Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SLAB - PDP - PDP150016 - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGLIGHBORHOOD I-'7RNIATION INIEETIi r ��D;_oJr:C^ Ycs Yes 1 'No T T I �� luiil�UKHUUll i ti �1{_Y1A11ON NIEETI! T ,'Drttfca Id `0u r-cc: NoctGr_:iar.;,.;�h-csr� of this mccclag7 lame rr;-ep- L'� Yes I No i'ex I Ya P)�%����� ��. ,i�� �s�l I ✓I I� eIZI 1 IGH ORHOOD h ' )RtiI AiTIOti W - �L Uf en:-T F�.42iER 1IEE i T — DId You Raccive ��rrccc s c/a ca ; atliic—.:or; ,c� .❑ fldl/ oft", Wca;:c I f s Yc: . ; 7 10r 6. No I F_sl ,Yo 1JP�I inn �-D��LrI'O✓r �� o��G /sera h�-hn�„l S✓G$ 4S-7�,Vt� ScliKfYEA ) .(>AI&t toV 7�►'?2 �4 Ar�.aw.1 ,✓F o� P rodr-r 4A t„1IO.h OC) • C CQ lj 1 AGI 0.VblV U3 04 > Al me (.4N*o vv Lg 6,wrw C. /q�go�I i g Zg S�ti COA� ✓ I '' PC-)4 CArU-AA--J Y; cL. cal Co iL- I ")d /oCl-- 4 �� ENG e.. c c9t6v S~. L`D.� I I ✓ I✓ r ,^ -7 ry w • Pr.sPc.� r�r i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 6 Another participant stated that they had taken an under -performing asset and made something quite nice. Architecture is nice, less bedrooms, more parking, etc. Well done. There was a suggestion that additional detail and scaling to bring the building to an even further personal level would be beneficial. They suggested window sills and similar improvements. There was a question about the project timeline. The presenters stated that they have to go through the planning process and do not anticipate being finished with this until November/December. They thought it was likely they would break ground this spring. There was an area on the site plan related to access to the site that was dashed in. There was a question on why. The presenters clarified that this is somewhat tentative right now. There is some concern that the geometry and radius gets so fine that people might try to do a left turn anyway, then curb gets destroyed, etc. So, this area is still being worked on and they intend to continue to work with Traffic Engineering on this item. Participants reiterated the importance of getting this right and wanted to stress what a problem allowing people to turn against traffic would create - would cause a lot of traffic congestion. There was a question about how far the City's median would go and whether it could be extended in an effort to keep people from turning left. The presenters thought there might be some room for negotiation in this regard. There was concern about getting rid of the chance for people to U-turn as well. The City Planner stated that at the time the project gets submitted to the City, all related documents will be placed on the City's website. Anyone interested would have access to the plans, could see how things have changed, etc. He added that there will be several additional opportunities to provide feedback as the plan progresses through the process. Adjourned at 8:30 pm. Q Neighborhood Meeting— 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 5 A participant encouraged having outdoor gathering space where residents could interact and get to know one another. He stated that this helps people break down the sense of having a little cubicle where they simply come and go and don't get to know their neighbors. He stated that having this type of space is good and asked about the number of spaces provided. The presenters mentioned that they are looking at developing a couple other spaces throughout the site that can be used for this. Someone added that it would be nice to do an inside/outside space that would serve this purpose as well. The presenters clarified that they have looked at a leasing office and could combine this purpose with some lounge space. It was mentioned that it is important for people to know who they are living with and to have some interaction. Someone added that opportunities for engagement with neighbors are good. Think people using the walkway and bicycle access will get this type of interaction as well. The presenters committed to continuing to explore this. A question was posed as to whether the detention basin on NE corner could be adapted for this type of use (gathering space). The presenters mentioned that the City's criteria does allow for multi -use in these types of areas. There might be an option to put some benches or picnic tables in there if allowed. Red Fox Meadows is a good example of how this has been done effectively. Think there are opportunities for these spaces to have more uses. There was some question about the pavers being used to capture stormwater and whether these were problematic (ones in Old Town were mentioned as having plugged up). It was clarified that they do have to be maintained and that the key is to do routine and timely maintenance. There was some question about how lighting is going to work. Have bushes close to the building — great place for people to hide, etc. The presenters stated that the previous design had grates over the egress areas from the basements to keep people going down — they could only go up. They were open to provide more lighting in these areas to make this safer. The added that their goal is to ensure they meet dark skies requirements and light closer to the ground versus having light spill into the sky. The lighting plan will at least meet any minimum requirements of the City for parking lots and walkways. There was a question about whether a fence would be installed. The presenters stated that they are looking at doing a boundary fence to create some privacy. Not sure what fencing will be made of — cedar or steel (with vines growing up). Do want to make sure they are being sensitive to light issues. The owner of the Blue Ridge Apartments stated that he has not had any trouble with break-ins or safety. He stated that they are all fortunate to have a neighborhood where safety issues are not as prevalent. Others added that they want to keep it that way and build in whatever features they can to do so. The developer added that they will be installing a security camera system on the premises as well. He also mentioned that they have reached out to City Police to see if they are interested in any of the basement space for a substation. Nothing finalized in this regard. There was a comment to the presenters that they had done a great job with the architecture. Like that the building is scaled and more compatible with the neighborhood. Think they are respectful of the historic buildings. Hope it will be the example for future developments. -5- Neighborhood Meeting— 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 