HomeMy WebLinkAbout701 WAGNER (CLOCK TOWER APTS.) - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 37-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 11
Mr. Bogee stated that the applicant would agree to a resolution that would approve 55
parking spaces tonight. They would like the opportunity to condition the approval
subject to coming back and presenting evidence that there is even more off-street and
off -site parking spaces that they may be able to commit to the city for parking purposes
associated with this project.
Chairperson Gavaldon clarified that the approval would be for 55 spaces with the
condition that the applicant could bring forward a new proposal demonstrating additional
off-street parking.
Member Bernth and Member Meyer withdrew the previous motion.
Member Bernth moved for approval of 55 parking spaces with the condition that it
would be anticipated that more parking could be presented at a later time.
The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Colton voting in the negative.
Other Business
Hearthfire PUD. 2nd filing needed to be continued until the next meeting, which is
November 4tn
Member Carpenter moved to continue Hearthfire PUD, 2"d Filing until the
November 4th Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 10
taking on an eye sore. She agrees with Member Bernth that the students do drive to
class. She did not think it was going to be detrimental to the public good to have this
there. She was sure that parking is going to be an issue. The Fraternity house has set
empty for a long time and this is the first person that has come along with a thought of
maybe doing something. She thinks this project is worthwhile and is a good thing to do
for this area.
Member Colton commented that they were not deciding whether a project is being
approved tonight or not. He was not saying that he does not want something going in
and he is not saying that it is more detrimental to have overflow parking versus not
having this occupied. He thought there were other options. He did not think they
should rely on the fact that nothing is going to go in here if the Board does not grant this
modification. He still stands on the fact of why would all these people show up if
parking is not an issue.
Member Carpenter asked Member Bernth to consider a friendly amendment to go with
the 15 they have in the overflow lot and not the 6 that would be out on the street.
Mr. Bogee thought that would take away 3 maybe closer to 4 units. He was not
prepared to say that would be economically feasible for the applicant.
Member Bernth stated that he would be comfortable with a friendly amendment if they
use the 57 number, which they would lose two two -bedroom units.
The applicant agreed to the amendment.
Member Meyer agreed to the amendment.
Planner Shepard commented that we had performance zoning for 16 years and we
never bargained away dwelling units over parking. Here we are under a different zoning
system that was designed to be flexible. He felt the perspective needed to be broader.
Member Colton was very concerned that lot 5 could redevelop at any point in time. His
fear is that the 15 spots that they are counting on are going to go by the wayside three
years down the road to a redevelopment project and that would create a worse
situation. He would not be supporting the motion.
Chairperson Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He would not be supporting
the motion because he wants the cars off of the street. Even with 57 there is spill over
onto the street.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 9
Member Bernth stated that it would only take 3 of the 4 votes for the property to be sold.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if this corporation had bylaws.
Mr. Smith replied there are probably bylaws somewhere but their accessibility is
probably not close at hand.
Mr. Smith stated that they have met with the applicant and they have discussed the fact
that if the applicant buys the Sigma Nu property and also purchases Sigma Nu's interest
in lot 5, she is entitled to use '/a of the parking spaces.
Member Carpenter thought that there should be some compromise. She was having a
hard time with the justification, when there are only four affordable units. On the other
side we want to encourage infill and redevelopment. She would like to come to some
kind of compromise.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that the definition in the Code for an affordable
housing project is that 10% of the dwelling units are to be available for affordable
housing.
Member Colton is looking at denying this application because he believes that the
existing conditions are the existing conditions and the people who live there say it is
already crowded on most evenings and certainly on Monday nights. That is without
anyone in this location at all and he assumes that the overflow parking is being used
already. While there is some benefit to the public, he did not think the 4 units of benefit
is worth the potential detriment to the public good. He thought that this development
would cause more parking problems.
