Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMBRIDGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 6-03A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 20 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he had been very comfortable with the 175 but was concerned about the constraining factors that led to the request for 160. He stated that a compromise could make a successful project. He stated that he would support the motion. Member Colton stated that he was not present for the first modification hearing. He added that it may be a good idea to take a tally of all the residents as to whether or not they have a car. Member Carpenter stated that she thought this was a good project but that the demographics of the apartment complex could change and result in more cars. She stated that she would support the motion. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he thought it was a very attractive project and hoped it would be pursued. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Vineyard Rezoning, #2-03 Description: Request to rezone a portion of a tract nd located at the northeast corner of st Vine \ Drive and Interstate 25. The rcel is 78.6 acres in size and is cur re y zoned I, \ Industrial. The prod rezoning would rezone the east 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to an Estate residential, the remainin 4.8 acres of land adjacent to 1-25 ul emain zoned industrial. The parcel is "sated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study o"r e City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Staff Recommendatign' Approval City P nner Bob Barkeen explained to the Board that this item was eeviously hpaird by the Board on April 17, 2003 and continued until the approval bfJ,,he 1-25 ubarea Plan. The idea being that we did not want to go ahead and consi this rezoning until it was supported by the 1-25 Subarea Plan. On August 19tn Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 19 Planner Jones replied that there will be an increased demand in parking from the retail but that the likely retailers will be those with limited trips to and from them. Mr. Ray stated that usually 75-100 parking spaces are sold at Cambridge House per year. Member Carpenter asked what the applicant would have to do if the modification were denied or if they wanted to go back and take some commercial out. Planner Jones replied that there has not been a PDP submitted so if the modification request were denied, they would still have approval for the first modification for 175 spaces. They could come back with a different modification request for eliminating the landscape islands, for example. Member Carpenter asked if they would have to include the commercial aspect on the existing approval. Planner Jones replied that they would have to build the commercial on a portion of the first floor of the building in order to be able to utilize the original modification request of 175 spaces. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Mr. Wray had considered tying the parking lot that is located to the south in with his. Mr. Ray replied that he had not because shared parking spaces are not counted toward parking space requirements. Chairperson Torgerson replied that he would consider granting a modification for that and asked about reducing the number of units to meet the 175 space requirement. Member Schmidt moved for denial of the Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #6-03A, citing that the request does not benefit the public good. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman asked if Member Schmidt was essentially stating that the request would be detrimental to the public good. Member Schmidt replied that was correct. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 18 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the second modification was being requested. Mr. Ray replied that a different architect was being used and that the original architect had not taken into consideration engineering setbacks or any planters. He assured the Board that this would be the final modification request. Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Jones about the paid -for parking spaces and if they count as meeting Code requirements. Planner Jones replied that the Land Use Code states that "spaces that are located in detached residential garages, but not including parking structures, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental purchase cost beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price." This section was written to prevent apartment complexes from having a certain percentage of parking in lots and a certain percentage of parking in garages and requiring tenants to pay extra for the garage spaces. Chairperson Torgerson stated that about 30% of the spaces at the project are compact spaces. That is the maximum allowed in the Code, when the parking is long-term use. He asked if this parking lot was long-term. Planner Jones stated that residential uses are considered long-term uses. Member Colton asked if there was any data from other communities on parking near college campuses versus further away from campus. Director Gloss replied that he had not seen any studies that differentiate parking rules based on distance from campus. He added that the transit system and alternative modes are important considerations and that the alternative transit modes here are limited. Chairperson Torgerson asked about CSU's dorm parking standards. Director Gloss replied that it depends on the type of dormitory — freshman versus upper class. Car ownership was found to be significantly lower at dorm housing facilities. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the parking demand from the commercial uses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Ray stated that in order to get the 15 spaces back, land area was needed for not only the parking but for the drive aisle associated with it. That would virtually eliminate the entire footprint of the new building. One solution would be to increase the parking under the building. However, part of the approval of the first modification was to incorporate the first floor commercial space. In so doing, the ground area for parking has been lost. Member Carpenter stated that she was wondering if the applicant could reduce the number of bedrooms to somehow come into compliance with the requirements. Mr. Ray replied that the idea from the beginning was to use the main, or ground, floor for parking. It does not seem to be the ideal location for a mixed -use building anyway. Member Carpenter asked if he would be willing to drop the commercial but not cut back on the apartment units. Mr. Ray replied that from a practical standpoint, it makes more sense to put the parking under the building because it is a questionable commercial space anyway. Member Schmidt asked if any of the traffic studies had addressed the concerns of the Lutheran Church in terms of their traffic using the parking lot to get out onto Plum Street. Mr. Ray replied that he had agreed to work with the employees on some shared parking ideas. Member Schmidt asked if there was a divider between the lots. Mr. Ray replied that there are some trees and perhaps a curb. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Member Carpenter would be open to a continuance to get some alternative designs from the applicant. Member Carpenter stated that it was up to the applicant if they wanted the Board to vote or request a continuance. Mr. Ray replied that he would rather have a vote than go back to the drawing board on the design. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Ray replied that it would. Chairperson Torgerson asked about an adopted policy that stated that "charged for" parking spaces could not be considered as part of the required number of spaces. Planner Jones replied that he would look it up and get back to the issue. He believed that it had to do with garages. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the new building would be fire sprinkled. Mr. Ray replied that it would. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the fire lane behind the building was actually required by the fire department. Mr. Ray replied that it was, likely because of the height of the building. It could be explored as to whether or not it would be necessary. Member Carpenter stated that she had requested an alternative plan for reducing some of the numbers of apartments. Planner Jones replied that he understood that Member Carpenter simply wanted the applicant to be able to address the question about reducing the unit count. Member Carpenter stated that she wanted the applicant to look at other alternatives to meet the Land Use Code. Mr. Ray stated that they did get a variance from engineering on some setback requirements and that increased the number of parking spaces. Member Carpenter asked how many bedrooms would have to be eliminated in order to meet the requirements. Mr. Ray replied that three two -bedroom units would have to be eliminated. Member Carpenter asked if that were a possibility because the project is a good one. Chairperson Torgerson stated that if the second floor of the building were commercial, that would eliminate the problem as well. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Ray stated that the previous apartment owner did not charge for parking permits and the number of cars in the lot was still many fewer than the number of spaces and that parking sharing is occurring now because there are additional spaces. Once the number of spaces is reduced, he feels it is not his responsibility to provide parking for the adjoining businesses. Member Carpenter stated that she was very concerned about this given that the major problem with the Campus West subarea plan was parking. It has historically been a terrible place for parking. She asked how the parking standards came about. Planner Jones replied that they were a carry-over from the LDGS. In some cases, the parking standards are not great enough. It appears that this site is different because it is right across the street from campus. The renters here are a different type than those who rent more expensive units father away from campus. Member Carpenter asked how the parking standards were put together. Director Gloss replied that the number of spaces per bedroom as required by the Land Use Code is very typical for other communities nationwide. Member Carpenter stated that, if anything, this area near campus would be an area in which we would be increasing parking requirements per bedroom because of the fact that two or three unrelated people of driving age are usually occupying these units. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the second floor of the new building would be commercial as well as the first floor. Mr. Ray replied that the second floor is residential. Chairperson Torgerson asked if parking would be set aside for employees of the commercial. Mr. Ray replied that there are garages associated with that space and those would likely be reserved for the commercial people. They are part of the parking count, despite the fact that commercial does not require parking. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the commercial would then take up some of the residential parking as well. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Ray stated that all residents will sign a disclosure letting them know that there are 160 spaces. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked how many students were in each apartment on average. Mr. Ray replied that most units have two people. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated concern over the possible lack of parking. Mr. Ray replied that he did not believe it would be a problem. He stated that the previous owner never gave out more than 100 permits for parking. He stated that many people live there so they do not have to have a car. Planner Jones stated that he was initially concerned as well but, through site visits, discovered that the parking was not a problem at this site. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the project would be able to go through in modified form if the parking were left at 175. Mr. Ray replied that it would not work the way the building is and the project would not be feasible. Member Schmidt asked if a variance to the landscape design to increase parking would allow the project to work. She asked about the commercial aspects of the property and whether or not people would have to go on Plum and through the parking lot to get to the parking spaces for the commercial. Mr. Ray replied that he was unsure as to the exact commercial uses but didn't expect a great deal of traffic. Member Schmidt stated that the Board did receive a letter from neighbors indicating that parking has been a problem in the area. Mr. Ray replied that he had never heard from Kathy Nichols (letter author) about any of the parking problems and that there were no complaints at all at the first hearing. He stated that he had never heard any complaints from any other neighbors. Member Schmidt stated concern about the general congestion of the area and asked about potential parking sharing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 13 unanticipated design restraints came up as plans were being created for the PDP, resulting in a loss of some of the anticipated spaces. Staff is supporting the request to further reduce the parking spaces. Planner Jones discussed the history of the zoning district and sub -area plan for Campus West in his discussion of the reasons for staff's support. He added that the demand for parking also supports the request. If the Land Use Code standards were applied to the new three -bedroom units and the current demand for the two -bedroom units, the number of parking spaces needed would be lower than the requested 160. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the request would allow 1.33 parking spaces per unit and that unofficial studies have shown the demand to be 1.03 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Brookshire explained the reasons for the requested reduction in parking spaces and re -iterated many of Planner Jones' points. He noted that the parking lot is controlled and signed so that only residents can park in the lot. Mr. Brookshire noted that the development is infill and the addition will provide much -needed housing for CSU students and will address some of the ideas and goals that City Plan embodies. Chris Ray, the property owner, spoke regarding the historical use of the parking area. He stated that about 45 parking permits had been issued thus far and that 75 were expected to be issued. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that the Moby Gym parking lot to the east is now going to be more controlled and he asked how many people did not pay to park at Cambridge House and parked instead at Moby. Mr. Ray replied that he did not believe that was happening but that there was no definite number. He added that there have been no complaints from neighbors regarding parking off -site. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that Cambridge House will be selling 181 parking permits for 160 spaces and asked if Cambridge House would have more demand than spaces with the new restrictions at Moby. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 12 e-Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the ct but that he woul ' to make sure the evergreens, buffering, and be ng on the east are adequate. mmended Planner Shepard and th plicant. Chairperson Torgerson c limented th chitects on their sensitivity toward the historic Harmony School. concern about the notification of property owner process citing that none e r nts of the mobile home park were notified specifically. Director Gloss stat that was one of the recommendation , expand notifi=pproved rs, in the upcoming Land Use Code revisions. The 6-0. Project: Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #6-03A Project Description: Request for a modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 175 to 160. The site is located at 1113 W. Plum Street and is zoned Community Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is the second modification request of this nature that has come before the Board. The site is just north of the Campus West commercial site between Plum and Elizabeth, fronting on Shields and Plum. The existing complex has 102 two -bedroom units and the applicant has anticipated a forthcoming project development plan that will add 18 additional dwelling units; 6 two -bedroom units will result from a conversion of the existing pool house complex and 12 three -bedroom units that will be in a newly constructed building. The unit count has not changed from the previous modification request. The Planning and Zoning Board granted the modification request the first time to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from 213 to 175. The current request is to further reduce that number down to 160. Some Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mika] Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Colton, Schmidt, Gavaldon, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Barkeen, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 17 and July 17 (CONTINUED), 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #29-94C Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One, Project Development Plan. 3. #14-03 Golden Meadows Business Park, 2"d Filing, Project Development Plan. Discussion Agenda: 4. #10-03 Timberline Village community Shopping Center, Project Development Plan. 5. #6-03A Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards Recommendation to City Council: 6. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning. City Planner Ted Shepard informed the Board that they should have three letters, new since worksession, regarding the Christ Fellowship Church project. Member Craig asked that Item #2, Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One Project Development Plan, be pulled from the consent agenda. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1, less the July 17, 2003 Minutes, and 3. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.