Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/16/2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Meyer, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Joy, Reavis, Averill, LaMarque and Leman. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the August 19 and 26, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ04-21, Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-22, Easement Vacation. 4. Resolution PZ04-23, Easement Vacation. 5. Resolution PZ04-24, Easement Dedication. 6. Resolution PZ04-25, Easement Dedication. 7. Resolution PZ04-26, Easement Dedication. 8. Resolution PZ04-27, Easement Dedication. 9. #32-04 College and Trilby, Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 10. LaPorte Utility Service Policy Recommendation (CONTINUED). 11. #25-04 221 West Prospect Road, Rezoning. 12. #42-03B Adrian, Overall Development Plan. 13. #7-04B Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street, Modification of Standard. Director Gloss noted that Item #10, LaPorte Utility Service Policy Recommendation was continued by staff to the October 21, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Lingle made a correction to the August 19, 2004 minutes noting that the vote on Goodwill Industries at Harmony Centre, Project Development Plan, File #6-96N, should have been 4-1 rather than 5-1. Approved 10/21/04 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approved of Consent Items 1-9, with the correction to the minutes as noted by Member Lingle. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning, #25-04 Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 0.62 acres from E – Employment District to CC – Community Commercial District. The site is located at 221 West Prospect Road, on the south side of West Prospect Road, east of Tamasag Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He noted that the property is adjacent to the BNSF Railroad tracks and that the properties to the north of this are zoned Community Commercial. The requested zoning for this site is Community Commercial. The parcel is located within the Campus District as shown on the Structure Plan and is within the Mason Street Corridor Plan area. The Plan shows retail and residential uses as well as office uses throughout the area, showing retail and residential uses particularly near the transit stops, one of which is just diagonal from this property. Office uses are allowed within either the Employment or Community Commercial zones; retail is encouraged within the Mason Corridor Plan as well as within the Campus District and is permitted in Community Commercial. Retail is only allowed in the Employment zone as part of a Community Shopping Center secondary uses which would be able to occupy only 25% of the land area of a PDP. The definition of a Community Shopping Center requires four separate users. Therefore, 4 users would be able to occupy no more than 25% of the land area of the PDP. Residential uses are permitted with the Community Commercial zone as multi- family, particularly within mixed-use buildings. Residential uses within the Employment zone are allowed but considered a secondary use and could therefore only be 25% of the land area of the PDP. Restaurants and entertainment uses are also considered secondary uses within the Employment zone. Staff decided that the Community Commercial zoning did implement the strategies of both the Campus District and Mason Street Transportation Corridor much more effectively than the Employment district does. Planner Barkeen indicated that there are currently no definitive development plans for the site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 3 Mark Strottman, 1000 48th Avenue, Greeley, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that the current zoning does not allow for much development because the City is requiring that 15% of the property be designated for future roadways and the four users required would make fitting in retail difficult. Public Input Troy Jones, citizen, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that, as a former City Planner, he worked extensively to analyze land uses along the Mason Street Corridor and stated that what these applicants are proposing is exactly the right zoning for this site because this site is directly at or across the street from the transit station. In order to increase ridership at the transit station, a variety of uses that include different hours of use are important. Employment provides more rush hour ridership whereas a CC zoning would allow for more of a variety of riders and times. Mr. Jones added that this site may have been an oversight in zoning it Employment. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked about the area shaded in blue on the site map. Planner Barkeen replied that the area is identified as potential future redevelopment and is part of the Mason Street Corridor. Member Craig asked if, of the entire subdivision, only that lot was not owned by CSU. Planner Barkeen replied that Lot 10 is the lot before us tonight. The land immediately to the east of Tamasag Drive holds the Griffin Foundation building which is privately owned. They also own the other two lots on the west side of Tamasag. Member Craig noted that staff is using the rationale that the Mason Street Corridor is basically saying that CC is more appropriate zoning for this lot because it ups the density and allows for more different types of uses. She asked if that was correct. Planner Barkeen replied that it was. Member Craig asked if the next two lots would be able to use this same argument for rezoning and if we would then make them CC as well. If not, what justification would there be. Planner Barkeen replied that, in reference to the Corridor Plan, the remainder of those lots would be able to use that justification, being included within the Mason Street Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 4 Corridor itself, and also within the larger campus district, to justify rezoning those. They would be examined on a case-by-case basis but could use the same justification. Member Craig asked about the Land Use Code and secondary uses. It states that “residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor)” are considered to be secondary uses. Planner Barkeen replied that mixed-use dwellings are their own entity and have a separate definition. Member Craig noted that it could be left in Employment and still achieve the higher density with putting the residential up above primary uses. Director Gloss replied that was correct, you could have a mixed-use dwelling where a non-residential use is on the ground floor with residential in the balance of the building. Member Gavaldon stated that he was on the Mason Street Corridor Plan Committee and did not recall that we had to make all these changes to accommodate Mason Street Corridor because we were going with the same as it existed. Member Gavaldon asked if we could still have the transit stop in the Employment zone without having to go through all these changes. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner and Project Manager for the Mason Street Corridor Plan, stated that the transit system can work with the existing development and zoning but, a big part of the recommendations from the Master Plan were to look at this corridor and enhance areas as possible to create more mixed-use capacity and more density to help support the station area to make it more successful. Member Gavaldon stated that there was a discussion, at which he did not believe Ms. Reavis was present, about not making all these big changes in zoning because we can have a mixed-use in there. He stated he was puzzled at the use of Mason Street as one of the predominant justification. Ms. Reavis replied that staff viewed this as a way to enhance the opportunities for the Mason Corridor Project. She added that a great deal of work has been done to look at land uses since the Master Plan was done. One of the recommendations from that work effort is to do as much as possible to enhance the existing and future potential for the station areas. The staff recommendation of approval was based on that more intensive work. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 5 Member Gavaldon stated that “you are taking the recommendation from us who served on the committee.” He asked if we could still have the station there if it remained E- Employment zoning. Planner Barkeen replied that yes, we could but if you look at the implementation strategies of the corridor plan itself, it does continue to push for a true mix of uses, especially along where the stops themselves are going to be located. Those do include retail, restaurant, entertainment. The employment district is very strict on the types of retail and restaurant uses that a building can hold. Member Gavaldon asked about secondary uses. Planner Barkeen replied that secondary uses would allow retail and restaurants but that would have to be housed in a Convenience Shopping Center with 4 separate uses all operating independently of each other. Those four uses have to be limited to 25% of the total land area. Member Gavaldon asked if we had received an application to allow more than 25% at one time. Chairperson Torgerson replied that was in the Harmony Corridor. Member Gavaldon asked if a modification could be requested. Director Gloss replied that a modification could be requested. Member Gavaldon asked the applicant if he would be willing to go through the modification process to increase the secondary uses if the rezoning was not approved. Mr. Strottman replied that it would be easier to just switch the zoning rather than spending the money to go through another process. He added that he would never be able to rent out the space at 25%. Member Lingle asked if, despite Member Craig’s information regarding the residential, mixed-use buildings being allowed in Employment, staff’s recommendation for rezoning to CC would remain the same. Planner Barkeen replied that the recommendation remains the same based on the other uses that are also encouraged to be located along the Corridor. Member Schmidt asked where the bike path was going to go as part of the Mason Street Corridor. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 6 Ms. Reavis replied that it will be on the west side of the railroad tracks as it approaches Prospect Road. The plan calls for a future underpass under Prospect to bring the path north into CSU. Member Schmidt asked about the property maps showing CSU versus CSURF property and the Tamasag area. Planner Barkeen illustrated the map noting that CSU and CSURF are separate entities. Member Schmidt asked if staff would want all of the surrounding properties rezoned as CC. Ms. Reavis replied that the area indicated by Member Schmidt is the influence area for the station and that is the area that should be looked at to try to do development that would be as compatible as possible to being near a transit stop. Member Gavaldon asked, if the Board wanted to not give a positive recommendation, what factors should be examined. Director Gloss replied that the rezoning criteria are listed at the end of the staff report and the Board has to rely on the City Structure Plan, policies within the City Plan document, and other approved plans such as the Mason Corridor Plan. Member Gavaldon stated that he did not believe item B on the staff report was correct. Member Lingle moved to recommend approval of the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning, File #25-04, citing the facts and conclusions on page 5, items A, B, and C, in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon stated that he would not be supporting the motion, especially because of section B of the staff report regarding the recommendation of the Mason Street Corridor Plan. He added that the applicant could submit for modification in the Employment zone and that this would be taking away employment land. Member Schmidt stated that she would not support the motion either, partly for consistency sake because once we start rezoning, there are a lot of other properties which could use the same argument. There is also some flexibility with what can be done in the employment zone and the other three corners are zoned Commercial and CC so there is probably enough of that type of zoning around there to support a transit stop and have mixed-use development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 7 Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting the motion. There is plenty of retail on the other side of the tracks and there is plenty of CC area. Some of the potential mixed-uses may have been overlooked. The justifications in the staff report do not justify the change. Member Lingle asked Member Craig if she would like the applicant to keep the lower floor as office with residential above if the zoning were to remain Employment or if she was okay with retail. Member Craig replied that she would need complete clarification from staff as far as if there is any retail that could be put in or if, on the secondary use, one piece could be retail on the ground floor and the other two could be offices, or how it would break out square footage-wise. Planner Barkeen replied that it would ultimately depend on the size of the building. Four individual users would have to be within the 25% of the building floor area. The standard is met for a larger campus situation where it is easier to divide up the area versus such a small site. Member Craig asked, if a bar were to come in, would that have to be one of four users. Planner Barkeen replied that would be one of the four users. Director Gloss replied that a bar and tavern is a permitted commercial/retail use in the district. There have to be at least four tenants within a convenience retail center. The applicant has told us that it will be difficult to lease space with those kinds of restrictions. Member Craig stated that there are a lot of allowed uses in Employment that are not retail but still meet what the Mason Street Corridor wants and allow residential above. Mr. Strottman stated that his problem with the Employment is that the City is taking 15% of the 26,000 square foot lot for roadways, which limits the 25% even more. There will be a 3,500 square foot footprint on the building which has to hold four retail users, which is almost impossible. Member Lingle clarified that if it is office, there would only have to be one user. Mr. Strottman replied that it would be difficult to sell office space there. Planner Barkeen stated that the retail uses are restricted to having four users. There are some other uses, such as restaurants and bars that are just basic secondary uses which do not require four users but are still limited to the 25% of the floor area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 8 Member Craig stated that there is enough flexibility to leave it in Employment. Member Lingle stated that he is hearing from staff that they are supporting this because it is immediately adjacent or across from the transit stop. Because we do have E further west along Prospect, what would staff’s position be for properties submitting for rezoning further west? Planner Barkeen replied that the implementation framework does recommend that if you are adjacent to the transit stop, that is where the higher intensity uses are appropriate. As you get further away from the stop, there may be a discrepancy as to how intense the uses need to be in order to support the transit. There would likely be some justification for supporting higher intensity uses throughout the affected area, in blue on the map. Member Craig asked what in CC would make it a higher intensity than if we left it E and put in a mixed-use building. Planner Barkeen replied that the main point of disagreement here is probably the way we handle the retail within the transit centers themselves. Member Craig asked why retail, and retail alone, fits the density of high intensity but everything else does not. Planner Barkeen replied that the Mason Corridor Plan specifically lists retails uses as desired. Member Gavaldon noted that a modification could be used to increase the 25%. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would support the motion because CC is clearly a more appropriate zoning for transit-oriented development. Member Lingle stated that he would agree if it were only this lot but was concerned about the domino effect with the rest of that E land. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he felt CC would be appropriate for the rest of the land as well. The motion failed 2-4, with members Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 9 Project: Adrian Overall Development Plan, #42-03B Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for as many as nine single-family detached dwelling units on two parcels totaling 1.84 acres. Parcel “A” is proposed to have no more than seven residential lots and Parcel “B” is proposed to have no more than two residential lots, including the existing house. The site is located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: NOTE: Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict on this item and noted that he has not discussed this, or any other pending application with which he is involved, with fellow Board members. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked City Planner Steve Olt to give a full-blown presentation specifically focusing on the proposed density and why it is allowed under the Code as well as the neighborhood compatibility issue, private drive, detention pond, and Vine Drive improvements. Planner Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is a request for a two-phase Overall Development Plan consisting of single-family detached residential uses in the RL zoning district. The property is at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. The property was annexed into the City in April 2004 and is approximately 2 acres in size. Section 2.1.3(B)(2) of the Land Use Code states that an ODP shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate Project Development Plan submittals. Parcel A is approximately 1.2 acres with a proposal for no more than 7 single family residential dwelling lots, no less than 6,000 square feet each. Parcel B reflects no more than two single family residential lots on about 0.5 acre. The plan meets the RL standards for a minimum 6,000 square foot lot. The applicant is meeting Section 2.3.2 which involves 7 criteria for Overall Development Plans. This ODP is not required to meet the criteria in Section 2.3.2(H)(2) as the RL zone district is not mentioned in this criteria. The intent in the PDP is to have a private drive to access the lots. The submittal requirement for a traffic impact study was waived by City traffic engineers. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 10 Planner Olt noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on August 12, 2004 and that the Board had received copies of the notes from that meeting. He added that the Board also had copies of numerous communications he had received from neighbors. He made the Board aware of one phone call that was received from Carol Ostrem (sp?) on Irish Drive. She wanted to make it known that she would like to see larger lots so the density is not so high. Her feeling is that the developer wants to “get the biggest bang for the buck.” Planner Olt noted that the ODP is all that is under consideration tonight. Section 2.3.1(B) of the Land Use Code dealing with Overall Development Plans Purpose and Effect, states that “The purpose of the Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals.” Approval of an Overall Development Plan does not establish any vested right to develop the property, it is just establishing a direction that this property wants to go and the type of land uses that can occur, in compliance with the zoning district. “Applicability and Overall Development Plan shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate Project Development Plan submittals.” That is what the applicant is intending in this case. There is a Filing One PDP currently under development review for Parcel A on the ODP. It will ultimately go to an Administrative Public Hearing which has not yet been scheduled. Troy Jones, M. Torgerson Architects, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that the level of detail required for the Overall Development Plan is not as high as that for the Project Development Plan and added that some of the neighbors’ concerns may be related more toward the PDP. He addressed the issue of density stating that, in the RL zone district, density is restricted by a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. He showed an illustration of the properties in the area noting that some of the properties are quite large and rural but there are some lots that are 6-8,000 square feet. The Adrian proposal is for 6-7,000 square foot lots. Mr. Jones showed an illustration of the proposed private drive and noted that the driveways would all come off the private drive. Each lot has 175 square feet on average of paved area for the driveway, not including the private drive. The private drive is 5,422 square feet of paved area which means that there are 950 square feet of paved area, on average, per lot, counting the private drive and the driveway. Given the assumption that the average driveway on Impala Drive and Irish Drive is approximately 20x40 feet, there would be approximately an 800 square foot paved area. Mr. Jones stated that Article 5 of the Land Use Code states that compatibility is not the “same as.” It is defined by other elements: height, scale, mass and bulk of structures, pedestrian or vehicle traffic, circulation, access, and parking impacts, landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. These are primarily PDP issues and density is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 11 not included in the definition. Mr. Jones noted that the proposal is not the same as what is there but is similar. He noted that the issue of architectural character might come up during Public Input and stated that it would be addressed at the PDP submittal. John Adrian, 2333 West Vine Drive and the owner of the property, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that they had asked for LMN zoning when they submitted for annexation of the property and that LMN met the criteria and published goals for the City of Fort Collins regarding infill projects. He stated that they had asked for 9 duplex lots which would better facilitate an affordable housing project. He stated that neighbors objected to duplexes and added that there are 15 duplexes within a 2- block radius of their home. He also stated that other neighbors objected to two-story homes although they are allowed in the subdivision to the east. Mr. Adrian stated that there is no way to please everyone and that no two projects are going to be carbon copies of one another. The property ended up being zoned RL with the opinion that the neighbors would be satisfied with the density that RL allows, thereby cutting the project in half. Mr. Adrian noted that this is the first time in Fort Collins history to zone an undeveloped property RL. The schools in the neighborhood, Irish Elementary and Lincoln Junior High, educate students with the lowest per capita income in the City. The average home lining Impala appraises at $165,000. Based on affordable housing requirements, homes in this proposal could sell for up to $200,000 which would mean that they would not bring down the value of the surrounding homes. Mr. Adrian noted that, even with the ODP approval, they will be required to put in bike lanes along West Vine, repave part of Impala and build curb and gutters to mitigate waterflow issues. Public Input Doc Schaffer, 601 N. Impala Drive and representative of the Green Acres Subdivision, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he was asking the Board to reject the ODP and presented the Board with 16 letters from neighbors also against the project. He cited Land Use Code Section 3.6.2(L) which states that “private drives shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provision of the Land Use Code.” He also cited Section 3.5.1 which states that “new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible. That compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building and mass, and similar relationships to the street.” Mr. Schaffer argued that the practice of drawing property boundaries at the middle of a U-shaped private drive is unprecedented in the neighborhood. He also stated that the driveways are 12 feet by 30 feet, far below the square footage of concrete addressed by Mr. Jones. Mr. Schaffer presented the Board with a petition signed by 166 neighbors and 30 letters against the project. He stated that, by dividing the project into two phases, street improvements along West Vine Drive will most likely be pushed off in the future on to the backs of the taxpayers. He also stated, in reference to the affordable housing Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 12 aspect, that “we taxpayers object to the use of tax monies for private gain and advantage for a project in our neighborhood that 166 petitioners don’t want.” Mr. Schaffer stated that the neighbors are not against development of this property but that they are against this “profound, obtrusive, and incompatible development proposal.” He asked the Board to deny the project to allow for a more compatible design. Sandy Knox, 2309 West Vine Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that her property is adjacent to the Adrian property and that she is strongly opposed to the ODP because it is not compatible nor in character with the surrounding areas. She stated that the immediate area is all single-story, ranch style homes on lots of 7,500 to 15,000 square feet and are on full-size streets. She stated that the proposed project is neither compatible nor complimentary with the surrounding areas. Ms. Knox stated that there are no developments within ½ mile of the proposal that have private drives. When private drives are used, the lot lines start in the middle of the private drives which make the actual, buildable land square footage reduced by as much as 37%. Ms. Knox stated that it is unethical to approve this project for development in two parcels because it permits the developer to cut the public improvement costs in half because they have no intention to ever develop Parcel B. That means that the remaining improvement costs will fall back on the taxpayers. Ms. Knox also stated that there are remaining stormwater issues on Impala which have not been resolved and that the surrounding area is peaceful and country-like. This proposal with such a high density in such a small area would dramatically alter the quality of life and property values. She asked the Board to allow only a single-parcel development with a density of three or four lots. She also stated that not a single neighbor refused to sign the petition. Shelly Neth, 529 North Impala Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that surrounding homes are ranch-style with large yards and that these homes do not have any yards to speak of. She stated that Mr. Torgerson came