The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEASTGATE PDP - 10-04 - REPORTS - MODIFICATION REQUEST\ W ggNg EAS7GA7E 2nd FL.fNC. \ plo m 4=V I� O o 0 o 0 I � T I III I I J I UA 0 PLAN MODIFICATI N t-- LL-LL SCALE I" = 20.0' N Q CO THIS PLAN PROVIDES THE SEVEN REQUIRED PARKING SPACES W "r- CALLED FOR BY THE CODE WITHOUT STACKING THE CARS OR BY COUNTING ANY ON STREET PARKING. THIS PLAN ALLOWS THE PARKING TO *iuio+ BE DOMINATE ON THE SITE. THE PARKING CONTROLS THE CIRCULATION PATTERNS FROM THE STREET TO THE HOME. IT ALSO LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING THEREFORE REDUCING THE CURB APPEAL OF THE BUILDING. IT REDUCES THE VISUAL EXPERIENCE OF THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING INFRONT OF THE PROPERTY. I E,4S7G,4TE 2nd FILING \ va mg z o%.5' ; jF I \ I \ O i 0 —o—c a —tea i o - i � ili m J I ILd Oz PLAN - B Qz° I I 110DIFICATI N -�Q �LLLL SCALE I" = 20.0' j.� f Q O I PLAN PROVIDES 3 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING U.I CV = UNIT. TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY AND ONE IN THE GARAGE. I I AS PER THE CODE ONLY ONE OF THESE SPACES PER UNIT MAY BE COUNTED TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE. TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THREE SURFACE SPACES ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAYS THIS MEETS THE INTENTION OF THE CODE. BUT ELIMINATES TREES AND LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDES AN ALMOST CONTINUOUS CONCRETE CURB LINE WHICH IS VISUALLY HARSH AND INFERIOR. THIS CONCEPT ELIMINATED THREE STREET PARKING SPACES WHILE PROVIDING THE SAME C — NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. EASTGATF. 2nd F«ING w=i�g \.\ C, w I *0 I \ I \ O I o , i o i i T-- I I I i III ! Q i ! FLAN — A Q _zo MODIFICATI N [- u u SCALE I" = 20.0' N Qco PLAN PROVIDES 3 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING W N i I UNIT. ONE SPACE INTERIOR AND TWO SPACES IN THE DRIVEWAY. THREE ON STREET SPACES ARE RETAINED AS WELL AS STREET TREES UNDER THIS CONCEPT. EQUAL NUMBER OF CARS CAN BE PARKED INFRONT OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE IMAGE OF CONTINUOUS PAVING ON SITE FROM EDGE TO EDGE. I i Our request for Modification by equivalency is a simple issue of having the same number of parking spaces available for use by the site users. Plan —A provides a better design based on visual appearance and superior landscaping. The number of parking spaces required are provided and the number and arrangement of parking spaces are superior. The design of Plan — A provides the image of an urban neighborhood, which is the intention of the L.U.C. Plan — B gives the appeal of a suburban parking lot, which the L.U.C. is intending to avoid. We believe our request is practical, visually superior, and meets the vision of the L.U.C. better than the strict letter of the L.U.C. would provide on this site. The L.U.C. allows us to count only four spaces assuming that the homeowner would not be able to coordinate the arrangement of his vehicles. We can obtain the required parking spaces on site. The Modification Plan - B, C-5, shows how this design would appear. We would provide the required three spaces to the south, middle and north ends of the buildings driveways. This would meet the requirements of the L.U.C. but would provide a nearly continuous paved frontage of this property. We are just under the 50 ratio of curb cut to street frontage. To accomplish this design the landscaping at the curb line would be reduced and there would be fewer street trees to shade the public walkway and enhance the visual appearance of the project. The design to accomplish this on site parking would eliminate three on site parking spaces. It is for these reason that we are asking for this modification based on equivalency. Our Modification Plan — A, C-4, shows our preferred concept. We believe that in an urban setting street parking is normal and the expectation. The plan to provide on street parking, Plan — B, gets rid of three street parking spaces to provide three on site parking. There is no net gain to the residence or the public by providing the on -site parking. Empirical observation has shown that the parking in front of this property is used only on a limited basis. This leaves this parking on the street to be the primarily used by these homeowners when the property is developed. Our design Plan — A provides for a superior design from the standpoint of experience of the project for the public as they pass the property both on foot and in vehicles. As one passes the site the pedestrian will be faced with less hard surface, more landscaping for visual and physical relief, and a higher degree of security walking along the sidewalk because the entire length of the property is not driveway. The pedestrian may feel with Plan `B' that he may be dodging cars along this stretch of Montgomery Street. The traveler in a vehicle will experience the visual relief of the superior landscaping with the design Plan — A. With Plan — B the drivers' level of security is reduced by the near continuous frontage of parking for he has the image of being on a street that looks like a parking lot. We have developed a Concept — C, C-6, which has some benefits over Concept — B. These benefits are reduced curb cuts. This Concept still reduces the landscaping along the streetscape which we believe is the more important to the Community at -large. Because the arrangement of the parking requires making an `S' curve to utilize the space the probability of a guest using the space would be reduced because it is not `normal.' The risk of accidents is increased because the driver needs to handle backing and turning while trying to watch for other traffic or pedestrian. The likelihood that one of these tasks will be overlooked is increased. The other drawback to this plan is that it is not equal. One of the units does not have the additional parking space. It looks unbalanced and it makes one unit look inferior. MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS EASTGATE 2°d FILING The Project is seeking a modification to the parking standard that prohibits stacked parking in a driveway for multi -family housing Based on providing an equivalent design The Standard found in the L.U.C. prohibits the use of stacked parking in a driveway to meet the Code required parking ratio for multi -family housing. Our request is to acknowledge the stacked parking on the site that meets and exceeds the intent of the L.U.C. and to modify the standard for this Project based on providing equivalent parking in number while providing a superior parking arrangement from the standpoint of landscaping, curb appeal, and reduction of hard paved surface area. The project is an infill project in an aging multi -family and commercial neighborhood east of Poudre Valley Hospital. The property has limited street frontage onto Montgomery. This frontage is the only street exposure for the homes. Alternatives of access would require access from two adjacent properties, which is impractical. Orienting the parking to the rear of the units places would place the building on an island of paving on two sides which is unpleasant for the residence because they would be subject to road noises on two sides leaving no private area for the residents. Parking in the rear of these homes would be detrimental to the residence because the drives and parking would divide them from the expanse of the property, which is one of the features of this property. Besides the circuitous access through adjacent parking lots, if the parking was oriented to the rear of the property there would be an additional conflict with storm drainage since the eastern portion of the property is the storm detention facility for the area. These reasons make the decision to orient the parking to street the most practical design for this project. The frontage of this property is encumbered by a 35-foot wide storm drainage easement at the leading edge of the property. The building needs to be setback from this easement that makes it ease to provide two parking spaces exterior to the unit in a tandem design. Each of the units has an additional interior parking space that provides a total of three parking spaces per unit for a total of twelve parking spaces for the project. The L.U.C. requires a minimum of seven spaces. Our design has an excess of five spaces or 170% of the requirement.