Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREIDER DUPLEX, 720 WEST MYRTLE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 13-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 22 The meeting was adjourned. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 21 Planner Jones pointed out that the next meeting has been canceled so the item would not come back for a month. He suggested asking the applicant if he would consider two spaces. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant would be willing to continue the item and return with a two -space configuration. Mr. Reider replied that continuing the item would push back making the improvements for another year because of the calendar year for rentals. Mr. Reider stated that no matter how many spaces were put in the back, the cars would likely still stack in tandem behind. He added that CSU is looking at parking increases in the future which would alleviate the parking problem on surrounding streets in the future. Mr. Reider stated that he could put the parking in the rear yard but would prefer not to. Ms. Dagett reminded the Board that there is a motion on the floor. The motion failed 1-3. Chairman Gavaldon asked the applicant if he would be willing to accept a motion that would condition him to two parking spaces in the rear yard. Mr. Reider replied that the cost and planning may not be any different but if the Board felt that two would be better for the neighborhood than four, he would consider it. Planner Jones pointed out that there was no motion to deny, only a failure to approve. Ms. Dagget stated that the Board could make another motion and suggested that over an on -going dialogue with the applicant. Member Carpenter stated that she was not getting the feeling from the applicant that he is comfortable with the possible compromise situation. She suggested that the Board move to deny the request and allow the applicant to come back with another request if desired. The Board should not be designing the project. Member Carpenter moved for denial of the Reider Duplex — 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard citing that it is detrimental to the public good. Chairman Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-1. There was no other business. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 20 Chairman Gavaldon stated that adding the third bedrooms seemed to be adding complications. If the applicant were to remodel with the same number of bedrooms, would he have to ask for a modification? Planner Jones replied that the property is grandfathered in its current condition. If it were built as -is with two bedrooms, it would be required to have four spaces. Adding the bedrooms makes it necessary to comply with current parking standards. Member Carpenter asked if there were garages around the property. Planner Jones replied that there are a few garages immediately surrounding the property. Member Meyer moved for approval of the Reider Duplex — 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard citing that it will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested because there is no inherent additional danger to vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians associated with parking cars in the street versus off the street. Chairman Gavaldon seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he seconded the motion to invoke discussion, not necessarily because he was in favor of it. Member Carpenter stated concern about future requests for modifications and overtaxing the existing parking. She added that there is no major difference between screening the parking well and the garages and stated more concern over preserving the streetscape rather than the backyard. One site plan that puts the parking toward the back does still leave some backyard. She stated having difficulty in approving the modification. Chairman Gavaldon stated agreement and added that the addition of the bedrooms complicates the issue and would necessitate rear yard parking. Member Craig stated agreement with Member Carpenter but would like to see a modification to add only two spaces in the rear yard. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the Board would like to continue the item. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 19 Chairman Gavaldon asked about the staff report stating that the applicant would be allowed to construct the building addition regardless of whether or not the modification is granted. Planner Jones replied that the addition, including a parking lot in the backyard, could be completed without special permission but the modification is being sought in order to avoid putting the parking lot in the backyard. Member Craig stated that this would likely be an issue that would occur repeatedly. If we start making these modifications, others should not have to meet standards either, creating a large parking problem. Member Craig asked if a middle ground could be explored by placing two parking spaces in the back yard in addition to the driveway. Planner Jones replied that the idea may work depending on the configuration. Member Craig asked how the parking issues would be addressed in the future. Planner Jones replied that the West Side Neighborhood Plan stated had a goal to avoid vehicle intrusion into yard spaces. However, this does not address the future issues with absorbing other parking modifications. Planning Director Gloss stated that Troy was referencing the Urban Design Plan that also defines the existing conditions with respect to the balance between providing lower -cost housing for students and the inadequate on -campus parking. The off-street parking was addressed as a problem but it needs to be balanced with affordable housing. Using garages in order to mitigate headlights and provide screening is also considered in the plan. There are also issues with garage compliance over time with zoning ordinances because they become storage for items other than vehicles. Member Craig stated concern over whether is was tackier to park on the front lawn or have parking in the rear yard. Member Meyer stated that front yard parking happens frequently in this neighborhood. There are few garages in the area as well. Member Carpenter asked about the drawings showing landscaping along the driveway and if this was existing or proposed. Mr. Reider replied that shrubs had not yet been discussed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4. 2002 Page 18 was available off-street parking. The addition will likely only add one more car to the street. There were six spaces available on average on the other parking. Mr. Reider stated that he would like to beautify the property but not be required to pave the backyard. Public Input Forrest Newman, a resident on Loomis Street, stated that he was encouraged by any owner of neighboring properties who wished to make improvements. He stated that he would not like to see a parking lot in the backyard and it would be a detriment to the property and the neighborhood. Member Craig asked about garages in rear yards and how the amount of space would compare to a parking lot. Is a garage still using the same amount of space? Planner Jones replied that it would depend on the design of the garage but it would be out of character to have anything other than a two -car garage so it would provide half the needed parking. A three -car garage would probably not be in character although a two -car would. Member Craig asked the applicant if the ultimate project would have six bedrooms or three bedrooms. Mr. Reider replied that there would be a total of six bedrooms. Some of them would be very small and may be used as offices. Member Craig asked how many people would be allowed to rent the units. Mr. Reider replied that the number of tenants would vary — likely two or three people. Member Craig asked how many people were renting the house today. Mr. Reider replied that four people were currently in the house. Chairman Gavaldon asked about the ordinance regarding more than three unrelated persons living in one structure and if that was per duplex or per building. Ms. Dagget replied that it is per dwelling. In the case of a two -dwelling duplex, it would apply to each half. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 17 side of the house. The Land Use Code reads that this type of configuration can be counted as only one parking space because a space must not be obstructed by anything. In reality, three cars can fit in the drive. The applicant is proposing that the fourth parking space be accommodated through the existing diagonal parking on the street. Two trees are currently in the backyard — one is a Siberian Elm and the other is an apple tree. The City Forester concluded that the Elm is not worth saving but the apple tree is in fair condition and would be worth saving. Two alternative plans have been drawn up, both would comply with the Land Use Code. One plan keeps the apple tree, the other does not. Planner Jones stated that the Board may not want to approve the modification because on -street parking is already scarce given the site's proximity to Colorado State University. The applicant was asked to provide parking counts that showed that the parking was never completely full within that block. Planner Jones stated that the Board may want to approve the modification because it would allow a parking lot to not be introduced into what is now a yard. Headlights would shine into backyards with this scenario. Staff is recommending approval of the modification because the applicant has provided an argument that satisfies the review criteria for modifications. Planner Jones proceeded to show site shots of the area. Planner Jones stated that the applicant wanted the addition in order to give the entire structure a facelift and make that process more affordable. Member Craig asked about the headlight issue and whether or not neighbors were concerned about that. Planner Jones replied that most of the neighbors that called were other property owners trying to find out more information. Member Craig asked if the lots behind the house were also rentals. Planner Jones replied that he was not sure but it was fairly likely. Rick Reider, the applicant, stated that he intended to beautify the property. As the cost came together, it was determined that creating an addition would help offset the cost of the improvements and make a better structure. Mr. Reider stated that he surveyed the neighborhood for parking spaces. There are 43 diagonal spaces on the block and 13 total homes. In addition to these spaces, there are 14 spaces against the corner properties. There are also seven private driveways on the block and four other properties with off-street parking on alleys. At any one time, there were on average 19 available spaces in the 700 block of Myrtle Street. Forty-four percent of the time, there Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 2002 Page 16 Member Torgerson replied that he would. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would also be attending the School Board meeting and any Board members would also be invited. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard Project Description: Request for a modification of standard to the Land Use Code for Section 3.2.2(D)(1)(a): access, circulation and parking. The applicant is requesting to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces from 4 to 1. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Reider Duplex- 720 W. Myrtle — Modification of Standard. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson declared a conflict as the applicant's consultant. Member Carpenter joined the meeting. Chairman Gavaldon asked for a brief presentation. Member Craig asked to see Planner Jones' visuals. Planner Jones stated that he had received some letters from concerned neighbors that were given to the Board members. Page five of the staff report was amended to make the issue an "equal to or better than argument." Planner Jones stated that he included some pages out of the West Side Neighborhood Plan that deal with urban design elements and principles and policies within that plan. Planner Jones stated that the building is a duplex with two bedrooms in each unit. The applicant is proposing an addition to the building that would add one bedroom to each unit. The parking standards for multi -family dwellings are two off-street parking spaces for a three bedroom unit. With the proposed plan, four off-street spaces are required. The configuration currently shows three tandem parking spaces in a drive -way along the Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Craig, Torgerson and Gavaldon. Members Colton, Carpenter, and Bernth were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Shepard, Barkeen, Jones, Wamhoff, Hamdan, Alfers, and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 1 and August 16 (continued), 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #13-02 Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle— Modification of Standard — pulled, Gavaldon Discussion Agenda: 3. #33-01 C Fossil Lake Annexation and Zoning #4 4. #35-96A Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center — Major Amendment 5. #11-02 Liberty Common School Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review Chairman Gavaldon pulled Item #2, Reider Duplex, 720 W. Myrtle, to discussion asking for the item to be discussed last due to the lack of a quorum. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent agenda, less item #2. Member Craig seconded the motion, noting that the August 16, 2001 minutes are also to be continued. The motion was approved 4-0.