Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutELIZABETH STREET APARTMENTS - PDP - 19-99A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 19 Chairman Gavaldon stated that he supports affordable housing but won't let it lessen the City standards. The users deserve the required outside space. Member Bernth commended the applicant's creativity in utilizing the space and mentioned that infill projects should be welcomed. Member Colton stated that the criteria for privately -owned parks go beyond just requiring 10,000 square feet, they also require high visibility, accessibility, and safety. He felt that this park does not meet any of these standards. Planner Grubb states that the visibility criteria relates to safety and added that this park area is extremely visible and highly secure. Mr. Waido stated that across the country, governmental regulations are considered a barrier to the development of affordable housing and strict application of standards is always at issue. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Elizabeth Street Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #19-99A. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would support the motion because people enjoy walking in the evening, not sitting in a park. The gained amenities outweigh the losses. Member Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion because the modifications are not enhancing. Affordable housing is important but it is also important to create well -designed projects. The motion was approved 4-2, with Members Meyer and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Elizabeth Street Apartments, Project Development Plan, File #19-99A. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 18 Planner Grubb stated that he received a call from CSU's International Housing manager who said he was excited about creating some partnerships between the international students and seniors. There are seniors who would like to be in the college campus environment, closer to cultural activities and educational opportunities. Chairman Gavaldon asked what the plan would look like if it were held to the 10,000 square foot requirement for outdoor park space. Mr. Erickson replied that they would not be able to move forward. Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had any proof that it would not be feasible or what the plan would look like if it were closer to the 10,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Erickson stated that site water detention was also a consideration. The only usable plan that will incorporate the setbacks, easements, required detention, and some outdoor open space, is the one submitted. Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had looked at breaking the building up. Mr. Erickson replied that they had and it did not work as well. Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had considered a smaller number than 50 units. Mr. Erickson replied that 50 units provided the most financial feasibility. Member Colton stated that the open space area was smaller for 50 units than most single family homes have for one unit. He expressed concern over cutting down the size of the outdoor space. He stated that the number of units could be decreased. Member Torgerscn stated that if the City is to encourage affordable housing, everything that is expected in a high -end development cannot be expected for this project. Member Colton stated that he disagreed with the perception that seniors could not live next to college students. He added that most people will not use a park if it is more than '/4 mile away. Member Meyer stated that she has the same concern as Member Colton about making an exception. Planner Grubb stated that they probably won't see many similar modification requests because it is so much more expensive to provide the interior gathering space. The reason this developer is making the trade-off from exterior space to interior space is because it is so important to seniors. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 17 Member Craig asked about traffic impacts on Elizabeth Street. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations department, replied that about 10,000 cars drive Elizabeth Street daily. He added that Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations department reviewed the project and felt very comfortable with it's impacts on the traffic situation on Elizabeth. Member Craig asked about access to the outside park area. Planner Grubb replied that there are pedestrian islands in the parking lot and that it is 24 feet across the parking lot. With only about 28 parking spaces on the east side of that crossing, the volume will be low. Striping or pavement raising was not discussed. He added that the access to the park was ADA accessible. Member Craig asked for some other type of striping or raised pavement for the area between the building and the park. David Klockeman, JR Engineering, replied that striping has already been proposed and has been included throughout the application. Chairman Gavaldon asked how many of the applicant's prior projects were in an area with student or international housing nearby. Mr. Horner replied that none of their previous project were surrounded by student housing. Chairman Gavaldon asked for justification for compatibility with the surrounding environment. Tom Erickson, Simpson Housing, replied that although they have no senior housing projects next to college or international housing projects, many of their senior housing projects are next to affordable family housing projects. Chairman Gavaldon asked for data on how these projects worked and fit together. Mr. Erickson replied that they had no data with them but when locating a senior housing community, they look for location in relation to other services. In this case, the location has good access to shopping, alternative transportation, sidewalks, and the senior center. Chairman Gavaldon again asked for justification for the location Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 16 two criteria that need to be considered for the modification. The first modification is a request for a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 78 to 50. The second modification is for a reduction in the required amount of outdoor gathering space from 10,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Staff is supporting the parking modification due to similar modifications on other similar projects. Staff is also supporting the outdoor gathering space modification. The applicant is also proposing indoor gathering space. Kevin Horner, Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC, gave the applicant's presentation. The proposed community is a 50-unit, affordable senior community. All units are considered affordable at 40% of Larimer County's median income. This equates to $400-$500 per month rents, targeting a two -person household with less than a $20,000 per year income. The location of the site is convenient for senior living as it is close to shopping and transportation. With regard to the modification request for the relief of the 10,000 square foot park requirement, Mr. Horner pointed out that this is an infill site. Although the site is listed as 1.94 acres, the easements and setbacks limit the usable space to less than 1.5 acres. The outdoor gathering space consists of an open, landscaped gathering area with benches, umbrellas, and trees to provide a park -like setting. An area with benches is also provided along the Elizabeth side of the building. A 2,800 square foot interior gathering space is also provided. Interior space in a senior community is often more flexible than exterior space given sensitivity to weather conditions and so forth. The combination of the exterior and interior gathering space does meet the purpose and intent of a pending Code revision by providing more than 6% of the land area for gathering purposes. The location of the property is actually 5/10 of a mile from Avery Park and 7/10 of a mile from City Park. With regard to the modification of the parking requirement, the applicant referred to the space restraint as well as the examples of other projects. There will be a deed restriction against this property for 40 years that will keep this a senior, affordable community. Citizen Input None. Ken Waido, on behalf of the Affordable Housing Board, stated that the Board strongly urges the Planning and Zoning Board to approve this project because of the need for rental housing, especially lower -income rental housing for seniors, in our community. The Affordable Housing Board also recognizes that this project needs some modifications to Standards but feels it is sufficiently close to public parkland and that lower -income seniors do not create parking demand like a college project might. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 15 Estate property across the railroad tracks; the location and species of those trees should be discussed with the City Forester. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would not support the motion because she cannot support cutting down a 100-year-old tree. Going from three trees to one tree has already provided mitigation and the loss in units, which may create about $1000 per month in income, does not make up for the loss of the tree. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage Project Development Plan, File #28-981B. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Project: Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and Modification of Standards Project Description: Request for a 50-unit, single building apartment on 1.95 acres located north of Elizabeth Street between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue. The applicant is also requesting modification of two City Standards. The property is zoned MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that this is a combined application for approval of a PDP and two modifications. The site is located north of Elizabeth Street between Constitution and City Park Avenues and is zoned MMN. It is surrounded on three sides with MMN zoning, one side with commercial, and one side with CSU property. The multi -family use is allowed in the MMN zone district. There are Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Bernth, Colton, Torgerson, Meyer, Gaveldon, Member Carpenter was absent Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Moore, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata, Stanford, Waido, Deines, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. #54-87AA Miramont Tennis and Fitness Center — Referral of a Minor Amendment 3. #1-96C New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development Plan (Continued to 6/21 at Applicant's request) 4. #17-0OA Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights (Pulled for Discussion by Member Colton) Discussion Agenda: 5. #3-0OA Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment (Continued to 8/16 at Applicant's Request) 6. #9-01 Modification of Standards — Brophy Property 7. #26-9813 Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage — Project Development Plan 8. #19-99A Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and Modification of Standards 9. #37-94C Park South Commercial Plaza — Project Development Plan Other Business: 10. Resolution PZ01-03 — Easement Vacation (Moved to Consent)