Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINDIAN HILLS VILLAGE FINAL PUD ..... JUNE 6 1994 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 81 93A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 40 Member Winfree said she would be supporting the motion and it is not in any way to minimize the concerns that have been brought out about the members of the neighborhood. The concerns are legitimate. Mr. Prouty has taken strides to cover each and every concern brought out and addressed. This property is somewhat difficult to develop and a lot of things have taken into consideration in the design. Member Strom asked if light intensity and scale would be addressed? Ms. Whetstone said that staff has encouraged the applicant to discuss this with Light and Power. Staff will support them by meeting with the applicant and Light and Power. The lighting for public streets is typically designed by Light and Power, who have certain standards that have not been backed down on as yet. The applicant would like to pursue this with them and Planning staff will give support. She said the lamps used in residential areas have the capability of shields to control the lighting areas. The neighbor's concern will be looked into and shields recommended where needed. Member Strom recalled there were lesser lighting standards of intensity on Harmony Road, is that a standardized process, or specific to this project? Ms. Whetstone said Light and Power already has a reduced lighting design for residential areas, but there is not a process in the works for how individual developers to come in and require another system, which might change the inventory of bulbs from what they have now. Perhaps, as there are more of these projects, this would be more realistic. There currently is not a process in place to make a variance to City lighting standards. The Planning staff will work on that. Member Strom said with the agreement of the maker of the motion, he suggest that a condition be added to encourage lesser lighting intensity and that the staff work on that. He withdrew it because there is provision under the June 1, 1994, draft. Informally, he encouraged the staff to work with the developers on this issue of lighting. Vice -Chair Cottier recalled when the intensity of Harmony lighting was reduced, it was based on other cities minimum standards. Could the City request a minimum residential lighting as has been done in other cities? Ms. Whetstone said it was a good point and would be looked into. Motion passed 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m. • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 39 Member Klataske asked if there was concern for parking or concern for the turning radius of the street? Ms. Whetstone said her understanding of the concern over the parking was potential encroachment into the 20 foot drive isle, required by the Fire Department. The on -street parking spaces will be of a concrete material as opposed to asphalt. It will be will delineated from the drive aisles. Planning staff believes that there is enough evidence from other cities to support the 7-foot request, and there would not be encroachment into the drive aisles. Member Winfree asked if there were sidewalks on both sides of the street throughout the project? Ms. Whetstone said yes. There are some areas where there are even detached walks. Member Fontana commented that her preference would be to reduce the parking widths and she would go along with the parking variance. Member Fontana moved for approval of the Indian Hills village PUD, Final, with conditions of staff including the variance for parking width. Member Strom asked if she would accept a friendly amendment that Lots #40 and #47 be restricted to single story houses. Member Fontana approved the suggested amendment. Member Strom seconded the motion. Vice -Chair Cottier asked if the June 3, 1994, draft commitments made by the applicant could be attached to the development agreement? Mr. Eckman said he would make sure that this was done, although it could be included as a condition. Was it the parking variance in the motion? You can condition that with the staff being in agreement with the developer and the neighborhood as outlined in the letter in the development agreement. Member Fontana agreed. Member Strom seconded. Member Walker said this project is interesting in the sense that it is a different approach to housing in Fort Collins, and how street widths were mitigated. Something like this is how we can work with i the neighbors and how we can begin to build a compact city. There are some fine attributes that may show how housing will be approached in the future. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 38 Ms. Whetstone said the Transportation Department required some restriping of Stuart and turn lanes for the PUD. It would meet requirements of traffic volumes. Mr. Herzig said the specifics of the street plan have not been reviewed. In older neighborhood areas, they often do not meet current City standards for streets. The question would be whether or not it would function safely. At this location the intersection will work with sidewalks, proper site distances and visibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that it meets City standards but it will work when the departments are finished reviewing and approving the plans. The safety standards are not being compromised, rather they are reviewing issues of maintenance and construction methods affecting the City. Member Walker had a question regarding Lot #40, with a drainage easement to the property line and some question about the development plans. Will that be vacant land? Mr. Prouty said that the plat reflects a 6-foot drainage easement to the property line which would have to be respected, i.e., not buildings, patio are o.k. Mr. Walker observed that scale and bulk of buildings on site #40 and #47 are extremely close to the property line, particularly site #47, near Ware house. For accountability sake, he suggested that they be limited to single -story structures for compatibility to Bush Court residents. He also asked Ms. Whetstone the latest report of the street width and parking widths of the project. Ms. Whetstone said there are two variances being reviewed by the City. Either a variance from eight feet parking widths (City standard) to seven feet widths or variance to the sidewalk from four feet (City standard) to three feet. There is a memo of May 23, 1994, in the Board's packet reflecting staff s decision for the variance justification. The code allows the variance because of the infill nature and set development patterns established and existing utilities. Either are satisfactory from a Planning Department view. At this time, the Engineering Department doesn't support the variance to the parking, but does support the sidewalk variance. Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the variances connected with this project. Ms. Whetstone said the only thing that Planning is looking at is the sidewalk width. A right-of-way variance was granted at preliminary. Within the row is a standard 36-foot wide street with offsets for parking alternating with landscaping. The sidewalk is located in the right-of-way, as is standard. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 37 Member Strom asked, in reference to the neighbors questions concerning damp basements, if in Mr. Hamdan's judgment the drainage plan would have effect on that? Mr. Hamdan said, most of their seepage problems are coming from the Arthur Ditch and that is probably not going to change with this development. He stated there would be less percolation as a result of the PUD and water will be approved off of Indian Hills West Village and conveyed via pipe going, under that swale, directly to Spring Creek. If any thing, the PUD and drainage solution it will reduce the ground water levels in that area. Mr. Prouty stated that the program originally planned with Forestry was not a one-shot program, but it takes care of existing trees and neighbors needs on an on -going basis. The property line goes just outside their fence. All original corner markers have been located for them and marked by his Engineer. The trees along the old tree line, proceeds two -three feet down to the east of their fence line. The developer proposes a four- to six-foot wide tree buffer east of the fence, exclusively for trees, with no grading. This was done only after consulting with the City Forester because of concern for tree roots. They have complied with the requirements of the City Forester, to preserve the existing trees. vice -Chair Cottier asked, regarding the drainage plan about a written commitment from the Indian Hills West townhouse that they would not make any modifications which would affect the drainage plan? Mr. Hamdan stated that the townhouse PUD is a completely developed area and only on newly developed areas can conditions be placed. There is an existing condition that states that site drainage across the newly developed site (Indian Hills Village), including off -site flows from the townhouses will be routed through the swale or pipe/or combination. There cannot be a retro-active condition on Indian Hills West Village. Ms. Whetstone said if Indian Hills West were to propose something that would add more than 350 square feet of impervious surface, it would require a drainage report and an administrative change, which would be referred to storm water. Mr. Hamdan said if there were a significant change, they would have to go through the process and be reviewed against today's requirements. Member Strom asked about the traffic geometry with access to Stuart Street. Is it reasonable to assume that they meet City standards? Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 36 Paul Eckman answered if they are agreements that have been met by the developer and the neighbors they could be worked out with Mr. Eckman , Mr. Herzig and the developer, Mr. Prouty, and to make sure it was the agreement they reached with the developer. Basil Hamdan, Storm Water Utility Department, stated that drainage has been a troubling issue with this project and a controversial issue. The main concern of the Busch Court neighbors is whether the PUD will be able to drain the west part of the site without impacting their properties. He went into detail of the changes in the drainage plans through the planning process for this project. The proposed plan now drives the drainage through a pipe, alleviating the concerns. In some areas there are tight constraints, with trees, home placements and allowance for the 100 year flood plains {the tightest constraint being 140% of the City loot flow requirements are 133% so the present exceeds the minimum requirement. The Plan still needs work with the City Forester to meet constraints of the existing trees. Vice -Chair Cottier asked if the sign -off by the City Forester and Storm Water Utility believe that the trees will survive the drainage swale? Ms. Whetstone replied that in those areas, if there is a problem with the trees, there is a remote possibility that some trees will not make it. At the current time there is a densely planted landscape buffer over and above what the city requires as a buffer, plus a 6-foot high solid -wood fence. There is no requirement in the LDGS for a landscape buffer to be solid. If a few trees were lost, this would not significantly impact of the quality of buffer provided. She further stated that there is a standard planned unit development condition, attached to Staff recommendation, to review and approve the storm drainage plans and utility plans before the utility plans are filed and development agreement is signed. Mr. Hamdan said that the Board can approve land use and layout, but the Storm Drainage approval will be about three months behind the Planning and Zoning Board approval before the utility plan and development agreement can be resolved and approved. This is standard on nearly all PUDs. The neighbors will be able to resolve their questions during this time, and he believed they could be resolved. Vice -Chair Cottier stated that no building permits could be issued before these issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the City, as no permits are issued with a final plat, utility plans, and development agreement. 