HomeMy WebLinkAboutPETERSON PLACE (611 S. PETERSON) - PDP ..... CONTINUED PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING - 35-00 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 15
0
Member Carpenter was also struggling with this, but the fact remained that she
could not find anything that has not been met in the Code. It appears that they
have met everything that they needed to meet in the Code. There are some
really nice things about this project as well. She thinks that the architecture has
been done really sensitively to fit into the neighborhood. She thought that
everyone was struggling with these neighborhoods turning over into — she thinks
that carriage houses and alley house are wonderful, but when the main house
becomes so subordinate to the house that is put into the alley, what is when she
has a problem with it. All that said, this meets the Code and she does not feel
she has the ability or anything that she can hang her hat on to deny it. She
would be supporting the motion.
Chairperson Torgerson echoed all of Member Carpenter's comments.
The motion was approved 5-0 with Member Craig having a conflict of
interest on the project and Member Colton absent.
Project: Center for Advanced Technology, CSURF
South Campus — Overall Development Plan',
#53-85AZ
Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for
116.7 acres located south of the University
Park Holiday Inn, west of thi�B.N.S.F. railroad,
east of Windtrail, and n9rih of National
Technical University, entre Avenue is a
collector street and/runs north and south
through the site,./There are two zone districts.
There are ?�5-5 acres zoned E, Employment
and 20.2,acres zoned MMN, Medium Density
Mixe"se Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief anner gave the staff presentation, recommending
approval.
Linda Ripley with VF Ripley and Associates representing CSURF gave the
appI nt presentation. Ms. Ripley stated that they are not proposing any
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 14
Ms. Froseth also clarified statements made that the building is 25 feet high
maximum and it is no higher than the existing house on Peterson Street. It was
mentioned that is would be of huge mass and scale and thirty feet high. That is
erroneous as it is shown on the plans. Also the finished square footage of the
entire project is 2,200 s.f. so that would give the Board a concept of how many
square feet finished the project is. That does not include the 400 s.f. garage.
Chairperson Torgerson thought that there was something in the Code about
parking in the front of your yard.
Deputy City Attorney replied that you have to provide a paved parking area,
which this has and would remain so.
Member Meyer asked about the basement living area and would someone be
checking to see if it turns back into an apartment at some point.
Planner Olt replied that would be on a complaint basis only.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Peterson Place Project
Development Plan, #45-00, also known as 611 Peterson Street citing the
staff report and the facts and conclusions on page 10. Items 1 through 6.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Bernth commented that he was not comfortable with this totally, but at
the same time they have adhered to every standard in the Code. He lives in the
neighborhood too, but finds it difficult to find any grounds to disapprove the
project.
Member Gavaldon commented that with due respect to the work done by the
staff and the applicant, they appear to be following the steps of the process.
Whether he agrees with the facts or findings was something that he was not sure
he was comfortable with because of the concern he has with the size, scale,
massing and scope of the apartment complex. He was concerned that the
neighbors still have many concerns with this. He did not think that they were
coming in with a "nimbi" attitude, they bring good concerns. He commended the
neighbors with bringing up issues that were not addressed. If the Board would
not have heard from the neighborhood, they there would still be an illegal unit in
the basement of the single-family unit. He encouraged the neighbors to keep an
eye out, but try to be good neighbors if this is approved. He thinks the mitigation
with the neighbors could have gone a little further and this might of worked
better.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 13
going to do nothing about the parking situation, which is horrible in the immediate
neighborhood of that school. That is within about a block of the 611 Peterson
project. The other thing is that he lives in a 100-year-old house and has to deal
with the Historic Preservation Department, which can be good and bad. He finds
it fascinating that if he makes a minor modification to his house, all hell breaks
loose. But these people can chop their lot in half and build a large building.
Public Input Closed
Member Gavaldon asked about one of the speakers bringing up the comment
about parking for the single-family house. There was talk about it being shared
in the extra lot for the other development. Was that a moot point right now?
Planner Olt replied that is was a moot point. The six parking spaces that are
proposed with the new three -unit dwelling unit structure accessed off of the alley
would be for that structure only. Two in the garage and four surface parking
spaces outside. All of them can qualify for parking for the new structure because
none of the impede the other. That is actually one more space than what would
be required for that structure based on the number of bedrooms proposed. The
existing single family residence does currently have one single family parking
space off-street on the backside of the sidewalk. In essence it is on the lot and
that would remain and that would be one single family residence parking space
that is required.
What he would like to do with the parking, because it did come up from someone
about the number of bedrooms in the single family residence with the number of
bedrooms that are in that house would require at least 2.5 parking spaces.
Those numbers are based on multi -family dwellings. As the Code says, a single
family detached residence, which this is considered to be, for each single family
home there shall be "one" parking space on the lot with greater that forty feet of
street frontage. This lot has 50 feet of frontage. That parking space is there now
and will remain.
Member Gavaldon asked how many "legal' bedrooms the single-family unit has
now.
