Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINDIAN HILLS VILLAGE FINAL PUD ..... JULY 26 1994 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 81 93A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILEXHIBIT A Tree Protection Requirements Indian Hills Village To ensurethe continuation of the existing tree line along the west boundary of Indian Hills Village, the following protection guidelines should be followed. Trees With Diameters Greater Than 8" Provide a six foot wide undisturbed (no grading or filling) tree protection zone along the west property line. The excavation slope for the drainage. channel should be no greater than 4:1 starting at the existing grade of the east edge of the six foot tree protection zone. The maximum depth of excavation measured vertically from the base (natural trunk soil interface) of adjacent trees should not exceed 18 inches within a zone measured 10 feet from the outer bark of any adjacent tree over 8 inches diameter. Excavations deeper than 18 inches may occur beyond this 10 foot zone. Tree Diameters 8" or Less Alternative A: Provide a four foot undisturbed (no grading or filling) tree protection zone along the west property line. The excavation slope for the drainage channel should be no greater than 4:1 starting at the existing .grade of the east edge of the four foot tree protection zone. The maximum depth of excavation measured vertically from the base (natural trunk soil interface) of adjacent trees should not exceed 18 inches within a zone measured 8 feet from the outer bark of any tree 8 inches in diameter or less. Excavations deeper than 18 inches may occur beyond the 8 foot zone. Alternative B: Provide a six foot wide undisturbed (no grading or filling) tree protection zone along the west property line. A vertical cut of not more than 18" measured from the base (natural trunk soil interface) of adjacent trees can be made at the east edge of the six foot tree protection zone. No excavation greater than 18 inches should be made within 8 feet from the outer bark of any tree 8 inches, diameter or less. Excavations deeper than 18 inches may occur beyond this 8 foot zone. -, a.. 7 - 94- City Forester Date Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the �Co �it of the Cit Fort Collins held this 2nd day of August, A.D. 1994. ATTEST: �I` RESOLUTION 94-119 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RELATING TO THE INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE FINAL PUD WHEREAS, on June 6, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board ("the Board") approved, with conditions, the Final Plan for the Indian Hills Village PUD ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with the City Clerk on June 20, 1994, by various parties in interest as defined in Section 2-46 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 1994, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal and heard presentations from the appellants and other parties -in- interest; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing, the Council determined that the Board's decision regarding the Project should be upheld; and WHEREAS, Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal.' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that: a. the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading; b. the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing by exceeding its jurisdiction; C. the Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Development Guidance System in approving the Project; and d. the Project should be approved; provided, however, that the recommendations of the City Forester are followed with regard to the final utility plans for the Project. Section 2. That the decision of the Board approving the Project is hereby upheld by the Council upon the conditions previously approved by the Board and the additional condition that the recommendations of the City Forester, attached. hereto as Exhibit "A," are incorporated into, and made a part of, the approved utility plans for the Project. variance. These features include the pedestrian scale front yard areas, rear access garages which contribute to the pedestrian orientation of the project, existing landscaping on the perimeter, and in general, the "innovative cottage concept". This concept provides a single family product of appropriately higher density for an infill site near the core area. The plan with the variance is not detrimental to the public good and does not impair the intent and purposes of the Article. The plan meets all purposes and requirements of the LDGS and addresses many land use policies as stated in the Land Use Policies Plan. In addition, subsection (b) of Section 29-627. Variances states that the design standards specified in sections 29-656 et seq. (which includes. Division 3. Design Standards, for site considerations; streets, alleys, and easements; and lots and blocks) may be modified in the case of a Planned Unit Development authorized under section 29-526 et seq.. It appears then that it is possible for the Board to approve modifications to these design standards (ie street widths and on -street parking stall widths) under the variance section, without finding that certain requirements have been satisfied, as is done routinely in PUD's with lot sizes, setbacks, etc. In either case, Staff believes that the Board did conduct a fair hearing in that the Board did not exceed its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter because it does have the authority to grant variances to Article V. Subdivisions and it did approve the variance request based on the findings that requirement (1) was satisfied. 