Horticulture Center, which they are looking forward
to its completion. Future spillover from the future medium density housing
parking to the south of them. As they know it, there is no actual plan at this
time, but they don't see how they would probably not be negatively impacted
by spillover parking not met by the medium density structures that will be
built. People would again find their way to Gilgalad and again park on their
residential street.
The connection was to benefit the residents of Gilgalad, that it increases the
execution of City Plan. City Plan calls for an interconnected set of arterials
and connector streets within the city neighborhoods one mile block area. The
connection that is proposed will help them get out into other parts of the
neighborhood. They already have that connection that occurs by simply the
streets that exist today. They really don't need or want the connection. They
don't think that there is any negative impact by current traffic patterns by the
33 homes that are out there that are currently causing a detriment to others
that may be relieved by the construction of this connection. This greater
connectivity within their square mile is unwarranted and unnecessary from
their perspective. City Plan calls for it, but they don't feel it is necessary.
Connectivity within their square mile is already met.
There is a fairly large wetland that follows the northern boarder of the
proposed Rolland Moore Drive. The construction of Northerland would be a
large impediment to what is existing flood flow and would impact them very
significantly through there. The construction of Northerland in a flood
condition essentially would potentially cause greater flood damage or reroute
of floodwaters in that area. It is already known to be a throughway for water,
it is not a floodplain but a floodway. They would also not like the deer, fox
and owls that live out there and they would rather that they go undisturbed as
much as possible.
Stuart Sargent, lives at 959 Gilgalad Way in Sundering Townhomes. He walks
through the neighborhood everyday on his way to work on Campus. He
endorsed the analysis given and the small children playing in the streets. His
main concern is the wetlands. He thinks if the orange area was to develop and
also if Northerland was punched through, he thought that would really destroy the
wetlands. He was asking the experts if the wetlands were reduced to a 6-foot
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 18
wide ditch, does it not lose its viability as a habitat and also does it affect the
potential for flooding.
Ken Tharp, 601 Birkey Place, which is at the corner of South Whitcomb and
Birkey Place was concerned that the 1997 flood came to his backyard line and it
flooded his daughters house at 1995 Sheeley drive by about 6 inches. He was
deeply concerned about the continuation of zoning for employment in the
floodplain east of Centre Avenue. He was concerned with a preliminary look at
the proposed University housing. As he understands it, the parking lot would be
in the floodplain. The last flood piled a bunch of cars at the east end of
Wallenberg and would picture the next flood as carrying a massive amount of
automobiles to plug up the holes under the railroad berm. He was concerned
about any development plan that would continue to show that area as an
employment area. He also asked about the northern street connection into the
development area. The only northern additional connection that he would see
would be Whitcomb and from a selfish standpoint, he would rather that would not
be opened up to additional traffic. The residential area between Whitcomb and
the west end of Sheely Drive is an enclave that is a nice neighborhood and a
good residents, older residents, younger families and students. They don't need
the additional traffic.
Don Crews, 1820 Wallenberg asked about zoning. He stated that Ms. Ripley has
stated that zoning determined use. Parcels D, E and F are all in the floodplain
and so if zoning determines use, you could put just about anything in D, E and F.
He was sure there would be some mitigating circumstances. His questions was
what would be the steps that would have to be taken to remove the E zoning for
D, E and F and make it into recreation or passive recreation. That what it was
before City Plan was put in. He went to a meeting last week that showed the
ropes course in D and athletic fields in E. If they start putting asphalt in there,
where does that water go? It backs up into his neighborhood.
Christine Susamill, 801 Chitwood Court spoke to the Board. She was there to
get clarification on a couple of things in the plan. She agrees with the Gilgalad
residents about the impact of Northerland Drive construction. She wanted to
question the purpose of the Rolland Moore extension to begin with. It seems that
all they are doing is taking Centre Avenue and breaking it into a Y and dumping
that traffic into two different places on Shields Streets that are less that a block
away from each other. They have currently from the neighborhood three exits
onto Shields Street from the neighborhood without the Northerland Drive
connection, it becomes even less sense to do the Rolland Moore extension,
which has increased problems because of the floodplain, but also because of the
wetlands.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 19
Brian Chase, Director of Facilities for Colorado State University stated that they
work very closely with the foundation. There is a Master Plan for that area and
believed the Board would recall that they have shown it to them. It does show
that the uses in E, would be play fields. Regardless of the zoning, it is a
floodway and they will respect that and have been working with city staff. In the
ropes course project that was mentioned, they are showing that as being
community gardens or compatible with the City's Horticulture Center and their
own tree farm type uses. The ropes course would be built to standards and the
city would have to review and approve that through the hearing process. They
respect the floodplain area.
There was also mention of spilling over traffic into the neighborhood. They have
not designed a project yet; they are about 5 years away from having a design,
because multi -family housing for the college, which is what the multi -family area
would be used for, is not a priority right now. There is a high vacancy in the city
and their concern is dormitories. Based on the reaction they had at the
neighborhood meeting last week, it was very well received and there was support
for that project. Their intent as a University in working with the Foundation, is to
design good quality projects and be compatible with the neighborhood. The
ropes course plan that they showed to the neighborhood last week is evidence of
that. They would not want to adversely affect the wetlands area when they come
up with a design and the proof will be when they present something. As far as
the street going in, he knows the Foundation feels the same way, but it is a
requirement of the city. There are other ways to treat that if that connection to
the neighborhood just needs to be a fire access, the street could be there and
only be accessed for fire if that would be acceptable. Their intent as a University
in working with the Foundation is not to see the property develop and adversely
affect the neighborhood, they would like it to be an asset for the city and be
compatible with the neighborhood.
Chairperson Torgerson asked about Mr. Kruses' question regarding rezoning and
how that is done. The answer is that it would most likely be a voluntary rezoning
on the part of the University.
Mr. Chase replied that as the University comes forward with projects, they would
sure be open to that.
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Torgerson asked about a public input question and was it wise to
put parking lots in the floodplain or floodway and that cars might plug an outlet
downstream.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 20
Mr. Schlueter replied that was a good concern. Staff had the same concern
when the Mason Street Project showed a park and ride. That Plan has since
changed for that exact reason of floating cars. That is why if there is a use, it
would be ball fields, then it would be classified as event parking. People are
actually there and can move their cars.
Mr. Schlueter also replied to the question regarding the wetland. He showed the
route the water takes and stated that there is a constructed channel. It looks
pretty natural but there is a pinch point that when they came through the
development process, staff would make sure that they had capacity. Also every
time you put a crossing across a drainageway, you have the possibility for the
pipes to get plugged and cause some flooding in that area. Hopefully it will get
designed so it will go around the houses and have some overflow capacity. The
Horticulture Center has constructed a channel and some box culverts underneath
the Aurthor Ditch which would limit the capacity of the system. It was designed
for this kind of density and they may not have to have any detention. If it
exceeds that and is denser, they will have to have onsite detention. He thinks
that staffs concerns are the same as the neighbors and they would make do
their best to make sure it is done properly.
Chairperson Torgerson asked about the concern of the extension of Rolland
Moore Drive and Northerland Drive.
Planner Shepard replied that it was more the issue of Northerland Drive. It was
the first he had heard tonight that Rolland Moore should not connect, but that is a
collector street and has been on the Master Street Plan for quite sometime.
They have had a lot of discussion about Northerland Drive. It is a platted street
stub and is dedicated. It has always been shown to continue since the early
1985 versions of the Master Plans. At one point it was called Science Drive, but
there was always the intent even prior to the Windtrail filings, including Windtrail
on Spring Creek ever being platted. Staffs position tonight is that we preserve
the option that it not go away and that we revisit the issue at the time that Parcel
C comes in for a Project Development Plan. Prior to 1997 staff would have been
using Neighborhood Compatibility criteria to review this ODP and this street stub
would have been a negotiable criteria for the Board to ratify. That is not the case
now, it is Code, 3.6.3, Street Connectivity. That was specifically put into a "thou
shall' type of Ordinance because of the frustration that staff and the Board had
experienced in getting neighborhoods to connect.
Member Gavaldon asked if the parcels would come in as a Type 1 or Type 2
review.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 21
Planner Shepard replied it would depend on the use.
Member Gavaldon asked about the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive and its
connection.
