Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAKEVIEW ON THE RISE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - PDP170014 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 9 modification complies with all applicable land use requirements as stated in the staff report regarding modifications of standard and their criteria. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve modification 3 to Lakeview on the Rise PDP#170014 regarding standard 4.5(D)(2) (mix of housing types), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, finding that the modification complies with all applicable land use requirements as stated in the staff report regarding modifications of standard and their criteria. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve modification 4 to Lakeview on the Rise PDP#170014 regarding standard 4.5(E)(4)(i) (maximum floor area), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, finding that the modification complies with all applicable land use requirements as stated in the staff report regarding modifications of standard and their criteria. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. Mr. Rogers agreed to the proposed conditions on the modifications. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve Lakeview on the Rise PDP#170014, with the condition that the developer comply with all LUC requirements with the exception of section 3.6.2(E) (streetscapes, alleys, and easements), for which the condition of approval was imposed, and based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Other Business Chair Schneider told the audience that the hearing will be posted online tomorrow, since there were some audio difficulties earlier in the hearing. Member Heinz asked for follow up comments on Mr. Sutherland's comments about the bike parking discrepancy and the status of City Plan. Regarding Member Heinz' request, Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that he would review Mr. Sutherland's statements, since the related case is currently under appeal. Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00pm. C eron loss, ning Director Jeff er, Chair Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 8 those, and he reiterated that the items in question were already presented in the staff packet. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested that the Board impose conditions on the modifications if needed. Member Heinz asked the significance of the building numbers; Mr. Rogers responded that this is the most efficient way to label the units (based on bedroom categories of units). She also asked if this particular site is not considered ideal for affordable housing; Planner Frickey responded that that was only in reference to the Land Bank properties. Mr. Rogers also added that the saturation of affordable housing in this area is still within the acceptable levels as enforced by HUD. Planner Frickey showed the Board the exact location of the Land Bank properties in proximity to the proposed project. Member Hobbs asked about the land use of the surrounding parcels; Planner Frickey described them saying the parcels to the north and east are both residential and are considered "legacy farm lots". Member Hobbs also asked about anticipating downstream compatibility of future projects; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe counseled the Board to consider only this project, rather than trying to anticipate future events. Member Rollins asked if modification 2 is necessary, based on the fact that the buildings will have differences in appearance; Planner Frickey responded that this would be a Board decision. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe reviewed the relevant portion of standard 3.8.30(F)(2) (variation among buildings) to remind the Board of the main points requiring similarity. Vice Chair Hansen explained what the modification is requesting, while it doesn't strictly meet the letter of the code; Planner Frickey explained the differences between buildings 12B and 12C: roof types and elevations, adding that he expected the differences to be minimal in keeping with the spirit of maintaining affordability. Mr. Shively stated that he is willing to modify the units to ensure more variability. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe advised the Board that that either a condition could be added or this project could be continued to a later date; City staff would then follow up with the developer to ensure any conditions are accomplished. Member Whitley stated that he understands the importance of the intent to keep such housing affordable; overall, he supports this project. Member Hobbs has a concern about traffic impacts, and he empathizes with citizens; he is in favor of requiring a cul-de-sac, so he does not support the first modification. In addition, Member Rollins does not support modification 1; she would prefer that a cul-de-sac is developed. She would like to see a condition put on modification 2, and she supports modification 3 and 4. Member Heinz supports the PDP overall, although she would like to have a condition on modification 2, and she supports 3 and 4. Vice Chair Hansen supports modification 1, modification 2 (with conditions), 3 and 4. Chair Schneider is also inclined toward requiring a cul-de-sac with consideration to emergency vehicles; he supports modification 2, 3, and 4. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny modification 1 to Lakeview on the Rise PDP#170014 (concerning streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, because it does not promote the general purpose equally well or better than a plan without this modification, citing non- compliance with LUC provision 3.6.2(E) (requiring that a temporary turn -around is provided at the terminus of streets); the Board finds that granting this modification could be detrimental to the public good. Member Rollins seconded. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested a friendly amendment to this motion: he added that this design could impair the intent of the LUC, that it would diverge in more than a nominal and inconsequential way, and that there are no physical constraints limiting the ability for that standard to be applied. Member Hobbs accepted this amendment to his original motion. Vote: 4:2, with Members Whitley and Hansen dissenting. Member Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve modification 2 of Lakeview on the Rise PDP#170014 (variation among buildings) to standard 3.8.30(F)(2), based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, on the condition that the applicant works with staff to develop unique character to the four buildings in question (6, 7, 8 and 9); this Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 7 Rebecca Everette, Environmental Planner, addressed the concerns about the lake and wetlands impacts, saying that a standard buffer of 50-100 feet would be applied, depending on the size. Since this is considered to be a concentration area, a buffer of 300 feet would be applied. An Ecological Character Study was performed to determine the proper buffer to adequately protect these resources. Other enhancements have been added to provide additional protection, such as an open rail fence. Regarding saturation of multiple affordable housing in this area, Mr. Rogers stated that there are several affordable housing developments and land parcels owned by the Land Bank that haven't been developed. He reminded the Board that the affordability of this project is different, because the rents target a higher income base rather than the lower incomes of many affordable housing projects. Planner Frickey clarified that mobile homes are not part of the affordable stock for meeting City goals. Planning Director Gloss also addressed the noise ordinance and restrictions, saying that Police Services is responsible for noise enforcement under the Nuisance Ordinance. Board Questions and Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Ms. Hahn why there was no level of service analysis for Stoney Brook or Debra Drive; Ms. Hahn confirmed that traffic distribution would not be applied at this time because those roads are not part of the neighborhood connections. When the affected parcels are considered for development, those streets and other infrastructure will be analyzed at that time. The developers will pay their proportional share of the costs to develop the intersection at College and Trilby. Member Heinz asked whether there could be additional curb cuts on College Avenue for better neighborhood access; Ms. Hahn responded that the access spacing requirements won't allow more curb cuts, and there would also have to be coordination with the State to obtain additional access points on College Avenue. Ms. Hahn clarified that, based on the proximity to Trilby and if traffic continues to grow, there would eventually be a right -in, right -out access point. She stated that Debra Drive is not a candidate for signalization. Member Rollins asked about traffic merging onto College Avenue and whether that curvature will reduce the speeds through the area; Ms. Hahn feels that the curve will be helpful in calming traffic speeds. Member Heinz asked if Stoney Brook could connect directly to College Avenue. Sheri Langenberger, Engineering Development Review, stated that College Avenue is still a State highway and there is an access control plan in place with access points already located along the roadway; there is a 3/4 access point at this location, so trying to move it south would create a conflict and other limitations. Member Hobbs asked about the size of Stoney Brook and Debra Lane (both designated as local streets) and whether either is undersized for proposed future volume. Ms. Langenberger explained that, when the driveways are factored in to the street flow, streets may not be adequate to handle traffic flow and parking. Both Stoney Brook and Debra Lane were originally built to standards at that time. Vice Chair Hansen asked how the 24-foot drive aisle relates to a typical street cross-section; Ms. Langenberger responded that this dimension is more generous than normal, providing a wider drive aisle. Member Rollins asked about the modification that includes the turn -around and why a cul-de-sac was not considered; Planner Frickey responded that this proposal functions like a turn -around and won't infringe on the natural habitat buffer zone. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether elevation variations were considered in trying to keep the buildings from being identical; Rick Shively, with PEDCOR, offered to make that modification, but he questioned whether architectural variations are required if the building footprints are different. Vice Chair Hansen restated his point, saying that he thinks some architectural features could be modified to achieve more variation, since massing and scale is almost identical on all buildings. Member Heinz asked if varying the roofline to achieve more variation/articulation would be possible; Mr. Shively explained that, because there are variations in building types, the necessary variations in roof lines and massing exist. Chair Schneider asked how these architectural features will be guaranteed to be included in the final plan; Planner Frickey suggested that a condition of approval for Planning 8 Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 6 Dennis Guenther, 216 Pitner Drive, has a concern with the potential traffic issues