HomeMy WebLinkAboutMODIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR LAGRANGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AT RIGDEN FARM - PDP - 56-98E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 18, 2000
Page 16
Member Meyer moved for approval of Modification Request #1 (Section 3.5.2(D)(2)
and that the various set back from the required 15 feet from a street right-of-way
be change for the various lots involved. Granting of this modification is not
detrimental to the public good. It does not impair the intent and purposes of the
Land Use Code because of the low density character that a 15 foot setback would
help to provide is not needed (or desired) in higher density development such as
this site. Also, the granting of the modification would advance or protect the
public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is
requested better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a
modification is requested because it builds mixed use neighborhoods with new
urbanism design principles. Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Member Craig recommended denial of Modification Request #4 (Section 3.2.2(J)
with regards to removing the buffer. She felt that going from 10 feet to 18" loses
the buffer and she did not want to start using a wall as a buffer. She did not feel
that this was better than the Land Use Code. Member Bernth seconded the
motion.
The motion to deny was approved 5-2 with Members Meyer and Torgerson voting
in the negative.
Member Gavaldon moved to continue Modification Request #5 (Section
3.6.2(L)(2)(e) that would require that a connection of a private drive with a public
street shall be made with a driveway cut using "New Driveway Approach" in
accordance with city standards. He asked that Eric Bracke do a review of the
safety versus visual effect of the modification drive cuts with examples and data
to show how it works. He felt that the Board needed additional information. He
asked that it be continued until the next Board meeting, two if necessary.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion did not pass 4-3, with Members Carpenter, Bernth, Torgerson and
Colton voting in the negative.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of Modification Request #5 (Section
3.6.2(L)(2)(e), finding that the granting of the modification will advance or protect
the public interest and purposes of the standard for which the modification is
requested better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a
modification is requested because he felt the design was safer for this particular
application but not for all private drives. Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 18, 2000
Page 15
Mr. Glaser addressed the design issue. He stated that Mr. Bracke stated at a meeting
that from staff's experience, a curved radiused return has as much calming effect on
traffic as does the flared entrance, and they could really see no difference.
Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department added that the issue with the driveway cuts
was not so much a traffic issue, the reason it is in the Code and the issues are a
pedestrian issue, so it is more Transportation Planning that has the issues with the
drives. The driveway cuts slows people down more than a large radius does. Staff is
supporting this modification because the radius they are using is a smaller radius, which
is very similar to most of the alley intersections that are around. This will still slow
people down, as they would approach into the drive area similar as to if you were to pull
into an alley.
Member Gavaldon felt it was his view that it needed to be a lot sharper, and it has to be
a private drive and there should be more distinction between the two. The Choice
Streets document really spells it out very clearly.
Member Torgerson commented that he understands that the idea behind the flare and
running the concrete across the approach rather than asphalt there is because it is a
pedestrian issue. As you are walking down the sidewalk, you don't want to feel like you
are crossing the street every time you walk across someone's driveway. It seems like in
this case it is acting less like someone's driveway and more like a street.
Member Craig commented that her concerns with request #4, and that they want to put
up a wall instead of a setback, and the fact that it is only 18". She did not feel like that
was a buffer or that was the purpose of a buffer. In modification request #1, the 9-foot
setback is too close to the 4 residential units.
Member Bernth moved for approval of Modification Request #2 (Section
3.5.2(D)(3). Granting of this modification does not impair the intent and purposes
of the Land Use Code. Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Member Craig moved to approve Modification Request #3 (Section 3.2.2(K)(1). In
granting the requested modification would not impair the intent and purposes of
the Land Code because the physical arrangement of the parking spaces provided
is the same for the proposed plan as it is for a plan that satisfies the code.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 18, 2000
Page 14
• Modification Request #2 (Section 3.5.2(D)(3) is to reduce the rear and side yard
setbacks between the units and the drainageway/greenbelt.
• Modification Request #3 (Section 3.2.2(K)(1) is to reduce the number of required
parking spaces from 178 to 166.
• Modification Request #4 (Section 3.2.2(J) is to modify setback requirements for
parking and locate a 13 space parking lot closer than 10 feet to Des Moines Drive.
• Modification Request #5 (Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) is to modify the standard and
connect the private drives to public streets using a raised curb intersection rather
than the "New Driveway Approach" driveway cut in accordance with city standards.
Member Craig asked about the requested modification for the encroachment along the
greenbelt on the north and south side; and was the reason for the modification because
of the topography of the greenbelt that has moved the sidewalks so close to the
buildings.
Mr. Glaser replied that it has to do with the fact that this is first a drainageway, and as a
result of being a drainageway it is also a greenbelt. There is a slope that is
approximately a 3:1 slope in some locations.
Member Craig was concerned about the sidewalk being so close to the buildings that it
will affect privacy.
Mr. Glaser replied that they have thought about that extensively, and there is grade
separation between the patios and the bicycle/pedestrian sidewalk. There would also
be a significant amount of landscaping in there. The patios would be about 4 feet
higher than where the sidewalk is.
