Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAKRIDGE CROSSING (AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING) - PDP - PDP160009 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING & ZONING BOARD Sign In Sheet DATE: % r IA 0 \:unc �laifim� �ilclrr.� I mail :]nil nt' Phone Rc:i.nn for lticndancc �'L9� • It � it " : ' (— � n .. p�. pm mmft� IN. PEW 2 V1. , cam_ THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Cindy Cosmas at 970-221-6259 or ccosmas(a;fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Sign In Sheet DATE: \anit, \lailin', 1ddrvs. I in:,il .un1-„r 1,11mii 12eawn fur �Ilcnd:nuc ■ THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Cindy Cosmas at 970-221-6259 or ccosmas@fceov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Sign In Sheet DATE: LI441,(a A-1 Name r \lam, ldilrc.. Email and or 1'11nnc IZca'nn Im k(lumi'mcc ♦ • r • Am : IL�i►.!!1�'I� i.� eau. / THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Cindy Cosmas at 970-221-6259 or ccosrras a is^o� .com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! V Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 9 Board Deliberation Member Hobbs is in favor of the project, but he is concerned with Transfort distances and the crossing of Harmony Road; he believes that multiple City departments will have to solve these issues at some point. Member Carpenter feels that the parking issues are well -resolved and agrees there are Transfort issues; she will also support the project. Vice Chair Hart is very impressed with the way Staff and the applicant have addressed the main issues, and he will support this project. Member Schneider was concerned with the density issues, but will support the project. Member Hansen will support the project and feels his bicycle concerns have been addressed and that the modifications are viable. Chair Kirkpatrick will also support the project, including the modifications for the gathering spaces onsite and parking. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Section 3.22(K)(1)(a), based on the findings of fact on pages 38-39 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification to standard to Section 4.26 (D)(6)(b)(2), based on the findings of fact on pages 37-38 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification of standard 4.26(D)(6)(b)(3), based upon the findings of fact on pages 37-38 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Hansen asked if there was anything legally detrimental in approving or denying both of these modifications; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that the finding of fact is considered detrimental to public good, although there is no legal detriment to approving both modifications. Chair Kirkpatrick is in favor of both modifications happening. Member Hobbs is in favor of this because he thinks it has resulted in a better site plan and he likes the site improvements. Member Schneider won't support motion as presented, because he does agree that it would be a detrimental to public good. Vote: 4:2, with Members Schneider and Hansen dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan PDP160009, based on the findings of fact on pages 37-40 in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0. Prior to the start of the next item, several disclosures were made: • Member Carpenter and Chair Kirkpatrick previously served with Mr. Stockover on the P&Z Board; • Member Schneider's current office is adjacent to this project; and • Assistant City Attorney Yatabe has also provided legal advice to Mr. Stockover in the past, but does not feel this will impact his impartiality. None of these disclosures are considered detrimental to providing unbiased opinions regarding the project. Member Hansen recused himself at 9:15pm due to a conflict of interest with the last two projects. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 8 Board Questions Chair Kirkpatrick inquired about the level of bicycle usage by seniors; Planner Mounce confirmed that there is some usage, while not prevalent, and few bicycle spaces are generally provided. She also asked what the crossing improvements at the intersection of Harmony and McMurry will look like in the future; Planner Mounce stated that there is a large area to cross and that intersection improvements are being broadly contemplated, while not immediate. Martina Wilkinson, with Traffic Operations, confirmed that the signal timing length at McMurry is adequate and meets national standards, even though many signals in general are being recalculated. She also stated there also another crossing that is planned for the upcoming "Power Trail" to cross Harmony, as well as several grant applications that are going in for Federal grants this year to upgrade some of these signals. Transfort does not have plans to reroute that area into the business park. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe interjected regarding the legal issues relating to the interference with existing cross -access easements, saying the City's position is to review these at the FDP stage. If the P&Z Board approves this project at this hearing, there will still be a lengthy process ahead pertaining to the platting of the site, meeting all requirements for the FDP, and resolving any other legal issues. He counselled the P&Z Board to focus on meeting the criteria within the LUC. Vice Chair Hart asked whether the office parking spaces in the Oakridge Business Park would be available to residents at night. Ms. Liley confirmed that there would be 8 additional parking spaces at night. Vice Chair Hart also asked about safety considerations for people walking through the parking lots and whether the area to the north could be fenced; Planner Mounce responded that it is a shared parking area, so there won't be many amenities to the north, so foot traffic will most likely be limited. Mr. Hoagland also stated that fencing was previously considered but rejected because of how the fencing would be situated, which would impact the operational requirements of adjacent users. Regarding traffic crossing at the "Power Trail", Planner Mounce stated that a driveway will be developed for safe crossing. Ms. Wilkinson added that this driveway will have adequate sight distance (to see other cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians); in addition, they may also install a sign indicating "trail users". Member Hobbs asked if there would be an amendment to the 40-year requirement for bond funding use if there were a change of use; Planner Mounce responded that, if there is a "change in character", that would require a major amendment to the approved plan along with another public hearing. Regarding the office space aspect, retail is not considered a primary use, so the zoning requirements would not allow it to be changed to a retail use. Member Schneider asked how Staff would know about this type of change; Planner Mounce responded that this would be known through complaints, additional people parking in the area, zoning inspections, or state requirements for funding. Ms. Liley stated that CHAFA does an annual inspection to ensure compliance, and this is controlled by covenants over a 40-year period. Member Hansen asked whether the alternate compliance for bike parking (reducing it to 60% requirements) will be adequate in view of the similar parking reduction. Planner Mounce stated that he studied these two mobility components, and he found that there is low utilization of bicycles by seniors, and this project is already proposing more bike racks as compared to other senior facilities. Mr. Nakhjovani stated they did look at the bike parking in order to find the right balance on the appropriate level of parking and bicycle racks; additionally, management will also offer a bike rack on demand, and there are other future bike rack locations if needed. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 7 Applicant and Staff Response Lucia Liley, with Liley & Rogers, is representing the developer, and she addressed some of the legal concerns that were raised. Regarding plat issues, she stated that this would be a Final Development Plan (FDP) item and should, therefore, not be considered by the P&Z Board at this time. Regarding private covenant issues and meeting consent of the Architectural Control Committee, the developer has been willing to provide the full set of plans upon request. She disagrees with the business letter submitted, saying that no private rights will be affected by City approval of this plan (private rights will be decided in a court of law). Regarding the claim of incompatibility with the proposed mixed -use, Ms. Liley stated the mixed -use is a primary use and is properly zoned, per the Master Plan. She also noted that a number of business owners in that business park are in favor of this project. Regarding the Tract A - Open Lands Modification, she noted that the maintenance agreement was amended in 2015, saying that the real property is intended to serve as a detention area primarily and secondarily as a recreational amenity. She acknowledged the continued threats of an appeal, saying that she will be satisfied with the approval of one modification and the denial of the other by the P&Z Board. David Nakhjovani, Architect for the project, reviewed the shadow study, explaining how the shadows would be cast by a 25' hypothetical wall as compared to the building; he conducted his study using shadows from December 21 `, the shortest day of the year. Based on his review, he doesn't believe the building design will present a future issue for any adjacent buildings. He presented a signed letter for entry into the record certifying his opinion (see Exhibit 1). Matt Delich, of Delich and Associates, prepared the Traffic Impact Study for this project, and he stated that all intersections adequately meet the City of Fort Collins standards. At the intersection of Harmony and McMurry, the peak hour levels are still within the acceptable standards. He discussed the parking generation and demand for senior housing, which is typically less than other housing types. Therefore, he believes that the proposed parking will be adequate for this project, also stating that, even during the highest demand times, the parking provided would still be considered adequate. Mr. Smith addressed some of the citizen questions relating to the cross -parking agreement. He reviewed survey results of four adjacent areas at seven different times. He reviewed some slides of photo vantage points of the survey zones, discussing the average utilization rates of several surrounding parking lots, taking street parking into consideration as well. He noted some extraneous items (PODS, dumpsters, palettes) in the parking lot of the adjacent commercial neighbor. He also discussed the projected pedestrian distance to the nearest grocery store, showing proximity to bus stops, bike trails, and Transfort locations as well. Nicole Hahn, Traffic Operations, addressed some of the citizen concerns about parking and traffic issues. The City's analysis of this area places it at a service level C. The study looked at the next 5 years after the project's completion and focused on the development and growth at that time. They concluded that the projected will then be at a service level D, which also meets the current City standards. Planner Mounce also addressed some of the citizen concerns regarding overnight parking, saying that, while this time of day is considered to have the highest parking demand, he still supports the proposed parking levels. He acknowledged there may be some issues during winter months, but that is expected in general and certain steps will be taken to mitigate (striping, designating areas for snow removal, etc.). Sue Beck-Ferkiss, with Social Sustainability, spoke on the City's role in senior affordable housing, saying the City does have specifics goals for this in their Strategic Plan. Seniors are considered to be part of the "special needs" population specifically mentioned in the Strategic Plan. She has heard no complaints relating to accessibility or amenity needs from Mackenzie Place, another senior housing facility located in close proximity. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 6 Fred Pitzl, 508 West Trilby Road, is in favor of this project, stating the need for affordable senior housing, reiterating that CHAFA has given their thumbs up, which can be a huge obstacle to developers. Kirsten Hartman of Fort Collins is in favor of this project, saying that she believes that the parking situation will be adequate, since many seniors cannot afford a car and their caregivers leave the facilities at night. Dianne McMahill, 421 S. Howes, is speaking on behalf of 7 other people, saying she is in favor of this project and describing how hard it is to find affordable housing. Marilyn Heller, from Loveland, is in favor of this project. She asked whether there was anything in the Strategic Plan that addresses senior housing. Nancy McDuffie, 5151 E. Boardwalk Drive, is in favor of the project, and she feels this will really help a lot of seniors. She works at the local Food Bank and is aware of the ongoing financial difficulties that many seniors face. Janet Krech, 1518 Redberry Court, is in favor of affordable senior housing, and, while she feels the developer is qualified and capable, she thinks that Fort Collins should hold them accountable for this project. She has no objections about parking, but she does have a concern about the traffic, especially with the caregivers coming and going. She asked that the parking LUC be revised for this project. Jim Denton, 1508 W. Elizabeth, has a concern with the parking during peak demand, especially in winter during plowing season, which can decrease the number of parking spaces when snow is piled up. In addition, he does not believe that seniors use bicycles very often. Denise Selders, from Loveland, read a statement on behalf of the Division of Housing (DOH), indicating that the DOH had awarded Oakridge Crossing a Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery loan of approximately $1.7million in 2015 to support the development of a 110-unit rental apartment for seniors and requires a leasing preference for applicants impacted or displaced by the 2013 floods. She did not speak in favor of or against the project; this information is for reference only. Bert Wright, 2113 Grosvenor Court, stated that he and his church are in favor of this project. Wade Corliss, from Loveland, is in favor of the project and read a letter from Chris Otto, which stated that EKS&H (in the Oakridge Business Park) is in favor of the development. He has faith that project concerns will be properly addressed. Pete Wilkins, from Littleton, is in support of this project. He is surprised at the opposition, sharing some unkind remarks that he has heard regarding affordable housing in general. Alex Chapman, 4750 Pleasant Oak Drive, is in support of this project, although he feels the project size is too small for the parking lot and the building. He also acknowledged that the distance to shopping would be too far to walk. David Caputo, 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, is in support of the project but has some concerns about the parking situation, acknowledging that there are not enough parking spaces. He asked the Board to require the developer to increase the number of spaces to avoid future issues. Steven Schroyer, 900 Greenfields Court, is also in support of this project. At 7:47pm, the Board took a short break, they reconvened at 8:00pm Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 5 Deborah Bobowski, 2002 Battlecreek Drive, is in favor of this project, stating her background in this industry and her extensive experience with the lack of affordable housing given the current and future housing demands. She mentioned a petition that she signed promoting this development and its benefits. Secretary Cosmas reviewed the list of items that were received regarding this project since the work session, including: • Numerous letters and emails both in support and in opposition to this project; • Land Use Restriction document; • Scoring statistics; • Building envelope calculations and history; • Cross -Access 1991 parking history and exception; • Oakridge Cross petition supporting the project; • 4 different pictures of the project area; • An opposition letter from Fox Rothschild, the attorney for the adjacent neighbor, Duncan Oakridge; and • Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Oakridge Business Park. Judy Ohs, 2201 S. Lemay, is in favor of this project, reviewing the isolation problems plaguing seniors and the related hardships; she hopes that this project will be built. Emily Dawson Peterson, 1303 E. 11 "' in Loveland, is representing PACE (Program for All -Inclusive Care for the Elderly) and is in favor of this project, as she feels this project will provide safety and place for seniors, given the lack of such facilities in Fort Collins. Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee Street, is in support of this project, stating his understanding of the lack of affordable housing in Fort Collins. He knows several senior members of Fort Collins who have left the area because there were no such facilities in town. He feels this project meets the community focus and its compassionate goals. Molly Smith, 2012 Sheffield Court, read a letter from Yvonne Meyers, which supports this project. She praised Fort Collins and urged the Board to support this project. Tasha Weaver, 1981 Blake Street, is in favor of this project. She works for CHAFA (Colorado Housing and Finance Authority), who has allocated the tax credits for this project and helps supports the construction costs. She praised the developer, stating the significant amount of documentation involved with obtaining this funding, and stating her past involvement with other successful projects with the developer. Ray Caraway is the President of the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado, located at 4745 Wheaton Drive in the Oakridge Business Park. He is fully in favor of this project, saying it is a good fit with the community, saying it meets a genuine need for affordable housing. Janet Perlstein, 3473 Cimarron Way in Aurora, CO, is here representing Nick Duncan and Duncan Oakridge LLC, the adjacent owner, and she offered some additional observations, saying that the parking variance will have a detrimental effect on the adjacent property due to the existence of several easements. She feels it will interfere with the circulation of vehicles and may require additional modifications by agreement within the Oakridge Business Park partners, which have not yet been sought. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 4 • Parking Modification: a reduction in the number of parking spaces is requested (from 172 down to 80 spaces). Planner Mounce gave justification for this reduction based on statistical information from other affordable senior housing developments, empirical evidence from local projects, and other observation data and parking studies. He showed statistical slides of similar projects located in Denver, demonstrating how the reduction in parking for these projects was adequate. Vice Chair Hart asked whether this data was evaluated in proximity to public transit; Planner Mounce confirmed that this was considered. He also showed statistics for specific projects, including Oakbrook I & Il, Innovage, Woodbridge, Rigden Farm, DMA Plaza, and Legacy Senior. Oakridge Crossing is primarily using Legacy Senior as a guideline for their parameters due to many similarities. He also discussed the amenities being offered to enhance mobility, including SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation), the Bike Share program, and Car Share (Zipcar), demonstrating the "equal to or better than" criteria for modifications. Modifications to section 2(D)(6), requiring access to a park, central feature, or gathering place: Planner Mounce summarized the sub -criteria, saying the visibility of on -site gathering spaces and the use of an off -site area that is located within a quarter mile would not be open to the public. Approval of one or both modifications is needed in order to comply with the LUC. He showed the site plan proposals for both modifications, and he discussed the indoor and outdoor recreational spaces being provided that meet policies, goals, and City Plan requirements. He described how access to Tract A of the Oakridge Business Park is currently being disputed by the Oakridge Business Park Association, since the original intent was more for drainage and detention purposes rather than a recreational amenity. Staff is not recommending approval of this modification due to access limitations and the possible creation of additional maintenance responsibilities. Staff is recommending: Approval of multi -parking requirement and the onsite gathering space Denial of off -site gathering space Approval of project Member Hansen asked about occupancy rates; Planner Mounce responded that most comparable senior housing developments are full and have waiting lists. Chair Kirkpatrick asked if this project would be on the edge of an urban area; Planner Mounce responded that this will be in a largely undeveloped area with no direct connections to businesses. Member Carpenter asked if there was spillover parking in the examples shown; Planner Mounce responded that approximately half of the examples shown had such parking available. For the record, Member Carpenter, Chair Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Hart, and Member Schneider disclosed their previous association with Mr. Smith, as they all served with him on a past P&Z Board; all stated they did not feel this previous association would cause any kind of bias. Public Input Chair Kirkpatrick directed that each member of the public would have 2 minutes to speak about this project, given the large public turnout. Guy Mendt, 460 Linden Center Drive, is in favor of this project and the proposed modifications, and he asked the Board to consider approving the modifications, enabling seniors to live independently with dignity. Rodd Rudolf, 6709 Hancock, is in favor of this project, stating that he is aware of the affordable housing shortage in Fort Collins, and he asked the Board to approve this project. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 3 building's apartment units Three modification of standard requests accompany the proposal; the first two modification requests concern Sections 4.26(D)(6)(b)(2) and 4.26(D)(6)(b)(3) of the Land Use Code, requiring public visibility and accessibility to areas meeting the project's requirements for a park, central feature or gathering space. These modifications request the use of on -site gathering space that not visible to the public and the use of an off -site private park or gathering space that is not open to the public. The third modification relates to Section 3.22(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code requesting a reduction in the number of required minimum vehicle parking spaces for the project's residential units. The 110 apartment units require 172 spaces and 80 are proposed. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mounce introduced the project, providing a brief overview. Arthur McDermott, representing the development company for this project, gave a brief history of the company. His company focuses on affordable housing, and he stated that they have been involved in approximately 3,000 similar developments along the Front Range. He showed slides of renderings of what the project would look like. He discussed the requirements that will exist for the seniors living at Oakridge Crossing, along with the demographics for the proposed residents. He stated that there is a need for this type of development here in Fort Collins, also citing the City's policy that affordable housing is a priority for residents. He discussed the changes to the plan that were made based on public input, including parking issues, adding a Zip car for resident mobility, etc. This project would also inject a financial stimulus of approximately $21 m into the community. Terrence Hoagland, Landscape and Land Planner, continued the presentation by showing slides of the project, highlighting the layout and the mixed -use aspect, which combines senior housing with retail, offices and other businesses, golf courses, and parks. He discussed the neighborhood outreach which has occurred and the subsequent alterations made based on public input. He discussed the building aspects: size, shape, and color. He talked about the plans for parking spaces for commercial and residential, including the parking modification application, adding that a Traffic Impact Study was performed. He spoke about water quality, the rain garden, patios, and the fencing along the east side. He discussed the amenities and the commercial portion of the building and how they meet the Fort Collins building code requirements. Andy Smith, Project Consultant, spoke about the modifications to standards for the parking space standard reduction, citing the rationale for this modification. He gave statistics for parking needs for senior housing and affordable housing, based on parking studies performed and the presence of a bike plan and ZIP car provisions. He concluded that this proposition adequately meets the LUC criteria. Oakridge Crossing is an infill property surrounded by lots, and he discussed both active and passive recreation planned while maintaining affordable housing standards. He briefly explained how this plan satisfies the requirement to meet City Plan, LUC, and Harmony Corridor plan standards, showing how the Urban Design elements have been developed based on these requirements. He discussed the plan for gathering spaces, buffered areas, entrance areas, and landscaping, with respect to the overall preference that seniors have for familiar, quiet open spaces. Planner Mounce provided an analysis of the project, including more information on the specifics of the modification requests: Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 2 Chair Kirkpatrick also explained to the audience the procedures that will be used for such a large group of citizens participating in public input. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, has a concern about the rezoning that occurs when a modification of standard is granted without a PDP application or any other development review application. He feels that those modifications that pertain to use by right, noting that land can be rezoned for use without any details of what the project will be. He suggested that an amendment to the Land Use Code (LUC) be considered as a result of his comments. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from June 9, 2016, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the July 14, 2016, Consent agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan, PDP160009 3. The Overlook PDP160011 4. Harmony 23 Modification of Standard Project: Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan, PDP160009 Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan for the construction of a mixed -use building on a vacant 2.6-acre site located at 4706 McMurry Avenue. The site is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district and within the boundaries of the Oakridge Business Park Overall Development Plan (ODP). Primary access to the site occurs using a shared driveway entrance located on the east side of McMurry Avenue near the intersection with Pleasant Oak Drive. Secondary access to the site may occur utilizing a shared driveway and parking area located at the northeastern corner of the site leading to Oakridge Drive and Innovation Drive. The proposed 3-story, 100,469 square foot building will contain 110 affordable multifamily units for seniors age 62 and older earning between 30% and 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The ground floor of the proposed structure contains 5,106 square feet of office space fronting McMurry Avenue, multifamily units, and indoor resident community space and a management office supporting the Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair Gerald Hart, Vice Chair Jennifer Carpenter Jeff Hansen Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing July 14, 2016 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs and Schneider Absent: Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Beck-Ferkiss, Burnett, Mapes, Beals, Mounce, Holland, Ragasa, Sexton, Hahn, Wilkinson, Everette, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.