concerning Debra Drive, especially during peak usage times. He suggested that a stop light be installed along with widening Trilby. Arnie Schissler, 552 Coyote Trail Drive, supports affordable housing but thinks this particular area is already saturated, adding that she doesn't think a third -party developer should be able to develop this project here. She also has concerns about the current state of congestion in terms of safety. Edward Wranosky, 439 Bow Creek Lane, has a concern with the current saturation related to affordable housing. He also discussed the public transportation options and bicycle safety. Marilyn Anderson, 1026 Indian Trail Drive, has a concern with the higher levels of traffic and diminishing options for parking, also noting future plans to build a thoroughfare. Aubrey Otzenberger, 427 San Juan Drive, asked the Board not to make Stoney Brook Road a "through" street, saying she is afraid of the traffic impact on children in the neighborhood. She is also concerned about the impacts on the wetland habitat on the lake. Alison Hade, 2812 Dundee Court, is in favor of this project, saying that she appreciates the other PEDCOR projects that she has been involved with and how difficult it can be to find affordable housing. Danielle Vernelson, 421 Stoney Brook Road, is concerned with the saturation of low-income housing with respect to maintenance of property values and traffic impacts. She is interested in influencing the other similar projects that are slated for development in this area, specifically requesting that houses be built. Andy Smith, 2012 Sheffield Court, has been involved in affordable housing within Fort Collins and is in support of this project, especially in light of the housing crisis in the community. He supports the proposal, saying it will provide adequate parking, has lower density than is normally allowed, and the 3- bedroom configuration will create more family community. Scott Berg, 241 San Juan Drive, asked when Stoney Brook Road will be extended as a thoroughfare and what the process will be for questioning that extension. Applicant and Staff Response Planner Frickey addressed some citizen questions, explaining the Land Bank process and its original intent. This parcel does not meet all of the Land Bank criteria, so the City decided not to develop it; however, this parcel allows housing per the current zoning, and the fact that a developer is interested in building affordable housing is a bonus. Planner Frickey clarified that the City can no longer apply the Land Bank criteria to this development. He also discussed the street connection, which will result in more transportation options. Once the connected neighborhoods begin to develop, the City will provide public notice of this so that residents can meet and discuss the street connectivity. Eco District has not submitted a pre -application with the City of Fort Collins, so no analysis can be provided at this time. Nicole Hahn, Traffic Operations, spoke about the connectivity concerns, saying that there will be opportunities to discuss this with future developments. Regarding the traffic congestion, the City of Fort Collins has obtained a grant to improve that intersection, which will include more turn lanes. She stated that Traffic Operations will analyze the condition of streets to the north when future neighborhood connections are proposed. She described the bus routes to the adjacent elementary school, saying that there is a bus stop approximately '/4 mile away, so there is no current need to add another one. City policy is to add bus stops as needed. Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 5 community and will fill a real need in Fort Collins. PEDCOR is partnering with Housing Catalyst, and the project will be financed thru HUD221 D4 loans, which have stringent requirements. Based on the normal 98% occupancy rate, studies have proven a huge market need for this type of housing, including the need for housing developments offering larger, family -friendly units (3-bedroom units). Terence Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, discussed in detail the requested modifications and the related justifications. He described the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and communities, reiterating that the project meets the development standards and City codes. He reviewed the road connections, parking options, storage unit and garage space availability, bedroom configurations, bicycle parking availability, and traffic impacts. He also explained the reason for each modification request: • Mod 1 - Streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements; • Mod 2 - Variation among buildings; • Mod 3 - Mix of housing types; and • Mod 4 - Maximum floor area. He concluded by saying that granting these modifications will not be detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the code standards in a manner equal to or better than a compliant plan. Staff Analysis and Board Questions Planner Frickey gave a detailed presentation of this project, focusing on each modification and its compliance with standards, adding that this affordable housing project meets the definition of the LUC and the City's goal of 6% of overall housing stock being offered as "affordable". He stated that this project also meets the City requirement of having smaller homes, saying that using a strict interpretation of the standard could be detrimental to the City goals. He recommended approval of the project. Member Hobbs asked for clarification on when this site and surrounding neighborhoods were annexed into Fort Collins; Planner Frickey stated that this parcel was annexed in 1987, and the surrounding neighborhoods were also annexed sometime in the 1980s. Member Heinz asked if all units are "affordable"; Planner Frickey clarified that all units are "affordable' and the project would be deed - restricted for at least 20 years, depending on the financing. Member Rollins asked if this project exceeds the density limit for this zoning; Planner Frickey stated that this project properly meets the density requirements. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether modification 2 allows for building style and/or color variation; Planner Frickey responded that there is a separate LUC that governs color requirements (this standard deals only with the building footprint). Public Input (3 minutes per person) Christine Lesperance, 212 Gary Drive, is concerned with the current noise levels, saying that she has had noise testing performed and the current decibels, including traffic and housing, are above legal limits. She suggested that perhaps a barrier or additional traffic lights could be installed. Linda Silvy, 359 Stoney Brook Rd, is opposed to this project, saying she supports affordable housing but doesn't think this particular location makes sense. She cited the 2015 Land Bank Disposition study, which scored this site poorly in terms of zoning, transit, potential saturation, proximity to schools, and proximity to grocery stores. She also feels this site would not be livable, which would not contribute to quality of life for its residents. Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 4 Member Hobbs stated that, while the scale is important to consider, the detour is not significant if the trail is removed and shouldn't really create a connectivity issue. Member Heinz said she thinks that this concept is not functioning well, so perhaps it isn't necessary. Member Whitley is concerned with an unlit alleyway at night, but he is moved by the number of homeowners in favor of not having an alley. Vice Chair Hansen stated that he is not that concerned with the lack of connectivity, considering there is adequate access along sidewalks on Blocks 6 and 7. Member Rollins stated that, considering this situation from a future standpoint, she is in support of staff findings. Vice Chair Hansen agreed that there are no obvious safety concerns, and Member Heinz also stated that this is the only path that intersects the various housing types. Chair Schneider is also in agreement; while he doesn't see specific safety concerns, he understands the rationale to remove the sidewalk. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Timbervine Second Filing Minor Amendment MA170054, based upon compliance with the LUC 3.2.2(C)(6) (direct onsite access to pedestrian, bicycle and building destinations) and the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 5:1, with Member Rollins dissenting. Project: Lakeview on the Rise - PDP #170014 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct 180 multi -family units in a mix of one, two, and three bedroom configurations in 17 buildings. The proposed development will include 338 parking spaces. The development will also feature a community building, pool, and playground. This site is located in the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that 8 citizen emails have been received with concerns related to traffic safety, ecological impacts, density, zoning, and land use code. In addition, a Land Bank Property Disposition Study was also submitted. Another email was received containing 71 signatures of 65 different addresses in Pelican Ridge Subdivision (Pelican Ridge) who oppose the extension of Stoney Brook Rd. to the proposed Lakeview on the Rise (Lakeview) multi -family housing project; they are not opposed to the Lakeview project itself. They also submitted a map of applicable routes to illustrate their position. Finally, we received an email from the PEDCOR neighborhood that is opposed to the project and includes neighborhood meeting notes from March 24, 2016. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of the affordable project proposal, explaining the "affordable" qualities and criteria. The Board took a short recess at 6:57pm to allow some audio difficulties to be resolved. They reconvened at 7:1Opm. Ryan Rogers, developer for PEDCOR Investments, gave an overview of the project, including the history of his company as a developer of affordable, multi -family housing developments. He explained the difference between this particular type of affordable housing versus the low-income type. He showed pictures of similar development projects, and he discussed how the project will be financed (4% tax credits and tax-exempt bonds). Because 100% of the units are "affordable housing", there are no competitive state funds or federal tax credits available, and the required Area Median Income (AMI) will not be as low as some similar developments. He stated that this project be a huge benefit to the Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 3 Secretary Cosmas reported that an anonymous email was received from a citizen who is in favor of removing the fence and installing a public sidewalk for better access. In addition, a series of emails were received from Landon Hoover, President of Hartford Homes, all in support of removing the sidewalk (includes 14 residents, the HOA Master Assn Board, FR Development, Hartford Homes, and TimberVine Holdings, LLC). Staff and Applicant Presentations Senior Planner Wray gave a brief overview of the project, including a pictorial representation of the layout of the sidewalk networks, streets, and the connecting neighborhoods. Landon Hoover, with Hartford Homes, provided a more in-depth presentation, explaining the original intent of the connectivity of the pathways and the current safety concerns, including family usage and pedestrian access