Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
JFK SENIOR APTS. - PDP - 61-98 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
Comm '.ty Planning and Environmenta ervices Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins March 16, 1999 Mr. Tom Hart, Director Division of Housing Department of Local Affairs State of Colorado 1313 Sherman Street, Room 518 Denver, CO 80203 Re: JFK Senior Apartments Dear Mr. Hart: I am writing in support of the above -referenced affordable housing project for senior citizens in Fort Collins, Colorado. The apartment complex is intended to serve very low-income households, with 50 units restricted to those earning 401/6 of AMI or less, and 22 serving 50% of AMI or less. In addition, the units will be restricted for 40 years. Fort Collins needs more such developments — affordable rental units for very low-income households are the City's highest housing priority. This is supported both by the City's Consolidated Plan and by the recently completed "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" report. According to HUD, in 1997 Fort Collins had roughly 600 senior households that earned less than 50% of AMI and paid over 301/o of their income for rent. Currently, Fort Collins has only three apartment complexes (with a total of 333 units) that serve very low-income seniors. All three have contracts with HUD that are either due to expire soon or on annual renewals. Therefore Kaufman and Broad's commitment to keep JFK Senior Apartments affordable for 40 years is commendable. The City of Fort Collins has already committed significant support to this project. The City's Community Development Block Grant program awarded a $200,000 loan to the project, and the City sold the site to the developer. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me at (970) 221-6342 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ann E. Watts City Planner cc: Janine Walkup, Kaufman and Broad IS l North College .Venue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 50522-0580 • 1970) 221-6376 .yX (9701 _2�-�i11 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aptanningCn)ci.fort-collins.co.us s- ITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 7/15/99 STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, Project Development Plan - #61-98 (This is a qualified Affordable Senior Housing Project) APPLICANT: Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc. c/o Janine Walkup 320 Golden Shore, #200 Long Beach, California 90802-2000 OWNERS: City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for an affordable senior housing multi -family residential development. The property is located at the southeast corner of JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway. It is east of South College Avenue, south and west of Boardwalk Drive; and north of East Harmony Road. The applicant proposes to develop 72 multi -family residential dwelling units (48 1-bedroom and 24 2-bedroom) in 5 buildings on a site that is 2.88 acres in size. The property is in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval with conditions This Project Development Plan complies with the following applicable requirements of the Land Use Code LUC , more specifically: standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and the applicable district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS of the LUC (Division 4.21 HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District). COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT K_,UFMANOBRO_.D June 23, 1999 Mr. Steve Olt Project Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Re: Modification of Standard - Section 3.5.2(C)(1) JFK Senior Apartments — Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Steve, On behalf of Fort Collins Senior Housing Investors, L.P., I hereby request approval of a modification of standard 3.5.2(C)(1) for the JFK Senior Apartments (the "Community'). We will extend a sidewalk connection from Building D of the proposed Community's site plan to JFK Parkway such that the connection from the primary entrance of the building to JFK Parkway will meet the requirement of a maximum travel distance of two hundred feet (200'). However, it is not possible to avoid mapping the sidewalk with one turn at the southerly end of Building B. Additionally, it is not possible to reorient the building such that a sidewalk from Building D to the JFK Parkway sidewalk connection could exist. Unfortunately, meeting this requirement could necessitate the elimination of Building D, a loss of eight affordable senior apartments. Pursuant to Division 2.8 of the City's Land Use Code, I respectfully request a modification of standard 3.5.2(C)(1) to allow a sidewalk connection from the primary entrance of Building D to JFK Parkway with one turn around the southerly end of Building B. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or further needs. With best regards, Janine Walkup� 'Ly Assistant Project Manager KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP, INC. 320 GOLDEN SHORE SUITE 200 LONG BEACH CA 90802-4217 TEL 562.256.2000 FAX 562�256.2001 Sent b9:PR10R RSS005 Jun-08-99 02:41Pm from 3038612755+562 2562004 Page 2i 2 These factors suggest that the proposed 1FK Apartments developrnent in Fort Collins would need no more than one parking space for each unit. The proposed plan. which includes 90 spaces, is sufficient for your planned 72-unit elderly rental project in Fort Collins.. If you need additional information, please call me. Sincerely, John P .0T President Sent by:PRIOR RSSOGS Jun-08-99 02:39Pm from 30386127559562 2562004 Page 1/ 2 PRIOR & ASSOCIATES ■ Housing Market Research ■ Strategic Plans ■ Project Development ■ Evaluations June 8, 1999 Ms. Jeanine Walkup Kaufman & Broad Multi -Housing Group 320 Golden Shore, Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90802-4217 RE: Parking Requirements for JFK Elderly Housing Project, Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Jeanine: In our experience conducting market research on elderly tax credit projects across the country we have found that single individuals occupy nearly all one- and two -bedroom units in income restricted senior citizen rental projects. We found that unrelated individuals do not share two -bedroom units. Rather, single individuals who want the additional storage or living space lease the two -bedroom units. As a result, the required parking ratio for elderly rental projects does not exceed one space per unit. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) elderly housing design standards require 0.5 parking spaces per unit. According to HUD's annual housing survey 47% of all elderly renters do not own cars, trucks or vans. Of those who have vehicles, 47% have one, 5% have two, and 1% three or more. VEHICLES OWNED BY ELDERLY RENTERS None 2.1.00,000 47.4% One 2,074,000 46.7% Two 228.000 5.1 % Three or More 33.000 0.7% Total 4,435,000 Source: U.S. DepaRmentof Housing and Urban Development. American Housing Survey for the United States, 1995 Table 7-7 (July 1997) 1580 Lincoln Street ■ Suita 680 ■ Denver. Colorado 80203 ■ (303) 061.2728 ■ FAX (303) 861-27S5 0 www.priorundassodnres.com Ms. Janine Walkup KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP, INC. June 2, 1999 Page 2 We advise our clients to park projects at 1:1 under all but the following circumstances: • very urban areas with excellent public transportation and door-to-door service can support projects with lower (below 1:1) parking ratios • senior apartment projects adjacent to City -sponsored senior centers can fare with lower parking ratios, if the senior center offers transportation and/or if there is the potential for shared parking • projects targeted to very low income seniors — generally under 50% of the Median Area Income — typically have lower parking needs, since lower -income seniors are less likely to be able to afford the annual upkeep of car ownership (registration, insurance, etc.), proof of which is increasingly required as a condition of securing a parking space Given the typical senior apartment tenant profile of just 15% couples (i.e., 85% single person occupancy), coupled with the dominance of one -bedroom units in virtually all projects, parking to support more than one car per unit is rarely indicated. We would consider parking over 1:1 to be excessive and even somewhat wasteful of space that could otherwise be devoted to landscaping, walking paths, outdoor gardening areas for residents, etc. , all of which would contribute to quality of life. The single exception to the 1:1 rule would be a high end market rate project targeted to "move downs." Sincerely, NATWGerard Y SYSTEMS Ann Vice President Seniors/Multi-Housing Research NATIONAL SURVEY SYSTEMS The eves and ears of the building industry June 2, 1999 Ms. Janine Walkup KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP, INC. 320 Golden Shore Drive, Suite 200 Long Beach, California 90802 RE: SENIOR APARTMENT PARKING NEEDS Dear Janine: The material presented in this letter derives from market research on senior apartments we've performed over the last 15 years. Our database currently includes nearly 200 senior apartment projects National Survey Systems has audited in 50+ submarkets in 14 different states. Parking Requirements Our research shows that many senior apartment projects were designed with parking ratios ranging from .65 and .75 spaces per unit in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as part of the overall goal to drive down costs by increasing density. The experience of this first generation of senior apartments demonstrated that providing parking at ratios below .75:1 often proved inadequate. Even with an average resident age of 72 at move in, most senior renters still had cars (even if they didn't still drive). Starting in the late 1980's, parking ratios ranging between .75:1 and 1:1 became common. The majority of built and "to -be -built" projects we have surveyed are parked at 1:1. National Survey Systems, Inc. 15375-A Barranca Pkwy Suite 216 Irvine, (A 92618 949 753.1077 voice 949753-1145 fax 800814-9595 toll -free nationalsurveysystems@msn.com email www.nss-usa.com SENIOR HOUSING PARKING SURVEY Location Name No. of Allocate Number Number of Units of spaces parking adequate? spaces (yes or no) Includes guest Bakersfield, CA Harmony Court Apts. 96 1.1 to 1 96 Yes Buena Park, CA Chino, CA Lakewood, CA Orange, CA San Juan Capistrano. CA Torrance. CA Harmony Paris Apts. Season's Sr. Villas at The Civic Center Season II Senior Apts. Harmony Creek Apts. 1 Seasons Senior Apts. Harmony Court Apts. 59 104 85 83 112 187 .9 to 1 .7 to 1 .8 to 1 .7 to 1 .9 to 1 1.1 to 1 57 73 75 60 102 210 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Valley Village, CA West Valley, UT Las Vegas, NV Norco, CA Anaheim, CA Villa Serena Alto Loma, CA Rialto, CA Montclair, CA Escondido Anaheim. CA La Veme Whittier. CA Monrovia, CA Lakewood. CA Diamond Bar, CA Valley Village Apts. Harmony Gardens Apts. Heritage Park Apts. Heritage Park Apts. Heritage Village Apts. Villa Serena Heritage Village Apts. Heritage Village Apts. Heritage Village Apts. Heritage Village Apts. Heritage Village Apts. Seasons at La Veme Seasons at Whittier Seasons at Monrovia Seasons at Lakewood Seasons at Diamond Bar 188 96 189 86 188 186 232 161 141 196 94 85 169 241 201 149 .8 to 1 1. to 1 .9 to 1 .7 to 1 .9 to 1 .8 to 1 .7 to 1 .9 to 1 .7 to 1 .9 to 1 .8 to 1 1.1 to 1 .8 to 1 .7 to 1 .8 to 1 .85 to 1 162 97 181 64 176 154 172 148 111 186 75 97 142 181 153 124 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S:\MHG\5MHG\MISC\Sr.doc - I4OU F M A N B R COD March 1, 1999 Mr. Steve Olt City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS PARKING RATIO Dear Steve, Enclosed please find a review summary of the available parking ratios and car ownership at senior age -designated communities with which I have had personal involvement over the past fifteen years. One-to-one parking ratios, or even less, is the norm rather than the exception even when on -street parking is unavailable. Many age - designated communities even with a minimum age restriction of fifty-five years commonly have average ages of 65 years or older at the completion of the initial lease - up. As the residents age in place, the number of available spaces actually increases due to residents' decisions to give up driving. I have been involved with the development and management of age -designated communities since 1985 and, although car ownership has risen slightly, the parking ratios on the attached review summary have remained well within acceptable quantities. I will be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience and/or provide you with the names and numbers of a number of site managers you may wish to speak with. Sincerely, Evelyn Danowitz Vice President KBMH Property Management, Inc. Enclosure KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP. INC. 320 GOLDEN SHORE SUIT[ 200 LONG BEACH CA 90802 4217 '1'I:I 562. 256.2000 IA% 562,256.2001 A ratio of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit is projected to be more than adequate for the tenant population of the Community and their guests. For your further review and consideration, attached is a letter from Evelyn Danowitz, Vice President of KBMH Property Management, Inc. Ms. Danowitz is experienced in managing communities such as the proposed JFK Senior Apartments, and provides her professional opinion as to the adequacy of the number of parking spaces planned. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or further needs. Sincerely, Panine Walkup Assistant Project Manager Enclosure as noted. FonCol lins/Coffmp/Olt-Puking.doc K X F MAN/A B RO&D March 1, 1999 Mr. Steve Olt Project Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Re: Modification of a Standard — Parking Ratio JFK Senior Apartments — Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Steve, On behalf of the JFK Senior Apartments (the "Community"), I hereby request approval of a modification of the standard parking ratio. Our site plan contains 90 parking spaces, or a parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. We feel the number of parking spaces we plan to provide will be adequate for the following reasons: 1. This Community will be occupied exclusively by tenants over the age of fifty- five (55) years. It can be reasonably expected that fewer households in this Community will own cars than in a typical family community. As a result, fewer parking spaces are required to accommodate residents with automobiles. 2. One -hundred percent (100%) of the households in this Community are restricted to annual incomes of no more than fifty percent (50%) of the county median income (maximum household income of $21,300 for a two -person household). Further, fifty of the seventy-two households in the Community are restricted to annual incomes of no more than forty percent (40%) of the county median income (maximum household income of $17,040 for a two - person household). With incomes at these very low levels, it is.common that seniors have already sold their automobiles because they simply do not have the financial means to continue registering, insuring, and maintaining an automobile. As a result, fewer parking spaces are required to accommodate residents with automobiles. KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP. INC. 320 GOLDEN SHORE SUITE 200 LONG BEACH CA 90802-4217 TEL 562.2S6.2000 FAX .562.256.2001 sks .... ............ .................. . .......... ...... ... . .. . ................ . ........ .. .. ................ ............................ . .. . ...... ... ........ ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . IR Irk .1 !4 1 1� M - �1111111F IIIIIIIIII .......... a BIN GATE LEGEND ` ".�.� io'��w�iw•ilim.xo<,m a ann ..nR aiw.