Mr. Glaser reported that the greenbelt area would be a lovely area and he thought
having all the green space adjoining the units would be a real attraction.
Member Gavaldon was concerned about the modification for proposed curb cut versus
the driveway cut and he did not feel the proposed curb was safer than the driveway cut.
He was also concerned about the city responsibility for maintenance.
Mr. Glaser replied that he would be putting together a budget for Homeowner's
Association dues that are responsible so that the maintenance of the driveways will be
there when the time comes. The Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the
Association will be very specific as to what are the maintenance requirements of the
Homeowner's Association. He has checked with the Streets Department and they have
a list, and if the driveway is not on the list they will not maintain it.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 18, 2000
Page 13
3.5.2(D)(3), 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(J) and
3.6.2(L)(2)(e).
Recommendation: Approval of Requests 1-5.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that without the
granting of the modification request to the specific sections of the Land Use Code, the
site plan as submitted with reduced front and rear setbacks, reduced parking lot
setbacks, reduced parking counts and modified private drive/public street intersections
could not be developed as proposed.
Planner Shepard reported that staff was recommending approval of five of the
modifications subject to two conditions:
1. The sidewalk slopes at the private drive intersections are able to meet all ADA
requirements.
2. The sidewalk ramps are redesigned to fit completely within the street right-of-
way.
Carl Glaser, applicant for the project gave a presentation. He stated that the site is at
the intersection, in the northwest quadrant, of Rigden Parkway and Custer Drive. Mr.
Glaser spoke about the design of the site, the overall site plan and street layouts. Mr.
Glaser pointed out that one of the modification requests focuses on the internal parking
lot which would access off of a private drive, a continuation of Rockford Drive, and that
parking would be guest parking and also serve the Parkway Townhomes and overflow
for any of the adjoining units. Parking will be allowed but not counted on Rigden
Parkway and Custer Drive. Parking would also be allowed, but not counted on Des
Moines Drive as a public street.
Mr. Glaser summarized the modification requests.
• Modification Request #1 (Section 3.5.2(D)(2) is to modify the setback requirements
of 31 units on the north end of the project. 22 units will have 13 foot setbacks from
the street ROW, 4 units will have 11 foot setbacks from the street ROW, 4 units will
have a 9 foot setback from the street ROW and 1 residential unit will have a 10 foot
setback from the street ROW.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 18, 2000
Page 12
Planner Shepard addressed the hours of operation. He stated that the issue was
discussed heavily at preliminary and that is why it was a condition of approval. The
discussion at preliminary was primarily due to the fact that the ultimate tenant of the
convenience store was not known at that time. The neighborhood was very concerned
about having a 24-hour operation. A local company with a solid reputation will be the
tenant. We will continue to monitor the situation and if there are complaints, the hours
of operation will be recorded on the final site plan
Planner Shepard addressed the question of more landscaping. He stated that there
were not many more opportunities to put landscaping on this site. Wherever we saw
another area for a tree or more shrubs, we asked the landscape architect to put
something in there, and they did. The key is to monitor the situation to make sure that if
something does not make it that it gets replaced.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of The Overlook Convenience Center at
Arapahoe Farms, Final P.U.D., #55-87P subject to the following condition:
The approval of The Overlook Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farm, Final
P.U.D., is conditioned upon the passage, on two readings by City Council,
of an Ordinance vacating the public right-of-way commonly known as Old
Harmony Road between a point beginning on Seneca Street on the east
and ending at a point along the west property line of the aforementioned
P.U.D.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig commented that she hoped that this did not end up being as intrusive as
the neighbors think it will be.
Chairperson Colton hoped that the Transportation Department would continue to
monitor the situation and get a traffic signal in there as soon as possible.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project:
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -
Family Housing at Rigden Farm PDP, #56-98E
Project Description: Request to modify five specific sections of the
Land Use Code. Sections 3.5.3(D)(2),
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
May 18, 2000
6:30 P.M.
Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 898-7963
Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 (W) 278-8876
Chairperson Glen Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Meyer, Torgerson and Colton.
Staff Present: Stringer, Temple, Olt, Shepard, Wamhoff, McCallum, Bracke and
Stanford.
Agenda Review: Interim Director of Current Planning Dave Stringer reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Consent:
1. Minutes of the March 2, March 16 (Continued), and April 6
(Continued), 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval.
3. #29-96D Faith Free Evangelical Free Church PUD — Preliminary & Final
Discussion:
4. #55-87P The Overlook Seneca Center at Arapahoe Farm PUD - Final
5. #56-98E Modification of Standard — LaGrange Multi -Family Housing at
Rigden Farm Project Development Plan
Member Craig pulled Item #3 for discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (March 2 only), and 2.
Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
Project:
Faith Free Evangelical Free Church -
Preliminary and Final, #29-96D
Project Description: Request for approval for a 72,000 s.f., 3-story
church on a 14.91 acre site in the Four
Seasons Overall Development Plan. The
property is located at the southeast corner of
South Shields Street and Wabash Street. The