3. Allegation: I'The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter." The appellants allege that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction in granting a variance to the street standards for on - street parking width. They also allege that the variance was granted based on demonstration that the plan is equal to or better than a plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. Staff Response: The Board held a fair hearing in approving the Indian Hills Village PUD. The Board did not exceed its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter. The Board clearly has the authority to grant variances to street standards. As stated in section 29-627 of the Code, "When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize variances under this Article (Article V. Subdivisions) upon its finding that the following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied..." The variance was granted based on recommendations and findings as contained in written information provided by the applicant's registered engineer and a memorandum dated June 1, 1994 from Staff Planner, Kirsten Whetstone, in which requirement (1) of Section 29- 627 Variances, of the Code, was stated to be satisfied by the proposed PUD. Requirement (1) states the following: "That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this Article. Such variances shall not be granted if it would be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of this Article." As stated in the June 1st memo, which was referenced by member Fontane in her motion to approve the variance, the infill nature; pre -determined development patterns; and existing subsurface utilities, trees, and point of access are all conditions peculiar to the site which contribute to hardships because these conditions restrict where the streets must be located. To create a new layout, much of the existing utility system would have to be relocated. Although not the basis of the variance, the memo also mentioned requirement (3) and found that the plan contained additional features that render it equal to or better than a plan without the Engineering Department stated that they would not support a variance to the parking width because they did not have time to research for themselves what the implications were, even though they were aware that many municipalities and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) identify a 7' cross-section for on -street parking. The applicant and Engineering staff met several times to discuss this issue prior to submittal. Engineering supported a possible solution of decreasing sidewalks from 4' to 31. This is what the applicant proposed at the time of final submittal. During final review, which occurs after submittal of final plans, Staff again brought up the issue of decreasing parking widths rather than decreasing sidewalk widths. The rationale was, this PUD is pedestrian orientated and drivers rather than pedestrians should be inconvenienced. It was Staff, not the applicant, who re -opened the parking width issue. Staff determined that the issue should be resolved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Therefore all of the conditions of preliminary approval were met and the Board did not rely on false or misleading evidence in making their decision. 7. Building height and side -yards In making their decision the Board made no reference to the photograph used by the applicant, as an example of building height, which the appellants allege represents a 24' building, not a 28' building. The maximum height proposed for this PUD is 301. The Board did place a condition of approval on the PUD, that homes on the two closest lots be restricted to one story ranch style homes, to be compatible with homes on Busch Court. Nor, did the Board make reference to the side -yard information provided by the applicant, in making their decision to approve the PUD. The Board does not typically dictate the configuration of a house, ie. location and the width of patios, amount of chimney overhang, etc. on individual lots. The Board evaluates the setbacks as proposed and determines whether they meet the criteria of the LDGS. Proposed setbacks include 14.5' front, 3' side, and 3' rear backing to a 16-20' private driveway. Duplexes have a zero lot line configuration for the side yards. At the time of building permit issuance, the proposed building plan is evaluated to ensure that the setbacks are met. The Board referred to the Staff report which made a finding that the proposed PUD satisfies applicable criteria of the All Development point chart of the LDGS, including the criteria related to setbacks and building heights. In summary, Staff believes that the Board conducted a fair hearing. The Board did not consider evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. The City's Transportation Department studied the Stuart Street Corridor and determined that a left turn into the site is currently a lower priority than maintaining bike lanes and retaining parking on the north side of the street for the existing houses which front on it. There are other more major intersections on Stuart Street, such as at Remington/Stuart and Stover/Stuart, which function safely without left turn lanes. Therefore, the existing cross-section of Stuart Street is adequate to provide a turn lane, but Transportation has determined that it is not necessary at this time. This turn lane is not on the site plan approved by the Board. 5. Vacant land between Indian Hills Village and Indian Hills Townhouses The property in question is a 0.5 acre parcel of land which is part of a dry grass detention pond for the Indian Hills Townhouses PUD. The property is owned by the townhouses and can be developed into a park, open space, picnic area, etc. The property is not part of the "subject property" as the appellants allege. Because the property is not owned by the Indian Hills Village PUD, the applicant has no authority to propose changes or improvements to it, other than off -site drainage improvements such as grading and seeding necessary for development of this parcel, with appropriate permission. The applicant is proposing these minor improvements to clean up the area for the benefit of the surrounding neighbors. 