4 CSU to see of the Round the Hom bus service on campus could provide any service from this location. It was noted that some of the lack of service today may be due to the fact that so many roads are closed on or around campus due to construction activities. There was brief discussion on when Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code (Historic and Cultural Resources) comes into play. It was clarified that this occurs whenever a proposed project is adjacent to a historic designated or eligible property. A participant asked if CSURF owns the property that is being developed. It was confirmed by a CSURF representative at the meeting that CSURF does own the property and that they are a separate entity from the university. CSURF is contemplating entering into a ground lease with the developer so that they can build the project. He also clarified that over time the two houses next door to the proposed project were combined into one parcel and reiterated that 808 is a separate parcel. There was a question regarding whether CSURF is subject to City zoning. It was confirmed that they are since they are considered a private entity. There was some discussion about the type of units on the project. The presenters stated that there will be a mix of studios, one -bedroom and two -bedroom units. They plan to lease by unit, not by bedroom. They clarified that there are a higher number of one -bedroom and studios units in this project and, it has been their experience that people tend to have less parties with this type of unit mix. They stated that providing a high quality project and a mix of this type of units is likely to encourage a different type of renter and not necessarily typical students. A participant asked whether the project will have a swimming pool. The presenters confirmed that it will not, just outdoor seating/gathering areas. The owner from Blue Ridge Apartments stated that the kids at his complex are different these days and he doesn't have anyone using his pool. But, there was some concern expressed about the huge welcome back pool party that was experienced a couple of years ago that caught so much attention. A participant mentioned that it is challenging to develop something economically more feasible, with a large amount of density, and still provide a nice building that has some interest. He stated that this project shows much more effort in this regard than other projects he has seen recently. He wanted to give the development team kudos for making these extra efforts. There was a question as to whether the geo-thermal system that was started with previous project would be used. The presenters stated that they are hoping to use the wells that have been drilled, but are not sure whether the system is viable at this point. If it is intact, they will look at using it. There was a question about the basement units having only one window. The presenters mentioned that most units only have one exterior wall and, therefore, only one window that gives natural light. Some of the two -bedroom units have more. -4- Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 3 reiterated that most of the time their cars sit in the parking lot. There was some question about vehicle access to the north of the project to help avoid Prospect impacts. It was mentioned that the easement obtained for the walkway which will be used by pedestrians, bicycles, and for emergency access does not allow for regular vehicle traffic. A participant mentioned that if we cannot get access for cars to the north then we should eliminate the damn stadium. Participants were highly supportive of keeping the proposed building within the historical context of the neighborhood. A building to the west of the project site, the Kaufman House, was identified as a historical home that is being preserved. Craftsman -type homes, such as Blevins house, were also mentioned as important historical properties. Participants think it is important to continue this Craftsman -type architecture. They think it might provide an example so that future projects would do the same thing — create buildings that would have the same elements and that would maintain the character of the neighborhood. It was suggested that the developers add window treatments or other exterior detailing that would more solidify the Craftsman style. Participant would like to see the whole block from Whitcomb down to Prospect incorporate this style. Another participant had just moved his 96 year old dad to McKenzie Place. He really liked the way the development picked up this type of architecture, even in the way they did the porticos outside as well as sloping vertical elements. It was his opinion that this really defined the building as a Craftsman style. The presenters stated that their goal with this design is to make enough of a statement with some modern elements that people know it is a building of today while still maintaining respect for the past. Some participants stated a preference for sticking to a true Craftsman style and not mixing metaphors. It was suggested that the more modern features really take away from the Craftsman style. The presenters added that one challenge with staying true to a Craftsman style with a building of this size is not creating something that tends to look like a resort property. They added that nothing shown is final and mentioned that they do have time to make some changes. There was some discussion on whether there were any plans for the adjacent historic buildings. The presenters stated that the scope of this project did not include the historic properties at this point and clarified that these are on a different parcel. They are just addressing the 808 parcel at this point. There was a question about the density of project. A participant stated that this project would be an extension of campus as far as housing goes. He was in favor of the project stating that this is the whole idea — to put higher density projects where they make the most good. There was some discussion about whether bus service from either CSU or the City would serve this property and whether residents would gain any advantage due to this. A participant stated that a Transit line currently goes along Prospect now but doesn't stop there. The presenters clarified that there are future transit stops planned as part of the West Central Area Plan improvements that may provide additional access then. This was an item identified for follow- up - verify with City Transportation Planning. It was also