Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATRIUM SUITES - PDP - 7-04A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 19 Member Torgerson asked if this condition would be perpetual. Attorney Eckman replied that the condition would require that the parking requirements be met before final approval would be given. As soon as there is a shortage of parking spaces, they would be liable to being ticketed for a zoning violation. The condition does run with the property. The parking spaces do not. The property must always remain in compliance. Member Gavaldon noted that the project could not charge the occupants to use the parking spaces. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Lingle stated that this is a very nice project and agreed with Member Carpenter in terms of eliminating disincentives for these projects. He asked that any data compiled to support a reduction in parking take into account some kind of a rent structure relationship between rent and car ownership. He asked that staff use some kind of prudence in where the off -site parking ends up if they do not seek a modification. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he could not deny a good project over the concern about parking despite the fact that it may be detrimental to some surrounding property owners. The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. These minutes were approved at the July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 18 Member Schmidt stated that she did not see the farther away off -site parking as a totally negative alternative and stated that the issue may need to be explored in terms of a Code revision in the future. Member Gavaldon stated that he did not want to kill the project by suggesting continuance but thought that it would allow the applicant to come back with a data analysis or a modification. Mr. Brookshire stated that he agreed with the perspective of the Board in terms of intensity of the project but in looking at the West Side Neighborhood Plan and City Plan, there are visions of how this area should be developed. This calls for this more dense development that calls for bending some of the rules. The Land Use Code is sometimes in conflict with that vision. Chairperson Torgerson stated agreement and that he liked the project and thought it was appropriate in the area. He was struggling with making sure this decision was not detrimental to the public good. Mr. Brookshire stated that they would submit data from Sherwood Greens Apartments regarding the number of residents who do not have cars. Member Schmidt asked if the on -street parking in front of the complex was on a two- hour limit. Mr. Brookshire replied that it was not but that it is public parking. Member Carpenter stated that it is unfortunate that when we get an infill project like this that looks great and fits the need, we get hung up on 8 parking places. Member Gavaldon moved to continue the Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street, PDP to the July 15, 2004 hearing to allow the applicant to demonstrate the need for the off -site parking and bring back defined data or a modification request. Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was denied 2-3 with members Schmidt, Carpenter, and Lingle voting in the negative. Member Schmidt moved to approve the project with the condition as stated in the staff memo, that the demonstration of parking compliance is met at the time of final submittal and, at that time, if they cannot be compliant, that a modification request be reviewed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 17 Mr. Brookshire replied that there are no physical barriers planned — it would be posted "for residents only." The management company would monitor the parking area. Chairperson Torgerson asked if consideration was ever given to a modification for the parking standard. He added that it seemed like this project was designed at too high an intensity for the parking requirement and now it seems there is a struggle to meet the Code. Mr. Brookshire replied that they did not consider seeking a modification because, throughout the process, they thought they had a solution to the parking issue. It was late last week when it was discovered that some of these solutions had fallen through and it was too late by then to bring a modification request to the Board. Member Gavaldon suggested continuing the project, allowing the applicant to come back with a modification request for the parking. Planner Shepard replied that the condition of approval is designed to give the applicant the opportunity to meet the standard. Member Carpenter asked if there was anything in the Code limiting the distance of off - site parking from the project. Planner Shepard replied that there was not. Member Carpenter replied that the issue needs to be addressed outside this project. There is nothing in the Code that states that this project does not work. The issue needs to be discussed in a larger forum. Chairperson Torgerson stated that they do not meet the Code — they do not have 8 parking spaces. He reiterated that there may be too much intensity on the site. Mr. Vaught stated that there are two choices — the Board could grant a conditional approval that would send us back to solving the problem prior to final compliance. If it cannot be solved, the project does not get final approval or we could come back and ask for a modification. He asked the Board to grant a conditional approval but was also curious as to how the Board would be inclined should they seek a modification. Member Lingle stated that he would have a difficult time approving a modification unless there was some hard evidence that the spaces were not required and added that he was also uncomfortable conditionally approving the project if the spaces are going to be so far away that they are in essence approving a modification. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 16 Chairperson Torgerson replied that the perspective of the people who live and work in the area is that there is a parking problem and this would clearly exacerbate that. Planner Shepard replied that the data from parking studies in the area does not prove that to be true. Taxing of on -street parking is not considered when evaluating projects. Mr. Brookshire noted that applying the Land Use Code standards to projects adjacent to campus is skewed in a sense because the locations of these projects cater to the students without cars. .Planner Shepard stated that there is currently not a limit to the distance away from the project additional parking should be. He added that the eight parking spaces off -site would likely not be needed, they would be provided because the Code requires it. Member Gavaldon stated that he did believe there was a parking problem in the area. He stated he would not support any kind of Code change for infill parking near campus. He asked what would happen if this project does not get the extra 8 parking spaces. Deputy Attorney Eckman replied that if it is a condition of final, they would not receive final approval. Member Gavaldon asked what would happen if the spaces are lost at some point in the future. Deputy Attorney Eckman replied that it would be a zoning violation for which they could be prosecuted. Member Gavaldon asked if the parking spaces could run with the land. Deputy Attorney Eckman replied that the Board could condition the perpetual use of those parking spaces. The project would likely have to buy the spaces. Member Lingle asked what should be looked at from a more global perspective — the required number of on -site parking spaces or the proximity of a project to off -site parking spaces? Planner Shepard replied that the required number of on -site parking spaces should be explored, within the campus district as defined by the Structure Plan. Member Schmidt asked if the under -surface parking area would be gated or how would others be kept from parking there. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 15 Mr. Vaught replied that they did not do a shadow analysis but stated that it would be provided if desired by the Board. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the building was over 40 feet tall. Mr. Vaught replied that it was not. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street, Request for Modification, File #7-04A, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the project would potentially receive parking passes from campus, as had previously been discussed. Mr. Brookshire replied that he did not believe that was a possibility as CSU prefers to give parking passes to those who live further from campus. However, there are other nearby residential projects with an excess of parking from which these parking spaces could potentially come. Chairperson Torgerson asked if taking those spaces would bring the other projects out of compliance. Mr. Brookshire replied that he did not believe it would and stated that negotiations are still occurring with those properties. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the proximity of those projects was to this site. Mr. Brookshire replied that one is about 6 or 7 blocks to the west of the project. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was some kind of rule about how far away the parking had to be. Planner Shepard replied that a possible Code revision for infill, residential developments near campus allowing them to not have to meet the suburban parking standard had been discussed. He stated that he would hate to enforce a standard that may need a more global perspective in terms of revising it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 14 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation recommending approval. He noted that the request for modification is to allow the side yard setback on the north elevation to be reduced from the required 11 feet to 7 feet. The parcel is 19,221 square feet in size. Mr. Shepard noted the memo regarding the proposed condition of approval regarding the parking standard as well as a one -page memo from Karen McWilliams detailing the impact the modification would have on the historic home to the north. The Board also received a letter from the property owner to the north, Mr. Christian Ray, who owns 631 S. Sherwood Street. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, 3207 Kittery Court, gave the applicant's presentation, along with architect Frank Vaught of Vaught -Frye Architects. He noted the site's proximity to alternative transportation modes and it's function of providing a residential buffer between the single family neighborhood to the north and the higher -intensity uses to the east and south. He noted that this project meets the compact growth idea of City Plan and accommodates some of the housing needs required by CSU. He noted that the ground floor of the site includes two accessible units and that the parking is under - structure. The site has 35 on -site parking spaces and 8 off -site parking spaces are being sought to meet the Code requirement of 43 spaces. Mr. Brookshire stated that they had planned to use 8 parking spaces across the street at the Sherwood Greens Apartments for their off -site spaces but have since discovered they cannot do that. He added that they are confident they will be able to find the spaces in another location. Many students who live in this area do not have cars, according to Mr. Brookshire. There are also 11 on -street parking spaces near the site. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, 401 W. Mountain, Suite 200, gave a brief presentation. He stated that the modification request for the change in setback will still allow 21 feet between this project and the historic home to the north and stated that the owner of the home does not have a problem with this project. Public Input Jim Norman, 424 W. Myrtle Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the current structure is an eyesore and its previous use as a halfway house was troublesome to the neighborhood. Mr. Norman also pointed out the benefit of having accessible units in the area. He praised the project and its design. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson noted that making the building taller and closer to the lot line does place a shadow in the alley. He asked if there was any consideration given to that in terms of build-up of ice and snow. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 13 Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the GMA Expansion for the Fossil Creek CPA and Wildflower area, and the amendments to the City of Fort Collins/Larimer County IGA. The LeMaster Property is to be excluded from the GMA expansion and the entire Van Cleave Property will be included. The creation of the RUL zone district was excluded from the motion. Member Gavaldon cited the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that it may be a bit unfair for the properties south of Carpenter Road but basically, in terms of commercial and industrial development along that corridor, in considering the interest of the City as a whole, that area would be better served being under the control of the City of Fort Collins than it would be the way it stands now. He stated that he would support the motion. Member Schmidt stated that she would support the motion and noted that this change in the GMA is a commitment by the City of Fort Collins to be more proactive in the GMA. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel, Project Development Plan and Request for Modification Project Description: Request for a multi -family project containing 24 dwelling units within one structure located at 502 West Laurel Street. The units would be divided between 20 2-bedroom units and four 3-bedroom units. The building would be three stories in height. A manager's office and 35 under -structure parking spaces would be included on the first floor. The gxisting structure would be demolished. The site is at {he northwest corner of West Laurel Street and Sherwood Street and is zoned NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. Staff Recommendation: ` Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: