Full Text
LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Request for Rezoning, 10 Acres, 30th & Garfield, Original Ordinance No. 1857 October 9, 2012 Page 1 Public Hearing was called to order by Mayor Scott Mullner at 6:00 p.m. City Council present: Dave Paulekas, Roger McKinley, Lee Kempert, Joe Vitale, Eric Molvar, Joe Shumway, Karl McCraken, and Scott Mullner. Absent: Klaus Hanson. The City Clerk read the notice: CITY OF LARAMIE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING: CASE:Z-12-08 THE LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET AT 6:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2012, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LARAMIE CITY HALL, 406 IVINSON STREET, LARAMIE, WY, TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS OR PROTESTS ON ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NO. 1857 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LARAMIE. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY CRITERION 3, LLC, APPLICANT. THE AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING IS APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES IN SIZE AND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 30TH AND GARFIELD STREETS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD REZONE THE AREA FROM LR (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO B3 (MULTI-FAMILY) DISTRICT. Mayor Mullner requested anyone interested in addressing the Council sign up on the sign in sheet, he will call people up from that list, and they will have five minutes to speak to the Council. Margaret Arth, President of the Regency Retirement Residence, stated she’d like the zoning to stay the same, They would like it empty, to appreciate the wildlife, the open space that they have now. She expressed concern that the development with about 600 residents and the potential of 700 cars would increase traffic, with the potential of making crossing 30th Street unsafe for pedestrians, as many of the residents there and from the nearby senior housing walk to the McDonalds© or Albertson’s©. The development will effect the economic stability of the area, as the area is currently very quiet, and will make the area less desirable. The pavement and buildings would increase water runoff, influencing the flow of the creek, contributing to the potential of it flooding. The cars will increase pollution in the area. Mayor Mullner asked if Council would prefer to hear further public comment or see the power point, as a representative of the development had signed up next. The power point was shown next. Christie Roberts, & Baker engineering and Design, and John Siff, Managing Member of Criterion 3, presented the power point. They discussed the development process, storm water detention to retain all runoff and have a larger footprint for more esthetically pleasing landscaping, the site has ease of access for the future residents, would help in building the bridge for 39th Street, the site is just within a mile of UW Campus. Becky Riley, stated the issue is whether this complex can be integrated with the current, longstanding community on the outside edges of this proposal. She wanted to see integrated traffic controls with the project, and have the entrances moved off of 30th and Garfield Streets, because of the high foot traffic by the senior population in that area. She also was concerned about whether the percolation and soil tests for the detention ponds would be adequate for the area. The potential density of population was an issue, as it was extremely scary to the people in the neighborhood, but she realized the developers had to at least break even. She asked Council to delay the rezoning until some of the issues were resolved. Marcia Gladstone, asked that Council hold off on the rezoning or consider a different type of zoning, because while the development of the area is inevitable, it requires consideration. While potential growth, expansion, and the future of the City has been discussed, there has been minimal discussion on the impact this development will have on the needs and concerns of the residents that are in the area. The entrances should be on Garfield Street and not on 30th ---PAGE BREAK--- LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Request for Rezoning, 10 Acres, 30th & Garfield, Original Ordinance No. 1857 October 9, 2012 Page 2 Street which would have more impact on the senior complexes. There needs to be new traffic controls and safety features on all the nearby city streets. She requests some consideration of preserving some open space on Garfield. Marian Paxton, was concerned about three story buildings being placed on land higher than the surrounding area, and how that view would change the view for everyone in Laramie. The increase in traffic would impact the level of pollution in the area, which was a concern not just for the current residents, but anyone living in the area in the future. John Burman spoke of having lived next to college students, the litter they left on his property, parking was a problem because of all the vehicles, parties involving noise and alcohol were an issue, and the theft of items from their yard. When he moved, those issues did not happen again. He foresaw the people currently living in the area being impacted in the same way. He asked the Council to consider if they would want this development in their neighborhood. Christine Stebbins, of the Corthell subdivision, stated that she’s seen Spring Creek flood several times, and wondered what the runoff from fifteen buildings and the associated cars would do to Spring Creek. The wide detention ponds have been discussed; she is concerned about the potential for mosquito issues resulting from those ponds. The students may decide to travel to the UW bus lot at 15th and Spring Creek to get to school, passing through two school zones and a heavily used park. She related that she has seen seniors already having trouble crossing 30th Street, and with the traffic resulting in the development and occupancy of this complex, there will be more incidents of this. She objected to this development being done by a for profit entity from out of state developers, and not connected with the University. Students will occupy this area, resulting in higher crime rates. The development will have an impact on the property values of the people already in the area. She felt this development, on the balance, would be a detriment to the people who live on that end of town for the benefit of a few. Phil Nicholas, Attorney for the developers, related there will always be impacts with developments. Students are an integral part of the community. The developers had some requirements for development, one of which was they need a space about one mile from campus. What they sell is security, onsite parking, with a bussing system. They do not want people driving. If the site is moved further away, people will tend to take their cars more than the bus, thus increasing traffic. There is very little land available within a mile of the University. The rezoning request is to make the entire area R3 to help carry the cost of the bridge and building the complex. There is a balance between the current residents who want the land undeveloped, and the developers. Nicholas noted there seem to be seven points of concern: 1. The community seems to want the prominence of the buildings to be reduced. Much of the fill is going to have to be taken out of there to prepare the base for 30th Street, and any additional removed fill will reduce the resulting profile of the complex. 2. Where the boundaries of the fill are removed, it will be landscaped and graded to match the surrounding area. The parking areas may be higher than the base of the buildings, and the lighting will be unobtrusive, with screening around the parking areas. 3. Sheridan will not be extended. The only street extensions in this plan are on 30th and Garfield Sts. 4. There is 130 ft of buffering between the back door of the closest apartment and where 30th St. will be, there is 68 ft for 30th St., and 130 ft from 30th St. to the closest structure in this area, for a total 328 ft of buffering available for whatever is prudent and appropriate. 5. With the extension of 30th St., if the services are made available during the preparation, assuming the city will take a tap to allow for trees to be planted on the west side, the developer will take care of the trees on the east side. It should look like the trees planted on 22nd and Harney Street. 6. The access to the complex should be 50/50, with half of the incoming traffic coming off 30th St., and the exiting traffic going on Garfield St., reducing the impact on any one single boulevard. With respect to the bridge, the developer has already been working with Parks and Recreation personnel to ensure that the bridge has a crossing ---PAGE BREAK--- LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Request for Rezoning, 10 Acres, 30th & Garfield, Original Ordinance No. 1857 October 9, 2012 Page 3 area for bicycles and a path. 7. They will secure an agreement with owner of the property, Matt Clark, for applying to restate the current zoning if the project falls through, ensuring that the rezoning is only for this project. Nicholas further addressed the detention ponds, stating that the water would be detained and would be structured to slowly release the water back into the environment, it would not retain water enabling a mosquito breeding area, and should help reduce the flooding potential for Spring Creek. Traffic will increase with this development, traffic control devises will be controlled by the City, and the developer will work with the City on this issue. Because of the buffer area and the fence around the complex, the impact of student behaviors should be reduced. Chris Creek, Managing Partner of Criterion 3, addressed the security planned for the development, with staff checking each building every two hours, security cameras with a 30 day loop, and license plate readers. Vitale asked if the detention ponds could be dual purpose similar to the Scout Park. Christie Roberts related the ponds won’t be deep, and will be landscaped, and could be used for other purposes. Vitale noted there was $116,000.00 in lieu of park space. He questioned if there could be a buffer zone between the area zoned as R1, perhaps as a green belt, which would help with runoff. Roberts related there was a parcel of land at 30th & Sheridan, owned by the City containing Spring Creek channel. Vitale queried whether there had been a traffic study concerning this development and the new High School site, commenting on the need to tie in Bill Nye and 30th for the increased traffic. Charles Bloom, City Senior Planner, related that development unit of this size require a traffic study, that this development would impact 30th and Garfield, 30th and Grand, 26th and Garfield, and 30th and Willet, which have been identified as potential destinations. When the High School proposal does come forward to be approved, a traffic study will be required then to assess any potential impacts for that development. Molvar asked if there was a traffic light planned at 30th and Garfield. Roberts related the traffic study was not yet complete. Molvar wanted to know about how many vacant apartments are available in Laramie, if there was justification for this size complex. The developer related there has been growth at the University of 200 students; this will provide students with a high quality apartment, that the customers will come to this development for a safer and better environment. There is a bulge of students in middle school, so there will be a projected need for housing in the next few years. He referred to the City’s report of affordable housing, which stated there was a lack of affordable housing in Laramie. As students move from houses into the complex, this will free up housing for nonstudents. Molvar commented on the develop with three story apartments occurring on a rather prominent ridgeline on that part of Laramie, and the Council may not get the opportunity to review the plans once the rezoning is passed. He queried whether the developer would be willing to make those plans and conditions available to the Council. The developer related that they are still gathering information as to what the community wants; the green areas within the buildings are close to an acre in size. They are working on the dimensions of the buildings to create less of an impact to the ridge. Nicholas related that the developers want to launch this in the fall, as soon as this is passed, they will move forward; that plans will be presented before the third reading. Molvar inquired about the differences in the two different plans, the smaller unit, seven acres parking proportion is much different compared to the seventeen acre planning. The developer related that the seven acre unit was designed for maximum return, but their preference was for a less crowed unit, such as the seventeen acre plan. Both plans are code compliant. ---PAGE BREAK--- LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Request for Rezoning, 10 Acres, 30th & Garfield, Original Ordinance No. 1857 October 9, 2012 Page 4 Molvar questioned how the terrain would affect the plan. He also requested map with the units of the development over a topographical overlay at the Planning Commission meeting the previous evening. Nicholas related what Molvar saw was the topography with a geographical location overlay. What is currently being prepared is an analysis of how much fill will be removed, put into 30th, and what needs to be removed in order to obtain the objectives of lowering the profile. Roberts stated as a requirement of the development plans, they will provide a grading plan that will include existing topography, as well as new topography, and how that incorporates with the building footprints, the access ways, the parking lots, etc. Nicholas related it was his understanding the fill that had been brought in from other areas was clean fill and should compact well for the road base for 30th, and Roberts is in the process of calculating moving the fill. Nicholas also stated they were willing to remove more dirt to lower the profile, but there is a balance, and one of the balances is if you pull that dirt out of the ridge line, you want to make sure it’s blended, there has to be some artistic effort, and they will rely on Roberts, the engineer, to do a good job of combining all of the features – the ridgeline, pulling off the fill, the balancing there, and it’s hard to develop the map until her calculations are complete. Molvar commented he would like to see the development be blended; that the topographic overlay he was referring to had buildings on steep slopes, and he did not see how they could do it. Nicholas related that was a problem with presenting maps before all the results are in, if the developers want to move on their schedule, they have to take a financial risk, the risk is they are going to do a bunch of development to provide the Council with some confidence they’re going to achieve the Council’s goals, it might not be exactly what the Council wants, but hopefully it will be close enough to see this is a better project than what could happen if there is no plan. Shumway questioned the water features that are displayed on the illustration. He counted twelve or more. He wanted to know if the detention water would be treated in any way. Roberts stated the storm water enters the basins at a fast velocity, and then sits there because it’s being retained in the pond, and then released at a slow velocity, the slowing of the velocity causes the contaminates and sediments to drop to the bottom of the pond. Detention ponds need regular maintenance to remove the sediment, etc. A small amount of the water will be released into Spring Creek, there will not be an increase, and the rest will be retained for evaporation and saturation into the soil. Shumway queried the density of the buildings; there was an indication that there could be a greater density of buildings. The illustration has the space taken up with parking, open space, and landscaping. He didn’t see where there was room to add more buildings, and still meet code. Roberts said the parking requirements on this plan are more than double what is required, so to increase buildings, the parking space would be reduced, as well as recreational amenities removed, such as the footprint of the sport court is almost the size of a building. Shumway asked about bussing to the University, to reduce the volume of traffic, as to who is in charge of the bussing. The developer related that they provided gas powered busses, usually in a 20 minute loop, moving about 50 students an hour, and the busses are usually full. What the developer likes to see is that cars do not leave the development. The busses go to other areas as well, going downtown or to the grocery store, the busses are used for as many things as possible. Shumway expressed that he didn’t see any interaction between transportation in and out of this area and the High School, that he expected most traffic to go up Boulder Drive, but some may come through on 30th Street, causing two separate traffic concerns. Roberts stated that their traffic impact study will only cover this development in relationship to the current conditions. McCraken, having operated two hotels with indoor pools, commented that he did not think an outdoor pool was a good idea, the utilities would be very high. Campus Crest does have a carbon filtration system on their detention ponds, before the water comes out. He then queried what the Uniform Development Code (UDC) definition for ridgeline was, and was it based on a national definition. Bloom responded that the initial draft of the UDC came forward with ridgeline and steep slope development standards. He further stated that much discussion occurred ---PAGE BREAK--- LARAMIE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Request for Rezoning, 10 Acres, 30th & Garfield, Original Ordinance No. 1857 October 9, 2012 Page 5 regarding what was the definition of a “steep slope” and a “ridgeline.” Bloom ended by stating the Council was unable to determine clear definitions at that time, stripping the subsections from the draft UDC and replacing it with the words “Reserved” to allow for future consideration which has not occurred to date. Vitale wanted to see the concerns of the citizens, as well as the Council, put into the concept plan as much as possible. If there are additional costs, schedule those potential costs so that the developer could bear some of that, or possibly the City would have to share in it. He wanted another public meeting for the public to see how their concerns have been addressed, the amendments of the plan, before it would come back to Council. Nicholas stated he understands the realities that the folks don’t want to participate at a time prior to zoning; it is presumptuous to assume the zoning would be approved. The owner is taking the risk and the investment to develop a plan that Council will be able to see. They respect the Regency residents’ right to say this development should not go forward, and they invite the residents to participate. If the residents are uncomfortable with the developers, they can communicate concerns to the City’s staff, which will be relayed to the developer. Margaret Arth, Regency, spoke again, stated they had provided a petition with sixty two names on it, with only nineteen of them being from the Regency, all the others are community members, and they did not want this to proceed to second and third readings. Public Hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted Sue Morris-Jones, MMC, City Clerk