Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PUD - 81 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 24 1. That a replacement schedule for existing landscaping be submitted and approved by the City Natural Resources Department and the City Forester. 2. That an agreement with the Indian Hills Townhouses HOA, regarding off -site landscaping be submitted and approved by the Planning Department, or that the landscaped buffer along the south boundary be provided on the Indian Hills Village PUD property. 3. That the on -street parking width issue of 7' versus 8' be resolved prior to submittal of final plans. Motion seconded by Member Strom. Chair Clements said she was intrigued by the proposal. It begins to push the city "standards" and this is a healthy direction. She would like to see more 28' wide streets in the city. She believes that always adhering to standards does not always lend to creativity. She hoped that the applicants and architects begin, to bring more creative proposals that make the Board look at the City standards and re-evaluate them for the good of the community. She supported the motion. Member Walker said he agreed with her comments but had a concern for the intersection with Stuart Street and stated the need to maintain "safety" as a standard. Member Strom said he supported the motion and the findings in the staff report and the LDGS are his reasons. Member Winfree will support the motion and is excited to see this project presented and carried out. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Clements stated that the Planning & Zoning Board does not usually hear proposals passed 11:00 p.m. to offer clarity of thought and objectivity for decisions. There are three more items on the agenda. She suggested that the meeting be continued to Monday, January 31, 1994. Member Winfree made the motion to postpone the remaining agenda items until the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of Monday, January 31. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1, with Member Fontane voting in the negative. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 23 property is vacated, taken out of both sides, it goes back half and half. Details are still being worked out. Member Cottier asked the location of the trees in relation to the 10-foot city -owned easement, east or west. Mr. Prouty said there are 8 feet inside the development property line and up to 10 into the 10- foot city -owned right-of-way, with a random pattern. Member Strom asked if the development is phased. Mr. Prouty said it was one -phase project. The economics dictate it. Chair Clements asked why the parking space width are an issue and how that would be resolved? Mr. Herzig said the City standards say 8 feet, where the developer is proposing 7 feet. He said staff is aware that other communities do have 7 foot wide parking spaces. The Poudre Fire Authority finds that more recreational vehicles tend to be residential areas and they require more space. The issues is unresolved. The City tries to discourage it. It has been requested and there will be analysis for recommendation of the final proposal. Member Klataske asked if these were attached or detached sidewalks. Mr. Herzig said there are both, detached with some landscaped areas and attached at parking areas. Member Klataske discussed some ideas about a drive over to the sidewalk area without a vertical curb. Mr. Herzig said this would need to be reviewed. Chair Clements asked if this project needs a variance from the solar orientation and street standard regarding right-of-way. Ms. Whetstone said that is correct and the variances are spelled out in the Staff Report for reference. Member Fontane recommended approval of the Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary with the variance for the solar -orientation ordinance, street standards right-of-way and the three following conditions as stated in the staff report: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 22 Member Walker asked if these are private streets, would they be maintained by the homeowner's association. Mr. Herzig said yes, but the development could be a mix of private and public. There could be a public turn -around, to be determined at final. Member Cottier asked if there was a potential problem of parking in the wrong direction on the street. Mr. Herzig said that it is a small number that chose to park that way throughout the city. Perhaps a distinct design of the travelways and widths will discourage or prohibit this reverse parking. He felt the answer is no. Mr. Prouty said these parking slots will be concrete as opposed to asphalt and well delineated with plantings. The parking should be self -enforcing. Member Winfree asked the developer about the island plantings. Mr. Prouty said the landscaping would include a major street in every yard and parking/landscape offsets will have shade trees. Utilities will be located in front freeing up private drives for ornamental or small shade trees to be planted. Member Strom asked Ms. Whetstone about the open space aspect and what were her comments. Ms. Whetstone said it was a different kind of product than a townhouse where there is a tighter cluster of units with common open space around it. The open space in the proposed development is more private. There is some common open space on Stuart Street, but mainly private open spaces is in the front and side