Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout221 W. PROSPECT REZONING - 25-04 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 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.