Planner Shepard replied that Rolland Moore Drive has a fixed in point on its west
and east and has to connect in some type of collector road curvature fashion
between the two. The conceptual alignment is the one that seems to work the
best. It brings the eastern terminus as far away from the slope of Centre Avenue
as possible.
Member Carpenter asked about Rolland Moore Drive and was it necessary that it
be constructed or placed in such a way that it bisects the wetland or could it be
put it so it did not bisect the wetland.
Planner Shepard replied that they have put a lot of time into this and trying to find
out the best alignment for Rolland Moore Drive, given all the constraints. There
are a lot of constraints. Generally speaking what happens in these matters is
that traffic engineering safety usually ends up being first among the equals in
design criteria. To design a collector roadway that is safe and workable, the
alignment cannot deviate too much between its two established points and still
be pulled far enough north away from the hill on Centre Avenue because of traffic
safety.
Member Carpenter asked if this was the only alignment that will work for safety.
Planner Shepard replied no, there are four or five possible alignments.
Member Carpenter asked if any of them leave the wetlands intact.
Planner Shepard replied that they will all impact the wetlands to some degree. In
the final analysis, according the Natural Resources, it did not matter because we
are talking about such a minor impact that it did not seem to weigh heavily into
which alignment was preferred over the other.
Member Carpenter struggled that when we have private developers come in, we
so jealously protect our wetlands and here we have a street, that it appears to
her and obviously she does not know all the constraints here, that there is a lot of
land here that appears to her that something more sensitive could have been
done.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 22
Planner Shepard replied that it is a lot more sensitive that the old Rolland Moore
alignment with Science Drive. A street has been eliminated with this alignment.
Science Drive has been eliminated.
Member Carpenter asked about Northerland Drive and as a Board do they not
have the ability to require with the ODP that Northerland Drive not connect.
Planner Shepard replied that they could but it would have to be a modification
procedure. We chose as staff not to do that, it is staffs opinion that Northerland
Drive should remain on the ODP.
Member Craig asked about the dual left turn at Prospect and Centre Avenue.
Was there room and the dual left turn still needed due to traffic generated by the
site.
Planners Shepard replied that no there is not enough room. There is a mandate
from City Council that certain intersections had to be reviewed for roundabout
potential. That was then to become a component of a traffic impact analysis.
The Traffic Operations look at that and decide whether a roundabout is feasible
at a certain intersection. Planner Shepard thought that it was clearly obvious that
Prospect and Centre does not have sufficient land area for a roundabout. The
Traffic Operations Engineer has the jurisdiction and the authority to determine
whether or not one is to be installed. The indications are that Mr. Bracke does
not want a roundabout at Prospect and Centre.
Member Craig asked what would be done to mitigate the traffic that needs a dual
left turn lane that we can't put in at Centre and Prospect.
Planner Shepard responded that Prospect is a constrained arterial. There are a
lot of things we would like to do with Prospect but can't. We have constrained
arterials on our Master Street Plan. His understanding is that he would accept a
level of service at this intersection being near a campus. He would probably
qualify it as an Activity Center, which on a constrained arterial would allow that
intersection to have a level of service "F" at peak times.
Member Craig asked when the TIA was done, did they have to take into
consideration that this was zoned E, Employment and that they had to add 'Y'
amount of cars, which really aren't going to happen.
Planner Shepard responded that could be, that could be a good question for the
applicant's traffic engineer.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 23
Matt Delich, who prepared that traffic impact study for this ODP replied that for all
these parcels, he assumed a use on it that was compatible with the Employment
zoning. It was a combination of office park, R & D and that type of use. All these
parcels, regardless of all the things talked about in which some cannot be
developed, have trips on them.
Member Craig said in reality, there is a very good chance we won't hit the level of
service "F" because these parcels cannot build out to what criteria says would be
trip generations.
Mr. Delich responded that the Board should not make the leap that we would not
hit level of service "F" because the traffic that is considered background, not
necessarily related to any of the uses real or unreal in this ODP will push the
level of service at that intersection.
There was more Board discussion about the definition of "connectivity" and the
connection of Northerland Drive.
Member Carpenter thought that when we have zoning that they are being told
can't happen, we have traffic studies that show that we need two turn lanes and
there is not room for them. We have wetlands that she did not feel the process
was being followed by private developers. We have an applicant that says they
don't care about Northerland Drive and they would be fine with changing the
zoning. There are so many things here that are not together like they normally
are when we have an ODP. She felt that this one might need to go back to the
drawing board and work with the applicant.
Member Bernth did not want to be critical of the neighborhood, but Planner
Shepard made a good point. Given the option and I am one of those 36
neighbors, I am always not going to want connectivity through my neighborhood
It is very difficult to say, from a petition standpoint, that neighbors do not want it
and we don't want to be setting a precedent. Nobody wants more traffic through
their neighborhood.
Chairperson Torgerson thought that putting zoning on a property but you can't
build on it because of the flood regulations, seems that is something we do
throughout the city. It also came up on the South Taft Hill Annexation. He
objected to some of the zoning there as well. It seemed that it might be
something that we would want to look at in the future.
Director Gloss pointed out to the Board that staff has spent a considerable
amount of time with the Transportation staff in terms of how we could minimize
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 24
the impact to the wetlands through some changes. The alignment of Rolland
Moore Drive as shown is just a generic alignment on the plan. It does not meet
the radii that we would have for a collector street and there would be some
"tweaking" of that to reduce the impact to the wetlands.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that in terms of the zoning being inconsistent with
what will happen in the floodway, that seems like something we do all the time
even though it seems irrational. The street alignment in a general way has been
shown on the Master Street Plan for a very long time. A lot of the things they
were wrestling with are not new or particularly unique.
Member Carpenter stated that was probably right. What she was wrestling with
was hearing a neighborhood that wants to make some changes. She hears CSU
saying that for the most part, those changes are all right with them. Then we
have the city and are being the ones who are being intractable here. When you
have two groups, the neighborhood and the applicant, who seem to have more
things to talk about, it bothers her to continue with this.
Ms. Ripley, representing the applicant talked about Northerland Drive. As far as
CSURF is concerned, that street can stay on the Master Plan or it can be
removed. They simply don't care either way. What they do care about is not
being delayed. She has not heard anything that they have discussed tonight that
a month of time is going to solve. Rolland Moore is shown because it is on the
Master Street Plan. The Employment Zoning is shown because it is E zoned.
They don't have a floodplain zone or an open space zone even if they wanted to
change it to that. She did not feel that it was fair to hold them up because of
those types of issues. She understands the Board's frustration because there
are a lot of unanswered questions, but until there is a real development proposal,
they would not be able to analyze the pluses and minuses of those various
things. They will have to analyze the wetlands and the traffic impacts at that
point. All they are trying to do is get a valid OPD on the books.
Ms. Ripley stated regarding the Northerland Drive question; if the Board wanted
to side with the neighborhood on this issue and they need them to say that they
request a modification, they are willing to say that, but they want to say it tonight
and be done with it and move on. They don't need a month to make that
decision.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman recommended that if there was to be a
modification, they it should either go as a stand alone modification, or in
connection with a PDP.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 25
Member Gavaldon stated he did not want to touch Northerland Drive to remove
it. He wants to leave it as is. If there is a modification, he really wants to see it
worked through before he would ever consider supporting it because we want
connectivity.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Centre for Advanced
Technology Overall Development Plan, CSURF South Campus, #53-85AZ,
citing the facts and conclusions in the staff report page 4 through 9.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Craig would not be supporting the motion because of the Northerland
Drive issue. She totally understands connectivity, she understands how it fits in
with City Plan, but she doesn't really feel like what is being connected, fits her
thought of what connectivity is all about. She also hoped that even though we
have to leave this as E zoning and Mr. Chase was very admirable to put on the
record that his intention is not to make this a big employment park and make
floodplain issues. She hoped that would make the neighbors feel more
comfortable.
Member Carpenter would also not be supporting the motion for the same
reasons Member Craig stated and the same concerns that she previously stated
tonight. It is one thing to say that they would mitigate the wetlands later and
another to put a road right through the middle of it, she doesn't know how that
could be mitigated.
The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Carpenter voting in
the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Approved by the Board June 19, 2003