Hometown South -- Arvada By Susan Shirley Part 4 of a series: City Council Deliberates, Votes From the New Journal of Physics, March 4, 2008: A new study from a Japanese research group explains why were occasionally caught in traffic jams for no visible reason. The real origin often has nothing to do with obvious obstructions such as accidents or construction work but is simply the result of too many cars on the road. Not sure about you, but I am SO GLAD someone --with a physics degree, maybe even from a real university -- explained that to us. In Part 3 we looked at the June 16 Arvada City Council meeting, including presentations by Century Communities, their commercial Realtor, and their traffic engineer. This was followed by presentations and comments by two representatives of area HOAs, and public comment. Councilmembers then began probing specifics of Centurys proposal. Following an opening volley by Councilmembers John Marriott and Bob Dyer, Bob Fifer brought up concerns about parking for the commercial units. His questions about parking elicited the following: the townhomes each have half of an extra parking space, and the condos each have one-fifth of an extra space, which are all guest spaces, and which the live/work units can use during the daytime. Fifer said, Im worried this is a minimalist approach to mixed use--I dont see where the sense of place is, here...Im leaning toward this is a workaround on the developers part, to get around the mixed use requirements...I think its too loose for the mixed use rules were trying to apply...The market is very narrow, but you feel these units will sell quickly? I think its skating on the line...Im not sure demographics support such a concept here. Fifer continued with questioning about the extremely limited access points, and the developers reasoning for removing the original point of access which would connect Hometown South and Hometown North, allowing access onto Kendrick. It seems easy for you to say not to do that option because Hometown North doesnt want it; the real issue might be to avoid putting a bridge over the [Highline] canal. Century Communities Lisa Evans said that originally the North and South sides were to be developed at the same time, with a major commercial component to Hometown South. The two developments would have been joined via a bridge for the convenience of the residents of Hometown North. Now, Hometown North is its own community, and it is not best traffic practice to send traffic from one community through another. Fifer asked what the cost of the bridge would be, and was told by Evans it is about $500,000. Fifer asked staff what oversight would ensure proper businesses within the live/work units. Director of Community Development Mike Elms said that the PUD allows commercial/office, that the uses would be negotiated into the development plan. Fifer then said that this type of housing stock is desperately needed; condos are usually rentals...density is important in the area because a lot of restaurants, for example, wont build there because of the low density. He said that the density does need to be managed well and be appropriate. He continued, Im not sure about the height exception, but the other options [flat roof, shallower pitch] sound less cosmetically desirable; also, I would like the whole building to be work/live, not work - live - live more. Councilmember Don Allard asked how many total buildings and how many would need the height exception. The answer, from Evans, was that there are, on a 22-acre site, 189 townhouses in 44 buildings and 5 condo buildings of which three would need the height exception. There was more discussion about the possibility of connecting via bridge over the canal to allow more access options. Councilmember John Marriott continued by saying he likes that the units in the proposal are for sale and not rental, and that a different proposal might be worse; however, he said, the concerns about traffic and density are certainly warranted. Im a proponent of the live/work idea, but honestly, I wish there were more live/work in here. It seems its only here to fulfill the requirement of mixed use. He offered his opinion that three stories was not appropriate for the area. Mayor Pro Tem Mark McGoff said, Its very clear to me that this project is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that live/work is an acceptable mixed use, and we need to develop this land. This is a very good project. It fully addresses the issues from last year, by eliminating the rental units. This is not the final development plan, the details will be worked out if this is approved. I think it is appropriate and I favor approval. A member of the city managers staff suggested that Council clarify how they would be treating the height exception on the three live/work buildings. Councilmember Don Allard said that he had mixed emotions about the proposal; the property was vacant for a long time, the proposal meets all codes and ordinances, and I dont think any of us can reasonably expect that vacant land to go forever without being developed. Councilmember Bob Dyer said that he would like to add the condition of egress onto Kendrick Street, as part of approval. Councilmember Marriott said he would vote against that, that it had value but that the most practical solution would be a connection with Hometown North. Councilmember Fifer asked if money could be escrowed if a bridge connection proved necessary later, and a member of the city attorneys office said that might be possible but problematic. Fifer said, I dont want the taxpayers bearing that expense. Escrow seems appropriate if, in fifteen or twenty years its needed, and if not we can return the money to the developer. The city attorney replied that that looks like a gray area, that the law does allow exaction but no one will know what amount of money might be sufficient in twenty years; that the traffic engineer says that solution is not necessary, and that the law requires tying an anticipated impact to the exaction required for escrow, and that staff concurs with the findings of the traffic study. A motion to have access across Kendrick be a condition for approval lost on a 4 to 2 vote. Councilmembers then voted 5 to 1 to approve the Preliminary Development Plan and the Plat, with Councilmember Dyer dissenting and Mayor Marc Williams absent by recusal. The next vote was for the height exception. Councilmember Marriott said he saw no compelling reason to approve the increase to 39 feet. Councilmember Dyer agreed and said he would rather all five condo buildings look the same. The motion to approve the height increase was defeated on a 3 to 3 vote, with Councilmembers Dyer, Fifer, and Marriott voting no and McGoff, Marks, and Allard voting to approve. Because it was a tie, it did not pass and was automatically rejected. The developer had made clear throughout the hearing, that not having the height exception would not prevent their making three-story buildings; it might mean they would build flat-roofed buildings or roofs with a shallower pitch. So it remains to be seen what their design will turn out to be, but all buildings must comply with the 35 6 height limit. NEXT: Traffic for Physicists (and Dummies)
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:37:06 +0000