Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON COMMONS PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... CONTINUED (SECOND) P & Z BOARD HEARING - 50-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 27 Member Mickelsen stressed that she would rather have four unrelated people in an apartment that is designed for that purpose with the appropriate parking for it, rather than in any neighborhood. Member Strom stated that the student population has proven to be the most supportive of transit and this is another opportunity to provide enough density in one location that makes transit work and that is why he thinks the four persons per unit is appropriate for a project that is designed for it. The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Walker voting in the negative. Member Strom commented on the Orchard Place connection and did not have strong feelings one way or the other, he thought there was a fair amount of porosity existing and whether it goes in or not, he did not think there would be a lot of additional traffic on Orchard Place. Member Colton asked how wide the existing path was compared to what was being proposed. Planner Ludwig replied it was comparable at 7 feet with grass on both sides of it and then the fences. It might be 10 feet total with grass. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Jefferson Commons PUD with the condition that Orchard Place is not cut through to the west and that the developer has the option of looking at their own transportation system to decide whether to cut Orchard through to the proposal or use Plum Street or neither one. Member Mickelsen recommended that the seven foot detached sidewalk must attach the two sides if Orchard Place is put through only for this development, that the existing bicyclelpedestrian porosity must be maintained to Taft Hill. Planner Ludwig asked for staff to reserve the right to have both Orchard and Plum connect into the site. Member Mickelsen agreed. Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. Member Strom stated he would support the motion, he thought that it was a good project. He did feel that by not putting Orchard Place through, the traffic burden would be concentrated and not spread out. The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Walker voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 26 detached bike/pedestrian path should be maintained through there. The character of that has already been established. He felt that maybe the neighborhood should maintain it's identity without the automobile porosity. He felt there was reasonable porosity getting to Elizabeth and Mulberry. Member Davidson asked about the bus route going up Ponderosa. Planner Ludwig replied that the Transfort Department has indicated that it is a possibility. Currently the bus route runs along West Elizabeth to Overland. They have indicated that a project geared toward student housing and with this many units, in the future, could possibly generate an additional route. Mr. Ludwig reported that Transfort is not interested in going through the parking lot, especially all the way to Orchard Place. Transfort is now re-evaluating coming in and making a U, and then making a left on Elizabeth. Transfort thought that that might be a satisfactory solution in the future. The bottom line is that the Transfort Department will determine their route. Member Davidson asked if Ponderosa is used where would the bus go after Ponderosa, through the extended Orchard? Gaylene Rossiter, Transfort Department replied that would be an option with Ponderosa to Orchard and back to Taft and then to CSU. Ms. Rossiter stated that ridership was being evaluated to determine if another route should be added. Ms. Rossiter stated some of Transfort's concerns regarding driving through the parking lot of this development. Ms. Rossiter felt a solution could be reached. Member Davidson thought the parking lot should be designed to accommodate the buses. Member Davidson asked about Plum Street and what the status of it was as far as dwellings, housing and density. Planner Ludwig replied that Plum Street to the east of the site is all Sunray Apartments. Member Davidson felt that would be more logical rather than impacting single family homes. Planner Ludwig replied that the key to the Transfort Route is that they hold their own neighborhood meetings regarding Transfort Routes being established. The decision is not being made tonight of where Transfort will go and will be done through future processes. Member Strom moved for approval of the variance for four persons per unit. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 25 Planner Ludwig responded that there will be enough park space. The regional park in this area is City Park, and there are also several neighborhood parks in the area. The Parks Department does feel there is adequate parks in this square mile. Member Bell asked if the Natural Resources Department feels that the wetlands and drainage were O.K. in the area. Planner Ludwig replied they did and there would be wetland enhancements along the channel as well as stormwater improvements to the same channel to mitigate existing problems. Member Bell asked how much right-of-way on the proposed extension of Orchard Place were for sidewalk and bike lanes. Planner Ludwig responded that with the Final P.U.D. review, the opportunity will be discussed for the potential for a 28 foot wide street in this area. The existing bike path currently runs along the extreme northern property line. With a 28 foot wide street, there would either be parking on one side or no on -street parking. By narrowing down the street width, it would allow for a detached bike/pedestrian lane on the north side of Orchard Place connected through. It would be about a 7 foot wide bike/pedestrian path. Essentially, with the exception of the additional traffic of it being a through street, the existing bike path would be moved 10 to 15 feet south of where it currently is. Planner Ludwig stated that the City has a policy that says we need porosity. We