6. Conditions of preliminary approval The Board determined that all conditions of preliminary approval were addressed and satisfied. a. The replacement schedule for the existing landscaping was submitted with signatures from both the City Forester and the Natural Resources Department. The signed schedule was included in the Board's packet. The replacement schedule is independent of the drainage issue (see #3) in that it addresses a phasing schedule for replacement of the weedy, undesirable trees with higher quality trees and indicates a maintenance agreement. It makes no mention of the precise location of trees, only of the spacing between types of trees. The purpose of the document was to provide scheduled replacement of the Siberian elms so as to maintain the integrity of the existing buffer to the extent desirable and feasible. b. A letter from the Indian Hills Townhouses HOA was submitted and included in the Board's packet, stating that they were in agreement with the proposed landscape plan. This landscaping will be maintained by their HOA. C. The on -street parking width issue of 7' versus 8' was resolved prior to submittal of final plans. The City are extremely hardy and difficult to get rid of. In addition, the Board was provided input by Staff at the hearing that if some of the trees do not make it, the existing buffer would still be more than adequate to satisfy the criteria of the LDGS. Therefore, the dense buffer is not only "planned", it is existing, and the plans indicate that it will be enhanced. This is particularly true about places where the homeowner's have already removed the trees. 3. Drainage and forestry plans Drainage plans were submitted prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and were reviewed by the Stormwater Utility. A first iteration of revisions was also submitted prior to the hearing. The applicant illustrated some additional scenarios for resolving drainage problems. As stated by Basil Hamdan, City Stormwater Engineer, the City was still reviewing revisions at the time of the hearing. There are drainage concerns with this PUD, which Mr. Hamdan believed could be resolved. It is not atypical for the Board to make a land use decision and for Stormwater review and approval to take an additional two to three months. This is the scenario for nearly all PUD's because the scope and complexity of engineering requirements and review. There was a condition of approval regarding utility plan review and completion and execution of the development agreement. The "forestry plan" is in fact a pruning, removal, and replacement schedule for trees identified by the City Forester as significant or not. This plan is independent of the drainage plan, as it identifies what action will occur, to which trees, by whom, and when. It also identifies maintenance responsibility for the new and existing trees. There is no mention of exact locations of the new trees. There are guidelines for separation between trees. A copy of the signed agreement, between the applicant, the City Forester, and the City Natural Resources Department was part of the Board's packet. Therefore the replacement schedule or "forestry plan" was complete and signed at the time of the hearing and drainage plans were submitted prior to the hearing. These two plans are independent of _one and another. 4 Cross-section and re -striping of Stuart Street The cross-section of Stuart Street is adequate to provide a left turn lane into the development, if parking is eliminated from both sides of the street as diagramed by the applicant's traffic engineer. According to the traffic analysis, a left turn lane is desirable, but the traffic counts do not indicate to the City Transportation staff that a turn lane is necessary at this time. 7. Building height and side -yard widths. Staff Response_: The Board held a fair hearing in approving the Indian Hills Village PUD. The authority of the Board, as contained in the Code and Charter, is to interpret the Code and apply the relevant evidence presented to them in making their decisions. The Board heard testimony from the applicant and audience and received written information from staff, the applicant, and the audience concerning facts of the Indian Hills Village PUD development proposal. There is evidence in the record that the Board properly applied the relevant facts presented to them in interpreting the Code and approving the Indian Hills Village PUD. The Board did not consider evidence, relevant to the findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading in making a decision. 1. Setbacks Setbacks refer to the distance from a structure, not including an on grade patio or drainage swale, to a property, line. Drainage swales may extend into setbacks, streets, and driveways. The City Forester and Stormwater staff have discussed the distance required to adequately maintain healthy, desirable trees. According to the City Forester, a distance of 4' is the minimum for planting trees. This PUD provides a flat, ungraded distance of 4'-6' at the west property line for planting of additional trees. There are many examples in the City of Fort Collins of trees planted in 4' to 5' wide parkway strips. The nine feet of open space along the west property line is labeled on plans the Board reviewed as a setback to preserve the existing trees. Therefore this setback does exist and is adequate, provided the trees have 4-6 feet of width. The City Forester and City Stormwater Utility staff have coordinated review of the drainage plan and will not approve it unless there is adequate room for the trees. 2. Buffers The dense buffer referred to in the staff report includes existing trees and fences along the west and east property lines. It does not refer to a "planned buffer" as alleged by the appellants. This existing buffer was originally planted to screen and buffer a residential area from the noise and impacts of a drive-in theater. The applicant has offered to plant additional trees in adjacent property owners yards, if they so desire, and to enhance the buffer where feasible on his property, with higher quality trees. The existing buffer between these two single family developments is more than adequate to satisfy requirements of buffering between land uses. Because it is not unusual for trees to be planted in parkway strips with distances .of 4' to 61, the integrity of the existing buffer is not at risk. The existing trees (Siberian elms) oes meet current City standards, with the variance granted for parking width. This variance reduces the street width from 36' to 34'. The traffic volume created by a 47 unit development is not significant given the existing traffic volume on Stuart Street. Transportation reviewed the traffic analysis and determined that traffic from this PUD would not significantly impact surrounding streets. The PUD is feasible from a traffic standpoint and this criterion has been satisfied. 8. Shading (A-2.9) This criterion asks whether physical elements of the site plan are located and designed so as to not cast a shadow onto adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a 25' hypothetical wall located on the property line. Staff reviewed the location of physical elements on the site and concluded that the shadow cast onto the public ROW of Stuart Street, by buildings in the Indian Hills Village PUD, is not greater than that cast by a 25' wall on the property line. If the building on Lot 1 were 30' tall, the excess shadow would be cast onto property commonly owned by the Indian Hills Village HOA. In summary, staff believes that the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in its evaluation of the Indian Hills Village PUD development proposal. The Board found that applicable criteria, including those listed above, of the All Development point chart of the LDGS were satisfied. 2. Allegation: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading." The appellants allege the following issues included false or misleading evidence: 1. Nine foot setback along west property line. 2. Dense buffer along east and vest property lines. 3. Drainage and forestry plans not submitted or complete. 4. Stuart Street cross-section and left -turn lane. 5. Status of vacant land between Indian Hills Village and Indian Hills West Townhouses. 6. Compliance with conditions of approval. trees, and unique architectural details provide visual interest. The proposed landscape plan exceeds, in quantity of plant materials, that of typical single family subdivisions or PUD's, which require at most a single street tree. 6. Natural Features (A-2.3) This criterion asks whether physical elements of the site plan adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize disturbance of topography, water bodies, streams, wildlife habitats, vegetation and other natural features. In this case the most significant physical characteristic of the site is the existing trees. The City Forester and Natural Resource staff have visited the site and identified the significant trees. According to the PUD, these trees will be maintained. The Stormwater Utility is aware of this requirement and will not approve a drainage and grading plan which jeopardizes significant trees. One of the most difficult drainage challenges for this site has been to resolve the failure of the townhouses development to provide adequate detention and outfall. This applicant has volunteered to resolve the problem, which causes flooding of the Busch Court properties from time to time. In order to accomplish this, -an inordinate amount of run-off must be conveyed along the western property line, to a large culvert under Stuart Street. One of the easiest methods would be with a concrete lined channel. Instead, the applicant has proposed the grass lined, natural looking channel, with a buried pipe. The use of existing paved driveways for drainage is a common and allowable practice. In many cases, parking lots are used for detention. This in fact reduces the amount of paving that would otherwise be required allowing for more landscaped areas. The issue of railroad ties rotting is addressed with the Site and Landscape Covenants which are filed with every approved PUD. These covenants hold the property owner and all subsequent owners to all stipulations of the site and landscape plan, including replacing dying vegetation and rotting timbers. 7. Vehicular. Pedestrian, and Bicycle Transportation (A-2.1) Transportation staff has reviewed the Stuart Street corridor and are aware of the level of activity. Stuart Street is designated as a collector street on the City's Master Street Plan, even though it does not meet current City standards for street design. As a collector street it is expected to carry higher volumes of traffic than a local street. The configuration of Stover Street, which does not align, and other intersections with Stuart, also do not meet current City standards. It was these existing conditions which Mike Herzig, City Engineer, referred to when he said it does not meet current City street standards. Regardless of the existing conditions of.Stuart Street, the proposed Indian Hills Village PUD variety, the architectural character is less established than in the historic character of the east and west side neighborhoods or of a. suburban