0 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 35 being rushed through to obtain approval before the drainage issue has been addressed properly. Sonia Nornes - 1806 Bush Court - She addressed landscape buffer, tree line, privacy, light and noise pollution. Her concerns included the 9 foot distance of backyards to roads and street lighting. There is not a continuous landscape buffer on all properties to the new project. Her concern was the drainage plan impacts on the 10-year landscape replacement plan without adequate space for the necessary setbacks in tree -line buffering. Tree root damage may result in loss of trees where drainage ditches will be dug. She made a point that evergreens, such as spruces, need 30 feet of space, quite a bit more than deciduous. She requested that these issues be addressed by appropriate city departments before final approval. Mr. Bruce Cohen summarized by stating that the project be slowed down to get detailed plans in order to address issues raised by the neighbors this evening. He recommended the old PUD requirements would take care of several issues of concern, setback, height issues, excavating of trees along the drainage ditch, and tree replacement. The concern for the garage placements. He questioned open space areas not being adequate. He requested the removal of two homes, as stated in a letter from Mr. Prouty of May 19, 19941 but six days later it was withdrawn. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Vice -Chair Cottier asked that the drainage concerns and the tree replacement plans be addressed by City staff. What does shadow analysis show, and does the PUD meet City requirements? Does the drainage plan affect the existing trees and buffering of existing landscaping? Ms. Whetstone addressed the tree replacement question stating that the Forestry Department has recently reviewed both the existing tree replacement plan and the drainage plan. Natural Resources reviewed it just last week and both agreed that the plan is a good plan, excellent in detail. There is a signed copy in the packet. Some elms have been removed by neighbors and that is why there are gaps. The developer said he would replace them appropriately or with whatever trees the neighbors wanted. She deferred the drainage issue to Storm Water Utility. She mentioned the criteria for the shadow question and pointed out the existing trees of 35' in height would cast a longer shadow than the buildings. Vice -Chair Cottier stated that the document received by the Board is a draft of the neighborhood agreements reached at a June 1st meeting. She asked if this document could be added to the development agreement. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 34 (3) Innovative concepts of the project are good but with some concerns for garage placement to the rear of buildings and small lots which result in small setbacks (concerns for drainage and landscape buffer, aesthetics, roads too close). These challenges need to be overcome. Hari - 1840 Bush Court - He addressed: (1) Neighborhood Compatibility - the neighborhood believes it has not been met effectively. The existing neighborhood is mainly single-family homes with a cluster of townhouses with heights not exceeding 24 feet and ample green space between them. He referred to a letter written by Keith Weir to the Board pointing out structures in the project only 15 feet from his property line. He states it will have a negative impact on his property value if plans proceed and other neighbors feel this may also negatively impact their property values. A normal two-story home is 22' to 24' in height he believed. A normal ranch -style is 14' to 16' in height. The proposed homes can be 30' to 35' in height. The highest existing homes are 22' to 24' height. He used slides to illustrate his point. He pointed out that 35' would be higher than existing trees. (2) Safety - He pointed out Lesser Junior High students needing to walk along Stuart. The entry way to the proposed development further complicates the traffic geometry and substantially compromises the safety of all forms of traffic, particularly pedestrians and bicyclists. It would seem prudent to study this area very carefully. He has witnessed two near misses with auto/bikers just recently near Stuart/Stover. (3) Item #30 All Development Chart - Shadows Cast. (4) Safety of the proposed sidewalks and parking slots proposed for the handicapped who may reside in the homes. Ron Fowler - 1824 Bush Court - He addressed drainage issues. He reported the 100-year flood elevations of 4968' and 49701. He pointed out that Spring Creek Pond is 4969' and there is a drop of elevation at Arthur's Ditch above Indian Hills West of about 241. The drainage that is planned will drain around existing resident's back fences. There are homeowners that already experience damp basements. The contractor shows drainage away from Bush Court, yet City maps shown drainage onto Bush Court. There will be damage to trees along the drainage ditch. He read from a prepared statement. Because of the history of drainage concerns and current water impacts, the impenetrable surfaces of the project, drainage should be studied very carefully. He was concerned that the project was Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 5, 1994 Page 33 Court, drainage issues, trees and buffering issues, placement of garages, light pollution, Stuart Street Issues (safety, parking, etc.). He believes, the issues were not resolved. He referred to All Development Criteria with the following concerns: building height and views, shading, setback, landscape, site lighting a noise and vibration. He wasn't sure where drainage went, perhaps sewage and waste? The Bush Court neighbors are concerned about: open side yards, tree buffering, small lots and height and size