Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 2013 Page 1

Transcription

1 Page 1 CUP / JAYMEE FOJTIK Location: 2268 S. Gekeler Lane APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR S APPROVAL TO INSTALL THREE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN AN R-1C (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. Josh Johnson (Planning Team) The subject property is home to a previously approved 14-unit PUD (Planned Unit Development) on a private street. The application is for 3 additional guest parking spaces where there are currently 8 guest spaces. The red box on the screen is the site of the proposed guest parking. I ll have detail on that in a minute. There are 5 guest spaces along the road here. The applicant s stated need for the parking is they are having issues with folks coming in to visit residents and parking on this private street, which is too narrow for parking. I sent the Commission a memo showing there was not room for these 5 guest spaces. The appellant contends there are enough guest spaces for the development that eight is sufficient for any guests that come to the development, and it needlessly cuts down on the amount of open space for the project. This area here is a small pocket park approved as part of the original PUD as required open space. Each unit also has its own private open space but this is the only public area. There s no playground equipment or any real improvement to it. It s just a nice open area. With that we feel the application does meet the required findings for a Conditional Use Permit and it should be approved. Coleman Connolly (Applicant Team) I m here on behalf of the Ashley Commons HOA (Home Owner Association). We submitted a request for modification adding 3 additional offstreet parking spaces to the Planning Department. There are 14-units in the development. The first structure that was built facing south has rear entry garages on 4 of the first 5 units. Access to those is through a shared private road to the rear of the units and there s a short apron, 9 to10 feet, which is insufficient to park a vehicle without obstructing the shared private road. As to those 4 units, the only available visitor, or off-street parking, are the 3 existing off-street parking spaces and 4, possibly 5 spaces in front of those units. As to those 4 units, unlike the rest of the subdivision that has a traditional driveway so 2 vehicles could park, for instance, in my driveway. They have 1 space per unit plus the 3 spaces in the off-street parking. The concern of the HOA is both parking issues and the inability to police and enforce no parking zones, and also fire and safety issues, especially on the north/south quadrant of the top of the T. A car parked there would preclude a fire truck, fire vehicle or a safety vehicle from getting down that street. We re really not sure what would happen in that situation. I suspect the City has a policy we re unaware of but I doubt the Fire Department would just push that thing through the fence. There are those issues. There are also community issues. For a neighborhood association to try to enforce parking with fines, towing companies or things like that, it s not the kind of community we want to be involved with. In short, we have submitted a memorandum in response to the appeal. We think we ve adequately addressed each of the issues that were raised in the appeal. The amount of permeable landscape that would be affected in the context of the entire subdivision is less than 2 percent. That figure was given to us by the engineer that we ve retained and is contained in the memo. We would urge the request for modification be approved. We ve had a series of; this is a small HOA, unlike some where a board runs it. We ve had full participatory democracy in discussing this and other issues.

2 Page 2 At the time we submitted this application we have, of the 14-units developed, 11 were completed. Ten were occupied. Of the 10 that were occupied the vote of the membership was 8 in favor, 1 abstention and 1 opposed. That s 8 in favor, 1 abstention and 1 opposed. There are 3- units currently under construction, 2 of which have a common driveway. It s very doubtful the people who move into those units, especially the ones with the common driveway, would oppose the provision of three additional parking spaces. For those reasons we ask that you approve our request to modify the originally file plan and permit us to put in, at some considerable expense, 3 additional parking spaces. Commissioner Bradbury I have a couple of questions for staff. Josh, I m sure you would have said so but would the addition of these three parking spaces reduce any required open space in this project, below that which was required. Below the amount required by the code, or by some development agreement or some other issue in fact? Josh Johnson The original approval designates that its required open space. The Ordinance does not specify minimum square footage but it was set aside open space for the project. Commissioner Bradbury A follow up question. The one thing I wanted to also verify was whether or not these proposed parking spaces would meet the additional requirements of our code? Josh Johnson They do if they re compact. If they want to go to full size spaces they need to go further into the open space to get the required 22 of backup so that condition of approval reads; Either compact spaces or move it further to the west. Commissioner Danley Can you give us a sense this is an open space, it s supposed to be for people to use in whatever fashion they so choose? Is it being used or do you see kids out there? Do you see people in some form or another using what could otherwise be parking spots? Coleman Connolly I think it s mostly used passively. There s not a lot of picnics or anything like that. People run dogs out there. There aren t a lot of children in the subdivision. I would also point out that if you look at the entire permeable space, and the numbers here derive from the engineer that gave them to us, if you look at the total permeable space that s not outside the footprint and taking away the sidewalks and driveways, it s 1.3 percent of the entire permeable space would be consumed by adding these 3 off-street parking spaces. PUBLIC TESTIMONY John Kee I have been the treasurer for the HOA for the past four years since we took it over. Just a couple of comments I would make relating specifically to your questions. The main use of the property today is for a few of us that have pets and run those pets. I happen to be one of those. Short of that there s not a tremendous amount of use for the property. Virtually, every unit is occupied by residents who do not have children. I think one of the residents has a new infant so it s primarily space just sitting there as open property, which we enjoy having by the way.