knew the neighborhood had concerns with Orchard Place connecting, staff tried to come up with an alternative that met both policy and the neighborhood's concern. From staffs perspective, the 28 foot street with a detached walk and separated green belt in between the curb and sidewalk was adequate. Member Strom asked to see the slide that shows the cross-section where the berm is located and how big it is. The applicants consultant addressed the cross-section and berm. He stated they would improve the fence line continuously on the west property line, and would place an 8 foot privacy fence. They would be approximately 5 foot from top of curb to top of berm. He discussed the landscaping of the berm and parking areas. Chairman Walker spoke on the porosity issue and that through the petitions, the overwhelming sentiment of the neighborhood is not to put Orchard through. Chairman Walker questioned whether this was a good idea to run Orchard Place through. He thought that if we were considering mitigation on this, he thought there should be some consideration as to what should be done with Orchard Place. He thought that a "very" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 24 Member Mickelsen asked what the result would be if there was only a connection for this project on Orchard Place and only make it a pedestrian/bike path to the west. Mr. Bracke replied there might be some benefit to that. Member Mickelsen asked if it would be a major benefit. Mr. Bracke replied minor. Member Mickelsen addressed the 4 unrelated persons in one unit. She felt it was better to get these kids out of the neighborhoods and into a development with ample parking rather than having kids parking cars on lawns. She felt it was a big difference having 4 unrelated people living in a house in a neighborhood rather than a multi -family complex like this. Member Davidson spoke on density and in looking at the 692 bedrooms and in translating that to unrelated people, it is 43 units per acre. If he looks at it from a car perspective, it would be 22 units per acre. He sees it as a lot higher density than it appears to be based upon our definition of units. Member Davidson felt it was an extreme transition on the west side of this development to the single family homes adjacent to it. He thought if they could mitigate that in a better way, he might be able to live with it. Member Davidson also thought that it would be more logical to have Plum Street going into this development. Member Davidson also commented that he would like to see CSU to take some responsibility for it's impact on the community once in a while instead of shuffling it off to everyone else. Member Davidson also agreed with Chairman Walker with respect to rebuilding of dorms on campus to more of a student housing/apartment concept. Member Gaveldon asked if there was anything in Advance Planning in the future with CSU? Planner Ludwig replied that over the past year, working relations between the City and CSU have improved greatly. There was a representative from CSU at the second neighborhood meeting. As far as CSU's plans, they are looking at opportunities in the future to do similar projects that are CSU student housing projects. Currently, the area they have suggested looking at was by the Holiday Inn, which is CSU owned property. However, as far as the City's regulation of CSU and what they do, the City does not have any say. What we were faced with is a private development proposal, which is requesting a land use on this property, and evaluating that, and not CSU's policies. Member Bell asked about the park situation and was there other parks that can accommodate what is going to be a huge amount of development once the length of Elizabeth gets developed out. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 23 She felt this was the issue on this project and put it on the table for discussion. Member Gaveldon felt that this was two separate issues, the bike trail and the preliminary PUD. Chairman Walker gave his observations, focusing on the issue of Orchard Place. He felt there was an issue of the appropriateness of this project for this site. Chairman Walker stated that what the LDGS suggests was that there are ways to mitigate between different land uses and there are a variety of techniques. Chairman Walker spoke on the mitigation of high density into an established neighborhood and buffering. He spoke on other high density projects. He questioned the validity of this site and felt a more transitional type of density should be put on this property. Chairman Walker thought that CSU has issues with dorms not suitable for student occupation and thought that this type of housing is a good solution and is what students want. His thought was that if this type of housing was close to campus, put it on campus and do it in a public/private way that it would work. He had problems with imposing this type of thing on this neighborhood. Member Strom did not feel that this housing was a moderate density, not high density, and if effectively buffered and has adequate setbacks would fit into this neighborhood. Member Colton asked what the impact would be if Orchard Place was not put through. Member Colton agreed that this was a high -density development. Planner Ludwig clarified the density being 12 dwelling units an acre with 4-bedroom units. Member Colton was astounded that CSU and the students can say they don't like living in the dorms and that it is the private sectors problem to solve it. Member Strom stated that part of the problem was that we don't have any control over what CSU does. Whether or not CSU is in favor or opposed to this sort of development, they apparently are not going to do anything about it themselves, so the community is left dealing with the students and how to house them and do it in such a way that it doesn't adversely impact the other demands we have in the community for affordable housing. Eric Bracke, Transportation Planner addressed the issue of Orchard Place. He heard comments tonight about all the traffic that would be on Orchard, even though it functions as a collector, it still will carry volumes that are well within residential standards. Mr. Bracke stated that the level of service at Taft and Elizabeth would improve with Orchard going through to relieve the impacts on the neighborhood. From a traffic engineering and transportation planning perspective, the connection makes sense. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 22 Erin Sprigs, lives in the Skyline Mobile Home Park stated his concerns about the project. He did not think Orchard Place should be opened to the west. He also was concerned with the bike path destruction. He also stated that the comments made about this project being within 1 mile of walking distance to CSU. He would give $100 if anyone sees a single student walk besides himself. Jason Rested, commented that in favor of the Orchard Place connection, there was some justification that was made based on community complaints requesting more east/west access. If the Board would notice there was not anyone there requesting east/west access. The Orchard Place connection would not meet the general criteria of adding porosity. There are no through or general destinations to the east of Taft Hill for the'/ mile between Elizabeth and Mulberry with the sole exception of Moore School. He stated it was quite clear that the Orchard Place connection should not be approved. Steve Slezak, resident of Fort Collins stated that this proposal was good for Fort Collins, and meets the goals and objectives of the City. He reported that the City has stated in it's Visions and Goals 2015 that the community will have compact land use patterns, that it shall promote maximum utilization of spaces and land within the City boundaries, that it shall promote alternative transportation and stabilize travel behavior, and will promote residential development next to employment, recreational and shopping centers. Mr. Slezak stated that this proposal focused on CSU student housing, and meets all these objectives, as has been pointed out earlier. Mr. Slezak reported statistics regarding the amount of money CSU contributes to the local economy and remains one of the City's largest employers. Mr. Slezak talked about CSU enrollment. Mr. Slezak spoke about affordable housing for students and that CSU will leave housing up to private development and that CSU will grow with or without the City's blessing. Mr. Slezak commented on the developer, JPI, and that they are a class act and they own, operate and take pride in their projects. He felt that we would do well as a City to welcome JPI as a land owner and operator in this community. He encouraged the Board to consider this proposal. Cindy Stansfield, representing her parents who live on Orchard Place east of Taft Hill Road. Ms. Stansfield stated her parents were concerned with the amount of traffic that will be increasing in this area. She stated she read in the paper that there is projected to be an 8 to 10% vacancy rate and was unclear about other figures she was hearing tonight. She referenced the Villas at Orchard Place and that it is now in receivership and that the shells of buildings there have been abandoned. Ms Stansfield has a concern of overbuilding, and felt the Board should really look to see if this project is necessary. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Mickelsen asked if the Board would like to consider this project with an enhanced bicycle/pedestrian path or put Orchard Place through with a 7 foot sidewalk. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 21 new urbanism that she had read. Ms. Yerbic asked the Board to consider the abandonment of the Orchard Place extension in favor of bike path improvements. Betty Maloney, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force commented that more student housing has been needed for many years because of the University's policy of not providing housing for students above the freshman class. There are some 20,000 students competing on the open market every year for affordable housing. She felt the location of this student housing because it was just about a mile to the western edge of campus, could be easily walked or bicycled. The Task Force firmly believes that this project will meet a need in the housing continuum. The Task Force feels that the success of the project will depend on the degree of supervision that the renters will be subject to. On -site managers must be included in the project to assure the community that the development will be a good neighbor in the community. It is desirable that maintenance and upkeep be scrupulously attended to, that there be no trash and litter on the grounds and that there be standards for noise. With the right management this project will be turned into a desirable piece of our housing market and serve a niche where housing is needed. Jonathan Howe, lives in the neighborhood and is opposed to the development. He felt that the proposed development is not isolated, and there is numerous developments proposed for the area. He felt the project should be scaled back and consider the other developments proposed for the area. He felt the impact on his neighborhood was significant for high density development. Mr. Howe spoke on traffic in the area, and the extension of Orchard Place. He also did not feel that CSU should dictate the quality and the type of neighborhood that they choose to live in. Just because CSU is growing, why should his life be impacted negatively. He respects the University, he is a student there, but this is a University problem. Mr. Howe spoke on the appearance of the project and how incompatible it is with the neighborhood. Mr. Howe felt this development and the fact that King Soopers is the only shopping available in the area would only encourage more people to get in their car and drive to an already congested shopping center. Mr. Howe also felt that Rogers Park, the only park in the area is massively overused. Mr. Howe felt the developers were only trying to fulfill a need that the University had and was not