Planner Olt deferred that to the property owner.
Ms. Froseth replied that the upstairs has two.
Member Gavaldon stated that this was now a two -bedroom house with one
parking space and it meets all the expectations.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 12
Judy Lovaas, 304 E. Myrtle, stated that she live just around the corner from this
property. The alley actually spills out into Myrtle Street. The amount of traffic on
the alley affects their lives a great deal and changes their life a great deal.
Because the representative of the architectural firm mentioned the "spirit" of the
neighborhood, that is what she wanted to speak about. The spirit of the
neighborhood is amazingly stable considering that they are a mixed rental and
home owned neighborhood. They have lived on Myrtle for 37 years. They are
thrilled to be the old people now and new families are coming in. It is very
difficult to buy a beginning home for young families. Their neighborhood has
provided that kind of mid -range price range with mixed values. If they are seen
as rental units, they are sky high in price and they are no longer attractive for
those young families. The ones that have been maintained as single family
homes are still very attractive.
When they first moved, the apartment building that is just directly next to this
property was the "rue" of the neighborhood. Now it have been there for almost
the 37 years they have been there. It has indeed changed the very center heart
of that block. It is the only apartment "looking" building there. The other rentals
are homes that may have a unit or two in them, but they are basically home
owned or rented to very few people. The block has felt very much with its lovely
Laurel Street School on one corner of it as though the neighborhood is
comprehensive and cohesive. The spirit of the neighborhood is as a friendly
family neighborhood, despite what everyone in the neighborhood regretted,
which was this long black like structure.
The presence of another, which amounts to another long black structure, when
you combine the single family home, take out the back yard totally, and have the
alley become the street. It has been increasingly become a street as apartments
on the Matthews street side have become more dense. She hoped the Board
would think, when they think about this project is that when you add something
that will change the spirit of the neighborhood, the ripples that go out from that
are devastating to those who love it. She is also representing their son who has
bought the property at 318 West Myrtle. It is in their windows that the car lights
shine at night when they come out of the alley. She urged the Board to think
about the spirit of this neighborhood and the spirit of what was meant by infill.
They believe in infill, but on blank lots that have not been filled in. They did not
think it would be doubling or tripling up the people. That seems to them no infill
but congestion.
Mark Anderson, 704 Matthews Street stated that Centennial High School is just
around the comer which has 230 students right now and are going through a
procedure now to increase that to 270. And the last he had heard is that they are
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 11
There are some real issues with parking. The parking requirements are not
necessarily, they feel, are not met for this project. There is inappropriate
numbers for surface parking for the apartment building that is going in the back.
Currently two of the spaces are within a garage underneath one of the
residences. They could not find anything within the Code — he has a hard time
when looking at any rental unit downtown, which they do, very few renters are
using their garages to park their cars in; especially when they living in an
apartment that is 600 to 700 square feet. The garages are just going to become
storage sheds. Therefore those parking spaces are going to become unusable
and there won't be enough surface parking on the site.
The other is relating to the parking for the existing house on the front of the lot.
They have been told this evening that it is now a single family residence, it has
been a two unit rental — they have been in there house for 18 years and it has
been rented for that long. There is parking that does need to be provided for
that. In the most recent notes from Planning saying that one of the parking
spaces is going to be used in the back for the single family residence, and in the
Land Use Code he believes that the distances are too far from the single family
residence to its assigned parking space. The other is the parking for the front.
He believes that there is a parking space going in in the front yard of the
property. There is a current driveway on the south side of the house, that
driveway is going to be turned over to sidewalk use. That takes the parking
space out of there and he thought the most current plans show the parking
basically in front of the house to provide another parking space. Parking in front
of that house goes against the context of the rest of the neighborhood. They all
have driveways.
There are many other issues and he feels that this project will become a catalyst
for future projects like this in the downtown. He thought that if we were really
interested in preserving the neighborhoods in downtown, and have any long-term
vision of what the neighborhoods need to be, he hoped the Board would say no
to this project.
Madeline Weiss, 605 Peterson Street stated that she believed that the city staff is
disregarding the neighborhood. There is not enough parking and they feel the
developer is overbuilding for the site and is disregarding what they have asked
for. They went down from a four plex to a three plex, but they have not provided
any more privacy, buffering with landscape as well as provide enough parking.
She was not really sure how many bedrooms is now considered "legal" in the
single family house, but there needs to be a least 2.5 spaces of parking for a
three bedroom house. There is barely one right now. She does not know how
that situation is going to get any better with this plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 10
special consideration, modifications or variance is requested. She feels this is a
positive design outcome, and a mindful approach and compromise to achieve an
infill project design.
Public Input
Phil Hendricks, 605 Peterson Street stated he has been a resident there for 18
years. He stated that as a neighborhood, they did talk a little about this. They
actually did submit a 14-page letter that was signed by many in the
neighborhood. In many issues, they do not feel this does meet the Land Use
Code. He was hoping by now the Board has gone through the letter and he
would like reiterate some of the issues.
