Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSU PARKING LOT - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - SPA150002 - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES PROJECT: CSU Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review DATE: April 1, 2015 APPLICANT: Colorado State University CITY PLANNER: Jason Holland The meeting began with Jason Holland providing an explanation of the Site Plan Advisory Review Process, next steps in the review, and an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules. Fred Haberecht, Assistant Director of Landscape and Planning for Colorado State University, explained that overall, CSU is losing about 2,000 parking spaces to accommodate various campus improvements. Background information was presented for the overall campus master plan as well as the details for the parking lot concept site and landscape plan. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Question: (Citizen) With new campus construction, can parking be put under the buildings or in parking garages? Response: (CSU) CSU acknowledged that this would be a more efficient use of space, but due to ground water typically present at 12 feet below surface elevations, and the high cost of underground parking (typically $30,000 per parking space underground and $15,000 per parking space in structured parking), the surface spaces proposed are the most feasible option. 2. Question: (Citizen) The American Lung Association has given Fort Collins an “F” air quality rating. How is the project addressing air quality? Will there be an air monitor device placed at the site? Response: (CSU) CSU explained that that the parking provided is intended to replace parking lost on campus, due to CSU losing +/-2000 parking spaces with future campus improvements, and that the net trips would be equal. They also responded that they don’t have plans to add an air monitor device to the site, and that the closest air monitor they were aware of is on the main campus. 3. Question: (Citizen) I’m still concerned with air quality impacts in the immediate vicinity of the site. Response: (CSU) The general response was acknowledgement of the concern and that there is a desire by CSU to shift to alternative modes of transportation. 4. Question: (Citizen) What is being done with the landscaping? Will there be soft surfaces, other surfaces other than asphalt? 1 Response: (CSU) Mr. Haberecht explained that the City’s low impact development standards (LID) will be incorporated using bioswale enhancements in the parking lot islands and buffer space along Research and Centre. Costs were discussed as a concern with providing an all-concrete parking lot or pavers, but the project will be recycling asphalt from other places on campus and rolling it into a new surface at the site. 5. Question: (Citizen) Isn’t there construction equipment on the site now, what is happening with that? Response: (CSU) This will be shifted south closer to Drake Road. 6. Question: (Citizen) Will the existing trees along Centre and Research stay? Response: (CSU) Some cottonwoods and russian olives will be removed but the main line of trees will remain. 7. Question: (Citizen) Concern was expressed with overuse of on-street parking on Research Blvd. and cars parked in close proximity to the entrance drives along the west side of Research. Response: (City) City staff agreed to look into this concern and discuss it with other city departments. Additional options such as marking the drive entrance curbs with red paint were discussed. 8. Question: (Citizen) Will there be lighting spillover, what will the lighting look like? Response: (CSU) 30 foot pole-mounted lights will be used. This will be the first CSU parking to use LED lights. We will provide a lighting plan to the city. There was a general discussion of CSU lighting standards and that the parking lights will be full cut- off and with an overall lighting level that is less than what is required by city standards 9. Question: (Citizen) What is the timing of the project? Response: (CSU) Fall 2015. 10. Question: (Citizen) Asphalt vs. concrete? Light colored asphalt? Response: (CSU) Costs are a concern. 11. Question: (Citizen) What is the frequency of the bus routes? Concerned was expressed about an increase in bus traffic funneling through Centre Avenue. Response: (CSU) Two existing bus routes on 30 minute routes, overlapping with a bus available every 15 minutes. 12. Question: (Citizen) What will the traffic impact be for the Meadowlark neighborhood? We already have a difficult time with traffic backing up on Meadowlark. The timing of the traffic lights should be looked at. Response: (CSU) The traffic study is showing the flow coming from the arterials. Response: (City) I can talk with traffic operations staff about evaluating the timing. 2 13. Question: (Citizen) Will there still be parking available for the tennis courts? Response: (CSU) Parking spaces will be incorporated into the lot for the tennis courts and the spaces would be open to the public and metered. The number of metered spaces will be based on demand. 14. Question: (Citizen) Security cameras? Response: (CSU) Unsure at this time. There was a general discussion about new phone applications that can tell students what parking lots are open. 15. Question: (Citizen) Will there be a traffic light at Drake/Centre? Response: (CSU) Not likely. 16. Comment: (Citizen) Concern was expressed about added traffic on Research. Response: (CSU) We think the four access points help and the added access to Gillette Drive will help distribute traffic. Response: (City) Jason offered to post the traffic study online with the hearing documents. With no more questions, the meeting adjourned and there were informal discussions in various groups. 3