concerned with the people already living in the area. He asked the Board to take into consideration the people who already live there and to preserve their neighborhood. Josh Rested, lives on Myrtle Court reported that he has walked with his sisters to school ever since they moved here in third grade. He feels that this is a safe place to walk and he wanted to make sure since he is going to junior high that they still have a safe place to walk. He thought that if the bike trail becomes a street, it would be a lot harder to ride his bike and with it just being a sidewalk kids would be getting in the way. He knows a lot of little kids who can't ride their bike very well and it would be hard for them to ride on the street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 20 4. This is a neighborhood that the West Central Neighborhood would consider as an area to be conserved. It is a viable neighborhood, not just a street that can be turned into a highway. Ms. Yerbic also presented the statement from Moore School in regards to the safety of the children. The copy the Board received in their packets was not signed, and she presented a signed copy. Ms. Yerbic stated she was speaking for her family and many members of their neighborhood. Ms. Yerbic presented a petition from the neighborhood stating that they would like to keep the bike path. Ms. Yerbic stated that they are from the Orchard Place and Ponderosa area, west of the development site. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the bike path and that she appreciates it's function so much, that she overlooked it's beauty. It needs improvement and the neighborhood had just spent an afternoon cleaning it up. Ms. Yerbic showed slides of the activity on their bike path, and their efforts to clean up their path. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the users of the bike path being school children (134 children in their area that are not eligible for busing), crossing Taft Hill Road and the childrens safety. Ms. Yerbic addressed the staffs recommendations, she mentioned page 9, number A. She spoke on porosity and felt this development was not planned with those considerations in mind. She felt that putting one outlet through the neighborhood would not create porosity. There needs to be several outlets to achieve porosity. Ms. Yerbic stated that this connection was not on the Master Street Plan and is not an adopted policy and did not think there would be major hoops to jump through to abandon the issue. Ms. Yerbic discussed bicycle and pedestrian porosity in their neighborhood. Ms. Yerbic spoke on traffic level of services in the area, stop sign signalization in the area, turning their bike path into a sidewalk, on -street parking, and no separate bike path, and children maneuvering in traffic on their bikes. Ms. Yerbic spoke on Transfort and felt that opening Orchard Place so Transfort could make a loop did not make any sense to her. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the other developments in the area and along West Elizabeth Street to Overland Trail. She stated that most of the traffic will affect West Elizabeth and there are improvements to West Elizabeth being planned with those developments and that the Orchard Place connection is only for the neighborhood. She did not feel that the nearby arterials will be affected if the connection is not made. Ms. Yerbic presented a petition from the neighborhood asking that Orchard Place not be put through. Ms. Yerbic quoted some Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 19 plan and open space, staff on -site, amenities on -site, buffering, drainage improvements in the area, bike and pedestrian paths, requested variance, and letters of support from existing surrounding businesses. Mr. March stated that the developer was willing to put in Orchard Place if this Board determines Orchard Place should be put in. The developer is also willing to put in the bike trail in the area where it currently exists. This project, regardless, will have a connection to Orchard and to Plum if the Board directs. The developer is willing to either complete the bike trail or complete the street. If the bike trail is put in, there will still be a connection to Orchard. There is a letter from Matt Delich to the Board that indicates that Elizabeth Street, if the connection is made, will operate at the Elizabeth and Taft intersection at a level of service C, as opposed to a level D. Mr. March stated that at this time the path is an amenity for the neighborhood, in that the neighborhood uses the path to access the area services and also for students to access Moore Elementary School safely. There is a crossing light that currently allows students to cross Taft Hill who are getting to Moore, and there are two or three crossing guards there to assist the students. Mr. March stated that the City felt that the construction and completion of Orchard is important, based upon the need to provide additional outlets for the neighborhood. Again, their project is not going to have any reason to go up into the neighborhood, therefore, the developer does not feel that the connection of Orchard is something that benefits them. The developer, according to the Board's direction will take either course of action. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Gail Yerbic, neighborhood representative, read a statement for Gail McKee, member of the West Central Neighborhood Coalilition: The impacts of building a connection on Orchard: 1. Traffic: The intensity of use that would come from this development and be directed within feet of an elementary school, college come and go more frequently than most families. 2. Splitting the neighborhood: This is a self-contained area with many single family homes and lots of kids. Making Orchard a thru street that would carry a lot of auto and bus traffic would put our children at risk. Do you want another situation like West Lake, will it take another child losing their life to listen to the neighborhood. 3. Elizabeth and Mulberry are already arterials, do we really need another arterial in this area. Safety of all neighborhood children to bike, walk, or skate to school is not being considered. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 18 Chairman Walker asked if Orchard place west of this site was built to collector standard. Planner Ludwig replied that Orchard Place was a local street. Chairman Walker asked if by connecting Orchard Place through, would it make it a collector street. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services replied it does function as a collector street currently. It is not built to a collector, but was designed to function as a collector. Chairman Walker asked if there were any other collector streets within this area between Mulberry and Elizabeth, Taft and Overland. Mr. Bracke replied that they were all built to local standards. Chairman Walker asked what the rationale was from the City's point of view to connect Orchard Place. Mr. Bracke replied that there is no east/west connections for this neighborhood. The connection has always been planned for Orchard and Plum Streets. Staff believes that through the analysis we could live with one of them, and Orchard is better because of the distance between the Elizabeth and Taft Hill intersection. Mr. Bracke stated that this project needs the access. Right now they have a north/south access and there are problems associated with those, and without the access points to the east and west, the problems exist for the neighborhood. This connection is not necessarily contingent upon this particular development or to mitigate the impacts of this development to help the neighborhood with access. Member Gaveldon asked about the Plum access, and if there is no Orchard access and Plum goes through, what would be the downside and upside. Mr. Bracke replied it would be more difficult to make a turn out of Plum Street because of the distance to the intersection. Member Gaveldon asked to see the slide of the backside of the project. Brad March, March and Myatt, representing JPI, Texas Development, gave the applicants presentation. Mr. March gave a brief introduction of JPI, and their operations with multi -family and student housing projects. Mr. March spoke on the process the project has been through with neighborhood and revisions that were made. Mr. March reviewed the existing bike path, Transfort routes, shopping in the area, points scored on the point chart, the need for student housing, affordable housing, traffic in the neighborhoods, number of units and bedrooms in the project, description of the site Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 17 Member Bell asked about the south elevation and what could be done to accommodate it better. Ms. Ripley replied that the first time the neighborhood saw it, there was nothing back there but brick. Since they have added dormers to the building, columns have been added for articulation, and there maybe some signage back there to provide some visual interest. They are the back of retail buildings and not an appropriate place for windows or entrances. There will be doors back there, but they will be back doors. Ms. Ripley presented the building materials to the Board. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Prospect Park PUD - Final, with the standard condition from staff, including the updated condition of approval from the City Forester. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Davidson asked for an amendment to insure that all crosswalks are scribbed concrete including the south side and all entrances. Members Mickelsen and Colton agreed to the amendment. Member Colton also added a condition that the Austrian Pine trees be increased to 7 and 8's on the south side of the buildings. Member Mickelsen agreed to the condition. The motion was approved 6-0. JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY. #50-95. Member Strom joined the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report and presented slides, recommending approval including a variance to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120 - 4br units and approval of the Preliminary P.U.D including the completion of Orchard Place through the site. Member Gaveldon asked what the vacancy rate was on the CSU campus. Planner Ludwig responded he did not know. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 8 1996 CONTINUATION MEETING FOR MARCH25,:1996 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Lloyd Walker Phone: 491-6172 (W) 221-Mg(H) There was no Vice Chair elect at this hearing. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bell, Davidson, Gaveldon, Mickelsen, Walker. Member Strom arrived at 10:36 p.m. Staff Present: Ludwig, Ashbeck, Olt, Shepard, Wamhoff, Duvall, Blanchard, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director Blanchard reviewed the continued Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. #1-96 BMC West PUD - Preliminary and Final 2. #2-96 University Centre PUD (University Mall) - Preliminary 3. #21-95A Prospect Park PUD - Final 4. #50-95 Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary 5. #7-95 Country Club Farms Rezoning " � � "G a ►'i � �' '• Mike Ludwig gave a staff presentation on the project, recommending approval with the standard development agreement and final utility plan condition. Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates, representing BMC West gave a brief history of the project and believed they had satisfied all 32 development criteria. Ms. Ripley stated the issues to her are vague and asked for questions to be asked so she could address them. Member Davidson asked about the Prospect Streetscape Program, and he felt this property fell within that area, Roman Numeral 11-1; and, that the business park style should apply to all development improvements within the developed urban district from Riverside Avenue to the Cache La Poudre River. He also referenced Appendix A.1 and the statement regarding streetscapes. Member Davidson stated that he did not feel the mandatory standards were being applied to this site.