Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGARTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 20-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 18 Member Bernth stated that Kathleen Reavis would need to be present at the worksession to discuss the item as the topic brings up larger issues that are going to be faced with Mason Street. Director Gloss stated that it is already on the agenda for the May 10 worksession. Member Colton suggested continuing the item to May 16 but that a discussion should happen at the May 10 worksession. Members Bernth and Meyer agreed to change their motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2002 Hearing. Mr. Hoaglund stated that he would be open to that. Member Meyer stated that "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game." She added that the rules cannot be changed based on what may happen 6 weeks from now with the Mason Plan. Attorney Eckman stated that that is true by state law. He added that there are no definite rules by which to abide in the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Planner Jones stated that the reason the Mason Street Corridor Plan was part of his findings of fact and conclusions was because we are in the process of trying to implement an adopted plan. Because a modification is being requested and detrimental to the public good is something that needs to be considered, the Mason Street Plan was brought up. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that a new policy had been adopted where presentations are not given on every item at worksessions. He stated concern about that citing this item. It would have been more fair to the applicants to have had this discussion occur at worksession and then they would have come to this meeting prepared. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Approved by the Board 3/18/2004 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 17 Director Gloss stated that it would be difficult to take the item to the May 16 hearing; it would be June 6, 2002. Members Bernth and Meyer stated that they would be fine with the June 6 date. Member Meyer suggested asking the applicant if he could wait that long. Mr. Hoaglund replied that he would wait. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that perhaps the Board was out of process. In reality, a modification should not be tied to a specific plan at all. It is not appropriate to offer suggestions about specific design advice on a modification. Member Carpenter stated that the Mason Street Corridor Plan was a plan that the Board had to adhere to, just as the Land Use Code. Attorney Eckman replied that it is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Jones stated that the Mason Street Corridor Plan is not clear on the issue of how the building should be sited. Attorney Eckman added that it had not been adopted as a regulatory tool so it would be difficult to implement the visions of the Corridor Plan through the Land Use Code. He stated that the applicant may want to build the argument of the hardship standard for the next meeting, if the item is continued. Member Colton stated that he was still uncertain as to the reason for a possible continuance. Mr. Holter asked if it would be possible to continue the item to the next meeting, rather than the June 6 meeting. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not be willing to not consider the Mason Street Corridor Plan in this decision. Member Carpenter agreed. Planner Jones stated that staff could look at the issue regarding the Mason Street Corridor Plan but added that two weeks or a month of staff discussion would not be enough time to get all the input from other parties who will ultimately weigh in on the Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 16 Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the context setback applies to this situation as it would seem there is an established contextual setback in this area and perhaps a modification would not even be required. Planner Jones replied that it may apply but, regardless of that, there is still the vehicle area between the street and the building. Attorney Eckman noted that there is the hardship basis for a modification which reads "by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property..." "The strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the property provided those difficulties or hardships are not caused by an act of the owner." Though the applicant has not made that argument, it is another way for the Board to grant modifications if it thought that was more fitting. Member Colton commented that a modification was granted to Pedersen Motors. Planner Jones stated, in relation to contextual setbacks, that under 3.8.19(B), it says "a contextual front setback may fall at any point between the front setback required in the zone district and the front setback that exists on a lot that is adjacent and oriented to the same street as the subject lot." Therefore, the contextual setback could apply to this project so the only modification needed would be to the vehicle area being between the street and the building. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked the applicant if he could envision a solution that did not have the parking between the building and the street. Mr. Holter replied that it would be difficult to have the major parking lot and loading docks on the same side of the building. Member Bernth stated that he would support a continuance but suggested that the applicant should focus more on the contextual setback, the hardship, and the fact that this is an infill parcel. Member Bernth moved to continue the Garth Commercial Plaza, Lots 3 and 4, Modification of Standards, File #20-02, to the next Planning & Zoning Board Hearing on May 16, 2002. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Colton asked what the reason for continuance would be. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 15 Planner Jones replied that he had met with Kathleen, Tom Reiff, Mr. Holter, and Mr. Hoaglund met to discuss the Mason Street Corridor. Kathleen agrees that it would be bet to adhere to the Code in this circumstance. Member Colton asked how the Mason Street Plan would view pushing the parking to the area between the building and the railroad tracks. Planner Jones replied that we are not far enough in the process to know the answer. Member Colton asked Mr. Holter where the truck loading and unloading would occur with the proposed site plan. Mr. Holter replied that the site plan presently shows the area as parking spaces but they would have garage doors with hydraulic lifts. Member Carpenter stated that she was struggling with this project, particularly because it is not certain which side buildings should be pulled up to once the Mason Street Corridor is in place. She stated that if there was a lot more vacant land for development, perhaps the Code should be followed; however, this building being pushed back would not make any difference as to how Mason Street Corridor works. She stated that she was leaning toward granting the modification since all of the buildings would have to be dealt with anyway and since there is no definite direction on which way the buildings should front. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested continuing the project to look at a more feasible design that would meet the applicant's needs as well as the Mason Street Corridor needs. Member Carpenter stated that she would normally agree but it seems like we don't know what the needs of the Mason Street Corridor are going to be yet. Planner Jones concurred but stated that the issue could be explored more closely over the next few weeks. Member Meyer agreed with Member Carpenter. Member Craig stated that she was concerned about creating "backs" again because this area was going to have two visual corridors from which this building could be seen. She stated that the decision should be based on the Land Use Code criterion which is the build -to modification to Mason Street, not to the Corridor. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Hoaglund replied that that does not currently meet the client's criteria because the building needs to have some rear garage door bays. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson suggested putting garage bay uses in the center of the building and have a center loading area. Mr. Hoaglund replied that he was not sure. Member Bernth asked what the percentage of built -out land like this is (with parking between street and building) between Horsetooth and Harmony on the west side of Mason. Planner Jones replied that there is quite a bit of land like that, particularly between Horsetooth and Troutman. Member Bernth asked if this would be a Type I or Type II review if this modification is granted. Planner Jones replied that he thought it would be a Type I in that it is a commercial use in a commercial zone. Member Bernth asked if it would be possible to condition the modification because if he would be inclined to vote for the modification, he would like to see what the building looks like before final approval. Attorney Eckman replied that he would not recommend that the modification be conditioned on bringing a Type I hearing into a Type II situation. Planner Jones stated that if it is a retail situation, it is a Type I use, but there are a lot of uses that would be Type II reviews. Chairperson Gavaldon reminded the Board that the staff recommendation was for denial. Planner Jones stated that if the Board is inclined to approved the modification request, the staff report does not contain the findings they would need, but the letter from the applicant does. If the Board does not want to approve it, the staff report would contain the findings to cite. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Kathleen Reavis had a chance to review this proposal to provide more insight. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 13 Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked Planner Jones if he had any pictures of any other retail buildings along Mason Street. Planner Jones replied that he did not have any photos but stated that Pro Discount Golf, which is north of Troutman, is up to the street but that is the only building on the street without a parking area between the building and the street. Member Craig noted a couple other buildings that are pulled up to the street on that block. Member Carpenter asked how many vacant parcels there were along the block, south of Horsetooth. Planner Jones replied that this parcel, and a couple across Mason are vacant. Mr. Holter replied that this is about the only vacant parcel and noted that the buildings that are pushed up to the street on that block are on corners. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Hoaglund if he had reviewed the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Mr. Hoaglund replied that he had. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if he had been able to incorporate his design to meet the goals and visions of the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Mr. Hoaglund replied that he understood that there would really not be much activity right in this area, as the site is right between two transit nodes. The building could be modified to put store fronts on the back side of the building if the plan does happen. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested that Mr. Hoaglund review the plan a bit more thoroughly to determine what the intent was. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he could appreciate the market concerns about rental feasibility. He asked if it would be possible to put the building up to the street with parking between the building and the railroad tracks, behind the building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 12 Staff Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending denial. He stated that the applicant would like to go off the existing setbacks along Mason Street, which has set the precedent for parking between the building and the street. The Land Use Code, however. requires that the building be 15 feet away from the street right-of-way and that no parking should occur between the street and the building. Another consideration is the Mason Street Transportation Plan which will allow fine-tuning of some of the land uses in order to have activity centers around transit stops. Staff is recommending denial of the request because it feels like the Mason Street Corridor implementation would be better served to have the buildings meet the Code rather than have the modification granted. Terrance Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the prime concern of the land owner has been creating a site design that works with the City's desires but is also economically viable and harmonious with the neighboring buildings. He stated that they would be willing to provide a pedestrian shelter and would provide a pedestrian -friendly site plan with the parking between the street and the building. George Holter, property owner, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that they do have possible tenants for the building, including some that would need rear - building garage access. He asked when the Mason Street Corridor would be built in that area. Planner Jones replied that it is likely within the next 2 or 3 years but that is not definite. Mr. Holter stated that his other properties include buildings with nicer exteriors that will look good well into the future. He stated that renting the back side of the building, in using the plan that would meet Code requirements, would be very difficult. Mr. Hoaglund stated that the spirit of the Land Use Code is to get the building fronts out to the street which will happen with the proposed site plan to a greater extent than to the plan that meets the Code. Mr. Hoaglund also suggested allowing on -street parking on streets such as Mason. He stated that this project is not detrimental to the public good and granting the modification request will allow a plan that promotes better pedestrian connectivity between the proposed site and adjacent uses and the pedestrian connection to the Mason Street Corridor. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 11 Member Craig seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he had toured affordable housing in Chicago and noted that one of their biggest failures was the lack of integration of affordable projects with market rent projects. It is good to see that that is being addressed here. The proximity of the project to other uses is also important. He stated that he would enthusiastically support the project. Member Colton stated that he would support the project and its affordable housing component but he did question the 25% logic. He stated concern about affordable housing being considered more beneficial to the public good than other uses which may be equally as good. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion as well but wanted to draw the Board's attention to the map in the staff report which showed the concentration of affordable apartments in this area. Member Colton stated concern over decisions favoring housing over employment. Mr. Waido stated that there are three private activity bond -supported projects in that area. The other affordable housing projects in the southeast part of town are part of Rigden Farm and Provincetowne. Member Craig stated that this is a perfect location for this project and that she could overlook some of the employment issues for that. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards, File #20-02 Project Description: Request for modification of standards to Section 3.5.3(B)(2) which requires that no vehicle use area be located between the building and the street; and Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) which requires that a commercial building be located no further away from a minor arterial than 15 feet. The property is located just southwest of the intersection of Boardwalk Drive and Mason Street. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Bernth, Torgerson, Colton, Carpenter, Craig, and Gavaldon. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Waido, Jones, Shepard, Barkeen, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the August 16 and October 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #14-02 PFA Station #14, Project Development Plan. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 3. #5-02 Poudre School District & Timbers PUD, Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 4. #11-02 Liberty Common School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review. 5. #18-02 Caribou Apartments, Modification of Standard. 6. #20-02 Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards. Member Craig pulled Item #2, PFA Station #14, Project Development Plan, from the consent agenda for discussion. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 1 and 3. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Craig commended Georgiana Deines for her hard work and accuracy on the October 18, 2001 meeting minutes.