�.w ai�i v �rsu[R eWTY K'1 H I TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION LEGEND a M1 ._-_ w K. ` N W/t♦gMiialm♦t Y 0 �aCW mL�Yam+ moK ENCLOSURE — PLAN 1EC�E�D 'Lm&"3�nil Cdi°41:•vA +ay - ....,,, Y.a smamnn. xarzs -t>�ca� Fu'raTarrf' IF I POOL EQUIP. ENCLOSURE WALL �SYh_n.a�.gmL!uY..La m m.. w rOx. I%Aa1MJ PEDESTRIAN GATE ��99 vvmx-au.arm vn vJ'sa um tl.0 rt+ne w i nu'LLemtnn .u. yu.n w^D F I POOL EQUIP. ENCLOSURE GATE EGEND !e5'IYlI,tl9 6R-.�'SIt'�Lm/da —a... B TRASH ENCLOSURE WALL C I TUBULAR STEEL GATE G I STUCCO PILASTER I Q I STONE PILASTER LEGEND iK $°vW rrara a vi s�.,yam •.•m vIn ro+a. rLn.. "m E aufmandBroad , .M[NR69VR6. 51JFK ------- SENIOR --U APARTMENTS t • )'JLPYAA i BROAD • UI.TI-NOUAUIG CROUP A TUBULAR STEEL FENCE I I LEGEND . . . . . •ram msa _p a a. Q TtC 4Ra F.ae • . • • m J!-tt�4F��. �LW4•fAR4ieA'#P•eetw I n evµ w, q; m ar..I aft aam. a LEGEND 1w pY Ra 01 Ovr . DATE I pp�Itlyi. f096Z f�Yy_- K-1-fa UftR( W-ftll� • RC WIID I Am �.�cWl.w I '.eD ova sa. 1 a renal vxwrz amn we-v-n-r m.n. rena �vo as .Ftl�a n OAF .OEp ID R e1fLR9 R (JMY IIL AMC CONSTRUCTION • DETAILS I w • axaeA a NOTE: -Cx ATE ALL UNDERGROUND Li TLIT:IES PRIOR TO PLAN-I.:G Cty�y1Rfo..d'MA giµW -MIMXT MRIIEY 9RAA A WL • I-. .0 . WMN.M'49.O4W1D' L WL • T-Y 6C NI LIMSEFA RWi - wD lf.m so rt SEE SHEET 5 FOR PLANTING AND CITY STANDARD NOTES UTILITY NOTE CONTRACTOR SHA MA'HIAM THE %WIOMNC WARAT4 015TA0;CES - AO' BETImUN BEES AND SMUT NOHTS. - 10' BE MEN *REFS AND SEWER/ WATER LINES - t BETWEEN SHRUBS AND SEWER/ 1 iufmanABroaa .AcxrrcnTu. JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS FAUFMAN 4 BACAO ' AULT1 WO JNC CRVVP i Lu —311MOZ: 1 rW�py09g/ptM.H3 i 9�RlW ITYAY C • m as DB sB SHRU8 AND CROUNDCOYER ' PLAN ti PLAN PLA 8R6LT SCALE 1"=30' •DF 9 VAST PLANTING NOTES S swa x ws, u . W n.Nr _.... __. _. _...... IS gJrq,RIN WMrT �T wNW4 t'luiE! v P.tl`iG Y U It4wY Rmli /l.9GY N µt A. ♦ LII.R b µAYH !1 M !rR Y ! Id \pp 3a r1. p µy YG! W E R. RO 4 rII/ ME. •f35i R .B}tM •': ATpI 1®3 RYy M rR1 !]) •O13 W Q' WR tMAa rtf.Y YLR c. Au aMo u' m •¢Y .rnr Raxu w a Rwa r� r'M.w.mr n ivrt v uuau.�. ia:rm' gam_ rl.vwmes v.w s u.•M• w.r it . .wlas Rnaul rRs. msHa ,m'i� .arY.r vxv vc m. Nw3sv �•. wsr�.u3Aciw a Ya n.xr YReul �iR d odY 1 rR O µWV IWRO d Sli. K[ IL RM4\M RRJ61R Es \> Kt6^+a r3Rtdl�Mt WB\Y •If. RlhWrfG u r o r.wa sou xHe •aw e.wvs MLLIE➢Rfl YJM fI(C6Ligli tl1016V41Y 3.3.a3oc .-a. er uA��rumr Iw�m` we .i K❑ufm❑nOBro❑d .A6MRLLN6. arrrear / / . . . . . . �.y. / � d6 JFK SENIOR f' 00 APARTMENTS / y i / i asses 4 i v I I a=r.Y i 11iI i AN TING 'FOENO/ TOTAL P''-ANT COUNTS . •1•es r3ruL ••c rs•u � >Q a33. rn SWYi tasl.c __ >.•..u. eii.••s ar NA - r •1 • O A r•wls Sq�•4 •SYA MIRr Era.' - W Olr•9 rrpHN¢' _— wau.r mrla•ea mw.00 sl•IH load - ar pl - r • tl- vyr A r . Ms - r s ar - r U lw_ -�P— MrYOmp M/311q 6Mr M 16l ! WATER REQUIREMENTS MODERATE..._. 30.29o-S.F . - LOW: 21,803 S.F. NON IRRIGATED 17.236 S.F. i 1 A aril I1 >a on'r tear . 6 IRRIGATION NOTE A m/m/B, \av'm.ae..w3s � M• .CONCEPTUAL LANNANnG • PLAN •p, 6 A, 3 R. ' n- wno.ro."'1 / _ / 1 1� SLN6 T APAflT.1 m ZG1E FG ��� '(p. _ __--_---_----_-- IR wj a 11 V ✓� � Spleen.,[ / '--, - '' / - FAMMOMAL ® alx ra�mc ® soReuA cc.<Rr R NMIP s OWNER/DEVELOPER OWNERSHIP CERTMATION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LAND USE STATISTICS ®mo®mo �aa�mo®m© ��mo�mo amp©e�e� asaaaa�vo�moao amvo�aaaoo 0�88�0®8 o�o�aaa�omm . tr. unis NOTES • � m&efl 5+'S'ic LANDINGS OFFICE PARK Lra�N�aP 0 SHOPPING / CENTER II SHOPPING CENTER VACANT LOT SHOPPING CENTER SHOPPING CENTER SHOPPING CENTER V FIC WA �� SEN OR \ APARTMENTS SITE CAR LOT PARKWAY TOWN HOMES \\ HIGH POINTE SUBDIVISION O SOMERSET APARTMENTS 64UP-GFa- OTHE LANDINGS SUBDIVISION CITY PARK I JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 15 southeast corner of this property. The applicant must also escrow funds adequate to cover the cost of this future sidewalk construction prior to issuance of the first building permit. JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 14 Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as affordable housing) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern (such as traffic congestion). C. The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP meets the applicable district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS (Division 4.21 HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District) of the LUC. D. The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP is compatible with the surrounding existing land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for modification of the standard as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Attached Dwellings of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the request for modification of the standard as set forth in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, Project Development Plan - #61-98, with the following conditions: 1. The access driveway into the JFK Senior Apartments from JFK Parkway must align with the existing southerly access driveway into the Parkway Townhomes multi -family project on the west side of JFK Parkway. 2. The applicant must dedicate (with the subdivision plat) a 6' wide public access easement along the south property line of the JFK Senior Apartments development plan for the purpose of providing a potential future 6' wide sidewalk between the sidewalk along JFK Parkway and the JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 13 Section 4.21(E) Development Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP contains a permitted use in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP meets the applicable standards as put forth in ARTICLE 3 — GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, with the following exceptions: the standard located in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Attached Dwellings. A request for a modification of this standard, in accordance with Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, has been submitted for consideration. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as affordable housing) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern (such as traffic congestion). the standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. A request for a modification of this standard, in accordance with Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, has been submitted for consideration. JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 12 occurs, then the sidewalk on the JFK Senior Apartments property is not needed and the developer's escrow fund will be returned to them. A copy of the Transportation Impact Study is attached to this Staff Report and Recommendation. 4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS A. Division 4.21 — Harmony Corridor District Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. The purpose of the HC District is as follows: The Harmony Corridor District is intended to implement the design concepts and land use vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan — that of creating an attractive and complete mixed -use area with a major employment base. Harmony Corridor Plan The subject property is located in a "Mixed -Use Activity Center" as identified on Map 10 — Land Use Plan in the Harmony Corridor Plan. Mixed -Use Activity Centers are areas where a broader range of land uses may locate. The essence of the Mixed -Use Activity Center is a combination of different types of land uses along with urban design elements that reduce dependence on the private automobile, encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes, and ensure an attractive appearance. This proposal complies with the purpose of the HC District as it provides multi -family residential uses (at 25.0 gross dwelling units/acre) in multiple buildings located in an infill area between existing commercial/retail along South College Avenue and JFK Parkway to the west, existing multi -family residential along Boardwalk Drive to the east, existing large employer to the north, and existing commercial/retail to the south. Section 4.21(D) Land Use Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District. JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 11 be set back 30' from the ultimate rights -of -way, thereby complying with the requirement of the LUC. D. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation The proposal satisfies the Transportation and Circulation standards, more specifically: Section 3.6.4. Transportation Level of Service Requirements and Section 3.6.5. Transit Facilities Standards The Transportation Impact Study that was submitted for the JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan indicates that under existing conditions, each of the intersections and streets in the study area are operating at acceptable levels of service. Pedestrian level of service to and from the JFK Senior Apartments project is acceptable in most areas; however, there is gap within the sidewalk system in the surrounding area and this gap will potentially be eliminated with future development on the vacant parcel of land to the south. Staff wants the possibility to construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the south property between the sidewalk along JFK Parkway and the southeast corner of this site. Logically, this pedestrian way should occur on the vacant property to the south but there presently is no development request on that property. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval be placed on this current development request stating that: The applicant must dedicate (with the subdivision plat) a 6' wide public access easement along the south property line of the JFK Senior Apartments development plan for the purpose of providing a potential future 6' wide sidewalk between the sidewalk along JFK Parkway and the southeast corner of this property. The applicant must also escrow funds adequate to cover the cost of this future sidewalk construction prior to issuance of the first building permit. The applicant agrees to this condition. At such time that a development request on the adjacent property to the south of the JFK Senior Apartments is made, staff will be requesting that a sidewalk be located along their north property line between the sidewalk along JFK Parkway and Landings Park to the east. If this JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 10 However, because of the placement of the multiple buildings on -site, a pedestrian must make 2 ninety degree turns to go around Building B, which does not satisfy the standard. The applicant has submitted a request for a modification of the standard, based on the criteria as set forth in Division 2.8 of the LUC, for the following reasons: 1. It is not possible to avoid mapping the sidewalk (leaving Building D) with one turn at the southerly end of Building B. 2. Additionally, it is not possible to reorient the building such that a sidewalk from Building D to the JFK Parkway sidewalk connection could exist. 