Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATRIUM SUITES - MOD - 7-04 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 17 the floorplans you do actually have more comfort for people and still achieve the same result of having the light and air. The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Craig, Lingle and Torgerson voting in the negative. Recommendation to City Council for Citywide Floodplain Regulations (except for the Poudre River) Project 0egcription: Provide a formal recommendation to City Council ano/ �� with that recommendation comments the Board feels is appropriate. Bob Smith, Siormwater Direcfb[gave the staff presentation. lie stated t they were talking about all the floodplains within the city except the Poudre Riverttaff has been working on this for two years and has talked to the Board a number of times in study session. They are going to City Council on June 15`" and they are looking for a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board in addition to any comments. He stated that the floodplain is broken up into c6mponents. There is the center, which is the floodway and that is the area with the higher velocity and depths. There is the fringe area on the side, where the depths are lower and the flows are slower and that is development is allowed. There is a floodway that is a 6".rise; basically you encroach from side, the water moves to the center and that is whey' %ouet your floodway. Something new that will be part of the code which will I ters. Streams will naturally meander and what they have done through the Master Plan, which the Board recommended approval of last month, identifies the erosion buffer limits to keep encroachments high enough so when that stream does move, we don't have to worry about reinforcing that bank. That is in place and the buffer limits are always from the top of the bank back, it is not from the center of the streams. It varies across depending on what stream you e talking about. Chairperson Torge" rson asked if that would apply to canals as well. Mr. Smith replied no not canals, just natural streams. One other component of the recommendations if that we have FEMA designated floodplains and city floodplains. Staff is recommending that we stay at or better than the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 16 Planner Shepard replied it was interesting to him about this zoned is that it is not a City Plan zone, it is a Westside Neighborhood Plan zone. The Westside Neighborhood Plan was a very delicate balance to try to preserve the characteristics that were the best about the neighborhood and yet allow for some redevelopment for some areas where they thought the neighborhood would need some improvement. Not to have the Laurel Street shopping area encroach too far west, not to have single family come down to Laurel Street and not to have too much multi -family go down to Mulberry Street. It is a real delicate balance and there is a lot of stuff in there about design and he feR that this project just "nailed" it. He thought that since the way the project is perceived by the public streets and sidewalks would be "equal to" a plan that would have met the standards. It is not a City Plan purpose, it is a West Side Neighborhood Plan purpose. Member Gavaldon asked if the building complies with ADA requirements. Mr. Brookshire replied that the building meets those requirements by providing units on the ground floor. Member Gavaldon asked to see sight shots of the surrounding buildings in the area. Planner Shepard reviewed that site shots for the Board. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Modification request for Atrium Suites based on the fact that it is not detrimental to the public good, that it is equal to the standard as it stands and she also believes it is better than because It provides better housing what would normally be offered. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Lingle would not be supporting the motion. He has no argument with the project itself, but could not support the modification because there was no way he could see that it as equal to. The FAR's as well as set back requirements are based on provision of light, air, ventilation and privacy and constricting the courtyard will only cut down on those things and not enhance it. He did not see that as equal to. Chairperson Torgerson concurred with Member Lingle. It was difficult to say numerically that increasing the FAR is better that keeping the FAR the way it is. It clearly creates a relatively constrained courtyard where it is only going to be about 12 feet from balcony to balcony and reduces the amount and quality of light. Member Carpenter stated that the reason she is supporting the modification is that while you have less light and air and that is meant to be for peoples comfort. When,looking at 4F Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 15 Member Lingle stated that the point he was making was that they would not normally see floor plans as a part of a submittal and whether a bedroom is 12 feet wide or 15 feet wide doesn't normally come into plan in what the Board is charged to review. Chairperson Torgerson felt in order to make that a relevant point, that would have to play into why this is equal to or better than the compliance with the standard and this particular standard doesn't really deal with interior spaces or bedrooms. Member Carpenter asked what would be on the ground in that courtyard. Mr. Brookshire replied that it is not detailed at this point in time, the discussion has been to provide glass blocks so that light can filter down into the parking area. There would be the opportunity for planters with trees, greens and softer materials on the ground floor so it would serve as a courtyard. Member Carpenter asked if the change in the two sizes of courtyards would change anything below. Mr. Brookshire replied no, there is still sufficient space. There is still the 22 feet between the two buildings on their proposal using the additional square footage. That supplies ample space for light and plants to grow in potted areas. Member Schmidt asked it this courtyard would be a place to congregate for the students. Mr. Brookshire replied yes, on the second floor. One of the things they are trying to achieve is there is a walkway on the third floor so that light can penetrate down clear through and we get the glass block to the garage. On the second floor, for code reasons, for fire protection, it will have to be closed off from the parking below, but it also provides a place for planters and benches; yes, there could be congregation. Chairperson Torgerson asked if they were making the argument that their plan is equal to not better than. Mr. Brookshire replied equal to and better than because the tenants receive the benefit of the courtyard and the better units. Chairperson Torgerson stated that when he looks at that section of the code it seems to him that those who drafted the code did not want to see too much program forced on a site and therefore limited the FAR on the site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 14 Member Craig asked about the courtyard and what exactly was it. Mr. Brookshire provided a diagram of the courtyard. He stated that the courtyard is open air all the way from the second floor to the third floor. Member Craig stated that all she saw was a gap, and to her that meant that it is separated and is not solid. Can the people on the third floor walk across the courtyard? Mr. Brookshire replied that it is a "donut" shape and they can walk the perimeter and they can walk from their unit to stairs. Member Craig was concerned in decreasing each side by 3 feet that the "students" would try and jump from one side to the other. Mr. Brookshire replied that distance was 