points that are inadequate for the area. He discussed similar conditions on the other side of the park, saying there has been overwhelming support from the community, all in support of removing that sidewalk. He asked the Board to consider the real risks and aesthetics of the walkway and to weigh that against the burden of additional travel distance to users. Member Whitley asked 0 an alley is not built, who owns the land; Mr. Hoover stated that the land is currently owned by the HOA, who has granted an easement to the homeowner who fenced and landscaped the area. Chair Schneider clarified that the land is still deeded to the HOA, meaning the easement transfers that right to use that space. Member Hobbs asked if the easement is a boundary between two landowners; Mr. Hoover responded that the property to the north has a use easement from the southern property to use the 5' of their lot as a sideyard. Member Rollins asked if there is a condition for a 10-foot-high fence along the path; Senior Planner Wray responded that this is part of the access easement with no additional fence. Member Hobbs asked the history of the planning process regarding the connectivity for this neighborhood; Senior Planner Wray explained how it evolved, adding how the connections were meant to provide an alternative to the off-street connections. The process includes several phases and amendments to the original plan. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Devin Ferrey, 125 S. Howes, representing FR Development, stated that he has received overwhelming feedback from homeowners agreeing that the pathway didn't make sense and is not aesthetically pleasing. Ray Henry, 386 Trappist Street, owns the lot in question. He stated that he fenced the area with the proper HOA approval, adding that the proposed path funnels people into an alley street that is unlit with close proximity to alleys and driveways. He explained the unsafe conditions, saying that he would like to have the pathway removed. Board Questions and Deliberation Member Rollins asked about the width of the sidewalks; Senior Planner Wray responded that this is a 5- foot sidewalk. He added that the access easement is 10 feet wide, and the pathway would be 5 feet wide. Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer, stated that, in general, crosswalks are not installed on local roads, adding that this alley would probably be used more often in the daytime; therefore, she doesn't recognize this as a major safety issue. Member Whitley asked if lighting is required for a walkway; Senior Planner Wray confirmed that lighting was not included in the plans. Vice Chair Hansen asked about the nature of the path in Block 6; Mr. Hoover responded that these are "front -loaded" homes that are not intended to create street -like frontage. This scenario also applies to Lots 6-10. Member Rollins asked why there was no connectivity required across the park; Senior Planner Wray could not recall the reason for this scenario during project review, adding that there is always an option of walking around on the street. Planning & Zoning Board July 20, 2017 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed his perception of the planning department and their development review procedures and court proceedings, saying there are systemic issues related to non- conformance to the Land Use Code (LUC) that should be addressed. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from June 15, 2017, P&Z Hearing 2. Interstate Land Holdings Annexation 3. Newton First and Second Annexation and Zoning 4. 112 W. Magnolia — Wells Fargo Parking Lot 5. Interim Sign Code Updates Public Input on Consent Agenda: Chair Schneider requested that Staff provide a process review for the P&Z Board at an upcoming work session. He also had a clarifying question about the Crowne at Old Town North project that was heard in June; Planning Director Gloss stated that this project was appealed, so City Council will make the final determination on this project. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the July 20, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised, including the Draft Minutes from June 15, 2017, P&Z Hearing, the Interstate Land Holdings Annexation, the Newton First and Second Annexation and Zoning, the 112 W. Magnolia — Wells Fargo Parking Lot, and the Interim Sign Code Updates. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. Timbervine Second Filing Minor Amendment 7. Lakeview on the Rise - PDP #170014 Project: Timbervine Second Filing Minor Amendment Project Description: This is a request for a Minor Amendment to vacate the access easement and remove the associated path in a portion of Tract H. A 10-foot-wide blanket utility easement and access easement is currently recorded on Tract H, between lots 8 and 9, Block 7. A 5-foot-wide pedestrian path is shown in this area with understory planting on either side of the walk, as part of the approved Timbervine Second Filing. The path terminates at the intersection of Trappist and Altbier Street, both 20- foot private drives. Recommendation: Denial Jeff Schneider, Chair Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Jennifer Carpenter Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins William Whitley 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 20, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider, and Whitley Absent: Carpenter Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Wray, Frickey, Overton, Kleer, Everette, Simpkins, Hahn, Uhlman, Andrews, Langenberger, Tatman-Burruss, Hendrick, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Schneider provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He 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.