3. Meeting this requirement could necessitate the elimination of Building D, a loss of eight affordable senior apartments. A copy of the applicant's request is attached to this Staff Report and Recommendation. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as affordable housing) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern (such as traffic congestion). This project would provide affordable senior housing in an area that is close to work places, shopping, recreation, and public transportation while still providing a sidewalk connection between the primary entrance to Building D and the public sidewalk along JFK Parkway at a distance of less than 200' in length. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for a modification of the standard. The proposal satisfies the Residential Building Setbacks standards, more specifically: Setback from Arterial Streets. Section 3.5.2(D)(1) sets forth the requirement that any residential building be set back 30' from an arterial street right-of-way. The closest residential building to either JFK Parkway or Troutman Parkway will JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 9 " The roofs will be constructed of high profile — heavy dimensional composition shingles. They will be Owens-Corning Driftwood in color. These materials comply with the standard in Section 3.5.1(F)(1), which states: Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood, or, dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. The materials on the residential buildings will be similar to and compatible with those used on existing multi -family residential buildings in the Somerset Apartments (combination of wood lapboard and brick siding) to the east and the Parkway Townhomes (wood lapboard siding) to the west. Section 3.5.2. Residential Building Standards The proposal does not satisfy all of the Relationship of Attached and Multi -Family Buildings to Streets and Parking standards, more specifically: Orientation to a Connecting Walkway (requiring a Modification Request). Section 3.5.2(C)(1) requires that every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the maximum extent practicable; and, that every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200' from a street sidewalk. As defined in the LUC: a "connecting walkway" shall mean any street sidewalk or any walkway that directly connects a building entrance to the street sidewalk.....without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or follow parking lot outlines..... The applicant has provided a sidewalk connection from the west side of the entry to Building D to the sidewalk along JFK Parkway. The lineal distance for this walkway is 192', which meets the requirement of this section of the LUC. JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 8 recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for a modification of the standard. B. Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards (required a Request for a Variance to the Street Standards — City Engineer is the authority) Section 3.3.5. Engineering Design Standards The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP does not meet the City's street design standard for the location of the access to the development from JFK Parkway. There is an approximate 40' off -set between the proposed access into this site and the existing southerly access into Parkway Townhomes site on the west side of JFK Parkway, and this does not meet the off -set standard requirement. The applicant submitted to the City Engineer a request for a variance to the street design standards to allow the proposed off -set between the points of access on opposite sides of the street. The City Engineer did deny this request. Staff wants the access point into the site from JFK Parkway to be moved approximately 40' to the north to align with the existing southerly access into the Parkway Townhomes to the west. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval that states: The access driveway into the JFK Senior Apartments from JFK Parkway must align with the existing southerly access driveway into the Parkway Townhomes multi -family project on the west side of JFK Parkway. The applicant agrees to this condition and will make the changes to the development plans at time of Final Compliance submittal. C. Division 3.5 - Building Standards Section 3.5.1. Building and Project Compatibility. The JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP satisfies all applicable Building and Project Compatibility standards, more specifically: Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following building materials: The building facade will consist of a horizontal 8" wood lap siding with trim at the corners. The siding will be beige in color. JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 7 substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The site is located on 2 arterial streets (JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway) and is adjacent to a multi -family residential use to the east and multi -family residential and commercial uses to the west. This area is generally planned for a workplace setting, while providing for residential uses that may serve as a viable transitional use between the existing residential neighborhoods and the community/regional shopping corridors along South College Avenue and East Harmony Road. The residential complex will also provide additional housing opportunities for potential employees in the commercial, retail, and office uses adjacent to it. There is existing and planned community/regional shopping within close proximity and walking distances to this project. Also, public transit (Transfort) stops are located within 1 to 1 % blocks of the project. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as affordable housing) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern (such as traffic congestion). This project would provide affordable senior housing in an area that is close to work places, shopping, recreation, and public transportation, thereby enabling the lower income senior residents to function without the absolute need of an automobile. Therefore, staff is JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 6 This community will be occupied exclusively by tenants over the age of 55 years. It can be reasonably expected that fewer households in this community will own cars than in a typical family community. 2. 100% of the households in this community are restricted to annual incomes of no more than 50% of the County median income (maximum household income of $21,300 for a 2-person household). Further, 50 of the 72 households in this community are restricted to annual incomes of no more than 40% of the County median income (maximum household income of $17,040 for a 2-person household). With incomes at these very low levels, it is common that seniors have already sold their automobiles because they simply do not have the financial means to continue registering, insuring, and maintaining an automobile. 3. A ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit is projected to be more than adequate for the tenant population of this community and their guests. The applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding the historic parking needs of other similar project in several states. Copies of the request for a modification and the additional documentation are attached to this Staff Report and Recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Board shall grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: (1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 5 each rack able to accommodate at least 2 bicycles. This represents 13% of the total of 90 automobile parking spaces on the site, exceeding the minimum requirement. Directness and Continuity of Walkways. The development proposal satisfies the requirement in the LUC (Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)] that walkways within the site be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination. The walkway system in this development provides direct connections between and to building entries and to the public sidewalk system in the area. Street Crossings. This development plan provides for an accentuated drive aisle crossing for pedestrians, in the form of a patterned concrete crosswalk across the primary entry to the project from Troutman Parkway, thereby satisfying the requirement as set forth in Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) of the LUC. Setbacks. Section 3.2.2(J) sets forth the requirement that the parking area as proposed along JFK Parkway be set back from the arterial street right-of-way a minimum of 15', with landscaping included in this setback. The parking area is set back 15' from the right-of-way. Also, there is a parking area along the south property line that must be set back a minimum of 5' from the property line. This tier of parking is set back 11' from the property line and landscaping meeting the requirements of the LUC is included in this setback. Required number of parking spaces (requiring a Modification Request). The development proposal does not satisfy the parking requirements as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC for the attached multi -family residential use in this project. * There are 90 proposed parking spaces (all outside) on the site, or 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. There are 48 1-bedroom units proposed, which require that a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces/unit be provided. There are 24 2-bedroom units proposed, which require that a minimum of 1.75 parking spaces/unit be provided. Based on these numbers, this development plan should provide 114 parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a request for a modification of the standard, based on the criteria as set forth in Division 2.8 of the LUC, for the following reasons: JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 4 back 11' from the property line, exceeding the minimum requirement of 5'. Also, there is a tier of parking spaces along the west property line. This area is approximately 560' in length containing 60 parking spaces and is set back 5.5' from the property line, exceeding the minimum requirement of 5'. These areas contain shade and ornamental trees and deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Trees in these areas are spaced 15' to 40' apart. This meets the perimeter landscaping requirements as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a). The screening for the east and south property lines, adjacent to the parking areas, consists of a mix of deciduous trees and deciduous shrubs that will provide screening at a height and massing to exceed the minimum 70% opacity requirement. There is also an existing 6' high solid wood fence along the east property line between the JFK Senior Apartment and the Somerset Apartments. This meets the perimeter screening requirements as set forth in Section 3.2. 