20 feet and he doubted that they would try and jump 20 feet. Chairperson Torgerson asked how wide the walkway was. Mr. Brookshire replied that it was approximately 3 and one-half feet. Member Lingle asked for the applicants justification was for how the Board would determine a small courtyard is equal to or better than a larger courtyard because a smaller courtyard would have less air and light and less privacy. He was having a hard time understanding how that could be equal to or better than a larger courtyard. Mr. Brookshire replied that the courtyard design will still allow light to come into that space. One benefit of a smaller courtyard is that you will not get as much direct sunlight hitting the walls, but you still will get the natural light. The space .that you do gain in return for that smaller outside space is the living and study areas which become of more importance. The development team has felt that those are very important things for the students to have and that is where the emphasis has been placed. Member Schmidt stated that the modification is actually for allowing a larger building, more square footage on this lot. It is being done by making the apartments bigger and the courtyards smaller. She thought that the Board could use the idea that the living spaces are going to be larger in part of deciding whether this modification is a good thing. By making the apartments larger that is what is increasing the square footage and that is what the modification is being approved for. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 13 number of units had decreased from 28 to 24. There will be 20 two -bedroom units and 4 three -bedroom units in the project. Mr. Brookshire gave a slide presentation showing the site that is currently being operated by Larimer County Community Corrections. They estimate that there is 104 residents in the group home in addition to employees and officers that are the 24 hours a day. Currently the site has 18 parking spaces along the back. The new project is proposing 48 to 52 people living on site with 28 on site parking and the remaining parking located on an adjacent site. The modification mentioned is for the density in the zoning portion of the NCB zoning district where the lot is 19,110 s.f. and therefore the building would need to be 19,110 s.f. What they are proposing is for an additional 2,041 to the building. This difference in area would be added to the courtyard space in the design of the project. He showed a diagram of what the footprint of the building looked like that meets the standard and a diagram of what the building would look like with the additional living space and reduction in the courtyard space that they are proposing with this modification. The diagram demonstrates what that difference is in total square footage. It will be spread over two levels, so approximately 1,000 s.f. on each level. The overall difference physically, is 7 feet in the courtyard. Mr. Brookshire stated that they feel the project meets many of the various city plans and the solution is equal to or better than what the code states. Through the West Side Neighborhood Plan, this is the type of project that was envisioned for this area as a transition and buffer zone between the university campus and the neighborhoods to the north. All along Laurel Street there are commercial, sorority and multi -family uses in existence. The difference in the overall perception of the building with the modification does not change at all because the additional square footage is actually taken up on the interior of the courtyard. The building also provides many design features with new urbanism principles, including addressing the street having the front doors and main entry coming out to Laurel Street; in addition to screening the parking area, under the building and behind the main portions of the building. The design with the courtyard feature allows the project and the individual units to have both windows on the interior of the courtyard with their entry doors as well as exterior windows to the outside of the project so the units are able to get light from both sides. The additional area they are asking for in the building is a result of the units having more livable area. The extra square footage is really a benefit to the residents who will live in the Atrium Suites. Mr. Brookshire also gave other elements of City Plan that this projects meets. PUBLIC INPUT None. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Apri115, 2004 Page 12 Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the Trailhead annexation and zoning, #43-02 with initial zoning to E, Employment zoning district and deny the request to amenr+ th o+pnt;4n vista Suharea Plan. Member Craig seconded the mo Member Carpenter would not be supporting the mo ' As she said the last time this came before them, LMN is a reasonable and g use of this land. She did not have a problem with the Employment because tonight they just took 156 acres out of Employment into Public Open Lands on the consent agenda. She thinks that this citizen has been in the mist of this r a long time and she did not see any reason not to make this LMN. She would notl5e supporting the motion for employment. Chairperson Torgerspwwould also not support the motion. He cord red with Member Carpenter and also felt that it was worth noting that this is one of the fe opportunities for affordable housing that we have seen for some time. The mot�was approved 5-2 with Members Carpenter and Torgerson vote g in the negative Project: Atrium Suites, 502 West laurel Street Request for Modification of Standard. Project Description: Request for a Modification of Standard for a pending PDP known as Atrium Suites at 502 West Laurel Street. The standard at issue is Section 4.8(D)(1) which pertains to density and minimum lot area. The applicant is requesting that the proposed building square footage exceed the lot size by 2,041 square feet. The site is located at the northwest corner of West Laurel Street and Sherwood Street. The site presently contains a large residential structure that was formerly a sorority and now houses two programs of the Larimer County Corrections Department. The site is 19,221 square feet in size and zoned NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Don Brookshire, 3207 Kittery Court, Fort Collins representing the applicant gave a presentation to the Board. He stated since the Board received their packets, the Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mika[ Torgerson Phone: (W) 16-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Schmidt, Craig, Meyer, Gavaldon, Lingle and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Stringer, Smith and Dairies. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: !. Minutes of the December 19, 2002, February 19, (Continued) and March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #13-82CROakridge Business Park, 36"Filing, Holiday Inn Express — Project Development Plan. 3. #4-04 Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning. Discussion Agenda: 4. #43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning. 5. #7-04 Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street — Modification of Standards. 6. Recommendation to City Council — Floodplain Regulations. Member Lingle pulled Item 2, Oakridge Business Park for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the consent agenda for Item 1, less the February 19, 2004 minutes and Item 3. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Oakridge Business Park 36t" Filing, Holiday Inn Express, Project Development Plan, #13-82CR Project Description: Request for a four-story 89-unit hotel on 2.167 acres. The total square footage of the building will be 51,808. The property is located at the southeast