Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2014-07-09City Council Site Visit Pending Appeal of Legacy Senior Residences PDP and Modifications of Standards August 6, 2012 3:30 p.m. Meeting Point: 411 Linden Street Important Note and Reminder: The purpose of the site visit is for the City Council to view the site and to ask related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site conditions. There will be no opportunity during the site visit for the applicant, appellants, or members of the public to speak, ask questions, respond to questions, or otherwise provide input or information, either orally or in writing. Other than a brief staff overview and staff responses to questions, all discussions and follow up questions or comments must be deferred and provided as part of the hearing on the subject appeal to be held on Tuesday, August 21 st. 0 pp (� S� _k 3 } Z Uw a— � vim J.- a410 -i- .� co tJ 3 ®i 6 F I I A m a c i A I— I � b 8 � s a c Y Epp Y $ �a� yyx fill F The District at Campus West City Council Site Inspection July 10, 2012 Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site of the proposed multi- family development referred to as The District at Campus West Project Development Plan in conjunction with two appeals of the Hearing Officer's decision. City Council is scheduled to consider the appeals at their July 17, 2012 meeting. City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson Councilmember Ben Manvel Councilmember Wade Troxell City Staff Present: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Laurie Kadrich, C.D.N.S. Director Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The site inspection began at 3:30 p.m. along West Plum Street near the intersection of City Park Avenue. Staff pointed out that there will be three buildings aligned along Plum Street between City Park Avenue on the west and Aster Street on the east. Buildings are number sequentially from west to east. The site presently contains 16 one-story houses served, from west to east, by Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster Streets. All sixteen houses would be demolished. Two streets, Daisy and Columbine, would be vacated. Plum Street would be widened and continue to feature on -street bike lanes. The existing attached curb and gutter would be replaced by a parkway with street trees and a detached sidewalk that is wider than what is required. A westbound bus pull -in lane would be provided for Transfort. Building One is a long rectangular building which would be five stories in height along the south then taper down to four stories along the north. This lowering is intended to minimize shadowing to the north. This building contains a one-story component along Plum which includes the pool, clubhouse, leasing office and fitness center. Building One would require the vacation of Daisy Street. Building Two would include the five -level parking garage and would be include apartments facing Plum Street. Access to the garage would be from a private drive, not from Plum Street. This building would require the vacation of Columbine Street. Bluebell Street would divide Buildings Two and Three. Building Three would be five stories in height. Aster Street forms the eastern boundary of the project. Councilmembers walked the site from west to east along Plum Street and then walked north along Bluebell Street to the north property line. The tour then turned west and walked through the Sunstone Village parking lot located between The District's north property line and the existing Sunstone Village condominiums. A Councilmember asked what was the zoning on the site and how long has this zoning been in place? Staff answered that the zoning is C-C, Community Commercial and has been in place since the adoption of City Plan in March of 1997. A Councilmember asked about the status of the existing trees. Staff replied that the existing trees have been inspected and evaluated by the City Forester and a mitigation schedule has been made a part of the Landscape Plan. Nuisance trees such as Siberian Elm and Russian Olive do not have a mitigation factor. A Councilmember asked, approximately, how many trees will be replaced. Staff stated that about 120 trees will be removed and replaced by about 128 new trees. A Councilmember asked if the healthy shade tree at the immediate corner of Plum and Bluebell would remain and the answer was yes. A question was asked on which side of the shared property line between The District and the condos is the existing fence. In reply, the fence is north of the shared property line. Will the developer be building a new fence? Yes. Would there be an opening in the fence for pedestrians? Yes. What would the fence look like? It would be six feet high, solid and constructed out of metal pickets for durability. A question was asked if a traffic study had been done for the project. In reply, a Transportation Impact Study was submitted by the developer's consultant and evaluated by the City's traffic engineer and the project is feasible from a traffic 2 engineering standpoint. A significant number of trips are captured by alternative modes due to proximity to campus. Regarding the number of parking spaces, is there a sufficient amount of parking? Staff responded that the project provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces both of which exceed minimum requirements which are not applicable since the project is located within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay zone. Would the new buildings be L.E.E.D. certified? Staff does not know the answer at this time. But would the new buildings be subject to the City's new Green Energy Code? Yes. In general, are there any environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of this site? Staff replied that there are no environmental impacts. Were any Modifications of Standard granted by the Hearing Officer? Staff responded that a Modification to the minimum required setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted. The result of the Modification was that all three buildings would be uniformly aligned in relation to Plum Street. This is because Buildings One and Two are mixed -use buildings and subject to the build -to line requirement in contrast with Building Three which is not mixed -use and subject to the minimum setback requirement. Aligning all three buildings in a consistent manner along Plum Street was determined to be equal to or better than having Building Three set further back than Buildings One and Two. In general, what the issues related to the two appeals? Broadly speaking, the issues on appeal pertain to shadowing and building compatibility. The tour concluded at about 4:00 p.m. back at the point of beginning after a circumnavigation of the site. Paul: On behalf of the Developer, we have reviewed the Linden Street Streetscape Design Developer Splits provided by Andrew Gingerich in Engineering Development Review. Andrew is proposing that the Developer commit to reimburse the City at total of $56,893.33, which is the total of the developer split for the three (3) properties adjacent to Linden Street within the Legacy Senior Residences project. We have a number of questions/comments regarding the spreadsheet: The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs and Misc. Project Costs per the spreadsheet ($264/LF) far exceeds the estimated cost per linear foot charged to the developer of 351 Linden Street pursuant to its Development Agreement dated August 26, 2006. That developer was charged $90.30/1-F for a total of $13,545, when its responsibility according to the worksheet would have been $$29,368.49 for construction costs and an additional $11,211.21for Misc. Project Costs. The project at 351 Linden was completed prior to the improvements on Linden Street. This means it the fee was calculated on an estimate, not actual project costs. Also, this project completed its own sidewalk and road widening, so the fee was only based on the remaining Local Street Improvements. 2. The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs per the spreadsheet, even without the Misc. Project Costs, also far exceeds the range quoted to the Downtown Development Authority ($100-150/LF) at a meeting with Rick Richter and Kathleen Bracke on August 23, 2007. This was a meeting over 5 years ago before the project was constructed or designed, so actual project costs were not known. 3. The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs per the spreadsheet also exceeds the estimate of $140/1-F prepared for another current Linden Street project (Block One). The cost submitted to the DDA by Block One was $30,133 for approx. 215 LF for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards portion of the development. The Block One project has not been submitted. We are not sure where the number $30,133 came from, but our spreadsheet shows the repay for Block One to be approximately $49,000. Block One is a different situation because the developer will need to build parts of the Local Street that were not included in the Linden Street Project including sidewalk and curb and gutter. 4. It is very difficult to determine why the various line items are allocated at different rates or percentages between the public funding sources (City/DDA/CDOT) and the developers. In general, the costs for the project are divided among the Public funding sources and the developer portions. The developer portion is the fraction of the roadway that constitutes a Local Street frontage. The developer portion is then split among all the properties in proportion to their street frontages. Certain items (like driveways and removals) are specific to certain properties. 5. For some line items, the total cost is first allocated to the City/DDA/CDOT but then the total cost is also split among the adjacent properties (e.g. sod and 3" caliper deciduous trees). Sod and trees are 100% developer costs since they are required in the Local Street section. These costs should not be allocated to the Public funding sources. 6. The unit price for some items seem too high (e.g. 6" concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, 3/ inch backflow preventer and 3/ inch water meter). These costs are actual bid prices from the Linden Street Project. 7. The developers are being allocated more than the total cost of at least one item, while the City/DDA/CDOT is being given a credit (e.g. reconditioning). After considering it, we agree that it does not make sense to allocate the reconditioning item to the developers in this case. We will make this adjustment. 8. The Total Cost column does not add up to the figure provided as the total. The developers are charged only for the Local Street Section. This includes 4.5' of sidewalk, a grass parkway and trees. The Linden Street Project built an enhanced design that is not eligible to be repaid from developers. Therefore, the developer repay is based on the bid prices and the standard elements of a Local Street. However, since this section is not what was actually built, the spreadsheet is not "whole." 9. The Total Costs (either the amount provided in the spreadsheet or the amount we come up), less the total of the City/DDA/CDOT funding column does not equal the amount remaining for Developer Funding. See answer above. 10. The Misc. Project Cost for design ($412,575.12) appears to be attributable to the design of the enhanced streetscape. Why is any portion of this being assigned to the adjacent properties whose responsibility is limited to the standard local street portion? The design costs are allocated in proportion to the actual items charged to each property. Since these base charges do not include any of the enhancements, the design costs are not included either. DDA staff wants to be involved in the resolution of this issue since the DDA funded a portion of the Linden Street Streetscape Improvements through an IGA with the City and they want to ensure that this and other Linden Street repays are accurate, fair and do not operate as a disincentive to development in this critical redevelopment area. This will probably take a meeting involving representatives of the Developer, the City and the DDA. However, since we are very close to finalizing the development agreement and other development documents, it's important that we not delay that effort while the repay issue is being resolved as that could threaten the financing for the project. I would like to talk by phone with you and/or Carrie sometime today to discuss options to deal with the repay issue without jeopardizing the project. Please let me know when you would be available. Lucia A. Liley Paul: On behalf of the Developer, we have reviewed the Linden Street Streetscape Design Developer Splits provided by Andrew Gingerich in Engineering Development Review. Andrew is proposing that the Developer commit to reimburse the City at total of $56,893.33, which is the total of the developer split for the three (3) properties adjacent to Linden Street within the Legacy Senior Residences project. We have a number of questions/comments regarding the spreadsheet: The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs and Misc. Project Costs per the spreadsheet ($264/LF) far exceeds the estimated cost per linear foot charged to the developer of 351 Linden Street pursuant to its Development Agreement dated August 26, 2006. That developer was charged $90.30/LF for a total of $13,545, when its responsibility according to the worksheet would have been $$29,368.49 for construction costs and an additional $11,211.21for Misc. Project Costs. The project at 351 Linden was completed prior to the improvements on Linden Street. This means it the fee was calculated on an estimate, not actual project costs. Also, this project completed its own sidewalk and road widening, so the fee was only based on the remaining Local Street Improvements. 2. The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs per the spreadsheet, even without the Misc. Project Costs, also far exceeds the range quoted to the Downtown Development Authority ($100-150/LF) at a meeting with Rick Richter and Kathleen Bracke on August 23, 2007. This was a meeting over 5 years ago before the project was constructed or designed, so actual project costs were not known. 3. The cost per linear foot for the local street portion of the construction costs per the spreadsheet also exceeds the estimate of $140/LF prepared for another current Linden Street project (Block One). The cost submitted to the DDA by Block One was $30,133 for approx. 215 LF for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards portion of the development. The Block One project has not been submitted. We are not sure where the number $30,133 came from, but our spreadsheet shows the repay for Block One to be approximately $49,000. Block One is a different situation because the developer will need to build parts of the Local Street that were not included in the Linden Street Project including sidewalk and curb and gutter. 4. It is very difficult to determine why the various line items are allocated at different rates or percentages between the public funding sources (City/DDA/CDOT) and the developers. In general, the costs for the project are divided among the Public funding sources and the developer portions. The developer portion is the fraction of the roadway that constitutes a Local Street frontage. The developer portion is then split among all the properties in proportion to their street frontages. Certain items (like driveways and removals) are specific to certain properties. 5. For some line items, the total cost is first allocated to the City/DDA/CDOT but then the total cost is also split among the adjacent properties (e.g. sod and 3" caliper deciduous trees). Sod and trees are 100% developer costs since they are required in the Local Street section. These costs should not be allocated to the Public funding sources. 6. The unit price for some items seem too high (e.g. 6" concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, 3/ inch backflow preventer and % inch water meter). These costs are actual bid prices from the Linden Street Project. 7. The developers are being allocated more than the total cost of at least one item, while the City/DDA/CDOT is being given a credit (e.g. reconditioning). After considering it, we agree that it does not make sense to allocate the reconditioning item to the developers in this case. We will make this adjustment. 8. The Total Cost column does not add up to the figure provided as the total. The developers are charged only for the Local Street Section. This includes 4.5' of sidewalk, a grass parkway and trees. The Linden Street Project built an enhanced design that is not eligible to be repaid from developers. Therefore, the developer repay is based on the bid prices and the standard elements of a Local Street. However, since this section is not what was actually built, the spreadsheet is not "whole." 9. The Total Costs (either the amount provided in the spreadsheet or the amount we come up), less the total of the City/DDA/CDOT funding column does not equal the amount remaining for Developer Funding. See answer above. 10. The Misc. Project Cost for design ($412,575.12) appears to be attributable to the design of the enhanced streetscape. Why is any portion of this being assigned to the adjacent properties whose responsibility is limited to the standard local street portion? The design costs are allocated in proportion to the actual items charged to each property. Since these base charges do not include any of the enhancements, the design costs are not included either. DDA staff wants to be involved in the resolution of this issue since the DDA funded a portion of the Linden Street Streetscape Improvements through an IGA with the City and they want to ensure that this and other Linden Street repays are accurate, fair and do not operate as a disincentive to development in this critical redevelopment area. This will probably take a meeting involving representatives of the Developer, the City and the DDA. However, since we are very close to finalizing the development agreement and other development documents, it's important that we not delay that effort while the repay issue is being resolved as that could threaten the financing for the project. I would like to talk by phone with you and/or Carrie sometime today to discuss options to deal with the repay issue without jeopardizing the project. Please let me know when you would be available. Lucia A. Liley