yard areas. This development is considered a single-family project, which usually has private open space compared townhouse, multi -family where there is common open space. The staff feels there is adequate open space for the project. Recreational opportunities are available in the surrounding areas. There is also a half acre adjacent off -site and the developer is working with the adjacent homeowners association on the potential of improving the area, adding a gazebo, and sharing maintenance with the Indian Hills Townhouses. For Fort Collins, this is an experimental concept. Member Cottier referred to the Planning Objectives submitted by the Developer, there is reference to the east property line and a 10-foot city -owned easement. There is a suggestion that this could possibly be deeded as open space. Has there been response to this idea? Ms. Whetstone said the research has shown that it is owned by the City and it is not used for any particular purposes at this time. The City will consider vacating it. Typically when Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 21 Ms. Whetstone said the Transportation Division has reviewed this proposal. Parking is adequate and is actually more than the existing townhouses in the area. There could be overflow parking on Stuart which is a collector street, a public street. Transportation Division has not expressed concerns with this proposal. She referred to the landscape plan and stated it was a preliminary plan and the Planning Department will continue working with the applicant and Engineering on the final details for the plan. She further added that the drainage issue will be addressed with the final drainage plans. The Transforation Department has reviewed a traffic analysis and believes that the project is feasible, recognizing that Stuart Street is a collector street. Member Walker asked Ms. Whetstone about the Replacement Schedule for the existing landscaping, on the east and west borders. He asked if this is to be completed at the time of the development of the project or if it is something that is going to take place over time. Ms. Whetstone understood that the replacement schedule would occur for 5 to 10 years. Initial pruning and planting would be done by the developer. As the area gets built out, the replacement schedule would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. She said at this time this is not in writing. Member Strom had a question about the southeast corner for lots 12, 13 and 14, usually requires a cul-de-sac, where none is present in this proposal. Why is it acceptable here and not in other areas of the city. Ms. Whetstone said these interior streets are no longer public right-of-way. The local access street is private and the City doesn't require cul-de-sacs for private streets. Mr. Prouty said it was his understanding that local access streets were public and that is certainly the basis on which they've planned. Mr. Herzig said City interpretation was that they were not public but private. Engineering is working on the final details such as entry and parking, but support the concept of the plan in a preliminary mode. Chair Clements asked for elaboration of the entry work needed to be done. Mr. Herzig said that there is an island proposed, the City requires 20 feet on each side. The City hasn't looked at the details of radius and design speed on the entrance, it looks tight. These will be dealt with a variance to the plan. Chair Clements asked if conditions were required. Mr. Herzig said these are issues normally done during final. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 20 entirely at construction time. Evergreens, maples and ash are the trees recommended to replace the elms. Mr. Prouty further stated the covenants (will be honored) that have been used for the townhouses. There will be a provision for rental of entire units only or to single -families only. The primary markets to empty nesters and retirees, but 25-45 percent of the market could be sold to single parents or professional couples. The market will determine how that occurs. The units will be sold for $150,0004200,000. There is a concern about lighting for the record, that developer said he would like to provide lighting in as creative a way as possible, staying away from the large residential light lamps. Traffic considerations were outlined. There have been meetings with the Planning Department and the homeowners associations and he has tried to respond to their needs. Other technical points were covered in his presentation. He requested favorable consideration of the project. Chair Clements asked about the concerns about lighting, yet there were no conditions in the staff report regarding this. Ms. Whetstone said lighting issues are not typically addressed by Planning, but are the purview of the City Light and Power Utility, but staff will work with them to work out a solution within the standards. CITIZEN INPUT Hari Iyer - 1840 Bush Ct., resides west of the proposed development - He represented homeowners on Bush Court. The main concern is how will this project affect the traffic patterns. He mentioned public facilities along the surrounding arterial as well as the Spring Creek Trail. This needs to be studied for any potential problems. Mr. Iyer mentioned that many of the homes in the surrounding area have problems with basements flooding. This needs careful study by all parties involved especially the water table. Mr. Iyer mentioned other concerns: He questioned the artists conception of the location of the trees if there realistically is not room for them. There doesn't seem to be enough green space. Two -car garages not too far from neighbors back fences is a concern. The number of parking spaces are a concern (41 proposed), during the day there will be street parking and the concern is overflow parking on Stuart Street. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements mentioned the concerns of drainage, traffic patterns, landscaping, parking spaces and overflow parking on Stuart Street. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 19 Mr. Olt reflected that the statement of Mr. Walker, being "the whole purpose of the study is the location of the access point" is true in part. The way it reads was that the area -wide transportation study was not done just to determine the access point. That was only a portion of it. Motion to approve carried 6-1 with INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD - PRELIMINARY - Case #81-93 Ms. Whetstone gave the staff report. [Staff conditions related to: buffer landscaping on the east, west, and south boundaries; drainage; replacement program for trees throughout the whole site; on -street parking site widths. Staff recommended approval of this innovative design.] John Prouty - President of Lagunitas Company, area resident for 7 years and in the construction business for 20 years, gave a presentation of the development proposal. He explained the cottage concept, street layout, and streetscape with parking, and other site plan elements. (1) The cottage concept started about 50 years ago. It is characterized by parking at the rear and used by alleys. It has received nation-wide interest because of the pedestrian nature, neighborhood scale and re -definition of rear access. He cited locations in Seattle, Washington where this concept has been used lately. The layout and scale of streets is more attractive because of the elimination of garages facing the street. Street trees, short lawn, gables and front porches contribute to the pedestrian scale. Space and windows are used to give a more open space feeling. He had good and poor examples of developments using this concept. (2) The 43 foot right-of-way, with parking offsets to the right and left, provide parking in front of every unit. There is also on -site parking at the rear for two cars. Functionally, the street will look much smaller in scale because of the landscape offsets. In the Board's packet there is a variance on street standards, reducing parking space from 8-foot to 7-foot parking spaces. He outlined some technical aspects of the variance request and showed slides examples of parking. Sidewalks are on both sides of the project street. Offsets for the parking are concrete, with a rolled curb. (3) He reviewed the drainage plan and discussed flow lines. There is a 100-year flood line over one corner of the property. Setbacks to existing houses are of concern at three points, and range from 37 to 48 feet. The setbacks and landscape buffer were positively placed on site with the existing houses in mind. (4) There are 11 significant living trees on the site, 5-6 will be saved. The consensus of opinion, for the Chinese elm is to prune thin and replace them rather than eliminate them PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 24, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 24, 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 Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone and Carolyn Worden. ►l1 ; t 1 Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda which consisted of: Consent Agenda: Item 1, Approval of December 13 and December 16, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes; Item 2, Johnson Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #83-93; Item 3, Lopez Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #84-93; Item 4, *East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Final, #58-93A; Item 5, Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #21-92F; Item 6, Harmony Crossing PUD - Final, #65-93B; Item 7, Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Final, #66-93A; Item 8, *Stetson Creek PUD (Formerly Rock Creek) - Final, #16-89F; Item 9, Resolution PZ93-18 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10, Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11, *Total Petroleum West Prospect - Non -Conforming Use Expansion - Final, #78-93, and; Item 13, Recommendation to City Council for Fox Hills Annexation and Zoning, #36-93A,B. Discussion Agenda: Item 14, Stonebridge Garden Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #82-93; Item 15, Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary, #81-93, and; Item 16, Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93. Mr. Eckman pointed out Ordinance 151 was passed by Council on final reading in December and now the changes for the Land Development Guidance System are applicable for the first time. Member Cottier requested to pull the December 16, 1993 meeting minutes and suggested to review the wording of the motion for Spring Creek Project. Because of the appeal. Chair Clements asked to pull Item 5 Stoneridge PUD and Item 6 Harmony Crossing PUD because of conflict of interest. It was requested from the audience that Item 7 Windtrail Homes PUD, Final, be pulled.