Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMBRIDGE HOUSE LOFTS - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 6-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 6 Member Gavaldon was looking at the implications of what a modification does. In looking at this modification as it stands and we reduce the parking standards and go forward with a new variable of a project, he sees issues with that. He would not be supporting the motion. He thought reducing the parking to do this project — he thought there was a middle road that needed to be explored. He felt that making this site tighter would have a "boomerang" effect in the area. Member Craig thought that it looked like staff went out there numerous times counting the lot and making sure that the lot was empty. What she was curious about is if people are trying to avoid the cost of the parking permit and are parking on the street instead, was that looked at when staff went out there. Was there a lot of parking on the street and the lot empty. Director Gloss replied that the parking availability on Plum Street is limited because of the width of the street and there a are a lot of other apartments around here. From staff's perspective, there is not really a supply of readily available of parking around this site for residents. Given the numbers we have seen through survey information, it appears that tenants must be using this lot, because there are not any other opportunities out there. Member Meyer was having difficulty with this because the Board just go done beating up on someone two blocks north of this one over six parking spaces. She could not argue with the statistics that there are empty parking spaces, she just knows that there are rules here, and there must be some reason for the rules, but when the Board got upset over the lack of 6 parking spaces and now we are talking about 38. Member Meyer stated that she has a hard time coming to grip with 6 spaces two blocks north that are a problem and 38 across from Moby Gym are not a problem. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was having a hard time reconciling those two projects too. He obviously would be supporting the other project and he would be supporting this one too. It seems clear just based on the current situation that there is a surplus of parking and the addition of this building and that urban environment would be a great improvement to the Campus West District. He sincerely hopes that the main level becomes something that would contribute to the pedestrian environment rather than mechanical space or a bike shop. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative and Member Colton absent. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 5 Member Gavaldon asked if the parking spaces would still be leased to the group home. Mr. Mechels replied that they are accounted for in the revised count. Member Gavaldon asked about the two entrances being closed on Shields and redirecting the traffic onto Plum. He asked if the traffic had been looked at. Mr. Mechels responded that as far as Traffic Engineering goes, they would actually prefer that the vehicles would exit and enter from a lower volume street. Member Craig asked why they were removing two trees. Mr. Mechels replied that because of the 30-foot setback requirement, that would push them on top of the first tree. Then when you add the thickness of the building, that would put them on top of the second tree. If they do go to a mixed - use building, the setback requirements are reduced significantly and the setback may be reduced. That may be at the sacrifice of the public plaza space and the green space in front. Member Craig asked if the Project Planner could look into that if it would save a 12-inch tree. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reminded the Board that just because we are looking at modifying this parking requirement does not affect the layout of the buildings or the trees. That would all come up at the PDP stage and there is no vested right to put these buildings where they are just because of this parking space modification. Member Meyer asked is what they were doing was building a new addition with no additional parking. Mr. Mechels replied that in essence yes. What they would like to do because they have such a parking vacancy, is take advantage of the parking that is there and utilize it to a greater extent. They would then put a facility in that is in the nature and spirit of the Land Use Code and the new development standards. Member Bernth recommended approval of Scenario B of the Modification request based on the findings of facts and conclusions outlined in Section 5, specifically B and C. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Mechels replied that it would be what the Code allowed. In the Code it allows for 60% of the spaces to be full-size and 40% compact spaces. That is still an 8- foot space. Member Gavaldon asked how long the parking program has been in place. Mr. Mechels replied two years. Member Gavaldon asked if they have had any problems with activities at Moby Gym. Mr. Mechels replied no. There is also a letter in the packet from the previous owner that owned the building for twenty years stating that he never sold over 102 permits. There is quite a long course history, because of its proximity to campus is very little. Member Gavaldon asked how many trees would be lost. Mr. Mechels replied that they would lose two existing and they are adding 6 to 8 new trees, plus green area and shrubs and bushes. Member Gavaldon asked about the caliper of the trees. Mr. Mechels replied about 12 inches and maybe 30 to 40 feet tall. Member Gavaldon asked if the City Forester had looked at them. Mr. Mechels replied no. Member Gavaldon asked about the process for the modification since they were going to lose trees. Should the Forester be brought in this early in the process? Director Gloss replied that if it appears to the Project Planner, in his professional judgement, that they are significant trees, staff would bring in the Forester. Normally it is done during the Project Development Plan stage. Member Gavaldon felt this was a gray area because the modification would take our trees. Mr. Mechels replied that the City Forester is very good about mitigation and if a tree has to be taken out it will be mitigated. He may require a larger caliper new tree. The owner would be more than willing to do that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 3 to parking demand. Right now there is an existing demand for 105 spaces. Based on the bedroom count, with 1,2 and 3 bedroom units and with the three spaces rented to the youth group home, there is 165-space demand. There would be an additional 6-space demand to it would rise to 171 spaces. The proposed spaces in scenario A are 181 spaces. If scenario B were chosen where 6 spaces are lost, that would bring the number down to 175 spaces. From staff's perspective, they believe that the modification request would not be detrimental to the public good because the project is in proximity to Colorado State University and other available off-street parking. This particular location relative to its location and the parking facilities that are there today, show that parking can be accommodated on the site. Staff is recommending approval of scenario A and B. Bob Mechels, Vaught Frye Architects, representing the applicant gave the Board a presentation. He stated that Director Gloss already showed the entire site shots and renderings they have done. They feel that what they are proposing would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Some highlights would be losing two curb cuts onto a very busy arterial and also having to use the new standards in the Land Use Code to screen the large parking lot. The applicant is proposing a very nice building with the new component of the mixed use. If they can get the parking variance, they would love to add the mixed use component. The uses that they would consider would be very vehicle low impact and they would enhance the pedestrian experience being that close to campus, encouraging biking and walking. Public Input None. Member Gavaldon asked how many parking spaces would be lost by putting in the five -story building. Mr. Mechels responded that the current parking lot has 175 spaces. With the modification and restriping, would put them at 181 spaces. In scenario B, there would be mixed use under the building and they would lose 10 spaces. That would bring them down to 171. There is some potential to put in some carports and pick up another 4. There would be a net loss of 6. That would put them at 175 spaces. Member Gavaldon asked about the restriping and were they restriping the parking lot for compact cars only? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda consisting of Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Craig acknowledged an email letter that was distributed by Planner Olt for the Longview Market Place. She stated that she had talked with staff and that the concerns raised in the email don't directly affect the proposed modification of standard. but should be addressed during the Project Development Plan stage. Project: Cambridge House Apartments — Modification of Standards, #6-03 Project Description: Request for a modification of Standard to the Land Use Code for Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces from 213 to 181 for a proposed 18 dwelling unit Project Development Plan. The project is located at 1113 W. Plum Street. Recommendation: Approval Hearing TestimonV, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning filled in for Planner Jones who was unavailable. Planner Gloss reported that the Board did get a revised staff report and in the staff report there are underlined sections which reference the changes that were made from the initial staff report. Director Gloss also reported that the Board received two letters tonight from neighborhood residents. The site is west of the CSU Campus bounded by Shields Street on the east, south of Plum and north of the commercial area on West Elizabeth. The site development shows what staff is referring to as "scenario A," which shows a conversion of part of the pool building into 6 units. The applicant has agreed to, at the request of the P & Z Board, have more interactive space at the ground floor. The applicant would be agreeable to having office, a possible recreation room, storage, mechanical room and potentially other space on the ground floor available for lease. Director Gloss reviewed site shots for the Board. The apartments do have a parking permit program to ensure that they don't have others using the spaces illegally. Planner Jones had done some analysis relative Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Bernth, Carpenter, Craig, Gavaldon, and Torgerson. Member Colton was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Barkeen, Olt, Stringer, Reiff, Schlueter and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the October 17, and December 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings (Continued), and the January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ03-03 Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ03-04 Easement Vacation. 4. Resolution PZ03-05 Easement Vacation. 5. #48-02 2420 LaPorte Avenue Wireless Telecommunication Equipment — Project Development Plan. 6. #47-95B Longview Marketplace at Shenandoah Project Development Plan — Modification of Standards. 7. #6-03 Cambridge House Apartments — Modification of Standards 8. #24-98A Young's Creek Project Development Plan — Modification of Standards. 9. #7-03 Recommendation to City Council for Three Amendments to Text Discussion Agenda: 10.#35-00 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan. 11.#53-85 Center for Advanced Technology, CSURF South Campus — Overall Development Plan. Member Gavaldon pulled Item #7, Cambridge House Apartments and Item #9, Recommendation to City Council for Three Amendments to the text of the LUC.