Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHBROOK PATIO HOMES @ FAIRBROOKE PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... APPEAL OF P & Z BOARD APPROVAL - 7-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES?Isomae .ad Zoaina Bo.rd :Gaeta. Ire a$. teat Pao usi Ms. Whetstone said she thought it appropriate, although the only fencing being proposed is along Prospect Road and Hampshire, as there are patios of these units backing up to the arterial and collector streets. Chair Clements asked about an amendment to evaluate the fencing so it is not so obtrusive, perhaps 4 feet high? Ms. Whetstone said some of it is to provide privacy but we can take a look at itfor final. If the access is onto Hampshire, that opens the projet up. Motion passed 5-1, with Member Co(tier voting In the negative. Item 19 Boston Chicken @ Lemay and Pennock PUD - Final Ms. Kirstcn Whetstone, project planner, gave a summary of the project. Three conditions of preliminary were met. The staff recommends approval. Mr. Ed Zdcnek - ZTI Group - The three conditions of 1) more landscaping, 2) less asphalt and 3) more clarity of internal circulation have been accomplished. The project meets with requirements of the LDGS. Member Strom asked for clarification of the connection between Godfather's Pizza and the lot to the south. Member Klataske asked if the connection off of Lemay still exists for the pizza restaurant? Mr. Zdenek replied affirmatively. Member Strom moved for approval of the Boston Chicken PUD - Final with the one condition staff attached, recognizing the project addressed conformance with the LDGS, compatibility and meeting conditions of approval. He commented that this was an improvement from the first application. Member Cottier seconded the motion. She commented that the areas previously shown as potential access points to the cast and south she would hope would be landscaped. Motion passed 6-0. Mctting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. torn but would hold off the access on Prospect. Other concerns were buffering which she believed were adequate given the one story, attached single family development. She will not support the motion with the access on Hampshire. Member Walker said the Board is always weighing what is best for neighborhoods and what are the larger City goals and he based his decision on weighing those alternatives because the issues arc: Access to Prospect, which is not compatible to the City goal of putting traffic on collectors and the alternative is the safety issue of children. He weighed those two things and is convinced the existing situation with the fencing, the nature of what collector streets are for, and the fact that traffic issues will be further studied, makes this an acceptable alternative. Collector streets are designed for functions, schools are built on collector streets, mitigation is provided for safety of the children and these issues, at this point, are resolved and will be f urther studied, for street zones and lights flashing at certain times, and slower speeds. He sees alternatives. He believed the trade off is workable and it would enhance compatibility by creating a better movement to integrate the area into the existing neighborhood with autos and pedestrians. Member Fontane commented on creating an enclave and believed it was a poor result of compatibility out of fear. Fear often drives people to say I don't want to have anything to do with this project or the people in this project because they don't know who they arc. The way it looks now the access to the surrounding community is much less feasible. She believed the bikepath through the project is just a small way to get the two neighborhoods together. That is why she thought that turning it and having it access on Hampshire opens it up and integrates it better. Member Cottier commented that in terms of how this physically appears to be separated, the solid brick fence needs to be studied on the western side and would definitely discourage a ' solid fence along the southern border also. Chair Clements said she concurred with that statement. Member Strom stated he would support the motion and if he thought there was really a safety issue with the children, obviously that would be his first priority, but it seems that children are dealing with a number of streets on Hampshire and have an alternative to avoid the site completely, so he didn't see it as a key factor in the decision. With that put aside there arc overriding advantages of putting access out on Hampshire instead of Prospect. Member Klataske mirrored what had been said by other Board members that he supported the motion and access onto Prospect makes it an enclave, with access onto Hampshire opens it up a lot more. As a minor point, the solar orientation. Twelve out of 42 would be solar orientation, and out of Hampshire would be 15 out of 42. He thought there could be the elimination of fencing off Hampshire Road to further open this up as well to the south. The buffer zone needs to consider the set back between the improved properties. It shouldn't be all on the subject property. From structure to structure the setback to houses on Coventry Court is similar to the proposed houses on Northbrook. There is close to 50 foot separation. Chair Clements asked for a point of clarification concerning the fencing, do we need to put fencing as a condition to be evaluated. E Chair Clements stated that properties need to be transitioned into the neighborhood so it flows together and she stated her concerns for the degree of fencing. Mr. Rutherford stated that a fence along the south would really create an enclave, other than the walkway access to the detention pond. He agreed with her. Mr. Walker stated that his observations of the access issue stem from the nature of