Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/04/2002E r1 L Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Craig, Torgerson and Gavaldon. Members Colton, Carpenter, and Bernth were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Shepard, Barkeen, Jones, Wamhoff, Hamden, Alfers, and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 1 and August 16 (continued), 2001 • Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #13-02 Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard — pulled, Gavaldon Discussion Agenda: 3. #33-01C Fossil Lake Annexation and Zoning #4 4. #35-96A Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center — Major Amendment 5. #11-02 Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review Chairman Gavaldon pulled Item #2, Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle, to discussion asking for the item to be discussed last due to the lack of a quorum. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent agenda, less item #2. Member Craig seconded the motion, noting that the August 16, 2001 minutes are also to be continued. The motion was approved 4-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 2 Project: Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center — Major Amendment Project Description: Request for a 14,000 square foot drugstore at the southwest corner of the Drake Crossing Shopping Center. Two existing retail buildings would be eliminated. The site is at the northwest corner of South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road and is zoned NC — Neighborhood Commercial. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center — Major Amendment. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Planning Director, gave the staff presentation. He noted three items that were given to Board members: a letter dated April 4, 2002 from the applicant regarding their commitment to monitor transplanted trees as a result of the development application, an amended staff report memorandum from City Planner Steve Olt regarding some questions the Board presented, and a packet prepared by a consulting arborist on behalf of the applicant. Planning Director Gloss stated that Tim Buchanan, City Forester, was present at the meeting and had provided a letter relating to tree transplanting techniques that Mr. Buchanan feels are appropriate to ensure tree survival. The second issue is related to the developer's commitment to monitor over time the success rate of the transplanted trees as well as any mitigation that would be necessary. Another issue is the double drive-thru lanes. The Board asked if there was any authority under the Land Use Code to restrict double drive-thru lanes. It is staffs position that there is no authority under the criteria of this review or any other specific standard in the Code that would give the Board the authority to reduce or eliminate drive-thru lanes. The Board also asked about some State statutory requirements that the applicant's transportation engineer had cited at the March 21, 2002 hearing relating to consultation between a patient and a pharmacist. This information was the applicant's basis for the double drive-thru. Attached to Planner Olt's memo is an excerpt from the Colorado State Board of Pharmacy Rules and Regulations. There is a section specifically regarding patient counseling. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 3 The last item related to street oversizing and how street oversizing might be applied in this situation. The program would trigger some additional funding for this development based on the impacts of the double drive -through. Matt Baker, from street oversizing, wrote an e-mail stating that the majority of the use of this drive -though would be at the P.M. hour and generally part of a larger trip. The impact of the double drive-thru is therefore quite minimal. Director of Current Planning Gloss introduced the applicant's team. First, Carl Schmitline with Galloway and Romero Associates, presented the application at the last hearing. Richard Sapkin is the developer. Michael Stahl is the landscape architect. Jason Jones, an arborist in Fort Collins with Arborworks, prepared the mitigation plan on the proposed tree planting. Ron Dwark is a landscape contractor with experience in moving trees. Kathleen Krieger, the traffic engineer, is also present. Director Gloss showed slides of the proposed tree mitigation. There were two trees of concern that were to be removed with the proposed site plan. The new site plan would save one of those trees and would transplant others on -site rather than off -site where their attrition rate might be higher. Staff is comfortable with the changes the applicant has made. • Carl Schmitline with Galloway and Romero Associates, gave the applicant's presentation. He discussed the details of the new mitigation and landscape plan. He stated that the application meets or exceeds the Land Use Code and has both staff and neighborhood support. Public Input There was no public input. Member Craig asked if Mr. Buchanan would ensure that the trees would survive given the arborist's study. Mr. Buchanan replied that he was heavily involved with the process. He stated that the applicant has selected a process called "hand -digging" to be used to relocate the trees. He added that he did look at the arborist's report and found it to be complete and thorough and he agreed with the recommendations. The feasibility of moving the trees successfully is good. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the patient counseling issue. Kathleen Kreger, with Bowers and Kreger, replied that the issue is about providing an • additional drive-thru lane should one be tied up for a time. Patients have the right by Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 4 state statute within the "code of ethics" of pharmacists to request a consultation. The pharmacist is also responsible for consulting with the patient if it is deemed necessary. It happens quite often that the patient consultation is very important. The pharmacist may be the only person with the complete drug history of a patient. Drug prescriptions have become very complicated and may need to be discussed. The reason for having the second drive-thru is to allow others who may be in a hurry to avoid a longer wait. Even if there is only one drive-thru lane, there is still the need for a pass -by lane next to it. This is needed in order to avoid parking lot problems. Ms. Kreger added that the most recent drug store approvals in Fort Collins have had two drive-thru lanes. Two of them have a pass -by lane in addition to the drive-thrus. The second lane is not a huge volume -generator but it does allow elderly, handicapped, and parents with sick children to get through quickly. Chairman Gavaldon stated that most fast-food restaurants have a channeled drive-thru lane; no pass -by lane. Ms. Kreger replied that drivers would be able to see both lanes and would be able to use the second lane if necessary. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the state law is very weak in terms of specific direction and it leaves room for interpretation. Ms. Kreger replied that the law comes from the "code of ethics" of pharmacists in Colorado that allows them to have a license in the state. It cannot be read as a statute but it does clearly say that pharmacists need to consult with patients if they think they need to do so. The patient also has a right as a consumer in Colorado to request a consultation with a pharmacist. To not provide that service would be considered unethical and would be reason for a pharmacist to lose their state license. It may not be clear legal writing but it is clear for a code of ethics. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the consultations would always be available, no matter how long it takes. Ms. Kreger replied that the facility would have more than one pharmacist at a time so if a patient needs a long consultation in the first lane and someone arrives with an ill child wanting to hurry through yet stay in the car, the second drive-thru would allow that. It does not add any traffic to the site, it is still for prescription medications so the person would have come there anyway. By eliminating it, the parking lot size would not be decreased. There is no gain to be made from losing the second lane. It is a nice public service. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 5 Chairman Gavaldon stated that his understanding is that the lane would be "nice" to have. Mr. Kreger stated that the important aspect is that it is not "nice" from Walgreen's standpoint but "nice" from the citizens' standpoint. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center — Major Amendment. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would support the vote and wanted to thank the team involved for saving the trees. She added appreciation for the time and effort involved. Member Torgerson echoed Member Craig's comments and added that the trees were originally planted as the result of development and we need to be careful not to penalize infill and redevelopment areas. Chairman Gavaldon stated his support but still questioned the drive-thru from a process • and law standpoint. He added that he would like to look at the issue for future Land Use Code updates. He thanked the applicant for the hard work on the tree issue. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Project Description: Recommendation: 0 Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review Request to construct a 19,000 square foot gymnasium and foyer addition to the existing school building. Located at 1725 Sharp Point Drive, within the Prospect Park East Business Park. Zoning is I — Industrial.. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Liberty Common School Addition to the Poudre School District Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 6 Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Bob Barkeen gave the staff presentation. He stated that as a Site Plan Advisory Review, the project is limited to a location, character, and extent review by the Board. He stated that several minor site plan changes have been made since the Board members received their packets. Planner Barkeen showed site plans of the school. The school is located in the Prospect East Business Park which is off of East Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive at 1725 Sharp Point Drive. The building is currently about 46,000 square feet. It was originally built as a business building. The proposed site plan shows the 19,000 square foot gymnasium and foyer addition on the southwest corner of the building. The parking area and access would still remain off Sharp Point Drive. The existing building is large brick and the proposed addition is a tilt -up concrete and is slightly higher than the existing building. Part of the City's analysis included the architecture of the surrounding buildings. It varies dramatically in the area. Planner Barkeen added that the main difference between this site plan and the one the Board received is the addition of some landscaping in front of the building along Sharp Point Drive that was intended to break up the fagade of the new addition. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the work had started on the project based on some of the site shots. Planner Barkeen replied that it had not. Peter Cast, president of LCS Building Corporation, gave the applicant's presentation. LCS Building Corporation owns the property and leases it to Liberty Common School. The building has been occupied by the school for about 5 years and is a K through 9 configuration with two tracks of each grade. The current school enrollment is about 525 students. The gym facility and cafeteria facility are inadequate for the long-term. The project is scheduled to be performed over the summer months to open at the start of the school year. Mike Daly, of the Neenan Company, gave the architect's presentation. He stated that the site was originally master -planned to have a 48,000 square foot expansion in the general area of the planned addition. There will be no additional paving and the fenced play yard will stay in the same configuration. It is desirable to construct the building over the summer months when school is not in session. Pre -cast concrete was selected as the material because it can be pre -assembled off -site and erected on -site in a more expedient manner. The color scheme will complement the existing brick color. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 7 Public Input There was no public input. Member Craig asked about stormwater issues on the site. Basil Hamdan, of the Stormwater Department, replied that the site is fairly flat. The drainage goes in to March Court and there is a cross -pan across Sharp Point Drive that carries water into one of the natural area ponds across the street. Overall Development of the site was done at a time when water quality was not a requirement. If the school was required to provide water quality, there would be quite an investment in a storm sewer because the site currently surface drains. The stormwater department felt that by allowing the roof water to drain into the grass area; water quality would be obtained. It would be better to capture the parking lot run-off and water quality could be required when parking lot improvements are submitted. Member Craig asked about the flooding issues in the area and whether or not the addition would add to the problem. • Mr. Hamdan replied that some water over -topped Timberline Road and came through this business park during the 1997 flood. The water came down Midpoint Drive and flooded some of the buildings in the area. The flood was an extreme event and it is not expected that current flood standards would be affected by this addition. Member Torgerson asked if the site is in the Poudre River Floodplain. Mr. Hamdan replied that the site is outside the Floodplain. Chairman Gavaldon asked the architect about the color scheme and how it would be compatible with the existing building. Mr. Daly replied that the pre -cast concrete was selected because brick would take an additional month and a half to build which would push construction into a school year. Ir terms of the color, we were trying not to match the dark color of the existing building in order to lighten the building and take away from the mass of the building visually. The colors are all shades of the same hue. There is some horizontal banding on the building to break up the elevation. A gymnasium should really not have windows to serve this purpose for safety issues. There is a textural difference between the two buildings. The addition would have an aggregate paint to create textural shading. Chairman Gavaldon asked what the length of the long side of the gym is. 0 Planning and. Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Daly replied that the south elevation is approximately 135 feet long. Chairman Gavaldon asked Planner Barkeen if the Land Use Code requires visual breaks for walls over a certain number of feet. Planner Barkeen replied that it is every 30 feet. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the Poudre School District schools have done a very good job in breaking up elevations, having new lighting concepts, and texturing. Mr. Daly replied that they were looking at the addition in the context of the neighborhood in which it is located. There are a variety of buildings around, most of which are metal or very industrial looking. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he was comparing this to the jail and the Advanced Energy buildings. Being a public facility, the site should be evaluated against the best in the area. He asked if there would be an opportunity to break up the walls or use different materials. Mr. Daly replied that there would be infinite opportunity using color to help break up the wall. Chairman Gavaldon asked about using different materials instead of different color, like some composites the School District has used. Mr. Daly replied that they are willing to look at different materials but they are concerned about the money available and efficient use of time. Chairman Gavaldon replied that the building would be around for a while and should be a quality investment. He added that he had previously asked for 3-dimensional drawings and color samples of the structure. Planner Barkeen replied that none were submitted. Chairman Gavaldon asked if there would be an opportunity to get those. Mr. Daly replied that they did not have any but they could be created. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the Ridgeview Charter School, reviewed in June, did not submit any 3-D drawings and has not turned out well. He asked if the item were to be continued, could the applicant bring in new drawings. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 9 Member Meyer stated that the pre -cast walls are being used for quick construction and changing materials would be difficult at this time. Mr. Daly replied that the material is not necessarily the most affordable product but is being used because of speed. Member Torgerson asked if casting simulated brick in the panels had been considered. Mr. Daly replied that it could be considered with the economic situation of the school being the primary issue. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the Board had a 30-day timeline to review the project. Planner Barkeen replied that they do have the 30-day timeline and it is up as of today. The Board would need to get approval from the applicant to continue the process beyond the 30 days. Member Craig asked if the project goes to the School Board next. is Planning Director Gloss replied that was correct. Member Craig asked if the School Board would have the final deciding vote. Planning Director Gloss replied that they would still have to go through a separate, independent process if the Planning and Zoning Board approved the application. If the Planning and Zoning Board disapproves the application, the School Board would be provided with the P&Z Board's specific recommendation of disapproval and the reasons based on the location, character, and extent of the building. The School Board would then likely request the P&Z Board's attendance at their hearing and they would either overturn the disapproval with a 2/3 vote of the School Board or agree with the recommendation. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would be open to bringing back a new plan acknowledging the concerns about the building materials. Mr. Daly replied that they would be receptive to that but they are under a tight timeline because of the pre -cast ordering but would be willing to work with the Board's suggestions. He stated they would like to get an approval tonight but make a verbal agreement to discuss some of the alternatives at a later time, probably within the next two weeks. 0 Chairman Gavaldon asked about the process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 10 Planning Director Gloss stated that because the next hearing is canceled, a timing problem is created. He stated that the Board may want to suggest some specific changes or concerns and rely on staff to work directly with the applicant and report back to the Board. The City Attorney stated that the Board needs to decide to either approve or disapprove the request. The Board can request that staff work with the applicant but it will be difficult for the School Board to interpret the position without a clear approval or disapproval. Member Craig asked Planning Director Gloss what the best option would be. Planning Director Gloss replied that any issues about character can certainly be mentioned given the review type. The Board could direct staff to work with the applicant on different materials. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the zoning on the property. Planner Barkeen replied that the lot is split -zoned but the building rests within the E — Employment zone. Chairman Gavaldon recommended that the E zone criteria should then be used. Planning Director Gloss pointed out that the review type is different here — it is a location, character, and extent review rather than a review by zone district. Mr. Daly asked the Board's opinion of a partial brick fagade creating a pattern. Chairman Gavaldon replied that designing the building would not occur but that the Board would take the ideas into consideration. Member Craig asked Member Torgerson about the panel ideas. Member Torgerson replied that the aesthetics of the building would be subjective. Adding the brick panels would increase the cost some but would be less expensive than an entire brick veneer and would go up as quickly. Member Torgerson asked if this specific existing facility would have been considered a project development plan or part of a larger overall development plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 11 Planner Barkeen replied that it is part of a larger overall development plan but had it come in under a Land Use Code review, the site would have been considered a project development plan. Member Torgerson stated that the Land Use Code defines character as those attributes, qualities, features that make up and distinguish a development project and give the project a sense of purpose, function, definition, and uniqueness. It seems that character really applies to this particular building and facility, not to the overall area. Planning Director Gloss replied that the definition could be interpreted either way. If this was a project development plan, the case could be made that character applies only to this lot. However, if one looks at the fact that this was an overall development plan created for the entire park, and that this is a location, character, and extent review, the standard rules do not pertain to this application. Carrie Dagget, the City Attorney added that it is important to recognize that the location, character, and extent language does come from the State Statute and our Land Use Code definition does not necessarily apply to the definition in the Statute. • Member Torgerson asked if character was defined in the State Statute. Ms. Dagget replied that it is not but it would not be unreasonable to apply a similar concept given that the term has a standard dictionary definition that may be another way to interpret the term. Member Torgerson stated that he was ready to move for approval given the character of the overall area but the speck definitions in the Code show it not to be in character with the specific qualities and features that distinguish this project. Member Craig asked if the applicant made the improvements to the materials that the Board suggested, would it meet the character definition. Member Torgerson replied that it would. Ms. Dagget asked if the Board's approval would be contingent upon staffs approval of an ultimate material selection or if that would be a suggestion. Member Craig asked how far the Board could go with their purview and the ability to condition the project. Ms. Dagget replied that the problem with an approval that was conditioned on staff • agreeing to modifications lies in a lack of objective terms the Board has supplied staff. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 12 Member Torgerson asked whether or not the Poudre School District architects had reviewed the plans. Planning Director Gloss replied that he was not aware of any such review. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the School District was involved in the plans or not. Planner Barkeen replied that he didn't believe they had. The applicant stated that they have worked with Jim Franzine at the School District on the project. The District generally does not have any architects on staff; they hire them out. There has not been an architectural review from the School District. The project is subject to an architectural review by the Prospect East Business Park however. Chairman Gavaldon asked if that review had anything to do with the Board. Ms. Dagget replied that it did not. Planning Director Gloss stated that if the Board is inclined to look favorably on the project if it is a brick tilt -up veneer, then that should be discussed with the applicant so a resolution could come this evening as opposed to giving direction to staff. ; Member Torgerson stated his hesitancy to redesign the project. He asked the applicant to suggest a response to which the Board could respond. The applicant stated that his view of character was of something bigger than just the site itself. It is a reasonable request to look at integrating brick into the facade. He stated concern over being a steward of the school's budget and added that an entire brick veneer would not be feasible. A hybrid of brick and painted surface would be feasible. Peter Cast stated a willingness to add brick elements to break up the facade. Member Torgerson asked if the applicant could apply features to the tilt -up walls, such as pylasters or arches. The architect replied that may be possible but sometimes a plain building may fit into the surrounding area better. He stated willingness to address the Board's general concern. Member Torgerson asked about being able to cite the Code's requirement for 30-foot intervals in breaking up a building as a design goal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 13 Planning Director Gloss stated that could be done with more specific information about the materials. Planner Barkeen stated that the relevant Code section would be 3.5.3(D). Chairman Gavaldon expressed concern about starting to design the project. Member Torgerson stated that they would be applying the same standards as they would to a commercial project in the City. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would have to comply with the Board's recommendation or if they could go before the School Board with something different. Ms. Dagget recommended that the approval should be conditioned on the modification and, in the absence of the modification, the plan is disapproved for certain reasons. Member Torgerson moved for a recommendation to the Poudre School Board for approval of the Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review with the condition that they comply with Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(D) using • brick. Absent compliance with this condition would lead to disapproval. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Torgerson stated that this was a borderline project. Member Meyer stated that it was borderline from the moment the plans were received; the initial plans were not sufficient. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would not support the project. There should have been 3-dimensional drawings and the project is below par. The School District has developed a process that works and charter schools need to work on that. Member Craig stated that she would support the motion because it is in the employment section and the section needs to be kept different from the industrial section. She stated her appreciation to the applicant for working out a solution. The motion was a 2-2 vote and therefore did not pass because it failed to get a majority of the vote. Chairman Gavaldon asked if another motion would be entertained. 1 J Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Dagget replied that an additional member of the Board may have been listening to the testimony and would be able to cast a vote. Chairman Gavaldon noted that whatever motion was decided upon would need to be very specific. Member Meyer asked why the Board would try to vote again. Chairman Gavaldon replied that a recommendation needed to be made. Member Meyer asked if the motion that was made, though no decision resulted, could be sent to the School Board. Ms. Dagget stated that the State Statue requires that this matter be submitted to the Board for approval or disapproval then go to the School Board. If the Planning and Zoning Board takes no action, it does create a difficult question for the School Board in making its determination. The Statute is silent as to the Planning and Zoning Board taking no action. In choosing not to take action, the School Board is basically allowed to make its own decision as to how it will interpret the Planning and Zoning Board's lack of action. Member Torgerson moved that the Planning and Zoning Board take no action on the Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review. Chairman Gavaldon asked if that were an appropriate motion. Ms. Dagget replied that it may be more appropriate procedurally to either table the action or postpone it indefinitely although, if the Board chooses to move that it will not take action on this matter, that could also be in order. Member Torgerson stated that he suggested that motion because it was so unorthodox that the School Board might give the matter more consideration. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would like to proceed with either approval or denial of the motion. However, there is a deadlocked vote. He stated he would like denial. Member Craig stated agreement and stated that she would change her vote to denial because it would likely result in what the Planning and Zoning Board wants. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 15 Ms. Dagget pointed out that the State Statute does state that if the Board disapproves the application, the reasons for the disapproval shall be provided. Taking no action does, by default, technically constitute an approval having failed to provide reasons for disapproval. Member Torgerson withdrew his motion to take no action on Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review. Member Meyer withdrew her second of the motion. Member Craig moved for disapproval of the Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review citing 3.5.3(D) of the Land Use Code. She stated that the project does not meet the character and extent of the immediate vicinity. Member Torgerson offered an additional motion — disapproval of the Liberty Common School Addition Site Plan Advisory Review as the plans were submitted based on the definition of character in the Land Use Code. Ms. Dagget suggested that if Member Torgerson's suggestion is a friendly amendment isto the original motion, it would be in order. She added that the language in the State Statute involves character. Planning Director Gloss stated that the original motion may not have been appropriate because it cited a specific Land Use Code section and this review falls under State Statues, not our Land Use Code. However, the issue with all members seems to be character but not specifically to the Land Use Code Member Craig clarified her motion to move for disapproval of the Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review citing the extent and character of the addition not being consistent with the immediate vicinity. Member Torgerson asked if the extent was not consistent or if it was just the character. Member Craig replied that it should be just character. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion. Member Craig asked about sending a member of the Planning and Zoning Board to the School Board meeting and suggested Member Torgerson be the representative. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 16 Member Torgerson replied that he would. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would also be attending the School Board meeting and any Board members would also be invited. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard Project Description: Request for a modification of standard to the Land Use Code for Section 3.2.2(D)(1)(a): access, circulation and parking. The applicant is requesting to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces from 4 to 1. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Reider Duplex- 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard. Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson declared a conflict as the applicant's consultant. Member Carpenter joined the meeting. Chairman Gavaldon asked for a brief presentation. Member Craig asked to see Planner Jones' visuals. Planner Jones stated that he had received some letters from concerned neighbors that were given to the Board members. Page five of the staff report was amended to make the issue an "equal to or better than argument." Planner Jones stated that he included some pages out of the West Side Neighborhood Plan that deal with urban design elements and principles and policies within that plan. Planner Jones stated that the building is a duplex with two bedrooms in each unit. The applicant is proposing an addition to the building that would add one bedroom to each unit. The parking standards for multi -family dwellings are two off-street parking spaces for a three bedroom unit. With the proposed plan, four off-street spaces are required. The configuration currently shows three tandem parking spaces in a drive -way along the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 17 side of the house. The Land Use Code reads that this type of configuration can be counted as only one parking space because a space must not be obstructed by anything. In reality, three cars can fit in the drive. The applicant is proposing that the fourth parking space be accommodated through the existing diagonal parking on the street. Two trees are currently in the backyard — one is a Siberian Elm and the other is an apple tree. The City Forester concluded that the Elm is not worth saving but the apple tree is in fair condition and would be worth saving. Two alternative plans have been drawn up, both would comply with the Land Use Code. One plan keeps the apple tree, the other does not. Planner Jones stated that the Board may not want to approve the modification because on -street parking is already scarce given the site's proximity to Colorado State University. The applicant was asked to provide parking counts that showed that the parking was never completely full within that block. Planner Jones stated that the Board may want to approve the modification because it would allow a parking lot to not be introduced into what is now a yard. Headlights would shine into backyards with this scenario. Staff is recommending approval of the modification because the applicant has provided an argument that satisfies the review • criteria for modifications. Planner Jones proceeded to show site shots of the area. Planner Jones stated that the applicant wanted the addition in order to give the entire structure a facelift and make that process more affordable. Member Craig asked about the headlight issue and whether or not neighbors were concerned about that. Planner Jones replied that most of the neighbors that called were other property owners trying to find out more information. Member Craig asked if the lots behind the house were also rentals. Planner Jones replied that he was not sure but it was fairly likely. Rick Raider, the applicant, stated that he intended to beautify the property. As the cost came together, it was determined that creating an addition would help offset the cost of the improvements and make a better structure. Mr. Reider stated that he surveyed the neighborhood for parking spaces. There are 43 diagonal spaces on the block and 13 total homes. In addition to these spaces, there are 14 spaces against the corner properties. There are also seven private driveways on the block and four other properties with off-street parking on alleys. At any one time, there were on average 19 • available spaces in the 700 block of Myrtle Street. Forty-four percent of the time, there Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 18 was available off-street parking. The addition will likely only add one more car to the street. There were six spaces available on average on the other parking. Mr. Reider stated that he would like to beautify the property but not be required to pave the backyard. Public Inaut Forrest Newman, a resident on Loomis Street, stated that he was encouraged by any owner of neighboring properties who wished to make improvements. He stated that he would not like to see a parking lot in the backyard and it would be a detriment to the property and the neighborhood. Member Craig asked about garages in rear yards and how the amount of space would compare to a parking lot. Is a garage still using the same amount of space? Planner Jones replied that it would depend on the design of the garage but it would be out of character to have anything other than a two -car garage so it would provide half the needed parking. A three -car garage would probably not be in character although a two -car would. Member Craig asked the applicant if the ultimate project would have six bedrooms or three bedrooms. Mr. Reider replied that there would be a total of six bedrooms. Some of them would be very small and may be used as offices. Member Craig asked how many people would be allowed to rent the units. Mr. Reider replied that the number of tenants would vary — likely two or three people. Member Craig asked how many people were renting the house today. Mr. Reider replied that four people were currently in the house. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the ordinance regarding more than three unrelated persons living in one structure and if that was per duplex or per building. Ms. Dagget replied that it is per dwelling. In the case of a two -dwelling duplex, it would apply to each half. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 19 Chairman Gavaldon asked about the staff report stating that the applicant would be allowed to construct the building addition regardless of whether or not the modification is granted. Planner Jones replied that the addition, including a parking lot in the backyard, could be completed without special permission but the modification is being sought in order to avoid puffing the parking lot in the backyard. Member Craig stated that this would likely be an issue that would occur repeatedly. If we start making these modifications, others should not have to meet standards either, creating a large parking problem. Member Craig asked if a middle ground could be explored by placing two parking spaces in the back yard in addition to the driveway. Planner Jones replied that the idea may work depending on the configuration. Member Craig asked how the parking issues would be addressed in the future. Planner Jones replied that the West Side Neighborhood Plan stated had a goal to avoid vehicle intrusion into yard spaces. However, this does not address the future issues with is absorbing other parking modifications. Planning Director Gloss stated that Troy was referencing the Urban Design Plan that also defines the existing conditions with respect to the balance between providing lower -cost housing for students and the inadequate on -campus parking. The off-street parking was addressed as a problem but it needs to be balanced with affordable housing. Using garages in order to mitigate headlights and provide screening is also considered in the plan. There are also issues with garage compliance over time with zoning ordinances because they become storage for items other than vehicles. Member Craig stated concern over whether is was tackier to park on the front lawn or have parking in the rear yard. Member Meyer stated that front yard parking happens frequently in this neighborhood. There are few garages in the area as well. Member Carpenter asked about the drawings showing landscaping along the driveway and if this was existing or proposed. Mr. Reider replied that shrubs had not yet been discussed. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 20 Chairman Gavaldon stated that adding the third bedrooms seemed to be adding complications. If the applicant were to remodel with the same number of bedrooms, would he have to ask for a modification? Planner Jones replied that the property is grandfathered in its current condition. If it were built as -is with two bedrooms, it would be required to have four spaces. Adding the bedrooms makes it necessary to comply with current parking standards. Member Carpenter asked if there were garages around the property. Planner Jones replied that there are a few garages immediately surrounding the property. Member Meyer moved for approval of the Reider Duplex — 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard citing that it will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested because there is no inherent additional danger to vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians associated with parking cars in the street versus off the street. Chairman Gavaldon seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he seconded the motion to invoke discussion, not necessarily because he was in favor of it. Member Carpenter stated concern about future requests for modifications and overtaxing the existing parking. She added that there is no major difference between screening the parking well and the garages and stated more concern over preserving the streetscape rather than the backyard. One site plan that puts the parking toward the back does still leave some backyard. She stated having difficulty in approving the modification. Chairman Gavaldon stated agreement and added that the addition of the bedrooms complicates the issue and would necessitate rear yard parking. Member Craig stated agreement with Member Carpenter but would like to see a modification to add only two spaces in the rear yard. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the Board would like to continue the item. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 4, 2002 Page 21 Planner Jones pointed out that the next meeting has been canceled so the item would not come back for a month. He suggested asking the applicant if he would consider two spaces. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would be willing to continue the item and return with a two -space configuration. Mr. Reider replied that continuing the item would push back making the improvements for another year because of the calendar year for rentals. Mr. Reider stated that no matter how many spaces were put in the back, the cars would likely still stack in tandem behind. He added that CSU is looking at parking increases in the future which would alleviate the parking problem on surrounding streets in the future. Mr. Reider stated that he could put the parking in the rear yard but would prefer not to. Ms. Dagett reminded the Board that there is a motion on the floor. The motion failed 1-3. Chairman Gavaldon asked the applicant if he would be willing to accept a motion that • would condition him to two parking spaces in the rear yard. Mr. Reider replied that the cost and planning may not be any different but if the Board felt that two would be better for the neighborhood than four, he would consider it. Planner Jones pointed out that there was no motion to deny, only a failure to approve. Ms. Dagget stated that the Board could make another motion and suggested that over an on -going dialogue with the applicant. Member Carpenter stated that she was not getting the feeling from the applicant that he is comfortable with the possible compromise situation. She suggested that the Board move to deny the request and allow the applicant to come back with another request if desired. The Board should not be designing the project. Member Carpenter moved for denial of the Raider Duplex — 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard citing that it is detrimental to the public good. Chairman Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-1 0 There was no other business. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 22 The meeting was adjourned.