1 (E) (4) (b). This development proposal meets the standard for Parking Lot Interior Landscaping as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(5), providing 7.5% interior landscaping in the 90 space parking area in the project. Screening. The proposal complies with the standard relating to the screening (Section 3.2.1(E)(6)] of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks, and blank walls) from off -site view. The trash enclosures in the development will be located internal to the site along the north — south driveway through the parking lot. They will be constructed of materials to match the buildings and screened with plant materials. Section 3.2.2. Access, Circulation and Parking The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards, including the following: Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking is provided on site that meets or exceeds the required number of bicycle parking spaces, as well as the location, as defined in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) of the LUC. There is at least one bicycle rack located near an entryway to each of the 5 buildings (with a total of 6 racks provided), with JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 3 A neighborhood meeting for the JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS project was held on October 22, 1998 at the Harmony Presbyterian Church. There were no neighbors or other interested parties present at this meeting, only the developer and a representative of the City's Current Planning staff. 3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, PDP proposal meets the applicable standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC. Of specific note are Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation. Further discussions of these particular standards follow. A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposal satisfies the applicable Landscaping and Tree Protection standards, including the following: Street Trees. There will be shade trees spaced at 40' on -center in the 8' wide parkway between curb and detached sidewalk along JFK Parkway, and 40' on - center in the 5' wide parkway between curb and detached sidewalk along Troutman Parkway, in accordance with the standard as set forth in Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) of the LUC. Parking lot landscaping - perimeter and interior. Parking lot landscaping for this project is in accordance with the standards, including those related to Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping [Sections 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and (b)] and Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [Section 3.2.1(E)(5)]. There is one parking area, containing 12 parking spaces, that is adjacent to and has approximately 100' of frontage along JFK Parkway. This area is set back 15' from the street right-of-way (meeting the minimum requirement) and contains a combination of trees spaced irregularly at a ratio of 1 tree per 25 lineal feet of street frontage. There is a tier of parking spaces along the south property line. This area is approximately 55' in length containing 6 parking spaces and is set JFK Senior Apartments, Project Development Plan, #61-98 July 15, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 2 The PDP does not comply with the following requirements of the LUC: the standard located in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) —Attached Dwellings of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. the standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Requests for modifications of these standards, in accordance with Division 2.8 - Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, have been submitted for consideration. Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. This proposal complies with the purpose of the HC District as it provides multi -family residential uses (at 25.0 gross dwelling units/acre) in multiple buildings located in an infill area between existing commercial/retail along South College Avenue and JFK Parkway to the west, existing multi -family residential along Boardwalk Drive to the east, existing large employer to the north, and existing commercial/retail to the south. COMMENTS: 1. Background:, The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E; existing quasi -public use (U.S. Post Office) S: HC; vacant, undeveloped land W: HC; existing commercial and residential uses (Harmony Auto Sales, Parkway Townhomes) E: HC; existing multi -family residential (Somerset Apartments) This property was annexed into the City as part of the South College Properties Annexation in December, 1979. 2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.2. Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings