Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKECHTER TOWNHOMES - PDP200010 - - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Kechter Townhomes Neighborhood Meeting Summary Meeting Date: May 28, 2020 Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting Staff Attendees: Alyssa Stephens – Development Review Liaison; Clark Mapes – City Planner; Martina Wilkinson – Assistant City Traffic Engineer; Scott Benton—Environmental Planner; Sue Beck-Ferkiss— Social Sustainability Applicant Team: Ryan Kelly—TWG Development; Russell Lee—Ripley Design; Stefka Fanchi— Elevation Community Land Trust; Kristin Fritz—Housing Catalyst; Carrie McCool—McCool Development; Andy Reese—Northern Engineering; Alex Garvard—Ripley Design; Chris Russell—Studio Architecture; Aldo Sebben—Studio Architecture; Sean Kellar—Kellar Engineering Summary • Meeting Topic: This neighborhood meeting discussed a proposal for affordable housing built on a Land Bank property owned by the City of Fort Collins. The preliminary proposal is for 60 owner-occupied townhomes. • Meeting Details: The meeting included ~75 attendees, not including staff and applicants. Meeting was recorded and is available on OurCity for viewing and comment. • Summary: Q&A primarily focused on traffic and environmental impacts. Neighbors expressed concern about existing traffic conditions in the area, particularly in relation to the nearby schools. Many residents also shared the value of large cottonwood trees on the site, which are used by eagles, hawks, and owls. Attendees who spoke or submitted questions via chat were mostly opposed to the project as proposed, though they expressed support for affordable housing if built elsewhere. Many indicated that they were particularly concerned about the proposed density of the project. The following pages include more detailed information, including responses to questions in the neighborhood meeting. Staff Presentation • In 2002, the area was annexed, land was purchased for the Land Bank, and the development plan for land that became Observatory Village was approved. • Observatory Village is the marketing name for part of a larger development plan called Willow Brook. The Willow Brook property surrounds the subject site on two sides. The site is a notch in the corner of Willow Brook. The plan designed Quasar Way and Eclipse Lane to connect to the Land Bank property to form a city neighborhood consistent with the Low-Density Mixed-Use (LMN) zoning district, which is intended to mix different housing types (single-family homes, townhomes, etc.) • The Land Use Code has provisions for protecting existing trees. The review process will include an Environmental Impact Study to provide information about the use of the trees by raptors. Applicant Presentation • TWG Development has 80 developments in 11 states focused on affordable/attainable housing, senior housing, etc. • Target audience for the project is $65-75K annual income (80% of Area Median Income). • Property is part of the Land Bank program, which is meant to help provide affordable properties for rent and purchase in the City. • Project helps meet goals for affordable housing. In the past five years only one other affordable housing project has gone through that focuses on ownership of single-family homes, not rentals. Allowing people to “get in the door” and start building equity. • 60 townhomes (split into 14 buildings) with a local street coming off Eclipse and Quasar, and access through Kechter. (Density of 12 dwelling units per acre). • Driveways and one-car garage for each unit, plus 55 street parking spaces. • Front porch included on each unit. • Project includes four different building types. Buildings are a mix of one and two stories. Q&A Traffic • Comment: Traffic for Zach Elementary is a concern. Kids are not always cautious crossing the street, and more traffic could cause safety issues. Parents park on side streets during pick up and drop off. More thought needs to go into traffic patterns or development should be moved further north towards Harmony where there are existing townhomes and apartments. • Applicant Response: Project meets City standards with access to Kechter alone, or with additional connections. Additional connections help in the case of roadwork. This project will not fix Zach Elementary traffic. Additional street connections allow for other routes away from school traffic. A traffic study estimated 28 trips during the AM peak hour and 34 trips in the PM peak hours. • City Response: We are well aware of the challenges of Zach. Lots of school-related traffic because the school only has one entrance and one exit. Currently working with PSD to improve access and crossing. • Question: When was traffic study completed? • Applicant Response: Traffic study was completed on the 28th, but counts used were from during the school year. • Question: Is it possible to add a left turn lane on Kechter? o Applicant Response: If you restripe the road for the left turn, it would take away parking on the road for school traffic. Only two morning left turns and three evening left turns are predicted. Recommendation is for no left turn lane. o City Response: The City has not yet reviewed plans. We will review for these types of considerations and questions. o Applicant Response: Goal will be to make the neighborhood as walkable as possible to reduce trips. At this income band, there are generally less cars per household (shared cars, etc.). • Question: Would a pedestrian bridge crossing towards Kechter towards Zach Elementary be feasible? o Applicant Response: That would be a bigger capital project. We can discuss that with the City at our review meeting. o City Response: We are focusing on signalizing crossings here instead of adding a pedestrian bridge. • Question: If the plan goes forward and traffic