subdivision to the south. The proposed PUD does present an attractive image and sets a standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Th 3:� Setbacks (A-2.12) This criterion asks if setbacks for buildings and other site plan elements are consistent with the setbacks established in the surrounding neighborhood. In cases where a definable setback does not exist, is the pro osed setback appropriate for the land use and streetscape proposed In this neighborhood there is a variety of housing types and setbacks are not easily defined for the overall area, although each separate area has it's own established setbacks. The proposed setbacks are appropriate for the land use and streetscape proposed. Along Stuart Street, except for Lot 1 which has a 191, side yard setback, the houses in this PUD, fronting on Stuart Street, are setback 551. Staff believes that the setbacks are compatible with Indian Hills West townhouses and that an adequate buffer exists to the houses on Busch Court. It is also a fact that, though the Busch Court rear yards are large because of the size of the lots, the rear lot setback -for Busch Court lots, in the RL Zoning District, is 151. It is possible that in the future, structures could be built 15' off the Indian Hills Village PUD property line. 4. Landscape (A-2.13) A City guideline for the distance between trees and water or sewer lines is 101. There is no guideline listed in the LDGS for the distance between a drainage swale and trees. The City forester has indicated that the 4'-6' width provided for trees along the western boundary of this PUD is adequate. If these trees are adjacent to a drainage swale, they need the 4'-6' of flat area and a maximum slope of 4:1. If.the trees are adjacent to a vertical retaining wall structure, the height of that structure should not exceed 18" and the trees should be located in a 6' wide flat area. The applicant consulted with the City Forester regarding how much room to provide for the trees and for slope information. The drainage plan is designed with these guidelines in mind. The City Stormwater Utility and Forestry Department are coordinating review of the drainage and grading plan and landscape plan. The drainage plan will not be approved if it does not meet City guidelines for preserving significant trees. 5.. Landscape (A-2.13) aesthetics The site plan and landscape plan demonstrate that aesthetic considerations have been addressed. Foundation plantings, street i scale, while not identical, are compatible with adjacent, the townhouses. The Board included a condition of appi the two closest homes, on Lots 40 and 47 be restricted to ranch style homes, to be compatible with homes on Buschl This site does not have a PUD condition on it and in thl__ _ district single family lots on 6,000 sf lots would be allowed as a use -by -right, with 15' rear setbacks to the Busch Court property line with 5' side yards and a maximum height of 401. The building orientation and setbacks for\the proposed PUD are adequate for the proposed land use. Within the development, the proposed setbacks are appropriate, just as they are within the townhouse project and within the Busch Court neighborhood. This proposal is not the same as the Busch Court neighborhood, just as the townhouses are not the same, yet they are compatible. The LDGS does not ask for all developments to be the same, but allows for differences with appropriate mitigation and buffers. The Board found that the building orientation and setbacks for this PUD are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and adequate /mitigation and buffers have been provided. f , /�� 2.J Architecture (A-2.7) �( (3 This criterion asks if the architecture proposed for the project is appropriate for the uses and activities planned and does it contribute to the neighborhood appearance in a positiv way eD a)445 � ? This PUD is the completion ofnIndian Hills West�nd is compatible with the existing townhouses to the south. Th LDGS states that compatibility does not mean "same as". The proposed architecture, is in the style of Victorian cottages d bate- . the-mei-ghbor-hood-app-earance-in,a It is an architecture which is compatible with both tthe townhouses and the traditional design of Busch Court homes. X The 2' to 4' difference in building height is due to roof pitch,��'S not additional living space. Higher pitched roofs, characteristic of this architectural style, contribute to the aesthetic appeal andyo-kli�,,;�( are generally considered more desirable and pleasing than low, shallow pitched roofs. The living space, ie windows, are not r �S located any higher and therefore privacy is not an issue. In y addition, there is existing 6' high privacy fencing along the west�4 property line and a dense buffer of 30' tall trees. ,� dy The LDGS states that in areas where the existing architectural/. character of the neighborhood is less defined, architecture of the S new development should present an attractive image and set a �y� standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment of the , area. There is a variety of architecture in the area, including /ZZ ,1 standard houses on Busch Court, duplexes north of Stuart Street, apartment complexes directly north of the PUD, townhouses to the south, a commercial gymnastics center to the west, and large spacious homes in Indian Hills to the east. Because of this d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." i. Allegation: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter." The appellants allege that the Board failed to properly interpret the following Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria of the LDGS: 1. Building Placement and orientation (A2.2) 2. Architecture (A-2.7) 3. Setbacks (A-2.12) 4.. Landscape (A-2.13) 5. Landscape (A-2.13) aesthetics 6. