Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (6)Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page S Meeting adjourned at 2:45 a.m. - T.JA43,6A Ted Shepard, Chief Manner W+�vIJI- ` C IL==--� Butch Stockover, Chair 11� I I t 01 Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 7 Staff recommends approval of The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan - #16-10B based on the preceding Findings of Fact/Conclusions. See http://www.fcaov.comlcabiel4/video-archive.php, City Program tab for a video recording of the proceedings for: • Applicant's Presentation • Public Input • Board Questions, Discussion and Deliberation A full verbatim transcript of the hearings is being produced and will be preserved in the City's records for the Board. Member Campana made a motion to approve the Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan, #16-10B based on the Findings of Facts/Conclusions listed on pages 21, 22, and 23 of the staff report and conditioned that no final CO(Certificate of Occupancy) will be issued until the ditch is realigned. Chair Stockover seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said she thinks this redesigned plan is a large improvement over the first so she feels in a lot of ways it is more compatible with the neighborhood. She still has some issues with the block standard. She'll be supporting the PDP. She said the portion in the middle with the club house meets the block standard design. The others (blocks) can be argued either way. She doesn't think they meet the concept of walk able blocks but on the whole she thinks the developer has made great efforts. She also appreciates the time that staff has put into these proposals. Schmidt said the Employment District allows 4 story buildings so she thinks this proposal will create a buffer if there's going to be employment there. She also noted that not all students are totally rowdy and obnoxious. She hopes the transition goes well. She was happy to see the City street and with it the City's responsibility for the trees. As they grow, things will look better and they will provide good buffering. She will support the PDP. Member Lingle said he'd also like to thank the applicant for making a very strong effort to hear what the neighborhood was saying and for working very hard to address their concerns. Looking at the changes that have been made since the last proposal, he likes the fact that no wetland mitigation is necessary any longer; no modification of standards are needed; and there is much better architectural design overall. He thinks its going to be a much stronger transitional architecture style for the potential E Employment zone that could occur east and south of the site. He appreciates the efforts toward a sustainable, green design. He hopes they can get it up beyond LEED certification to at least Silver. He thinks that would be a meaningful thing and more people understand what that means than just being LEED certified. He said for all the reasons he's mentioned it adds up to a significantly improved project which he thinks everyone can be proud. Member Schmidt said she hoped these types of projects don't pit neighborhood against neighborhood. As much as student housing is needed, she thinks it's important that we don't approve anything that comes along just because it is student housing. We have worked to make this a better project and she thinks that benefits the City in the long run. She doesn't think this project will relieve a lot of the pressure on the neighborhoods. The important thing is to look at the overall benefit to the City. As everyone has said, the City has high standards. We do need student housing and we do need to make sure it's always the best we can make it. The motion was passed 6:0 Other Business: None. Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 6 3. The proposed land use is permitted in the E, Employment District as a Secondary use. 4. The proposal complies with the requirement set forth in Section 3.3.3(A)(4) in that all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or drainageway have been reviewed and approved by the Water Utilities General Manager. 5. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards, with the following exception: Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. This section requires that development plans provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable or redevelopable lands at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. The applicant submitted an Alternative Compliance Plan request that does not include street connections to adjacent properties to the north or the south due to existing wetlands and the Larimer Canal No. 2 posing obstacles to possible connections. The request is to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Board based on criteria set forth in Section 3.6.3(H) Altemative Compliance. Staff finds that the Altemative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(F) equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible for the following reasons: The Atemative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the Amended ODP. The pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access parks, recreational opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section. The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without exceeding Level of Service (LOS) standards. Lastly, the Altemative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high quality wetlands, avoids constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway and avoids negative impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2. 6. The Project Development Plan satisfies Section 3.8.16(E) (2) in that the applicable criteria of the Land Use Code have been satisfied and that the project provides adequate open space and recreational opportunities with a large clubhouse facility, pool complex, basketball court, volleyball court, parking areas and public facilities as necessary to support the proposed 18 4-bedroom units and protect the occupants of the development and the adjacent neighborhoods. 7. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.6 MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use Code. It is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth in Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development. 8. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.27 E, Employment District of the Land Use Code. Planning & Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 5 A a Ratios (FAR). It seems to be really irrelevant. Unless it's really clear what that was, he doe any re for not them not being able to agree to let go of that note. He thinks overall t e only part of this O t Ives him some "heartburn". Ultimately he'll support the mo ' s presented. Member Carpenter said sheffslippQrt the motion as well. She thin ealignment that does not impact the wetlands is the way to go. She thi hat is more impo an trying to hit the connectivity standard. Member Campana said to Member S at the reason ushing to have the note left on the ODP is MMN has a minimum densi e E does not. That FAR couTd restrictive on the E side whereas on the MMN it could confn one hand the LUC says you have to go imum. That note is saying you can't go more was passed 5:1 with Member Schmidt dissenting. Project: The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 16-10B Project Description: This is a request for a multi -family residential, student housing project containing a total of 218 dwelling units (210 units in 11 residential buildings + 8 units in a clubhouse building). The site is located at the southwest corner of Centre Avenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring Creek, in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be realigned onto the southerly portion of the subject property and extended east, from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street, to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer Canal No. 2. There would be 403 parking spaces on -site, 96 parallel parking spaces on the proposed Public Local Street, and 128 parallel parking spaces on the Public Commercial Street and Rolland Moore Drive. The property is 27.5 acres in size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and E, Employment Zoning Districts. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Steve Olt said the Grove at Fort Collins, PDP consists of the majority of Parcel C on the CSURF (Colorado State University Research Foundation) Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP) that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in February, 2003. Parcel C is identified as MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and E, Employment on the ODP. The proposed multi -family use is consistent with the permitted uses in the MMN and E Districts. Therefore, the PDP is consistent with the ODP. After reviewing The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: The PDP is in conformance with the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP. 2. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. Planning 8 Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Page 2 Member Schmidt said that what the Board discussed in Worksession is that although the verbiage may not seem strong enough but there are real commitments by the URA and how it operates. She said City Council serves as the URA Board and relocations of that type are done as a last resort. Schmidt said hopefully City Council will strengthen that language at a later date. She said she feels comfortable with the language the way it is now. The motion was approved 5:1 with Member Lingle dissenting. Discussion Agenda: 3. Amended CSURF Centre for Advance Technology Overall Development Plan, # MJA 110001 4. The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan, # 16-1 OB Amended CSURF Centre for Advance Technology Overall # MJA 110001 This is a request for an Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Tec ology Overall Development Plan (ODP). The purpose of the Amended P is to realign the proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street connection thrg gh Parcel C between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street; and, to eXninate the proposed lure Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C'X Gilgalad Way in the dtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north. The prop ies contained on the ODP are, cumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are I ated in the MMN - Medium Density fixed -Use Neighborhood and E - Empigyment Zoning Districts. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Commentiaqd Other Evid ce City Planner Steve Olt said the Amended CS F Centr or Advanced Technology ODP complies with the applicable review criteria in the Land Use Co ( ), including: the ODP criteria; the E, Employment, and MMN, Medium Density Mixed U eighborhood Zone District Standards; the General Development Standards; and the adopted Mast Strew,Plan. In evaluating the request for the Amended SURF Centre f dvanced Technology ODP, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Amended ODP s submitted on March 30, 2011. t is in conformance with Plan Fort Collins and the uuture Plan Map adopted in February, 11. B. The Amen d ODP satisfies the applicable requirements of Arti 2 —Administration. C. The P complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 3.2(D) (1 — 8). D. is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth in Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development. The re -alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Street Plan and enhances preservation of the existing wetlands. Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: John Hatfield. Staff Present: -Shepard, Eckman, Vincent, Bolin, Olt, Virata, Sanford, Haukaas, Schlueter, Ex, Wempe, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Chief Planner Shepard reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Stockover said at Worksession, the Board considered moving Item 2, Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, to the Consent agenda. He asked if there were any audience members present who wanted it to remain on Discussion. There were none_ Member Lingle requested that two motions be made for the Consent items. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes for the March 17, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearings 2. Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Member Smith made a motion to approve the April 21, 2011 Hearing minutes. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Member Smith made a motion to approve the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Lingle said he asked to have a separate motion because he can't support the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan due to the fact that he feels there are potentially inadequate protections for residents that are living within the URA (Urban Renewal Authority) boundary. Of particular concern are the provisions related to relocation that are found in Section 4 and have to do with demolition clearance, environmental remediation, and relocation assistance. He said in order for him to support the Plan, he would need the language in those sections strengthened to insure that relocation of residents within the URA would be used as a last resort. Chair Stockover said this is a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Board to City Council. For the benefit of the audience, he wanted them to know that City Council will consider the Plan in the near future. The Board is not the final authority —if the motion is approved, the Board is simply making a recommendation to City Council. If anyone has concerns, they can make those known to City Council.