what schools are to do, schools are at least located on collectors for the reason there is a great deal of traffic and collectors are more highly maintained than local streets. So we are at cross purposes, on one hand we talk about safety of children walking to school, on the other hand schools are located at least next to collectors for the variety of reasons that they have to have good access and good snow removal. There are always cross purposes. What has been done at this particular site at Hampshire is that with a little break right at Prospect, it is closed fencing on either side, so the children are really encouraged to go through that pedestrian walkway off of Coventry in order to access the school site. He believed the issue at Hampshire has been addressed by the school to minimize the potential safety problems. On the other hand, collector streets, built as the name implies, are to collect traffic from an internal area and funnel it out onto an arterial. By adding this local street traffic directly onto an arterial, it creates some traffic issues. From a city-wide perspective one of the ways of solving that is to minimize curb cuts on arterial in order to provide a smoother, quicker flow of traffic. He believed this project with access on Prospect Road goes against that desire of the City to keep the arterial traffic moving freely. He could see turning off of Prospect could create some traffic issues there and it seems moving the traffic onto Hampshire eliminates that issue. As far as integrating the project into the neighborhood is another issue of integration into the neighborhood. An enclave is being encouraged with access to Prospect. He was not convinced that the layout is the best alternative for access. Member Fontane agreed that this is not her preference for street layout and would prefer access on Hampshire for all the same reasons. Development along Prospect will continue and to have accesses on a collector street is a more favorable goal. Member Walker moved for approval of the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD - Prellminary with the access change to Hampshire. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Cottier asked if that was a condition approval with access on Hampshire? Member Walker said yes. Member Walker stated that the motion would grant the reasons for the solar variance. Member Cottier said she was trying to be consistent and didn't want to let optimum traffic considerations drive our decision on Stoncbridge. She couldn't see much dif ference if you were turning out of the project, either left on Hampshire or left out of the project internal street. She could see where there would be additional traffic delays by turning left onto Hampshire. There is no difference from where it is. She would be inclined to support the access on Prospect from the prospective to be more compatible with the neighborhood. She had the concern that access on Prospect is not integrating the project into the neighborhood. She was J Chair Clements asked Ms. Whetstone if she had talked with representatives from the School District who are working on this, trying to re-evaluate how the children are entering the school yard and safety factors and if there should be lights in the area? Ms. Whetstone said "not with the School District', but with the City Transportation Department. Rita Davis of City Transportation does get involved in these issues. Chair Clements asked what did she learn? When might a decision be made? Ms. Whetstone said they are studying it and have been for some time. Rita is involved in an on -going study but there has been no decision. The moving of the pathway access to the school from Hampshire to the rear of the school on Coventry was done to keep children off of Prospect. Chair Clements said the neighborhood is concerned about a larger buffer zone and would it be workable to add additional footage to the buffer zone. Ms. Whetstone said, as a result of comments from the neighborhood, the lots along the south boundary were made deeper so that the position of the patio homes would be no closer to the single family houses than single family houses would be. She agreed with the neighbors that there needed to be a 15-foot rear setback, although internal lots could be closer. The rest of the houses would have at least a 15-foot setback. This was a concern by staff along Hampshire, and they were not so concerned about the setback to the open space on the cast, it can be 5 feet. There is not a great desire for these people to have large yards, but for common maintenance on them and private patios. Chair Clements asked if the current plan reflects a 15-Coot setback to Hampshire? Ms. Whetstone said it does. Ms. Cottier asked about the detention pond cast, will it be open? Ms. Whetstone said it is owned and maintained by the City, and access from this property is provided. Ms. Cottier asked if there would not be any situation where the City would try to develop that and have an access onto Prospect? Ms. Whetstone said that was correct, it is a regional detention pond. Chair Clements asked what the fencing would be for the development. Will it be fenced all around? She believed it should be integrated into the neighborhood. Mr. Rutherford said there was a new fence along Hampshire with brick pillars, with openings and varying heights. There are existing fences behind neighboring homes and some not. So it has not been decided if another fence is to be built, or what the enhancement would be for these areas. There is no fencing along the detention pond. L J Piauaige wd T.anUnK VGW!d Lfmut+� u.Ka sa, n9w PWM sl Mr. Jim Newton - 2225 Coventry Court - He said Mr. Clay did a good job expressing concerns and wanted to reiterate about the entrance onto Prospect is a necessity for all of the children in the neighborhood, not for just the grade school but the junior high on Hampshire. He pointed out the blind spot and if the traffic is directed to Prospect, he thought it could potentially save some lives. Mr. Macky has done very well on the design of the project but consideration of the entrance to Prospect. Mr. Bruce Haflich - 2318 Coventry Court - He has two children that walk to Bauder School. He addressed the concern of people turning left onto Prospect. He pointed out that Taft Hill has a light, so there is time for people to turn left if that were the entrance. This is the entrance we request for approval. He addressed the water flow issue and stated there may need to be more room having investigated this with homeowners near similar areas. Eventually the building envelop gets changed and was concerned about the setback. A 40-60 foot buffer zone would be adequate. CITIZEN INPUT CLUbF.U. Chair Clements asked for clarification of drainage onto Coventry and how that affects the issue before the Board. Mr. Rutherford thought it was about water standing in crawl space from runoff. A pipe will be continued underground, down through this 20-foot wide drainage easement on the rear of the patio home lots. There is a concrete pan in the Swale to collect surface water from the back of the houses on Coventry. The storm water that is coming off from Cedarwood to the west goes into the inlets and will be piped. He stated that this will enhance the neighbors backyard drainage. He was not sure what the neighbor was talking about. He stated that a soils study was done by foundation engineering and the ground water is not a problem. Chair Clements asked for clarification that the soils testing showed that there is not a problem and there is not a high water table that you will have issues with. Mr. Rutherford said that is correct. Chair Clcments asked if there were school lights or flashing lights on Hampshire? She wondered why the school district hasn't been involved in getting some type of crossing. Ms. Whetstone said the City's "Safe Route to School" people have been working on this area. She was aware of a study referenced at a previous neighborhood meeting in the area. She said that there are not that many children walking on this portion of Hampshire because that would take them to the arterial and that is not where they wanted the kids to be. The school wants them to access the school yard which is totally fenced, at the path. Chair Clements asked if Bauder has their school yard totally fenced, and do the kids go up to Prospect? A citizen answered from the audience that there is a sidewalk that goes to the back of the school on the south side, from Coventry Ct. _PsQ.B basements, $165,000. They are 95% brick except the gable ends. His company had the highest energy rating, a score of 86, in Fort Collins at the last Parade of Homes by Public Service. Building height is 18 feet. The average age of residents for these patio homes is 60 years old. There arc 39 out of 40 owner -occupied residences in his other project. These arc not low- income units. Member Walker asked about pedestrian access links on the project. Mr. Rutherford located the walkways into the site, the existing plan didn't show the walkways onto the street. They would add a walkway to Hampshire at Final if access goes to Prospect. Otherwise access would be along sidewalks along the entry road. Member Walker asked how drainage easements were going to be treated. Mr. Rutherford stated that right now there is an open ditch but it will be piped (36 inch) into a detention pond with a slight swale over the top of the ground. The existing runoff piping for the streets will continue to be in place for drainage to the pond. Surface water is whatever comes off the backyards. CITIZEN INPUT, Robert Clay - 2313 Cedarwood Dr. - He is a spokesperson for the Fairbrooke neighborhood committee and represents most of the residents in the area. He proposed some enhancements 1 to the current plan. The building envelop shows a 5 foot buffer building to property line on the rear and would like to see it changed to 15 feet --not only for buildings on the southside but throughout the PUD. The project entrance and the walkway is utilized by children going to Bauder. There is a tight corner with a blind intersection at Coventry. He has observed at the Silverplume unit, all the garage doors that were opened have two vehicles. In today's market, there are more vehicles per unit and this increase will affect the traffic. There are also junior high school kids walking along these areas. Entrance on Prospect is a 1,000 feet from Taft and 400 feet back to Hampshire and would give ample room for excelleration and deceleration time. The residents fully endorse the Prospect entrance and feel it a safety point with the children as well the congestion along Hampshire. Mr. Clay addressed the drainage concerns. There is standing water in homes and in crawl spaces along Coventry in the spring, and there arc other related problems with standing water. There arc warm springs running through the area; therefore the need for the detention pond and water traveling through, from north at Prospect to south at Coventry. The concrete pan is proposed on the surface, and a 60-foot buffer would be advantageous for us. Mr. Clay stated there were privacy fences proposed on Prospect and would like there to be at the top of the Swale as well. The swale could be used as a recreational area and walkway and connection to the detention pond that has a bike path. There is existing pedestrian traffic in this very area currently. A fence limit access to private property as well as would be a nice addition to the project. There is a walkway proposed by the residents between lots 19 and 20, designed where the original entrance was on Hampshire. He submitted letters from the PTO and Principal of Bauder Elementary of putting more vehicles onto Hampshire. We endorse the project. It meets requirements the City has for additional housing and arc not opposed to the project. The entrance on Hampshire could be a real concern for children going to school. Plonninc wd Eoomn Board ►fmats March 35. 