in and passed a note to the Adrians which looks terrible to her, despite the fact that he refused himself from the item. She wonders if this is even ethical. Ms. Neth stated that it may be true that, because the area has a bilingual school, it meets the needs of a lot of low-income people. She added that that does not mean they want their neighborhood turned in to a “project neighborhood.” She stated that affordable housing is fine but not on this lot. Charlie Maserlian, 2324 Plains Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he developed the Poudre Plains subdivision and feels that the LMN zoning probably wan not thought through on the area north of LaPorte Avenue. It leads to projects that are incompatible to what already exists, including this project. Fred Winkler, 624 Irish Drive, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he wanted to support his neighbors’ opposition to this development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 13 Carol Yeates, 717 N. Hillcrest Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she lives adjacent to this area and stated concern for the overall quality of life as well as the potential domino effect for the surrounding areas. She presented the Board with a written letter. Brooke Pilkington, 636 North Briarwood Road, gave her testimony to the Board. She asked the people in disagreement with the project to stand up in the audience. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt asked Mr. Maserlian who maintains Briarwood right now. Mr. Maserlian replied that it is a public street in the City and is maintained by the City. Member Lingle asked about the private drive being platted as an easement across the adjacent lots and if it was taken out of the lot size calculation, like right-of-way is. Planner Olt replied that Section 3.6 deals with a private drive being an access easement, just like a utility easement would be. He noted that this would be a PDP issue and that the ODP would not address that. Vice-Chairperson Meyer asked Director Gloss to make it very clear what the Board was to be deliberating. Director Gloss replied that the comment probably was relevant because one of the main parameters of the ODP is density and the net density calculations are very clearly described within Article III. It specifically cites areas where we would not be applying a specific portion of the site for purposes of calculating density. One, for example, would be land that is dedicated for an arterial street. There is nothing specifically noted in the Code where we are dedicating a public access easement, that that would limit the net density on the site. By virtue of dedicating that easement, the allowable density on the site does not change. Member Lingle asked about the comments regarding affordable housing and if that was a PDP or ODP issue. Director Gloss replied that it has no bearing on the ODP. Member Lingle asked about the two-phase development and whether or not there would be street improvements on West Vine that would be triggered by a single-phase PDP. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 14 Director Gloss replied that it does make a difference. They would need to improve Vine Drive if they were going to do this in one phase. Susan Joy, Development Review Engineer, stated that if this project were to develop in one phase, they would have to improve Impala and Vine to the ultimate condition. That means they would have to widen Vine and put in a parkway and sidewalk along their frontage. By phasing this project, they are not escaping all improvements to Vine Drive. They still have to improve Impala to full City standards along Parcel A and B and they have to widen Vine Drive out to 36 feet out to Taft Hill which is the closest improved arterial street. That 36 feet includes two 12-foot travel lanes and two 6-foot bike lanes on both sides. The ultimate improvements along Vine would then wait until that particular parcel developed in the future. The ultimate condition would require widening of the street to include curb and gutter on both sides of the street. On the south side, they would have the parkway and 6-foot sidewalk. Member Lingle asked, if it went through in two phases, and there are only two lots proposed for Parcel B, if those improvements would be triggered by two lots. Ms. Joy replied that they would have to improve Vine Drive when Parcel B develops. Member Craig asked about the lack of storm drainage infrastructure and how it was being addressed in this plan. Wes LaMarque, Stormwater Utility, replied that this project does meet the requirements for an ODP level. Those requirements are: an area shown for detention for the 100 year storm and releasing at the 2 year historic release rate, and a definition of a potential outfall. There are issues basin-wide with the Vine basin but this project would not have any negative bearing on that. At the PDP level, they will be required to show that all of the new drainage from Parcel A would drain to the detention pond, and that would release at a smaller rate than existing conditions, so it would actually improve the drainage condition on Impala Drive. Member Craig asked about the fact that one of the letters from a neighbor noted that the Parcel A piece sometimes floods during heavy rains. She asked about the logistics of holding that water and seeping it out slowly so as not to make any negative impact. Mr. LaMarque replied that is exactly what would be shown on the PDP. Member Craig asked if we had adequate public facilities in that area as far as stormwater goes. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 15 Mr. LaMarque replied that the PDP will have to show that Impala Drive does meet the criteria as far as a conveyance element (right-of-way, curb and gutter, swale, or storm sewer). It would have to meet a natural drainage way, which would be Cherry Street in this case. It would have to carry the flow without impacting any of the houses to the east and the flow will have to stay within the right-of-way. Member Craig asked if the curb and gutter would only be along Parcel A. Mr. LaMarque replied that, at the PDP level, they will have to provide a conveyance down to a drainageway. They will have to put the improvements in off-site down to Cherry Street. Ms. Joy stated that they are going to be required to put curb and gutter along the west side of the street as well. When Parcel B goes in, they will put in that stretch, when Parcel A goes in, there is a portion of the curb and gutter that is not in on the west side and they will have to go far enough to tie in to the existing. Mr. LaMarque stated that is an engineering requirement. As far as storm drainage goes, it will all have to stay on the east side of the street. Member Craig asked, if they just develop Parcel A, if they would have to put in any curb and gutter along Parcel B and if that is an issue, does any runoff come from Vine? Ms. Joy replied that she had misspoken. By doing the project in two phases, they would be required to improve Impala from the southern property boundary to Vine Drive. That would include curb and gutter on both side of the street, and installation of a sidewalk on the east side out to Vine Drive. A sidewalk on the west side would be done by a neighborhood Special Improvement District. They would need to do that (bring the streets up to standards) before the City would take over maintenance. The curb and gutter would go in along Impala from Vine to their southern boundary and on the east side, as far south as necessary to accommodate the flows. Member Craig asked if Impala Drive itself was still under County jurisdiction. Ms. Joy replied that it is a County Road but the County does not maintain it; it is maintained by the homeowners in that area. This development will be improving the street. It will be brought up to full street standards along Parcel A and B so the City will actually be taking over the maintenance of that stretch of the road. The homeowners would then not need to maintain that portion of the road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 16 Planner Olt noted that, with the Adrian Annexation, the full width of Impala Drive was annexed along the west boundary line of the property, to the south boundary of the property. Member Craig asked if the City was now maintaining the road. Ms. Joy replied that the City does not take over maintenance until the street is brought up to City standards so the homeowners would need to form a Special Improvement District to rebuild the streets in order for the City to take over maintenance. Director Gloss clarified that the City does do enough maintenance to maintain the street at the same level the County does, with the exception of chipsealing and re- construction. Unless the street is brought up completely to our standards in terms of engineering and roadway design, we will not re-construct the road. Member Craig asked if Vine Drive also falls under those criteria. Ms. Joy replied that the maintenance of Vine will also not be taken over until it is brought up to standard, which will include widening the entire street, as well as meeting the other standards. Member Craig noted that Ms. Joy had earlier stated that because they are just coming in with Parcel A, this project would not have to improve Vine Drive until they brought in Parcel B. Ms. Joy replied that they would not have to make the ultimate improvements along Parcel B at this time. They would still have to widen Vine Drive to 36 feet along Parcel B out to Taft Hill. That would not include sidewalks or curb and gutter. Member Craig stated that it was brought up by the property owner that this property is very close to a youth center and Lincoln Junior High. She asked why pedestrian connections were not required to those facilities. David Averill, Transportation Planning, replied that, as far as the ODP is concerned, they are not doing anything that precludes that level of analysis at the PDP level. The ODP, as shown, is not preventing meeting the pedestrian level of service to the transit stop and school district and so forth. The pedestrian level of service is examined at the PDP level. Member Craig stated that offsite connections should be part of the ODP because it is part of Article III in terms of connectivity. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 17 Mr. Averill stated that the vehicle transportation impact study was waived for this project so vehicular level of service is not an issue. That does not prevent the pedestrian and bicycle LOS from being looked at the ODP level. The bicycle LOS will be enhanced by the bike lanes but the pedestrian LOS is probably a concern and could be explored further. Member Craig asked if they should technically have had a pedestrian and bike TIS for this ODP, despite the fact that the vehicular TIS was waived. Mr. Averill stated that the 36 foot roadway width does not contain a pedestrian facility. That should be examined, particularly with respect to the transit stops and school walking area. Member Craig asked why the TIS for bike and pedestrian were not included in the staff report. Planner Olt replied that it probably should have been included but that the plan does not preclude looking at the issues. Member Craig stated that she assumed those criteria will be met, if this ODP is approved. Member Gavaldon noted that a TIS had been waived; therefore the Board had not received one. Member Meyer asked Director Gloss to remind the Board of what an ODP is and what it does. Director Gloss noted the 7 criteria for ODP’s and stated that an ODP is basically a bubble-diagrammatic plan that shows the allowable uses, density, and pattern of connections. Issues relating to neighborhood compatibility do not have a specific criterion for the ODP stage. It will be at the PDP stage that we look at more of the site and architectural design issues. Member Schmidt asked if there would be an administrative public hearing for the PDP. Director Gloss replied that is correct, the hearing has not yet been scheduled. There are both letters sent out to Affected Property Owners and notice posted in the Coloradoan for the administrative public hearing. Member Schmidt asked if, on average, a home generates 10 trips per day, or if that was the figure used by the Traffic Department. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Averill replied that seemed a bit high to him but added that he is not a traffic engineer. Member Schmidt asked if there was anything that precludes an access on to Vine Drive rather than having the circle drive with both entrances on Impala. Planner Olt replied that the property is only 225 feet wide along Vine Drive. With Vine Drive being an arterial street, the separation requirements between streets could not likely be met. Member Schmidt asked what happens with detentions ponds in terms of land area counted toward net density. Planner Olt replied that is a platting issue which will be dealt with at PDP level. The PDP which is in for review right now shows the detention pond as an out lot, not as part of another lot. Member Schmidt asked if there would be bike lanes along the east end of Parcel B along Impala Drive. Mr. Averill replied that they typically do not do bike lanes on local roads. There are currently no bike lanes at all on Impala. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Adrian Overall Development Plan, File #42-03B citing the fact and findings of the staff report on Page 5, Items 1-7. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that he recognized that most of the neighbors’ concerns were with the PDP stage and encouraged the neighbors to follow the process and bring up those issues at the PDP hearing. He stated concern over the basic premise of proposing this as an ODP potentially to avoid some responsibility for some public improvements. However, a denial may not be justifiable on that kind of philosophy. He asked if staff would recommend against this because of this issue. Planner Olt replied that any development has the potential to be a phase development. The criteria in Section 2.3.2 are used to evaluate the ODP and, in this case, staff has determined that the criteria are being met and are therefore recommending approval. The Board certainly has the authority to disagree. Member Lingle asked if the level of public improvements which will be triggered by only the Parcel A development is adequate to address the concerns. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 19 Director Gloss replied that it is the burden of the applicant to determine whether the transportation level of service requirements are met. By splitting this out into two projects, if only the first phase is completed, the question is whether the LOS standards can be met. Engineering staff has determined that they can be met with a one or two phase project. Member Lingle stated that he is uncomfortable with that whole premise but does agree that it meets the criteria and therefore, unless convinced otherwise, does not see how he can vote against it. Member Schmidt stated concern about the transportation and vehicular impacts. The lots, though perhaps similar in size to those proposed, do not all “dump out” into the same area. She asked if anyone really looked at the impact of these cars on Impala Drive as well as the parking impact. Planner Olt replied that those impacts will be addressed at the PDP stage. Member Gavaldon stated that he would be supporting the project as it follows the guidelines. He thanked Planner Olt for a job well done. Member Craig stated that the research and effort put in by neighbors was commendable. She stated that Item 7 of the ODP requirements states that “any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire overall development plan.” She stated that she does not believe this project really meets the density of the area and asked staff how they clarified this when making their recommendation. Planner Olt replied that this property is in the RL zoning district and noted that Mr. Maserlian was incorrect when he stated it was LMN. Relating to housing density, the only density criteria in RL zoning is lot size of no less than 6,000 square feet. This criterion is met by this application. The impacts will be determined at the PDP level. The ODP has the flexibility to meet the requirements without definitely establishing the number of dwelling units or the density that is going to occur. Parcel A will have between one and seven lots, Parcel B will have one to two lots, and the PDP has to be in conformance with the ODP. If, at the PDP stage, staff does not feel density requirements in Section 3.5.1 are being met, it will have to justify its opinion for the Administrative Hearing Officer. Vice-Chairperson Meyer noted that the PDP is where the concerned neighbors need to speak. All of the specific standards will have to be met then. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 20 Member Schmidt thanked the neighbors for their time and effort and told them that the PDP is where the other issues will be discussed. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 West Laurel Street, Modification of Standard, #7-04B Project Description: This is a request for a modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to allow a reduction to 35 parking spaces from the required 43. The site is located at 502 West Laurel Street, at the northwest corner of South Sherwood Street and West Laurel Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the standard at issue is Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) which pertains to the minimum parking required on a per bedroom, per unit basis. The applicant is requesting that the proposed parking be 35 spaces instead of 43 spaces as required by the Code. The site is 19,222 square feet in size and is zoned NCB – Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. At the PDP hearing, there was a condition of approval that addressed the parking issue. The PDP was conditioned that 3.2.2(K)(1) be complied with or a modification be sought. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, 3207 Kittery Court, gave the applicant’s presentation. He stated that this project has a total of 20 two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units and, per the standard, would be required to provide 43 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 35 on-site spaces. He stated that the justification for the modification is that this meets the standard equally well or better than the standard itself. The Code has been designed for those areas that are more outlying areas so parking is available for commuters and others who are using their vehicles to get to work or school within the City core. With this project, not all of the standards can be equally applied because of its unique location and proximity to alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Brookshire showed a map of the area and noted the proximity of this project to mass transit as well as businesses and CSU. He presented data and information relating to parking standards and mass transit information from other cities. The intended residents of this project will be students. He stated that reduced parking standards should be applied to districts in recognition of their proximity to high frequency transit service and the walkable environment of mixed uses. Mr. Brookshire Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 21 noted that other urban areas have much lower parking standards for these types of projects. He presented data from other, similar projects in terms of how many parking spaces were required by residents. It was found that about 62% of CSU on-campus residents have vehicles. Data were presented in terms of rents for similar projects and projected rents for Atrium Suites which were found to be right in line with the others. Public Input Troy Jones, resident of Fort Collins, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he thinks the project is a good idea noting that much of the off-campus student hosing is so far from campus that a car is required. If there is any area in the City that should have fewer than required parking spaces, this is one where it seems like it might work. Public Input Closed Member Meyer asked who gets the on-site parking out of all the residents. Mr. Brookshire replied that the demand for the parking is not there so those who do have cars end up with spaces. There is on-street parking surrounding this area for overflow parking. Member Gavaldon asked if they were planning to charge for the parking spaces. Mr. Brookshire replied that they are not at this time but added that the parking lot will be monitored for the use of residents only. Member Gavaldon asked about parking spaces not being counted toward the parking requirements if they were charged for. Planner Shepard replied that if they charge for parking, extra above the rent, such that it discriminates between someone who does and someone who does not want to pay for it, the parking is not counted. If it happens that they start charging for parking at some time in the future and too many people are parking on the streets, we look for parking violations. Member Gavaldon asked what would happen if two-hour limits were installed on those streets. Planner Shepard replied that Parking Services can do that. Member Craig asked, if the parking spaces provided will be first come, first served, how the cars will be identified as Atrium residents. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 22 Mr. Brookshire replied that residents will be given stickers for their vehicles, which they will tell the management about when they move in. Member Craig asked if the residents will be restricted to just one vehicle per resident or per apartment. Mr. Brookshire replied that the permits are basically a permit for a first come, first served situation in the parking area. Planner Shepard replied that the parking surveys he has done have shown that the controlling the commuter parking is the problem for property managers, not having enough parking for residents. Chairperson Torgerson asked if on-street parking spaces were counted in the 35 spaces. Mr. Brookshire replied that the 35 spaces were on the site, separate from the public right-of-way. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was a provision in the Land Use Code that allowed projects to count parking on public streets. Planner Shepared replied that they count only if they are internal to the project itself and aren’t really a through, connecting street to the neighborhood. Chairperson Torgerson stated that it seems to be a bit of a judgment call in terms of which street are and which are not. Director Gloss replied that it is. The standard was put together for apartment complexes which are facing parking lots rather than streets, to keep that from happening. It is a bit different for a project where the streets and traffic are already in place. Chairperson Torgerson asked how many spots were along the street and, if counted, would the project meet the Code. Mr. Brookshire replied that there are 11 spaces, and perhaps one may be lost or relocated. Chairperson Torgerson noted that they would exceed the parking requirements if these were counted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 23 Member Lingle asked about spillover parking into the neighborhood and what impact it might have. He pointed out on Mr. Brookshire’s diagram that most of the surrounding residences are rentals and that owner-occupied units are about a block and a half north. Mr. Brookshire noted that 64% of the researched parcels are rentals and 15% are owner-occupied. Member Gavaldon asked what the growth projection rates for CSU are. Member Schmidt replied that they are thinking of reducing the enrollment but she was not sure by how much. Member Craig stated appreciation for Mr. Brookshire’s efforts but noted that she would have liked to have seen him ask for a policy change rather than a modification. She stated she was unsure if this modification is equal to or better than the standard. She asked Mr. Brookshire to give a justification for the modification being equal to or better than the standard. Mr. Brookshire replied that City Plan provides a framework for how we want to see our City develop. It states that parking standards should be reduced for projects near alternative transportation and the City core. Secondly, research has shown that the demand for the parking is not there. Member Craig stated that she would like to see the policy change. Mr. Brookshire replied that he hoped this would be a good first step. Member Schmidt noted that not having a lot of parking would hopefully encourage residents to use the alternative modes. That makes it better than the standard. Chairperson Torgerson noted that Mr. Brookshire stated that the modification was equal to or better than City Plan, not equal to or better than the purpose for this Code section. Member Craig stated that it would be better for the public good to reduce or modify the standard. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he did not address the purpose of the Code section. Planner Shepard replied that he struggled with that too but his thinking was that the purpose of the standard is to control the negative externalities created by the PDP. The purpose of the standard is to provide on-site parking. It is a good standard for apartment complexes that are a bit further from campus. Mr. Shepard stated that it meets the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 24 standard because there will not be as much demand spilling out; therefore, the standard is still met. The purpose of the standard is to protect the neighborhood. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the purpose is to “ensure that parking and circulation of all developments are well-designed with regard to safety, efficiency, convenience for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.” Planner Shepard stated that the purpose, even though the Code does not specifically say it, is to keep parking impacts where they are. Member Gavaldon stated concern about charging for parking and that putting parking onto the streets. He asked if a condition could be placed on the project to keep them from charging for parking. Member Schmidt stated that there is no guarantee for that but it seems that someone paying $690 for an apartment would likely pay for parking, or at least most would. Chairperson Torgerson noted that if they started charging for parking, they would not be in compliance with the Code, and would have a zoning violation. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt moved for approval of the Atrium Suites Modification of Standard, File #7-04B, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report starting on Page 9, J1 and J2. Vice-Chairperson Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Chairperson Torgerson thanked the applicant for the research and presentation. He asked Director Gloss about the CDOT item from the previous hearing. Director Gloss replied that the Clerk’s Office received an appeal on the Board’s decision and it has been scheduled for consideration by City Council on October 19, 2004. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.