Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATRIUM SUITES, 502 W. LAUREL - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 7-04B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 24 standard because there will not be as much demand spilling out; therefore, the standard is still met. The purpose of the standard is to protect the neighborhood. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the purpose is to "ensure that parking and circulation of all developments are well -designed with regard to safety, efficiency, convenience for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians." Planner Shepard stated that the purpose, even though the Code does not specifically say it, is to keep parking impacts where they are. Member Gavaldon stated concern about charging for parking and that putting parking onto the streets. He asked if a condition could be placed on the project to keep them from charging for parking. Member Schmidt stated that there is no guarantee for that but it seems that someone paying $690 for an apartment would likely pay for parking, or at least most would. Chairperson Torgerson noted that if they started charging for parking, they would not be in compliance with the Code, and would have a zoning violation. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt moved for approval of the Atrium Suites Modification of Standard, File #7-04B, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report starting on Page 9, J1 and J2. Vice -Chairperson Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Chairperson Torgerson thanked the applicant for the research and presentation. He asked Director Gloss about the CDOT item from the previous hearing. Director Gloss replied that the Clerk's Office received an appeal on the Board's decision and it has been scheduled for consideration by City Council on October 19, 2004. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 23 Member Lingle asked about spillover parking into the neighborhood and what impact it might have. He pointed out on Mr. Brookshire's diagram that most of the surrounding residences are rentals and that owner -occupied units are about a block and a half north. Mr. Brookshire noted that 64% of the researched parcels are rentals and 15% are owner -occupied. Member Gavaldon asked what the growth projection rates for CSU are. Member Schmidt replied that they are thinking of reducing the enrollment but she was not sure by how much. Member Craig stated appreciation for Mr. Brookshire's efforts but noted that she would have liked to have seen him ask for a policy change rather than a modification. She stated she was unsure if this modification is equal to or better than the standard. She asked Mr. Brookshire to give a justification for the modification being equal to or better than the standard. Mr. Brookshire replied that City Plan provides a framework for how we want to see our City develop. It states that parking standards should be reduced for projects near alternative transportation and the City core. Secondly, research has shown that the demand for the parking is not there. Member Craig stated that she would like to see the policy change. Mr. Brookshire replied that he hoped this would be a good first step. Member Schmidt noted that not having a lot of parking would hopefully encourage residents to use the alternative modes. That makes it better than the standard. Chairperson Torgerson noted that Mr. Brookshire stated that the modification was equal to or better than City Plan, not equal to or better than the purpose for this Code section. Member Craig stated that it would be better for the public good to reduce or modify the standard. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he did not address the purpose of the Code section. Planner Shepard replied that he struggled with that too but his thinking was that the purpose of the standard is to control the negative externalities created by the PDP. The purpose of the standard is to provide on -site parking. It is a good standard for apartment complexes that are a bit further from campus. Mr. Shepard stated that it meets the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 22 Mr. Brookshire replied that residents will be given stickers for their vehicles, which they will tell the management about when they move in. Member Craig asked if the residents will be restricted to just one vehicle per resident or per apartment. Mr. Brookshire replied that the permits are basically a permit for a first come, first served situation in the parking area. Planner Shepard replied that the parking surveys he has done have shown that the controlling the commuter parking is the problem for property managers, not having enough parking for residents. Chairperson Torgerson asked if on -street parking spaces were counted in the 35 spaces. Mr. Brookshire replied that the 35 spaces were on the site, separate from the public right-of-way. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was a provision in the Land Use Code that allowed projects to count parking on public streets. Planner Shepared replied that they count only if they are internal to the project itself and aren't really a through, connecting street to the neighborhood. Chairperson Torgerson stated that it seems to be a bit of a judgment call in terms of which street are and which are not. Director Gloss replied that it is. The standard was put together for apartment complexes which are facing parking lots rather than streets, to keep that from happening. It is a bit different for a project where the streets and traffic are already in place. Chairperson Torgerson asked how many spots were along the street and, if counted, would the project meet the Code. Mr. Brookshire replied that there are 11 spaces, and perhaps one may be lost or relocated. Chairperson Torgerson noted that they would exceed the parking requirements if these were counted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 21 noted that other urban areas have much lower parking standards for these types of projects. He presented data from other, similar projects in terms of how many parking spaces were required by residents. It was found that about 62% of CSU on -campus residents have vehicles. Data were presented in terms of rents for similar projects and projected rents for Atrium Suites which were found to be right in line with the others. Public Input Troy Jones, resident of Fort Collins, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he thinks the project is a good idea noting that much of the off -campus student hosing is so far from campus that a car is required. If there is any area in the City that should have fewer than required parking spaces, this is one where it seems like it might work. Public Input Closed Member Meyer asked who gets the on -site parking out of all the residents Mr. Brookshire replied that the demand for the parking is not there so those who do have cars end up with spaces. There is on -street parking surrounding this area for overflow parking. Member Gavaldon asked if they were planning to charge for the parking spaces. Mr. Brookshire replied that they are not at this time but added that the parking lot will be monitored for the use of residents only. Member Gavaldon asked about parking spaces not being counted toward the parking requirements if they were charged for. Planner Shepard replied that if they charge for parking, extra above the rent, such that it discriminates between someone who does and someone who does not want to pay for it, the parking is not counted. If it happens that they start charging for parking at some time in the future and too many people are parking on the streets, we look for parking violations. Member Gavaldon asked what would happen if two-hour limits were installed on those streets. Planner Shepard replied that Parking Services can do that. Member Craig asked, if the parking spaces provided will be first come, first served, how the cars will be identified as Atrium residents. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 20 Member Schmidt thanked the neighbors for their time and effort and told them that the PDP is where the other issues will be discussed. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 West Laurel Street, Modification of Standard, #7-04B Project Description: This is a request for a modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to allow a reduction to 35 parking spaces from the required 43. The site is located at 502 West Laurel Street, at the northwest corner of South Sherwood Street and West Laurel Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that the standard at issue is Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) which pertains to the minimum parking required on a per bedroom, per unit basis. The applicant is requesting that the proposed parking be 35 spaces instead of 43 spaces as required by the Code. The site is 19,222 square feet in size and is zoned NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. At the PDP hearing, there was a condition of approval that addressed the parking issue. The PDP was conditioned that 3.2.2(K)(1) be complied with or a modification be sought. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, 3207 Kittery Court, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that this project has a total of 20 two -bedroom units and four three -bedroom units and, per the standard, would be required to provide 43 on -site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 35 on -site spaces. He stated that the justification for the modification is that this meets the standard equally well or better than the standard itself. The Code has been designed for those areas that are more outlying areas so parking is available for commuters and others who are using their vehicles to get to work or school within the City core. With this project, not all of the standards can be equally applied because of its unique location and proximity to alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Brookshire showed a map of the area and noted the proximity of this project to mass transit as well as businesses and CSU. He presented data and information relating to parking standards and mass transit information from other cities. The intended residents of this project will be students. He stated that reduced parking standards should be applied to districts in recognition of their proximity to high frequency transit service and the walkable environment of mixed uses. Mr. Brookshire 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 Com/east District. The site is located at 221 West Pros Road, on the south side of West Prospect Ro of Tamasag Drive. Staff RecoMmendation: Approval Hearin Bob Barkeen, City PI n noted that the property i to the north of this are zo site is Community Comm shown on the Structure P Plan shows retail and res showing retail and reside just diagonal from this property. Office Community Commercial zones; retail is E well as within the Campus District and is only allowed in the Employment zone 0 secondary uses which would be abl o The definition of a Community Shopping Therefore, 4 users would be abl to occ PDP. Residential uses are pe itted wit family, particularly within m' ed-use buil zone are allowed but co idered a seco the land area of the PUFj. Restaurants a secondary uses wit ' the Employment Commercial 2 did implement the st Street Transpo ation Corridor much mo Planner Bar en indicated that there are the site. er gave the staff presentation, recomme adjacent to the BNSF Railroad tracks n Community Commercial. The r u erd . The parcel is located with' the Ian an is within the Mason eet Corr idential es as well as off' a uses thro ntial uses pa4icularly near the transit st part occup Cent upy n h the dings. ndary nd en zone. rategi re eff curr in approval. He nd that the properties ested zoning for this Campus District as idor Plan area. The ughout the area, ops, one of which is Wallowed within either the Employment or raged within the Mason Corridor Plan as itted in Community Commercial. Retail is o�ommunity Shopping Center y on 25% of the land area of a PDP. er requ s four separate users. o more th 25% of the land area of the Community mmercial zone as multi - Residential us within the Employment use and could the fore only be 25% of tertainment uses are so considered Staff decided that the Community es of both the Campus Disir'ct and Mason ectively than the Employment strict does. ently no definitive development D ns for 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.