1VP4 rare S� Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminar Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, project planner, read the staff report with recommendations. The configuration showed an access point onto Prospect with a rear lot configuration to be greater. The units are high efficiency units and score well on the city's "Energy Score". The attached patio homes provide an alternative housing type and meet land use policies and goals for the City of Fort Collins. Chair Clements stated that it is important to have a variety of housing types. What are the housing types surrounding this land? Ms. Whetstone said currently Fairbrooke has developed out with single family lots. There are a few duplexes and, a tri-plex, but for the most part the area is single family. The proposal is for paired patio homes 4.000 square foot lots with a density of 6, the density in the area is developed out at 3 units per acre. Member Walker questioned the Prospect Road access. The desired traffic design is to minimize curb cuts on arterial. He questioned the wisdom of this access when access to a collector street is available. Ms. Whetstone said from a planning perspective, it is definitely more desirable for residential development, to access a collector street, which Hampshire is, and then feed onto an arterial street or another collector street. That is the standard practice. The transportation staff had discussions with the neighborhood and noted potential conflicts between vehicles and school children in the area. There are trade-offs with the Prospect Street access. Residents may not be able to make a left turn easily. From a transportation standpoint, it would work because there is nothing between Taft Hill and Hampshire Road, but it is not the most desirable solution. This is a preliminary plan and more discussion needs to occur concerning the access point. In the traffic study, in your packet, the access point onto Hampshire Road was depicted. Mr. Dick Rutherford from Stuart and Associates, the engineer for the project, presented details of the plan. The first plat, which up until a week ago, showed access onto Hampshire (at this point). The traffic department suggested changing the access to mitigate perceived problems on Hampshire with children going to school. There are two proposals completed. They have no preference and think both would work. Matt Dclich did the traffic study and said the collector street access was better. Mr. Rutherford said a Solar Orientation variance is needed. Patio homes at this density meet city objectives. The ODP on Fairbrooke has been changed over and over. Higher densities never happened in the area. The plan is for 6 units per acre and won't have an adverse affect on the existing single family area. The distance between the existing homes and the patio homes have been increased since the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors stated that the density was too great and four units were removed. They were concerned about the safety of students at Hampshire and Coventry. The school yard is completely fenced along Hampshire, with access being from a walkway between 2 lots on the western Coventry Ct. Mr. Gary Macky, President of Nebarado Construction and the builder, 6804 Aaron Dr. - He explained that he is the builder of Victorian Gables at the Silverplume. They are sold out and they propose similar units here. The average sales price will be $135,000 base price, with PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 28, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The March 28, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, James Klataske, Bcrnie Strom, and Lloyd Walker. Chair Clemcnts and Member Winfrec were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Tom Vosberg, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Ken Waido, Kirstcn Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. CONSENT AGENDA• Item 1. Minutes for January 24 and 31 of the Planning and Zoning Board Meetings; Item 2.Oak Hill Apartments, PUD Preliminary #54-87L; Item 3. Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) - Preliminary & Final, #32-89F; Item 4. Nokomis Subdivision - Preliminary, #8-94; Item 5. Fox Hills, 2nd Filing - Foothills Site Plan Review, #36-93C; Item 6. Resolution PZ94-1 - Easement Vacation; Item 7. Resolution PZ94-2 - Easement Vacation; Item 8. Scgul N-C-M Site Plan Review, #85-93; Item 9. Lemay Plaza P.U.D. - Extension Request, #57-87; Item 10. Modifications of conditions of Final Approval; Item 11. Miramont PUD, Phase 3 - Preliminary; Item 12. Recommendation to City Council for Proposed Reduction of Right -of - Way Width Street Standards. Item 19. Miramont PUD, Phase 3 - Preliminary. Member Foutane moved to accept consent agenda Items as stated above. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA: Item U. Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning. *9-94A. Chair Clemcnts indicated that she and Member Klataske had a conflict of interest regarding this item and would not be present during the meeting, with Vice -Chair Cottier presiding. Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, read the staff report and recommendations and requesting approval. Member Walker asked clarification of the zoning boundaries. Mr. Waido said the boundary would extend as an extension of the RF for the Maxwell Open -- Space area, through the property, locating the canal and to the cast would be RLP.