This project is very problematic and they feel it goes against the context of the
neighborhood and the context of City Plan in many ways. The neighborhood
plan, which is a sub area plan of City Plan, speaks very highly of the preservation
of downtown. The downtown historic neighborhoods are an extremely valuable
resource that really needs to be protected. Projects like this do not really do
anything to protect that residential feel of these neighborhoods. In fact it will turn
these residential neighborhoods into medium to high -density rental
neighborhoods and will chase a lot of the single-family residents.
Some of the things the Land Use Code talks about are scale and mass. The
scale and mass of this is extremely inappropriate in this residential
neighborhood. It is a three -unit building, 30-foot high in the backyards of the
adjacent neighborhoods. They just don't understand how that fits into the context
of the neighborhood at all. There are privacy issues once this site is subdivided.
There is a screen fence around the property; well the screen fence is actually
below the window seals of the first floor windows. He did not know what kind of
privacy that screen fence is going to provide.
The landscaping goes with the mass of the project, the mass of the parking and
the mass of the building on site. There is a really inappropriate area to grow an
appropriate landscape that is going to buffer this project from this adjacent
neighborhood or from the adjacent land uses. Along with the scale, mass and
privacy is the density relating to what the neighborhood is. They currently live in
a fairly high -density neighborhood now, there are many rental units, and in fact
there is an apartment building right down the street. This is just going to increase
the density of this project. In fact it is taking out a single-family house and is
going to turn it into a medium density rental lot.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 9
Planner Olt stated that he wrote a memorandum to the Planning and Zoning
Board dated February 61h and is part of the staff report for this hearing. A duplex
is permitted in the NCM zoning district, which the structure is in; however, the
parking requirements would be different, additional above and beyond the single-
family residence. Since there is only one off-street parking space there now, the
Project Development Plan as submitted and previously considered does not
provide for sufficient parking for the existing buildingThe Board instructed staff
to take the following action between the January 1 J meeting and tonight. "City
staff and the applicant must address the parking requirements associated with
the two dwelling units in existing single family residence. Staff must also
determine the legality of the second unit in the downstairs portion of the
structure."
As stated in the memorandum from Mike Gebo, the Building Code Administrator,
Planner Olt and the property owner met onsite at the house. Mr. Gebo
immediately determined that the house was originally built as a single family
residence and the city has no record as to the downstairs being converted into a
legal dwelling unit or apartment. Therefore it must be removed and returned to a
single family building status. The property owner verbally agreed to do that and
there is record since then, that he has taken the stove out of the basement,
thereby making it nothing more than a bedroom associated with the single family
dwelling. He did give the Board tonight a memo received from Mr. Gebo stating
that the house, by the city, is now considered a single family residence. Staff
does consider the Board's concerns addressed.
Susan Kruel Froseth, applicant on the project stated that her major point was that
the project was redesigned based on the neighbors concerns. The 14-page
letter referred to written by one of the neighbors — the project was redesigned
based upon those concerns. What was done was point by point, they went
through those concerns and in the redesign, try and address each one. They felt
they came up with a very good compromise keeping in mind that the site is
zoned for four units and they compromised to have two, two -bedroom
townhomes and a studio unit. Incorporating a garage so that the concern of on
grade parking would have been mitigated also.
Ms. Froseth concluded by stating that this project and the surrounding area fits
the city Structure Plan, Comprehensive Plan, key principle of promotion of growth
within a compact development pattern and an attempt not to foster urban sprawl.
Within keeping of the intended neighborhood plan set forth including a mix of
housing types. They are please to present this project which meets and exceeds
all stated City Plan requirements and is in the general spirit of City Plan. The
historic Landmark Preservation Commission felt the same way about it. No
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 8
There was no public participation.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Recommendation to City
Council for the three text amendments to the Land Use Code, #7-03. He
cited the finding of facts and conclusions on page 6 and 7 of the staff
report.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Project: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project
Development Plan, #35-00
Project Description: Request to subdivide the existing lot at 611
Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new
residential building containing 3 dwelling units
on the rear lot adjacent to an existing alley.
The existing single family residence on the
front of the property (facing Peterson Street) is
to remain. The property is located on the west
side of Peterson Street, between East Laurel
Street (to the south) and East Myrtle Street (to
the north). The property is in the NCM —
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density
Zoning District.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig excused herself on this item due to a conflict of interest.
Steve Olt, City Planner stated that on January 16, 2003 the Board went through a
lengthy discussion on this project, it was discovered that there was a separately
rented out apartment dwelling unit in the basement of the existing single family
residence on the front of the property. At that point, the Board expressed some
concern about the parking requirements and did it meet the parking requirements
as a single family residence or duplex? With only one parking space being
provided on that lot associated with that existing structure that would not be
sufficient for the duplex.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page 2
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda consisting of
Items 2, 39 49 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 Testimony, 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 thie,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.