Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAX FLATS - PDP - PDP120034 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 8 Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Bicycle Facilities 3.2.2(C) (4) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because providing bike facilities in the public right-of-way is a larger community benefit than having them housed exclusively on the property. Chair Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Lot Setback 3.2.2(J) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because the site is only 100 feet in width and the applicant is providing as much buffer as possible while accommodating the benefit of parking on the site. Chair Smith seconded the motion. Member Carpenter said she could not support this modification. She thinks all of these sites are going to be pretty narrow and for her that's where we have to hold tight. The motion passed 3:1 with Member Carpenter dissenting. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Stall Dimensions 3.2.2(L) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because the benefit of having increased compact car parking in this district is worthwhile. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Initially Member Kirkpatrick used the equal to or better than standard. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said on the equal to or better than standard the language of the code that it advances the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard. Chair Smith would recommend making the standard nominal and inconsequential as opposed to equal to or better than. Members Kirkpatrick and Carpenter agreed and the change is reflected in the motion above. The motion passed 4:0. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the MAX Flats Project Development Plan, #. PDP120034 and in support of her motion she adopts the findings of fact and conclusion as contained in E-G on page 10 of the staff report. Chair Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. Member Heinz returned to chambers. Member Kirkpatrick recused herself and left chambers. Project: Poudre Valley Health Systems — Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, # MA130001 Project Description: This is a request to expand the existing Medical Office Building at the Poudre Valley Health System Harmony Medical Campus by adding a new wing dedicated to the medical treatment of cancer. The proposed addition would contain 30,000 square feet and be two stories in height. The location of the addition is to the north and west of the existing building in the area of the existing parking lot. The campus is defined as a 95-acre Overall Development Plan and the Final Plans are defined by 26 acres. The campus includes three buildings containing 294,000 square feet. The proposed 30,000 square foot addition would raise the Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 7 services in the mixed use that she doesn't think we're getting here. She doesn't think the increase in compact car parking or landscaping in the interior has an impact on the general public. Member Kirkpatrick said she'd like to see green walls for the parking lot interior landscaping however it is not required. She thinks the modification given the infill site makes sense. For the bike facilities, while initially opposed to them she thinks there is some benefit to having the extra spaces in the right-of-way. She struggles a little for the parking lot setback but she understands the site is 100 feet wide and that's tricky. She thinks it's a relatively small change in setback. She thinks there's no problem to the last modification request —the parking stall dimension. Chair Smith said there's been a high activity of TOD projects in the past two years. The board recognizes we need to have continuous improvement in the way that we are implementing urban style development in the TOD to support BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) and other larger goals of .our Comprehensive Plan. He said the board will be revisiting TOD and will forward some recommendations to City Council. He said we are finding by specific projects that we could and should have more available, creative, and mitigating factors for some of the requests for modification. He thinks both the community and project would gain when there is a give and take process with regard to requests for modification. Chair Smith said he thinks the outreach process for what was initially perceived as a Type 1 project is unfortunate but it's been well explained why it happened. Going forward a project like this will come before this board and there will be greater outreach. Chair Smith said he likes what the applicant's team has done to design the project —its good design in a very eclectic neighborhood. He thinks this is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. This sets a tone to start moving south along Mason. It makes the Mason Corridor come to life and be functional. He said as we start to develop projects like this along the corridor, it's important that we have plenty of bike parking. Smith said he's supportive of all four modifications of standards requests. Member Kirkpatrick said she'd like to add that she was really glad to see the changes in the, material selection. She thinks the brick on the north side definitely helps with the transition from downtown where you see more of it. Smith said as we begin to talk about sidewalks/pedestrian activity, design is going to become more important than it ever has been. He thinks materials are going to drive a lot of that. Member Carpenter said we're going to see huge changes along the Mason Corridor. She thinks it's really important that we protect the folks in the neighborhoods that are already there. She'd really like to the board's work plan that they look at ways we can do that well. She'd like to see us not intrude on the neighborhood so that we lose the neighborhoods we have. Kirkpatrick said we seem to focus more on the pedestrian front and not necessarily on the back side of the house which is equally important to the neighborhood. Chair Smith asked the applicant if they would be responsible for maintenance of the shared Michlove property fence. Brinkman said yes. Member Carpenter asked if it would be a double fence. Brinkman said they could put up a double fence depending on Mr. Michlov's preference. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Lot Interior Landscaping 3.2.1(E)(5) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because the interior of the parking lot is so constrained and the benefit exceeds the detriment. Chair Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 6 The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring a 5 foot setback for vehicular use areas along lot lines. The project proposes an average of 4.15 foot setback along the west property ling. The project site is particularly constrained by its narrow width of 100 feet and is requesting 3 modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. The project is providing a 6 foot high privacy fence along the west property line and also providing 3 trees and many shrubs to soften the transition between the parking lot and the property to the west. Additional trees were not provided due to a sizeable utility easement. Without the granting of this modification the project would be practically infeasible because there would not be enough space for the parking lot drive aisles. • Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)] The applicant is requesting a modification of standard to the requirement that compact parking stalls make up a maximum of 40% of the parking spaces provided. The project proposes 58% compact parking stalls. The applicant is attempting to provide one parking space per dwelling unit with the existing site constraints. By reducing the size of an additional 12 parking spaces to the permitted compact vehicle size, the project is able to achieve this objective. This proposed reduction in parking stall size will not negatively affect the public because they are private parking spaces to be managed by the developer. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Board Questions Member Kirkpatrick said she read there was a dedication of 7 1/2 feet right-of-way on Mulberry. When and if Mulberry gets improved, how will that be changing the Mulberry side of the project? Brinkman said indicated where the southern edge of the Mulberry expansion would end. Chair Smith asked how many bike parking spaces being provided. Brinkman said one per bed. He said they've found in comparable projects that the resident's bikes are worth more than their vehicles so they take them up via the elevator into their units. Practically speaking, many of the bikes will be in their rooms. Board Discussion Member Hatfield made a motion to approve the MAX Flats Project Development Plan #PDP1200034 along with the proposed modifications A, B, C and D which are not detrimental to the public good and nominal and inconsequential. It died for lack of a second. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said City Council has in the past requested the board consider each modification and the Project Development Plan (PDP) by separate vote. Member Hatfield made a motion to approve modification A which is not detrimental to the public good and nominal -and inconsequential. Members Kirkpatrick and Carpenter asked for time to deliberate. The motion died for lack of a second. Member Carpenter said she's struggling because she feels a lot of the reasons for the modifications is we're trying to stuff too big of a project on this site. She thinks we're not getting buffering to adjacent properties. She's concerned whether the bicycles will protrude onto the right-of-way where it will be a constant problem for pedestrians. She loves that there's parking. She thinks we need to be getting the Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 5 Member Carpenter asked if it's stucco board and not stucco. Illanes said it's a hand applied in coats stucco system. Member Kirkpatrick asked the applicant to respond to the concerns raised in public input related to landscaping and set -back modification. Illanes said with regard to landscaping — while parking is not required in the TOD; it was a great amenity to bring at least one parking space per unit. Most of the parking is for compact cars underneath the building. That straight line landscape width where there is diagonal parking along the property line is where the modification is needed. Illanes said the entire perimeter of the building has landscaping including trees along the street facades. i Member Carpenter wondered why the neighborhood meeting was so late in the process. Director Kadrich said this is one of the projects that got 'caught in the middle' of the transition of LUC changes related to SHAP and the threshold of units (50) that require a Type 2 hearing. The planner and developer considered the fact that they were a mixed -use development and therefore a Type 1 review. When the code was adopted (on 2"d reading) a changed was made to read "any residential in whole or in part". Very late in the process for this developer, we discovered because of the code change they were required to do a Type 2 review. She said they immediately organized a neighborhood meeting to try to get back on the timeline they had set for a Type 1 review. Kadrich said thhere is no time requirement from the time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of the hearing. Member Carpenter asked what percentage constitutes mixed use. Director Kadrich said that has not yet been determined — its' one of the topics that will be considered on the board's work plan. Kadrich said that this project would quality under the current LUC definition. Chair Smith asked Lorson to review the requests for modification. Lorson said there are four requests: • Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1 (E) (5)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring six percent landscaping of interior spaces in parking lots and no greater than a 15 space parking bay without a landscape island. The project proposes 2.7% (224 square feet) landscaping of interior parking spaces instead of the required 6% (505 square feet.). The development site is particularly constrained being only 100' wide and thus has hardly enough room for drive aisles. The project is proposing 64 parking spaces (one per unit) in the TOD Overlay Zone, which there is not a minimum parking requirement. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. • Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring bike parking spaces be provided on site in the amount of one space per bedroom (60% enclosed; 40% fixed) and 4 spaces for the retail element (20% enclosed; 80 % fixed). The project proposes 65 enclosed spaces (61 required) and 31 fixed spaces (43 required) on site. The project proposes to partially compensate for the 12 spaces by providing 10 spaces in the Mason Street right-of-way (requiring a revocable ROW (right-of-way) permit). If the spaces proposed in the ROW were counted toward the total required spaces, then the project would be two fixed spaces short but are providing four additional enclosed spaces, therefore the project would have an overall net of +2 spaces beyond the requirement: 65 enclosed + 31 fixed + 10 ROW = 106 spaces (104 required). 0 Parking Lot Setback [3.2.2(J)] Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 4 Ed Seeley, 415 S. Howes, said he has concern about using the bus transit system when it comes on line in 2014. He's concerned about the impact that MAX Flats will have on traffic along Mason between Mulberry and Myrtle with the confined lanes created by the railroad. It seems like large vehicles like garbage/moving trucks cannot drive into the site but will need to park along Mason. He thinks sight Sight lines will be impacted and would increase the probability of accidents. Dave Michlove, 208 W. Myrtle, said his property is just west of the proposed building. His concern is with the fence between their properties. They're talking about a wood privacy fence but he'd prefer a higher masonry type fence to avoid this fence getting knocked down. He's concerned about things getting thrown over the wall at his two dogs who bark. He's concerned about the amount of available parking in the area —. CSU students fill it up during the day. Richard Tearnow, 2731 Granada Hills Drive, said he owns a building directly to the south of the project. He said infill over the past twenty years has been low quality. He likes the fact that this building will look good for years to come. Parking certainly is an issue — he doesn't think it'll ever be great. He said we want density and public transportation to work — this type of infill will help that. He thinks this is a good use of that land. End of Public Input Applicant Response Kevin Brinkman said the trash trucks will have access. He said the project is in the TOD (Transit Oriented District) so there is no parking requirement but they've worked pretty hard to optimize the parking and that's why there are modification requests. He said the balconies on the west were pulled back due to neighborhood concern about noise. Eduardo Illanes said the building materials will be diverse. Stucco is a very long lasting material —it is cement board with a cement finish. He said there is a lot of detail that articulates the upper floors. He said with regard to questions about bicycles they are providing a lot of bicycle storage within the building. Board Questions Chair Smith said he's wondering if we're getting enough parking for bikes for the public. Kirkpatrick asked if we had bike standards as a part of our transit stop plan. Chair Smith asked how this project fit into those MAX station bike parking standards. Lorson said there are no standards for developers to provide bike parking at the MAX station — the city will be providing 3 bike racks to accommodate 6 bicycles at each station. The standard is one bike parking space per bedroom with 60% enclosed (units or lockers) and 40% outside. This project is providing 106 parking spaces. Member Carpenter asked how many bike parking spaces are off -site. Lorson said 10. Kirkpatrick asked if they were to provide 104 of the spaces on site, would there not be any parking in the right-of-way except for what is planned with MAX stations. Lorson said correct —the 6 provided by the city is in addition to the 10 provided by the project. Transit Planner Emma McArdle said they have received feedback that they are `under parked' for all their stations. Any additional parking they can get near stations is a good thing from their perspective. McArdle said they are planning to get a project underway this year to address additional bike parking throughout the corridor. Member Carpenter asked how far the bikes will protrude onto the sidewalk. Illanes said they are beyond the 8 foot sidewalk but inside of the right-of-way. Carpenter asked how deep the indentation for the bikes is. Illanes said six feet. Chair Smith asked on what material the bikes will rest in the right-of-way. Illanes said it's a continuation of the material used for the sidewalk. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 3 Brinkman said MAX Flats' target market is Old Town employees or CSU students who want to be within walking distance to both campus and Old Town. He said the building facade and streetscape has been designed in a way that focuses on the pedestrian experience. An outdoor plaza at Mulberry and Mason will be near the MAXMulberry Station and have access to the 1500 square feet of retail located on the ground floor. Eduardo Illanes of OZ Architecture described the project's architectural characteristics including the elevations and the wall sections. He described the variability in articulation and materials. He described the landscape plan including use of a `green screen' —a wall trellis system that is wall mounted to create growing space for various plants and vines. Lorson said there's been a lot of interaction between staff and neighbors as well as the applicant and neighbors. He wanted to highlight the fact that the original design was changed to 'step down' towards the neighbors and to bring a warmer character to the building. He said those changes were made since submittal of the packet information distributed to the board. Member Carpenter asked if the only place brick had been added was at the column. Brinkman said there've been 4 changes to the design since the neighborhood meeting: brick replaced metal paneling, the setback was increased on the south, an element was added to the top of each stair tower, and the bottom base was changed so it was not one mass going up. Illanes said they also added brick along the Mason facade. Member Hatfield complimented the applicant and staff on the detail and the ease of review of the board agenda packet. Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he's got concerns about the modification related to bike parking. Pushing bike parking into the public right-of-way might create problems. He thinks a certain percentage could be dedicated to indoor bike parking for residents. Susan Kreul-Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Ct., said they've met with both the developer and staff. She does not like the project. It fails to `feel like' some of the images they saw with reference to the Mason Street Corridor and it is a precedent setting project. She thinks articulation is incredibly important on this project. She urged the board to look at the modification of standards requests related to landscaping. It is not nominal and inconsequential -- it's very important to the neighbors that the landscaping and the setbacks are maintained. She said her feedback is based on the drawings available at a neighborhood meeting one week earlier —she knows the developer/architect have made some changes but she thinks it's a little too late. Chair Smith noted the board received her letter dated April 12 and that will be considered as well. Bruce Forseth, 524 Spring Canyon Ct., said he's opposed to the project. He said the board's actions tonight will greatly influence the character and live ability of this neighborhood and will guide future projects along the Mason Street Corridor. He said according to the City's development review flowchart there should have been a neighborhood meeting after the initial submittal. He said the most recent proposal looks nothing like what was proposed in the fall — its 18,000 square feet larger. The project is called mixed -use but it's less than 3%. He does not think its compatible with the neighborhood with regard to size, character and mass and it makes no attempt to transition to surrounding properties. He'd like to see a building on this site that was more mixed use and which would contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood. He's opposed to this `dorm' building on a corner and he does not believe the project will help us become a world class city. Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2013 Page 2 Member Carpenter made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the March 15, 2013 Special Hearing and the March 21, 2013 Hearing and the Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan, #ODP120004. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0:1 with Member Hatfield abstaining. Discussion Agenda: 3. Max Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034 4. Poudre Valley Health Systems — Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, # MA130001 5. Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, # PDP130003 6. Mountain Sage Community School, 2310 E. Prospect, Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA130001 Member Heinz recused herself and left chambers. Project: MAX Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for property located at 203 W. Mulberry Street to demolish the existing King's Auto and construction a new five -story, 63,900 square foot, multi -family building. The site is zoned Community Commercial (CC). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Seth Lorson said this project proposes to demolish the existing King's Auto building and construct a 63,900 square foot, 5-story, mixed -use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line, in the Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and zoned Community Commercial (CC) in which multi- family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Lorson said the proposed PDP has been reviewed by staff and is in compliance with all applicable Land Use Code (LUG) standards with the exception of the proposed modifications of standards for which staff is recommending approval. He said the applicant has worked to enhance visual interest along the pedestrian frontage (LUC Sec. 3.10.4) and to provide adequate variation in massing and building materials (LUC Sec. 3.5.3). The project is requesting 4 modifications of standards: A) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; B) ability to provide off -site bike parking; C) a reduction for parking lot setback from 5' to 4'2'; and D) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces. Staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation Kevin Brinkman of Brinkman Partners LLC described the project and existing conditions in an area that has been described as a priority target area for infill and redevelopment in both City Plan and Refill Fort Collins. He provided neighborhood/downtown contextual information and described the infill project challenges of floodplain, sewer and utilities, and site width. He said, for example, because the parcel is located in the City of Fort Collins Old Town Basin 100 Year High Risk Flood Fringe, flood proofing mitigation is required --a minimum of 3' above grade for the entire building. He said the existing sewer line to Mason is in the alley and has no easement. It will need to be relocated. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Excused Absence: Hart Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Lorson, McArdle, Shepard, Holland, Olson, Gingerich, and Sanchez -Sprague Prior to the official start of the meeting, Chair Smith provided background on the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen participation — an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically listed on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members, staff comments and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the March 15, 2013 Special Hearing and the March 21, 2013 Hearing 2. Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan, #ODP120004