of homes. Staff recommended conditional approval at preliminary and the neighbors were concerned about page 1 and the confusion if the old PUD is still in existence or not, the existence of the landscape buffer, neighborhood compatibility, storm water, drainage, grading, existing vegetation, flood plain issues and that these would be resolved before final approval. There have been so many changes made over the past several months, he was uncertain if they have been resolved before final. The replacement schedule for the existing landscape, that has to be approved by the City Natural Resource Department, and there is uncertainty if it is really approved. On March 31, the final PUD was submitted, and during April and May many changes took place after final had been submitted, drainage changes, property line (trees along the buffer). So it is unclear to him where the property line exists. On June 1, the developer, not with the Busch Ct. neighborhood. It was a productive meeting to resolve issues and came up with common ground: the neighbors are not opposing development and support it but feel it needs improvement according the neighbors. There is cooperation between the neighbors and the developers, there is a report on the results of the meeting in the packet submitted, concerns the single-family dwellings and quality of the homes. Both the developer and neighbors are frustrated with the inconsistent and changing plans, the survey dated May 11, 1994, showed the property line for the trees belonging to the Busch Court Neighbors, last week it was found not the case, the trees are on the Indian Hills PUD property. Some frustrations with the development plan are: (1) Engineering changes, i.e., two drainage plans, both with the same date on them, that are very different and confusing. For one of them to work they would have to remove all existing trees. (2) Height of homes was reported as a concern of both the neighbors and the developer. They would like to see them reduced. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 6, 1994 Page 32 ITEM S - INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD - FINAL, #81-93A. Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report and indicated changes in the packet they received Friday, noting a new page 3 and 4 and bolded sections explaining setbacks and maximum heights for buildings. These changes will be reflected on the plans. Mr. Jonathan Prouty of Laginitas Company, planner, designer, and developer of the project gave out additional materials to the Board members. He gave a detailed presentation of the project for Indian Hills. He explained the cottage home concept, tree buffering and design, building heights, drainage, narrower streets, setbacks, density, etc. (Detailed information was in the materials submitted. He requested that the Board accept the Final plans for Indian Hills Village PUD. Mr. Richard Rutherford, Consultant Engineer, stated the report Mr. Prouty gave covered the major areas of concern. He added that they have worked to save all existing trees and in just a few places there are landscape timbers and design changes to accommodate preserving the trees and provide an adequate drainage channel. Mr. George Betz - 1101 Kirkwood - He is associated with the project in that he was the original developer of the Indian Hills Project for around 15 years. He said the original design was for higher density and height. He said that the site was very difficult to work with from a developers standpoint and that Mr. Prouty had done an excellent job. He supported the project and requested approval by the Board. CITIZEN INPUT Mr. Bruce Cohen - 1812 Bush Court - He was co -presenter of a group representing the neighborhood on Bush Court. He presented a packet of documents to the Board, entering them into as evidence. He used a slide presentation to support the concerns of the neighbors. He focused on the following issues of concern for the neighborhood. 1. History - The PUD was first established for Indian Hills in 1979, with a 40-foot setback between existing property lines and the townhouses. He has resided there since 1988, relying on the previous PUD requirements. There were plans for a private school that fell through. The site was acquired by Jonathan Prouty. The original the neighbors heard of the Indian Hills Development was in December of 1993 and referred to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting. The following issues were brought up: height of new homes, the setback from Bush n PLANNING i ZONING BOARD (� MEETING MINUTES June 6, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The June 6, 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, Members Jennifer Fontane, James Klataske, and Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree. Chair Rene' Clements was absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Joe Frank, Basil Hamdan, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Tom Vosburg, Kirsten Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. Consent Agenda: Item 1. 5 Senses Daycare PUD - Preliminary and Final, #23-94, Item 2. Resolution PZ94-7 Easement Vacation. Discussion Agenda: Item 3. Harmony Market PUD, 6th Filing, Red Robin - Final, #54-87T, Item 4. Amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Land Development Guidance System, #29- 90A, Item 5. Falcon Ridge PUD - Preliminary, #2-94F; Item 6. Indian Hills Village PUD - Final, #81-93A and Item 7. Fossil Creek Estates PUD - Final (continued at the request of the applicant). CONSENT AGENDA Item 1. 5 Senses Daycare PUD - Preliminary and Final, #23-94 and Item 2. Resolution PZ94-Easement Vacation. Member Klataske made the motion to accept Items 1 and 2 of the Consent Agenda. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Item 3. Harmony Market puD, 6th Filing, Red Robin - Final. Mr. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, read the staff report and recommendations. The conditions of approval have been satisfied and staff recommends approval of the PUD. There were slides presented.