Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/19/2004 - HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 171, 20 ITEM NUMBER: 24 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: October 19, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Bob Barkeen SUBJECT Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the zoning request by a vote of 4-2 (with Torgerson and Meyer dissenting,Carpenter absent). Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance (approving the rezoning) on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to rezone Lot 10 of the Griffin Subdivision,which is located at the southeast comer of West Prospect Road and Tamasag Drive and known as 221 West Prospect Road. This parcel is 26,800 sq. 8. in size (0.62 acres) and is currently zoned E—Employment. The proposed rezoning would rezone the property into the CC — Community Commercial zone district. The parcel is designated as part of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor and is identified as part of the Campus District on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map. The 221 West Prospect Road rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 16,2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the rezoning request. Issues expressed by the Planning and Zoning Board supporting its recommendation of denial include: 1. While some of the permitted uses within the CC zone district will be of the appropriate type and intensity to serve the transit corridor, others are incompatible. Some examples were auto-oriented uses like fast food restaurants and retailers. While the Board acknowledged that the list of permitted uses within the E-Employment district was much more restrictive, and likely less marketable, their perspective was that there is less risk that incompatible uses will be introduced. 2. Some members were concerned about 'commercial creep" whereby redevelopable properties further away from the Mason Corridor could use the same rationale for rezoning their property to CC. 3. A continued concern was raised about the E-Employment land supply. October 19, 2004 -2- Item No. 24 4. One member who participated on the Mason Corridor Transportation Team didn't perceive the change to be consistent with the adopted Corridor Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan designation as "Campus District." This designation promotes the education, research and employment needs of the campus,but also includes internal and/or surrounding retail and residential areas which support the campus. The site is on the south side of Prospect Road, one block south of Lake Street, which is generally considered the southern boundary of the Colorado State University main campus. This site is also included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. This plan promotes the use of Mason Street and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Tracks as an enhanced pedestrian, bicycle and transit corridor. The Mason Street Transportation Corridor provides opportunities for transit-oriented development along this transit route, by increasing the residential density and providing additional employment, retail and entertainment needs along the corridor. The proposed Community Commercial (CC) zone district permits a variety of uses and includes design standards which are consistent with the Campus District designation of the Structure Plan and the goals of the Mason Street Corridor Plan. This site is adjacent to a proposed transit stop (north of Prospect Road,east of the railroad tracks). In order to support the transit stop,high density residential is recommended to be located within a relatively short walking distance to station. The zone district includes single and multi-family residential,mixed-use dwellings,churches,restaurants (including fast food,without a drive through),grocery stores,retail establishments,bars and taverns, gasoline stations, vehicle minor repair and day shelters. The maximum building height is 5 stories. FINDINGS and ANALYSIS Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: CC; Multi-family residential, fast food restaurant S: E; undeveloped E: C; retail center W: E; offices The property was annexed as part of the Pat Griffin Second Annexation in October, 1968. Ouasi-Judicial Rezoning This rezoning proposal is considered a quasi-judicial rezoning.In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of such a rezoning to the City Council, the following criteria must be met: A. Consistent with the Citv's Comprehensive Plan: This parcel is designated as Campus District on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The existing Employment zoning and the proposed Community Commercial zoning are consistent with this designation on the Structure Plan. October 19, 2004 -3- Item No. 24 The site is included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. This plan has been adopted as an element of City Plan, and is designated as an enhanced travel corridor. This plan encourages the implementation of safe, convenient and comfortable access to high frequency transit services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The enhance travel corridor should integrate features of adjacent land uses to encourage transit ridership and the ability to walk or ride a bicycle.The proposed community commercial zone district will permit the integration of residential, retail and other uses which will support the transit corridor. B. Warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property The property was originally developed as a gas station. This station has since closed, and is being used as a check cashing establishment. The property owner has indicated that this is only a temporary use of the site, and that ultimately the property should be redeveloped to fulfill its potential. The current Employment zoning will certainly permit uses that can support both the Campus District designation and the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Where the current zoning falls short is in achieving the ideal mix of residential,retail,entertainment and other supporting uses for the CSU campus and higher densities and land use intensities envisioned as part of the Mason Street Corridor.These uses are all secondary uses within the Employment district, and would require modification to permit a project that encompassed a mix of housing, retail and other supporting uses. This site is part of a larger subdivision that includes an additional 10 lots. Two of these lots are developed with an office building (Griffin Building to the west), the remainder are undeveloped. The undeveloped lots front along Tamasag Drive, which is a circular drive south of the site. These lots are owned by Colorado State University. While CSU has no plans for the development of these lots, it is likely they will develop as student housing or administrative offices. As CSU continues to grow and expand to the south of the main campus, surrounding properties will redevelop to continue to meet the needs of supporting the university. C. Additional Consideration for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings: In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed zoning amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may also consider the following additional factors: 1. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surroundingthe a subject land,and is the appropriate zone district for the land: This area includes a variety of existing uses,including retail,restaurants,residential and office. The uses permitted within the CC zone district will be compatible with these surrounding uses. The most undesirable land use which may conceivably be permitted on the site under the CC zone district would be a gas station,which is what the site was previously used for. Compatibility with existing and anticipated future uses would be better achieved with the redevelopment of the site. October 19, 2004 -4- Item No. 24 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including,but not limited to water,noise, air, stormwater management,wildlife,vegetation,wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. The parcels are not included within a mapped natural area, nor does it appear they contain any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas which would be impacted by future development of the site.There are some existing trees on the site, which may need to be incorporated into a future site plan. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattem. The land to the north of the site across Prospect Road is currently zoned Community Commercial. This district would be extended south to include this lot. The surrounding properties would remain E—Employment to the west and south and C- Commercial to the east. Request for CC—Community Commercial District Zoning The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on July 9, 2004. The current request is to rezone 221 West Prospect Road from E—Employment to CC—Community Commercial. The lot is about .62 acres in size. The purpose of the CC Zoning District is to provide a "combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses.Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground floor retail." FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning, File #25-04, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: A. The subject property for the 221 West Prospect Rezoning is designated on the City Structure Plan as Campus District.The rezoning request to Community Commercial is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan map. B. The subject property for the 221 West Prospect Rezoning is included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan,which recommends the use ofhigher density residential and greater commercial intensities along the corridor. The rezoning request to Community Commercial is consistent with this plan. C. The subject property has undergone change,the existing zoning is no longer consistent with the principles of City Plan and is inconsistent with the purpose of the Campus District and the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan. October 19, 2004 -5- Item No. 24 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that City Council deny the 221 West Prospect Rezoning #25-04, Amendment to the Zoning Map from E — Employment to CC — Community Commercial District. Staff recommends adoption of the rezoning ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 171, 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE 221 WEST PROSPECT ROAD REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided; and WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS,to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from "E", Employment Zone District, to "CC", Community Commercial Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning: Lot 10 Griffin Plaza Subdivision, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of October,A.D.,2004,and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of November,A.D.2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 16th day of November, A.D. 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk all I I IN _ OEM million III ■1 4 IN {rt nViS''1 �i2 ■ I Lq h f• if IIII�� I I■ ■�■ ■1:1 -= ■ �+ i III■�� �,■ �� �■ ■ � � � �l _■__ :11: � �11111 � ' mmr ,WHE WIN 11111111��moll ■ ■ ■■ ■ lll■�mill 1111 ON I, ■ it �= 1 IN Oro 6a City ofCity°f F CITY OF FORT COLLINS REZONING PETITION Petitioner: — Name Address --- dh%kE [, / C Fin 1,�f— City, State, Zip ------------- ----------- ---- Name Address City, State, Zip Owner: Name ,�10,¢, ,ef r cc)c ee44-t9-,) f_La Address_ City, State, Zip ------------------- ------ ---------- Name Address City, State, Zip To the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition and request that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing the zoning of the hereinafter described parcel, containing 4YLo acres, more or less, from _jE�— zoning district to C,�' _ zoning district: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION HERE] 1' /O C,k' lFFrr1i i G rY t!0C';-� C,a v,� r-y d F L A-;e-> 2 , 5 T7a-�.E 1) r:-' d 6 t_ L, Reason for Request: (Please attach additional sheets if more space is needed) Sim � H tm" Please attach listing of names and addresses of all persons owning land (as per Larimer County Assessor's office on date of request) within 500 feet of any portion of the area under petition for rezoning. Respectfully ubmitted, State of Colorado ) ) ss. County of Larimer ) The forgoing instrument was acknowledge before me this-qj� — day of_ 2 o0 , — jng _— for the purpose therein set forth. My commission expires Ca 18 o4 --__ Not Public Please return to the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department. Attachment to Rezoning Application 221 West Prospect Road Fort Collins,Colorado These are a number of compelling reasons for the rezoning of the property at 221 W.Prospect from Employment District to Community Commercial. They are as follows: 1. Since the property was platted in 1977 as a subdivision,it has been used as a commercial property housing a service station and convenience store. in keeping with the original zoning and use,it is natural to maintain its use as a viable commercial property. 2. The property is adjacent to the Mason Street Condor and a proposed station stop. The intent of the Mason Street Corridor plan is to increase commercial and residential usage along its route. Such rezoning will be consistent with the intent and desire of the corridor plan. 3. This parcel's size and location is not conducive to or in keeping with Employment District zoning. The Employment zoning will hamper the redevelopment of the property to be consistent with the corridor plan. 4. The property was originally zoned commercial. The properties across the street and to the east are zoned commercial,which finrther reflects a consistency of a commercial zoning. 5. Lastly,we know Employment District zoning is important to Fort Collins. However,removing a small half acre parcel from the inventory should have a negligible effect. rr D � K b 0 E CSU • Mapomaiedwiih Arc W$-Cap yd9hi(C)iW0 0OMRIhc. Lines depict proposed area to be rezoned to Community Commercial District from Employment District. Ca, Current zoning of 221 West Prospect Rd. Currently Employment District. The Picture to the right shows the existing zonings for the property and adjacent properties. WO e.v1G VN.I ACM9-CapyrlpM1l��M@dfQ 6RI M. • • I �.i IJ l I l i I I i ' � III I , C � �Gy OW M I I t 14 - P L i w sTtu»1 sT r' • a Map cmaledniih hroM a IJ!?hi 1992-2DMOFihc. Lines depict proposed area to be rezoned to Community Commercial District from Employment District. I i T L_ Current zoning of 221 West �_ -- eau WP Prospect Rd. Currently Employment District. The � ' H Picture to the right shows the existing zonings for the R property and adjacent properties. MM egIN•t1�Aeb-°MYMa °p9°BpMo. • m `' � �'-` L• ; � it�� Y e� S •G d I I !' S E g 6 y S F O S 2�w'k 6 z w 0 LO z -w 3e r �F'a.:fisa:5ce� xe 69e 9p sa Q"" Ce A6 �3 2 O 6 ye = agF •E., :3= -9' k..a k a�4!�07sE ,� ti k� �� - Ny ax i ?A aSi$sv Ec !3 xlf 3 E E A =5' e:=y' m O 2 's # ax a! 6 E.3 sCr- :1 33° :3e .6 s'�n saa sn ;% yL a 6 F W e S; asy xx3 E4`9dx rsB .a- 'a a ad}a 9 i 9[ y V I- W tC :L e d 3: :aa i 'Y �a = FS. •�:e.W. H< 3 3.. YP 3� ey3€393}�a'xi xE; ca Mfg 3 "eF .8 `Y�3.0 i.ie 95%BESy-F 3:9.YRE 4L YL S➢ � �^° a gy.6`� 4R�A `F'9a6 e23-�..^. i9 >_ N W 3 s 4' s 3 €' ey$= $ $$Kaki =! Z 2 i> i $6 :_ rr-a'a9�x aas 9d d .a is� r 'e s d k.a`y,Es°ay,,:$e Q w !g :3 i 0 k Y.rij YWS9Y§8 8 \ l 2 U "e "j $: xi..a':63Y a s : 7 ?: ps• 's $ \..... :..: Q 2 2 � J W _Z F 1tlM-fO.1M91a atloa`lltla LL J i YY r SAMO Y � �y 6 ei_t m a tl xo£mow'PE! I}i a y I a Lo F :IS -- 'q 4Q ---4-' 1'u Qt ;3s I Q 6� P9kA3 N gf 97 Q.tx � 4 � ' .63Vi9 N P 8• R jz[ 8- 49tlStlWtl1 j v 3L#=id • � a R s# ;d'3 s 1 a ��"� A I AiQ 4 „s 8, �� sl r;-''a j t p« s e; dui —�+z�c P f Ac I-- DRAFT Planning andZoning : . . . Minutes September00• . 00 . 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, Mayer, 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 Hearings. 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). 11425-04 221 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. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT 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 DP r J T September 16, 2004 Page 3 Mark Strottman, 1000 48"' 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 D September 16, 2004 P AFT 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 D P A FT 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, stafrs 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 DRAFT 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 T September 16, 2004 DRAFT 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 ® 1 T 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 staffs 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.