Loading...
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.