Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP130038 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 11 Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that he did not consider parking to be an issue for this building, and he doesn't consider the building height to be an issue either, because it is within the code requirements. He believes that the massing is the only issue. He went on to say that he feels that he must rely on our staff's judgment in this case, since it is a subjective interpretation. Member Schneider stated there are other buildings that are not uniform or numerically tied to setbacks; therefore, he is in support of this project. Chair Carpenter stated that she believes that the P&Z Board must interpret code when there aren't specific percentages. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick stated that, while she feels there is some room for interpretation, the Board must also refer to the City plan for future development, and she considers this project to be a "first step" toward that plan. Member Heinz agreed and stated that this Board must bring some judgment to the code, especially for city infill projects. Member Hobbs stated that, based on the sheer wall, he must agree with staff that the building is not compatible with surrounding areas and won't blend in with the neighborhood. He also has concerns with parking, even though there are no specific requirements. Deputy City Attorney Eckman gave the Board some context for making a decision on this issue and how to make a motion (if there is a motion to deny this project, the Board must cite specific sections in the LUC). Chair Carpenter does not support this project because she agrees with Staff's assessment that this building is out of context with the neighborhood. Member Hart likes the building and is torn, because he feels that complying with the code should not be so difficult. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the Zone District Requirements 4.16-D.4.b.2; he acknowledged that the setback requirements are subjective (no specific or measurable requirements). There was some discussion of the context of compatibility and zoning requirements. Member Hobbs stated that there should be consideration of surrounding buildings, and he does not believe that this building complies with that requirement. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick stated that this building will support the City plan for density. Chair Carpenter stated that if it had more setbacks, that would change the looks of the buildings and the relationship to other buildings. Member Hart suggested that more commonality should occur between setbacks with this and other buildings. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick motioned to approve Mason Street Sustainable Development PDP #130038 because it complies with the Land Use Code, with the addition of a condition of approval for the successful procurement of the encroachment permit for bicycle parking. Member Heinz seconded. Member Schneider supports this project. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also supports the projects and hopes that more metrics will be approved in the future. Member Heinz also supports this project and appreciates the initiative shown. Member Hobbs does not support this project because he feels this project constitutes an overreach with the size of the lot versus the size of the project. Member Hart will support the project because he feels this will be an asset to the city. Chair Carpenter does not support project, and she stated that she would have liked to have seen more setbacks. Vote: 4:2 with Chair Carpenter and Member Hobbs dissenting. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 10 Brian Dunbar, 1607 W. Mulberry, works at CSU and is involved in a task force called the University Urban Lab, which looks at Mason Street and Old Town area and tries to support density in many different ways. He does question the parking issues, but he also feels this project is appropriate for the expanding city. He stated that, if this building is denied, that will set a negative precedent for future developers. McCabe Callahan, 261 S. College Avenue, is a local business owner. He supports this project and believes that the supporters of this project appear to have a bigger vision for the future of Ft. Collins. Myrne Watrous, 723 West Olive, resident, does not support this project and she is afraid this will establish an unfortunate precedent that others will follow. Veronica Brink, 4414 E. Harmony Road, Suite 100, is a long-time resident. She supports this building and believes it will help local companies grow, which will enhance Ft. Collins. Applicant Response Mr. Moe stated that it is his intention to be a good steward of this area of Ft. Collins, and he asked Planning Manager Gloss to show the audience one of the City slides that clearly indicates the building setbacks. He is attempting to illustrate his belief that the setbacks are very appropriate for the building in question. Staff Response None. Board Questions Member Hart asked about how the square footage would affect the design of this building, and Planning Manager Gloss responded that the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) had made a specific recommendation on the height and setbacks, but he would have to review the Planner's notes to determine what those numbers are. The Board took a break at 9:20pm; the hearing reconvened 9:28pm. Planning Manager Gloss responded to the earlier question of whether there had been specific setback requirements established by the LPC. He read some of the pertinent language in the code, which does not provide numeric specifics. Based on that language, while still subjective, Planning Manager Gloss does not think that the building meets the language setback requirements. He was not able to locate the LPC specifics on this issue. Member Hobbs asked the applicant what percentage of office space his company would be occupying initially, and the applicant responded that the owners would be collectively occupying more than 42% of the building, and this will eventually increase to 80%. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 9 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Public Input Dani Grant, 227 Hawks Nest, local business owner, supports this project and expressed her frustration and disappointment that this building might be rejected over subjective issues. Bill Church, 415 S. Howes Street, resident and business owner, likes the building and feels the benefits outweigh the negatives. He is concerned with parking and the possibility of parking overflow. Julie Sutter, 414 1/2 N. Sherwood, works downtown and supports this building, although she also understands the parking challenges. Willard Wood, 415 S. Howes #809, long-time resident, stated that the footprint of the building is small with respect to the height of the building. Evelyn Arterburn, 3109 Shore Road, long-time resident, supports this project. Allen Kirkpatrick, 210 W. Magnolia Street, lives close to this project and supports it because of the numerous benefits it would bring: it would replace a currently unsightly structure, it would increase the neighborhood's retail and commercial services, and it wouldn't add more concrete to the area, because existing parking is adequate. Mark Parker, 412 Howes, owns an adjacent property and supports the project. Justin Discoe, 3445 N. Shields Street, a farmer in Ft. Collins, supports this project and believes that MAX is awesome. He stated that the parking issues will translate to more people riding bikes or using MAX. Scott Woods, 8720 Arapahoe Valley, is also a planner, and, while he sees the passion in this project, he feels there should be discrimination between the roles played by the planners and the architects. Gunner Gardenhire, 401 Stover Street, supports this project. He believes the project meets the zoning requirements, that there is good value and stewardship of land because it is owner -occupied, and that there are good potential revenue -generating opportunities. Mistene Nugent, 521 S. Black Bart Ct., is a business owner and supports this project, citing the optimization of space as a key factor. She also thinks that many parking issue will be offset by MAX. Dave Edwards, 218 W. Magnolia, resident, supports this project and believes that it conforms to code and will add to long-term viability of the Mason corridor and MAX. Archie Solsky, 202 W. Laurel Street, business owner, supports this project. He feels like this will be a boost to the businesses in the area by bringing back restaurants and customers to the area. Alan Strope, 1309 Hearthfire Court, is a business owner, builder and developer in Ft. Collins. He acknowledged that the Land Use Code can be difficult to adhere to, but he still supports the project, and he believes that the Mason Street Corridor will add a lot to Ft. Collins. Dan Brown, 2013 Linden Lake, is a resident of Ft. Collins who supports this project and believes that this building meets the vision for the Ft. Collins community. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 8 Jeff Hansen recused himself at 7:54pm due to a conflict of interest. Secretary Cosmas listed 5 citizen letters received in support of this project from Curt Bear, Greg Woods, Sean Dougherty, Doug Johnson, and Kirk Larsen. Staff Presentation Planning Manager Gloss provided a brief staff summary outlining the reasons why the staff is recommending denial of the application based on building height, massing, and potential parking impacts. Staff does not believe that there will be compatibility between the proposed building and the established structures in the area. Applicant Presentation Matt Hoeven, applicant, gave a brief presentation in support of this project. He believes that this building would be an asset to the City. He introduced Eric Moe and Justin Larsen, the current owners of the building. Justin began by thanking City Staff. He acknowledged a number of meetings with City Staff, Landmark Preservation Commission, and others who have worked to find the right fit for this project and the neighborhood. He detailed some of the specifications, discussed his strategic plan and Transit - Oriented Development overlay, and other similar projects. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he displayed a map that showed the vertical diagram of the building, in addition to the look of the surrounding building and areas. He showed the scale character on both Mason and Magnolia Streets. He confirmed that this project meets the zoning requirements, acknowledging that some of the requirements are somewhat subjective. He passed around to the P&Z Board members some physical samples of the stone masonry that will be used on the building's fagade. He concluded by illustrating how he believes that the building's fagade and specifications are in compliance with the code requirements. He confirmed that building tenants would be encouraged to utilize the new MAX transportation system as much as possible. Planning Manager Gloss also provided some details of why staff is not in favor of this project, including a visual display of how the building will look in context of the neighborhood and in proximity to other buildings. He stated that, while the building is attractive in appearance, it is massive in comparison to surrounding buildings and the shear walls are not compatible with those buildings. Board Questions Chair Carpenter asked if the illustrations of the neighborhood could be viewed on the website, to which Planning Manager Gloss confirmed that they could. Member Schneider also asked if the LUC code specifies a required percentage or distance for the articulation to the property line. Planning Manager Gloss responded that, based on the Downtown Strategic Plan, there are two standards in effect (Merit and Performance), which translate to a height in stories and a numeric limit. The language in code was purposely left ambiguous in order to avoid stringent requirements. He clarified that the main issue is the height of the building when combined with the mass of the building. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 7 `Member Hansen asked if the Board can identify and prioritize neighborhood projects in a recommendation to City Council, and Director Kadrich responded that that would be appropriate. Board Deliberation Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board support tKe BFO offer for the neighborhood improvements for the Lincoln Corridor Plan and the master/overall design for the enhancements and improvements to the local neighborhoods for the curb and gutters, sidewalks, etc. Member Hansen seconded. Member Heinz asked for cl*fication of the specific priorities. Director Kadrich suggested that, if the Board is agreeable to the B'FO offer, staff could bring more details to the June work session, which could then be prioritized. ember Schneider withdrew his motion. The Board agreed that they would still like to dicate to City Council these recommendations as part of the entire package. Senior Planner Wr explained that improvements will occur along the Lincoln Corridor plus other adjoining neighborhood. Member Schneider stated a concern with the bridge in that the bridge's longevity is questionable and will require some improvement eventually. If the overall phas g doesn't include the bridge, there will be a disservice to the citizens in that area, because anof r egative impact would be created in the future; therefore, he would like to see the bridge included in t ramework structure of the entire plan. Member Hansen stated that he would like to fund the whole plan all once, and he would like to see mass transit prioritized. Member Hart stated that, since the City Council supported the plan, the P&Z Board should do the same. He added that the phasing will be important to accomplish the plan because it is unrealistic to assume the City can fund and complete all of the projects in one phase. Member Heinz stated that she feels that the infrastructure is of utmost priority. Chair Carpenter agreed that she would prefer to see a one-time impact to businesses. Senior Planner Wray stated that the roadway framework would happen without bridge enhancements initially, even though standard landscaping would still occur. He added that the basic framework would -include bike lanes. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also stated that she would like the Board to think about funding more creatively, perhaps focusing on private partnerships. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council formal adoption of the Lincoln Corridor Plan, with an emphasis on the neighborhood element. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick seconded this motion. There was some discussion about the priorities, which will not be specifically recommended at this hearing and will be discussed at the next work session. Vote: 7:0 Chair Carpenter requested a 10-minute break at 7:43pm. The Board members reconvened at 7:53pm Project: Mason Street Sustainable Development Project Description: This project would remove a single -story commercial building built in 1888 and remodeled extensively 1950's, and construct a seven -story, 80-foot tall mixed -use office building (with additional 9-foot tall elevator and HVAC structures) at the southwest corner of Mason and Magnolia Streets. The existing building has been found not eligible for landmark recognition, and its demolition does not require further historic preservation review. The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Sub -District. Recommendation: Denial of application Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2014 Page 2 Harmony and 1-25 Rezone was pulled from the Consent agenda and will be the first item on the Discussion agenda. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the May 8, 2014, Consent agenda as presented, including the minutes from the April 10, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board hearing, and the East Ridge Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #33-98. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 7:0. Public Input: None. Discussion Agenda: 4. 2014 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code 5. Lincoln Corridor Plan 6. Mason Street Sustainable Development 7. Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study Harmony & 1-25 Rezone — REZ140001 Proje Description: This is a request to rezone 264 acres located at the southwest corner of ya Road andinterstate 25 from Transition (T) to Harmony Corridor (H-C) and Rural Lands compliance the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan). Recommendation: Secretary Cosmas listed on ommunication that was received from citizen since the work session: Devon Hirning with concerns abdtitthe neighborhood involvement v0K respect to this project. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments Staff and Applicant Presentations: Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief sentation of this ON applicant, Post Modern Design, gav verbal description of his to field any questions. Public Input None noted. Board Brian Williamson, representing the cement with this project and offered of Board members requested clarification regarding the current phasing and zoning for thi roject. ing Manager Gloss explained the process, and Deputy City Attorney Eckman also adde his Council Liaison: Mavor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick, and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Wray, Shepard, Burnett, Lorson, Barnes, Beals, Lewin, Wilkinson and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Carpenter provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. She also explained the consent agenda process to the citizens. Director Kadrich stated that the item listed under "Other Business" (Board support for Budgeting For Outcomes) will be moved for discussion at the June 121h 2014, P&Z hearing. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from April 10, 2014 2. East Ridge, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #33-98 3. Harmony and 1-25 Rezone— REZ140001