Member Bernth thought that whether this is a Fraternity or affordable housing with
virtually the same amount of beds, people still drive cars and probably everyone has a
car. He also agreed with Member Carpenter and the fact that it was hard to
comprehend students driving two blocks to go to class.
Member Bernth moved to approve the Modification of Standard because he has a
difficult time saying that it is detrimental to the public good.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Meyer had thought about this for the last two weeks and the issue that she did
not want to deal with is the affordable housing element. She just wanted it to be put
aside and just discuss the parking. In her mind a mistake was made by using the
justification of affordable housing. There are a lot of other things going on here like
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 8
Member Carpenter then did not see why anyone was worried about students coming
and parking in the area to go to class. If students who actually live there and can park
there and walk across campus to a class are driving their cars and finding a place to
park, obviously then people are not going to come from the outside and park their cars
in these parking lots and then walk that far to class. She could not believe that this
close, people are actually driving to class and fighting for a parking place.
Member Bernth commented that there are also churches in neighborhoods that are
affected on Sunday's and if this same project the Board would be looking at it in a
favorable manner if there were two churches in the neighborhood and they created a lot
of parking issues on Sunday morning. He felt that the Board was not there to
accommodate Fraternity and Sorority Monday night meetings.
Member Colton's biggest concern is if parking lot 5 is going to be there for any
guaranteed amount of time. If the parking lot was going to be there forever providing 15
spots, then he could be o.k. with this. In his mind, the property could become
developed five years down the road and there would be no way for the city to know that
was supposed to be parking for this applicant. He asked if there was anyway to have a
condition with the fact that are four different groups involved.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied no because this applicant does not have full
control over that lot. The sale of this lot could happen with the vote of the members of
the corporation and the city would have no control over it. The concern that he has
about that, with respect to this project, is that then there would be some talk about how
this would be in violation then, especially if this application is conditioned, thosel5
parking spaces always being available in lot 5.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked why a parking study was not done to verify the parking in
the area.
Planner Barkeen replied that is normally done with the project development plan as far
as providing evidence to support the request for the modification, it is possible that the
applicant could go ahead and commission to do a study. The traffic study does not
really address parking, usually just traffic patterns. It sounds like Chairman Gavaldon
was asking for a parking analysis not a traffic study.
Member Bernth asked if it required a unanimous vote that would require all four parties
to vote to sell the land.
Mr. Smith replied no, Colorado Law allows a 75% vote unless the bylaws require a less
of a percentage.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 7
parked. Right now as proposed 15 of the 21 would be allowed to park in the parking lot,
the remainder would most likely park on the street. Forty of the 61 spaces are provided
on site.
Planner Barkeen suggested that one way to keep this applicant to maintain the parking
spaces is to put a condition on the modification that they use the parking lot for the life
of this project.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked what would happen if they backed out.
Planner Barkeen replied it would then become an enforcement issue for the city. They
would be both in violation of the project approval and of the modification approval.
Mr. Bogee stated that the applicant would be willing to agree to some kind of condition
for her participation in this entity and she would never affirmatively agree to a cessation
of the parking use of this property.
The representative from Sigma Pi Fraternity clarified that they do in fact have a parking
lot on their property with 20 spaces.
Michael Smith, representing the Lambda Chi Alpha house wanted to clarify that they did
send a letter to the Board that indicates their willingness to proceed with the applicant's
petition. The petition is based on the fact that there needs to be a solid surface
boundary between the parking lot on their property at 709 Wagner.
Member Bernth was trying to figure out the irony of the situation. The other Fraternities
do not have enough parking on their sites and are there complaining about parking. He
was trying to figure out the differentiation between a Fraternity — if it is a Fraternity
everyone is o.k. with it, if it not a Fraternity and it is affordable housing, no one is o.k.
with it.
Planner Shepard clarified that a fraternity is required to have one space for every two
beds. A dwelling unit is required to have 1.75 spaces per two bedroom unit. Some of
the units will be one bedroom and that requirement is 1.5 spaces. According to the
parking section of the Code, they are two different uses with two different parking ratios.
Member Carpenter asked if the students this close to campus are driving their cars to
school and parking on campus.
The reply was that they do.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 6
the parking at particular points in time. We are talking about parking for residents and it
almost sounds as if on street parking should be compromised to make sure there is
enough parking for visitors that might come in on a periodic once a week basis; instead
of allowing a portion of those spaces to be available for the residents who actually live in
the area.
Member Carpenter asked how many of the units would be affordable.
Planner Barkeen replied 10%, about 4 units.
Member Carpenter asked what was being done to make sure that those units stay
affordable.
Planner Barkeen replied that they would have to commit to those once the actual project
is submitted. They will have to remain affordable for a number of years.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it would be 20 years and there is also a
restrictive document to ensure that affordability.
Chairperson Gavaldon questioned the timing of the pictures submitted and whether they
were taken at peak times.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked for Mr. Bogee's comment on the changes in parking that
CSU is making at Moby Gym.
Mr. Bogee replied that he felt the impact would be on the east side of CSU because that
is closer to the classrooms.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the agreement between the 4 houses that share the
parking lot and was that a document that says that they will keep it forever. Is there an
out clause that says they can sever and back out of it?
Planner Barkeen did not think that there was a severibility clause in the agreement, but
the word perpetuity is in there, which indicates that it would be forever. If the four
members of the agreement got together and voted to abolish the agreement, they would
be able to do that.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked what would happen to the fifteen spaces if the agreement
were to be broken.
Planner Barkeen replied that they would have to park on the street. The modification
tonight is for 21 spaces; it is just a question of where those 21 cars are going to be
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 5
every single student tends to have a car. That means when they were occupying the
property, they regularly had to tow residents from Baystone and Sunstone because
although their lots met zoning regulations at the time those properties developed, they
are insufficient for the number of students that live there.
For clarification of what is happening with Moby Gym parking lot. The lot is already in
the process of conversion. One third of the student parking that was formally free has
been converted to "A" parking for faculty and staff. The former "A" parking has been
converted to a student permit parking lot. The number of free spaces for students has
been significantly reduced from last May. The students who drive onto campus
expecting to be able to park at Moby, circle endlessly for someone to leave the lot so
they will have a place to park. She does not want to see this development happen, but
she thought that there should be some medium point where the people who are moving
into this complex are not going to have to face irritation and confrontation with the
residents that are already in the neighborhood.
Darren Pettapiece, 3118 Cumberland Court and representative of Sigma Pi Fraternity,
which is currently, located at 709 Wagner Drive thought that having this house a Greek
house traditionally and historically along Greek row would not cause the problems that,
this proposed project will. The Greek community is very strong and helps out the city of
Fort Collins. Together they would find a way to work with the parking right now.
Chairperson Gavaldon offered the applicant a 5-minute rebuttal.
Mr. Bogee responded that there was a letter provided to the city of Fort Collins by the
owner of the building where Sigma Pi is located who suggested that he approves the
concept of allowing 15 cars to park off -site on the street. That seems to be a little bit
opposed to what the residents in that same structure say. The photographs that were
given to the board were taken in the evening and do show there is significant evening
parking spaces on the street in that very area. To the extent that someone says that
there are no evening photographs is not correct. The comments made from Sigma Pi
regarding this not being a Greek House he appreciates. The property was on the
market for a significant amount of time and no Greek institutions were interested in
buying it. You could not open a Sigma Nu house even with renovations to the structure
and conduct it as a Fraternity without doing something with the parking. New parking
rules apply and cannot be gotten around. Off -site parking does have to be available in
one manner or another.
There was much talk about Monday nights and some of the Greek activities. He can
understand that there are activities in the area that bring students in for particular
events. But is seems unfair to penalize this particular project because the Sororities
and Fraternities have events that bring a bunch of visitors to the area that are taking up
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 4
permit or paid parking it will push more students into their neighborhood. He did not feel
that they should put more cars on a street that is already overcrowded.
Joe Marshall, 635 S. Shields and President of the Sigma Chi Fraternity stated as far as
the campus long-term parking plan for students is a total commuter campus within the
next five years according to the comprehensive plan. They are scaling down the entire
commuter parking and charge $250.00 per parking pass in the next couple of years. He
believes that Birch Street, being a major thoroughfare, people will be trying to park
there. Right now it is not as big of a problem as it could be. They are happy to have
someone interested in this property, but the parking is and will become a major problem
as soon as the full commuter campus goes into effect.
The question was raised about how many on -street parking spaces were being asked
for.
Planner Barkeen responded 6.
Sarah Tomsick, 1112 Birch Street and Chi Omega House represented the concerns of
her house. They do not feel that the off -site parking is sufficient that they want to use.
The pictures do not show Monday evenings where off-street parking is completely filled
up on Monday evenings. The pictures are all taken during the day when students are at
class. One of the pictures was also taken on a Sunday evening when students are
visiting home and family or not there. She asked that the pictures not be taken into
account because they do not accurately depict the parking available. The off -site
parking would not be sufficient for the occupants of this new housing.
Maria McCracken 1225 Baystone Drive and Local House Association President for Zeta
Ta Alpha stated that they were just down the block from this particular property. She
stated that the Delta Delta Delta, Chi Omega and the Zeta Ta Alpha house
approximately 50 to 55 members. They average in numbers around 100. On Monday
evenings they have 120 members at their house, same thing for Chi Omega and Delta
Delta Delta. Alpha Chi Omega who shares in this parking lot, is currently not on
campus, but it is in the plan to bring them back within two years. They also house 54
members. Parking is a concern and they do have a lot that is relatively sufficient for
those who live in their house. They have problems with the Sunstone and Baystone
parties and they end up with party people parking in their lot.
Sonia Immasche, works for Colorado State University and was the Corporation Board
Chair for the property at 1300 Baystone, which was recently sold. She wanted to add a
couple of clarifications. She was concerned not with the type of unit that is planned to
be built, but the conflict between residents of any of the facilities in the area competing
for parking space. Students these days tend to drive back and forth to everything and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 3
Mr. Bogee submitted to the Board photographs that had been taken at different times.
They were taken on Wagner Drive and Birch Street. Most of them are time stamped
with a date in October. They show the surrounding area at different times of day and
the parking that is there. He would like the Board to take into consideration what these
photos show in comparison to what some of the project objection letters are trying to
say.
Mr. Bogee stated that there have been some comments about parking problems around
CSU. CSU Department of Housing has a good handle on the parking problems. They
indicated when contacted that they don't believe there are any parking problems on the
northwest side of campus where this particular project is. The reason is that students
that are driving in from outside of campus are driving to go to their classrooms. Most of
the classrooms are on the eastside of campus. There is also free parking in the Moby
Arena Parking Lot. That is considerably closer to their classes than this project. He did
not think that it was legitimate to say there are a lot of commuter students that are filling
up the streets in the vicinity of this particular project.
Mr. Bogee responded to letters that were sent to the Board regarding parking in the
area. He referenced the photographs that had been taken in the area to defend their
stance that there is not a parking problem in the area.
Public Input
Rob Tracy, 3118 Cumberland Ct, Sigma Chi Fraternity adjacent to this property stated
that they were excited to see something looked at for the Sigma Nu property as far as
developing it. Their main concern is parking. The photos displayed were probably
taken during the middle of the day, and that is when most of the students are in class.
He did not feel that was an accurate representation of what the parking situation really
is. Mr. Tracy reported that with the free Moby Arena parking, CSU has been expanding
the paid parking, and right now they have added a few paid parking spaces and he
foresees in the future that it will be a paid lot, which he feels will bring more traffic to
Birch and Wagner Streets.
Matthew Gulakowski, 1316 Birch Street wanted to take a look at the photos also to see
what time of day they were taken. During the day on the street a lot of the people are at
work or at class, but in the evenings there are cars everywhere. He wakes up in the
morning to trash in his front yard, from all the people who just get out of their cars and
kick stuff out. More cars in the area are just going to push all the current traffic that is
on the street further up in front of his house and make a bigger mess. Parking has
always been a problem on that street and so has traffic and speeding. He did not see
how adding 15 on the street parking spaces that they are looking at. Those spaces are
almost always occupied currently. He also felt when the Moby Arena becomes either
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 17, 2002
Page 2
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this item is
continued from the September 191h Planning and Zoning Board Hearing due to
conflicting information in the staff report as well as what the applicant was requesting.
The previous staff report was for a modification request for 53 parking spaces. That has
been increased to 61 spaces, which is not the entire modification, but the parking
demand that would be generated from 36 multi -family residential units. The applicant is
proposing on the site plan to included 40 of these spaces on the existing site with a new
parking lot that would be constructed with the project. The remaining 21 spaces, which
is actually what the modification is for, would be provided in both a combination of an
existing gravel parking lot that is immediately southwest of this site as well as on the
adjacent streets Birch Street and Wagner Drive. The way the gravel parking lot is
configured, which is under a Management Corporation, which has four individual entities
contributing to it. The former Sigma -Nu house is one of them, which enables them to
continue to use the parking lot. The other three users are from the other adjacent
fraternity and sorority houses. The parking lot is divided 25% equally, and the parking
lot is estimated to hold about 60 cars and 25% is 15 cars. The applicant has the right to
park 15 cars, which is not the full 21. The remaining 6 spaces can be accommodated
on street adjacent to the site. According to the site plan provided by the applicant, there
can be about 15 cars along the frontage of the site. The previous proposal submitted
was entirely on street parking, the parking lot was not included within that proposal.
Part of the justification for the modification, is that the city of Fort Collins Advanced
Planning Department has determined that this does qualify for an affordable housing
project and that memorandum is included with the Board's staff report.
Rick Bogee, representing the applicant, Jupiter -Bar, LLC, stated that he did not have
very much to add as far as the qualifications of the project. He felt that the staff report
stated clearly that there was a benefit to the city. He did not think there would be any
detriment to the public good as a result of this project. You can see that there are quite
a few numbers of spaces available, in fact, the 40 spaces on site are far more spaces
than are available to the adjacent properties. As a practical matter, it would be very
difficult, if not impossible for this project to go forward if off site parking was not
accepted to be applicable toward the parking needs of this project. If no off site parking
were permitted they would be left with 40 parking spaces on site. That would reduce
the number of units for this project to about 1/3, making it economically questionable or
feasible from the standpoint of the cost of land in the area and trying to justify
purchasing land and spending significant amounts of money to improve it and make it
housing.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Phone: (W) 416-7435
chairperson Uavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Carpenter, Colton, Bernth and Gavaldon. Members Craig and
Torgerson were absent.
Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Barkeen, Virata, and Alfers.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the June 20, September 5, September 19, 2002
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued)
2. Resolution PZ02-08 — Easement Vacation.
3. Resolution PZ02-09 — Easement Vacation.
Discussion:
4. #37-02 701 Wagner Drive — Modification of Standard.
Planner Shepard also reported that there were two items under Other Business
Member Bernth moved to approved items 2 and 3 on the Consent Agenda.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Project: 701 Wagner Drive — Modification of Standard, #37-02
Project Description: Request for a modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of
the Land Use Code to grant a reduction to the
minimum number of off-street parking spaces
required for a multi family residential project. The
applicant is proposing a reduction of the minimum
number of 61 off-street parking spaces to 40. a
difference of 21 spaces.
Recommendation: Approval