suggested that a follow-up occur with -3- Neighborhood Meeting— 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 2 right out is what is proposed) and about the sight difficulties that might be created later on as the landscape trees planted start to mature. There was a question about the elevation of the 3`d story. The presenters estimated the height at the mid-30' to 40' range. The highest points of the building were described as having a parapet with a membrane roof below it. Questions followed about the height of the Juliette balconies — how high off of the slab are these? The height was estimated at about 10' and 22' off slab, depending on their location on the building. There was a question as to whether the Juliette balconies were a final design feature. The presenters noted that nothing is final at this point — everything is still in the conceptual phase. They mentioned that they have also looked at just using larger windows. The goal is to try to bring natural light into the units since the units are kind of deep due to design and lot. Participants just wanted to ensure that there would be no open balconies or patios on the 3`d floor. It was confirmed that there would be none. A development at 1335 W Elizabeth, near Five Guys Burgers and Fries, was mentioned as a finished product that has these Juliette features. They encouraged people to go by and take a look at these. There was a question related to the variance requested for the cantilever sections of the building that extend out past the plane of the building. The presenters confirmed that the cantilever portions do extend out into the setback. They stated that there was a flat building face in the previous architectural plans but they chose to come back with the cantilevers to give the building more interest. There was some discussion about bicycle access to the campus. Is the expectation for bicyclists to head to the north to get to campus? Would they use the emergency access? The presenters stated that a component of the West Central Area Plan, as well as the previous project plan, included an 8' pathway which extends out to the emergency access. They have included this in the proposed project as well. It is anticipated that the path will be concrete and pavement or asphalt. They clarified that this path will be closed to vehicle use and primarily open to pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle use. Focus turned back to traffic issues. A participant mentioned that the traffic on Prospect now is atrocious, evidenced by the accident earlier tonight. When the north/south bus system on Mason was put in place, this participant thought the buses would be the problem. He stated that he lives in the Sheeley addition with Prospect being his only way in or out of his subdivision. He is finding that pedestrians and bicyclists are way worse than the bus problem he expected. He suggested a need for an over- or underpass to help mitigate this. He asked if there was any access to the north of the project onto Lake Street for pedestrians. The presenters confirmed that there was and highlighted the pedestrian/bike access that hooks into Lake Street from the project plans. The participant added that he thought having access to Lake Street was a crucial element versus increasing the traffic impact on Prospect. The owner of Blue Ridge Apartments stated that his development has more units and twice as many beds as the proposed project. He stated that his parking lot is only half full and that the kids who live there do so because of easy access to the campus. He added that they generally travel by bike or walk, at least to campus, and that any traffic generated by them generally occurs after hours when this would have less impact on normal traffic patterns on Prospect. He -2- P m City of ort Collins Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Notes from Neighborhood Meeting for 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) Meeting Date: June 18, 2015; 7:00 — 8:30 p.m. Ian Shuff, Principal of ahn2s Architects and Craig Russell, Principal of Russell -Mills Studio provided an overview of this project. Generally, the proposed project is for a 3-story, multi -family apartment building, with 59 dwelling units, 70 bedrooms, 83 parking spaces, and 70 bike parking spaces on a 1.44 acre lot in the H-M-N (High Density Mixed -Use) zoning district. The project is designed to work with the new plans for the Prospect Corridor and the vision created by the West Central Area Plan for this area. Although the HMN zone allows for five stories, the building has been scaled back to three, and steps down in places to be sensitive to surrounding historic properties and to stay in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The project strives to balance open space with the increased density that is allowed. The presenters mentioned that they had given this same presentation to the Landmark Preservation Commission who had some interest in the project due to surrounding historic properties. The presenters provided a comparison from a previously approved project to the proposed one and then described their project in more detail. Public input followed: There was a question about whether the large Spruce trees would truly be able to stay since the City is taking 20' for the Prospect changes. The presenters stated that they are working with the City Forester to see how they can work around this and find ways to make accommodations that would enable them to keep the trees. They think the trees can be maintained. A participant asked if this meant that the sidewalk at the proposed building would move back. The presenters confirmed this but stated that the curb line is not changing. The participant asked whether on the parkway where landscaping trees are being placed the area would get narrower to help accommodate the trees. The presenters confirmed this and stated that they had worked on an inventory and really think they have found a way to keep the trees. They added that if something happens where trees would have to be removed, they would alter the project accordingly to make something else work. They stated that they could make some adjustments to the plan and have the sidewalk go around the trees if needed, etc. There was some concern about the difficulty of in/out access off of Prospect Drive — there were a couple of mentions of an accident that had happened on Prospect just prior to the meeting. Concerns included ensuring that there were no left-hand turns from the property (right in and