Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGARTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 20-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Hoaglund replied that it was not. Just the original preliminary plan included the hotel and retail site. Mr. Holter stated that he did not try to get the building approved under the LDGS because he did not have a tenant. Without a tenant, it would not make sense to build the building. The motion failed, 3-3, with Members Carpenter, Craig, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standard, File #20-02, citing the fact that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that it works equally well or better than the standard given the existing physical environment. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig asked what was going to happen when the buildings to the south wanted to seek modifications for the same thing. Member Carpenter stated that a change cannot be started with the last one or two developments. We are anywhere close to redevelopment in the area. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion, entrusting staff to make the most of the Type I review. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Chairperson Gavaldon announced that tomorrow is the open house for the new CSU Performing Arts Center. Member Carpenter announced that there is an historic preservation mixer tomorrow at the Museum from 5-7PM, in celebration of Historic Preservation Month. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Approved by the Board March 18, 2004. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 13 building anyway. The back of the building will also have garage -type service doors. It would also not allow for a continuous pedestrian connection. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if approving this plan would affect the Mason Street Plan. Planner Jones replied that he did not believe it would but the issue is whether we want to adhere to the Land Use Code or make an exception in this case. Staff cannot support the modification because we feel it would lend to a better pedestrian orientation to not grant it. If the modification is granted, it would be a Type I PDP. Staff would be sensitive to the screening of the building either way. Member Meyer noted that she would like to see all the landscape rules enforced as well. Member Bernth moved for approval of Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standard, File #20-02, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the applicant's justification letter dated 5/10/02. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting this as a hardship is not justified. The land does not have any shape or topographic problems. If the modification were denied, something could likely go on the lot that would meet everyone's needs. Member Carpenter stated that she was having a difficult time with this as a hardship though it did make sense contextually. She stated that she probably couldn't support it under a hardship criterion. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that the hardship was that the client embarked on a master plan for all this property, in compliance with the Code in existence at the time; therefore there are unique physical limitations on this property because all the connections and master planning were created to allow a layout that is now not allowed. Member Carpenter asked if there was any kind of vesting with a master plan. Planner Jones replied that any preliminary LDGS approval has expired. There was a process to extend the expiration date. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the master plan was on the City books as an Overall Development Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Hoaglund stated that, back when the hotel site was planned, there was a PUD approval for the second retail building that is being proposed now, in pretty much the same location. That was under the LDGS. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he did not recall anything other than the hotel being part of that approval. Mr. Hoaglund replied that the preliminary PUD approval covered the hotel site and the retail site. The final PUD was only on the hotel. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that it seemed Mr. Holter was acting under the Codes that were available to him in master planning the area and just because codes change does make it seem like a bit of a hardship to all of a sudden mess up an entire master plan because of the adoption of a new Code. Mr. Torgerson added that the current Code certainly does have to be enforced. Member Craig stated that she believed there was no hardship created because the building can still be built, just situated differently Member Bemth stated that there is such a significantly high number of properties with drive areas between the building and street, that it may be a bit of a hardship to make this particular area different. Member Craig expressed concern about Mr. Holter owning the property across the street from this site which is quite a bit of street frontage. If that side was master planned the same way, we have lost everything we hoped to gain along Mason. Member Bernth stated that the site across the street is totally different in depth and width. From a leasing standpoint, it would make sense to orient those buildings the way we desire in the Code. Planner Jones stated that, regarding the other side of the street, there was a conceptual review from Nadine Holter, which showed the building pulled up to the street. The master plan to which Mr. Holter referred also plans the buildings to be brought up to Mason Street. Member Carpenter asked why it did not work for the client to leave the building facing the preferred way but pull it up to the street. Mr. Hoaglund replied that he did a study of that option and it would work with on -street parking. By pulling the building to the street, cars will be going to the back of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 11 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending denial. He stated that the applicant has changed their argument to the hardship argument, in support of their request for modification. Planner Jones showed site shots of the area, noting the anticipated pedestrian and transit networks for the Mason Street Corridor Plan. He noted buildings in the area that do and do not have vehicle areas between the building and the street. There is a mixture of properties with autos between the building and the street and without. The Code no longer allows autos between the building and the street. The applicant is requesting a modification to that requirement. Terrance Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that his client is proposing a hardship argument in support of his modification request. He stated that their proposed site plan offers a more direct pedestrian connection from the hotel all the way through the complex. He stated that they would comply with all the landscape regulations and other Mason Street Corridor Plans. He stated that his client, Mr. Holter, would discuss the economic issues surrounding the hardship case. Mr. Holter stated that he did not have any potential tenants willing to take the rear portions of the building should the building be constructed meeting Code requirements. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Bernth asked the approximate percentage of buildings without parking along the street. Planner Jones replied that, between Horsetooth and Harmony, the percentage of properties that have no vehicle frontage between the building and the street is roughly 8.5%, maybe as much as 12%. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked Mr. Holter if this particular lot had been master planned. Mr. Holter replied that he had a plan for the whole thing at the time the first building was built, about 15 years ago. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Mapes replied that it is a mix of City and County. The LMN goes form Timberline to Lemay. On the south side of Vine, the LMN goes east of Timberline. Member Craig noted that from Timberline to Waterglen on the north side of Vine Drive, the zoning is E — Employment, which will allow mini -storage as a secondary use. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked, in general, what it was the Board liked about light industrial that it does not like about mini -storage units. Member Craig stated that her concern involved the amount of frontage taken up by min - storage. Chairperson Gavaldon reminded the Board of the motion to approve #543, limiting the mini -storage uses to the south side of Vine Drive. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Meyer voting in the negative. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Mapes to look into allowing the mini storage uses on the north side of Vine Drive as well, with some limitations. Mr. Mapes replied that he would do that prior to sending the Board's recommendation to City Council. Chairperson Gavaldon thanked staff, the public, and the Board for their hard work on this process. Member Carpenter thanked staff as well. Project: Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards. 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. The property is located just southwest of the intersection of Boardwalk Drive and Mason Street. Staff Recommendation: Denial 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, Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, and Gavaldon. Member Colton was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Jones, Barnes, Jackson, Mapes, Alfers, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 1, November 15, and December 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED) Discussion Agenda: Recommendation to City Council: 2. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. The Planning & Zoning Board is the final authority on the following item: 3. #20-02 Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards. Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last update in December of 2001. Staff Recommendation: Approval