3 Page 3 But I m supportive of the parking predominantly because I do not want to see a bunch of onstreet parking and I also do not want to see people violating the safety of the neighborhood by parking in fire lanes. I happen to live in the very first unit right off of Gekeler Lane and across from me is where the new units are being constructed and that is a fire land as well. My concern is with the relative scarcity of parking that people are going to start using the side of the development that really is reserved for on-street parking for infrequent guests that arrive at our homes or other people on our side of the development. I think it s a safety issue to not have these spaces approved. I don t really think it infringes on anyone s enjoyment of the adequate amount of open space. It is a very compact development. It is more or less designed for adult tenants and that s primarily who resides in our neighborhood. Jaymee Fojtik I have some pictures to give you a perspective of what we re dealing with and also a count of vehicles that have parked in these visitors spots since the beginning of August 1 st. (Exhibit of 8 photos handed in) I m a resident at Ashley Commons Townhome community and I ve been a resident at Ashley Commons since I act on the Board as the Vice President of the homeowners association. Boise is the City of Trees, a city of many beautiful parks and a magnificent Greenbelt that includes the Ribbons of Jewels. So Boise is very appealing to those of us like me who like and cherish our open space. Ashley Commons was planned in April 2005 as a small townhome community as everyone has said so far. Fourteen units with a common area of a pocket park with grassy semi-shaded area. The layout of the community with a pocket park that was appealing to me when I purchased in July of I use the pocket park, I use it to sit and enjoy the warm summer day, the cool summer nights. The residents use it to play Frisbee. They use it to play fetch with their dogs. I have a neighbor who does have children visit when he does have the joint custody of his children and he does go out and play catch with his children. This is a place that is aesthetically pleasing for everyone in the community and it provides the opportunity for the community to get out there and chat with each other around the mail box or around the grassy area. The pocket park is the only area available to the community for such activities. You ll see in some of those pictures that grassy areas have been blocked off in some of these units, their backyard so there s no access. The pocket park is the only community park for these kinds of activities. The additional guest parking spaces are not needed. As planned in 2005 it has 8 designated guest parking spaces. This far exceeds the City requirement of one guest space for every 10 units. Since the beginning of August 2013, there s been 1 guest space used for 16 of the 11 nights and 0 guest spaces used for 5 of the 11 nights. The HOA has not adequately articulated why there is a need for the 3 additional guest spaces and the parking issues they speak of consist of residents parking their RV on the property, which is against the CC&R s (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) and renters not using guest parking spaces but parking in front of fire hydrants. Neither of these issues were enforced by the HOA after being brought to their attention. These issues are not guest parking spot issues. These issues are enforcement issues of the HOA. The ground where some of these impermeable surfaces that they re proposing to do in the way of compact car spaces, which will need to be enforced as compact cars if we need that 22 feet of backup spaces. There is ground sinking around that area and there is our drainage issues in that area. The Site Plan points out there s an underground well in that pocket park near those proposed guest parking spots. Thank you for your time.

4 Page 4 Commissioner Danley Have you had any attempts in terms of enforcement parking yourself? What can you share with us in times where there have been issues when you have tried to make those things go away? Jaymee Fijtik Absolutely. There s one particular unit that has anywhere from four to five residents that are college students that live there and they don t have room in their garage to park, so they ll park in the two spaces that are outside their garage and then there will be another car parked in front of the fire hydrant. When I happen to be out in the pocket park there was a little gal that was there. I asked her, I told her you shouldn t park near the fire hydrant. These spaces are for your guest parking. So I have done that but those folks who are not following the parking rules are renters. They re not like John and Coleman has said in the previous testimony, they re not the residents themselves. Commissioner Story That was the last name on the signup sheet. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, the applicant gets five minutes for rebuttal. REBUTTAL Coleman Connolly May I take a look at what was submitted to you sir? I have not seen that before. Commissioner Danley This goes with it, sorry. Coleman Connolly I d like to emphasize the people who purchased homes in this subdivision discussed this extensively. Ten were given the opportunity to vote. The 10 that were occupied. Eight voted in favor, one abstained and one voted against. We would urge you to approve this modification. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED. Commissioner Story I ll entertain motions or discussion. COMMISSIONER BRADBURY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITOINAL USE PERMIT CUP AND UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR S DETERMINATION BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN OUR STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT. COMMISSIONER MORRISON SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Bradbury We re processing this as a Conditional Use Permit and under our code we essentially have four criteria we have to think about. The first of those criteria is whether or not the parking spaces will be compatible with surrounding uses. I guess I m finding in my mind that the additional parking space in a multi-family residential development with a parking area is compatible. The second criteria is that the use does not create an undue burden on the public facilities and I haven t heard any testimony that they would.

5 Page 5 The third criteria is whether the use would adversely affect the neighborhood and I haven t heard any testimony that there were any adverse impacts as a result of the parking spaces. Finally, the last criteria is whether the use will conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and again, I haven t heard any indication there would be a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. That s not to say there might not be some disagreement as to whether or not these spaces are needed, but in terms of that which we re asked upon it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Commissioner Morrison I have to echo Commissioner Bradbury s observations and then add a couple of others. This area was specifically planned with a significantly downsizing of street widths and parking on the street in tradeoff for the density. It s interesting that the homeowners association has by a rather large majority voted to add more parking because they think they see a need for it. I find all of those things to be consistent with the use there and support the director s decision. Commissioner Danley I tend to echo what is being said up here. I m not a big fan of having to pave over what frankly is not a ton of open space for the parcel. My biggest concern is that we have new units being built, and correct me if I m wrong, but not yet occupied and already we have some parking issues so my fear is moving forward will we have more? Will you guys be back here in a year or two seeking for a few additional spaces? Believe me, I understand Code Enforcement is never fond of citizens who want to be (inaudible) jobs and life stories about (inaudible) but it sounds like there is an issue that somehow needs to be discussed amongst the HOA on how to handle it. Maybe there s one particular unit that is problematic but I would just hope there is some way you guys as a group could move forward to prevent these new four homes from having similar issues moving forward. I would hope and encourage that. Commissioner Story My only comment is I ve been up here five or six years and I ve never seen the appellant and the applicant sit right next to each other. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISISONER BRADBURY COMMISSIONER MORRISON COMMISSIONER DANLEY COMMISSIONER MEYER COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE COMMISSIONER STORY ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.