increases, what is the secondary plan to address problems? Speed is known to be a problem in this neighborhood, but budget has been exhausted through 2021. Don’t want to hear that budget is not there to address issues when they start. o City Response: City shares interest in managing traffic. City would require improvements if project doesn’t meet engineering standards. City collects Capital Expansion Fees to be paid to the City for infrastructure improvement (roadway expansion, signals, etc.). Neighborhood mitigation program is also available to deal with high speeds, and Police Services can get involved to increase enforcement. • Comment: Considering the traffic problems in this area, the density of this proposal is not okay. • Question: Will you lower the speed limit on Kechter? Environmental Impact • Question: There are eagles and red-tailed hawks that live in a tree on this property. What do you anticipate changing? o Applicant Response: An Ecological Characterization Study will be completed which will likely change the plan. This plan was generated before knowledge of the eagles, so we are still exploring that aspect. o City Response: The next step is the Study which will be done by an independent consultant. As a communal roost it is generally used in the winter so it may be some time before that study can be complete. First need to understand the nature of the resources. City is in communication with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Federal officials. • Comment: Depending on the availability of fish in the lake, the amount of eagles can be quite large. • Question: Will the ecological study include all species, including owls and red tail hawks? o Applicant Response: We have a biologist who will be completing the study. o City Response: Yes, we will address all resources on a site and next to a site. All species will be addressed. Site Design and Amenities • Comment: In earlier plans, schools were not there. Where is the appropriate area for this project in 2020? Land over by Harmony has higher density and has better access to amenities, and would move traffic away from schools. Walkability of this area was rated low. Building closer to Harmony would increase walkability. Instead of tweaking the proposal, should consider whether other land would be more appropriate. Could sell this land and purchase another property. o City Response: The Comprehensive Plan did anticipate schools and additional uses in this area. Land Bank purchased this property for this purpose, and it is not simple to pick it up and move it. • Question: It seems like there is a reduced linear park area in back yards through the middle of the plan. Why was that reduced? o Applicant Response: The site is close to Twin Silo Park, which is a great amenity. Also, Radiant Park is right across Kechter. We will provide small community green space, but anticipate people would mostly go to Twin Silo for recreation. These are preliminary plans that focus on street design and density. More detail will come in later versions of the plans. • Question: Would residents have access to community amenities of Observatory Village? o Applicant Response: No, this project will have it’s own HOA. • Question: Will residents be expected to adhere to HOA standards similar to Observatory Village? o Applicant Response: Landscaping will be part of HOA. I would guess standards would be similar. • Question: How will you ensure that these are occupied by homeowners and not rented out? o Applicant Response: Our units are all owner-occupied. We are creating an opportunity for families to own a home and build wealth, not creating an opportunity for investing. There is a provision that families can rent out their home with approval for no more than 90 days to allow teachers or others to rent out their homes during short periods of time. • Comment: Important to use more recent data than past City Plans. Just because this land was allocated for this purpose 25 years ago doesn’t mean that its the right purpose for now. Affordable housing is good, but you can do it in a way that doesn’t degrade the value of surrounding properties. The density of this project stands out. Current project maximizes the density allowed by code. This doesn’t preserve the surrounding communities. There are many views to the mountains. Mix of one- and two-stories home should be laid out to preserve views. Consider trees and natural habitats. o Applicant Response: We do have some drop down in building height and can continue to review that. o City Response: City Plan is updated every five to seven years with extensive public input and the updates have supported the past planning for this area. It is true that whenever open land is developed, open views are often lost with buildings and trees. Process and Timeline • Question: What is the timeframe for the project? o Applicant Response: First round of review is already scheduled. In a few months, after rounds of review, a public hearing will be held. Then plans would be finalized. The goal would be to break ground in spring of 2021 to avoid winter weather, with 12-15 months of construction. Another neighborhood meeting would be great during that process. • Question: Why did you submit a development plan in advance of a neighborhood meeting? o Applicant Response: A neighborhood meeting is not required for this project. But we saw that it was important so decided to have a meeting. Scheduling this neighborhood meeting worked out to be after the initial submittal. • Question: Given that you have already submitted an application, how will you be incorporating feedback and comments from this evening into your plans? o Applicant Response: Staff review is upcoming. Neighborhood comments will be fresh in the mind of both the applicant team and City staff during that meeting.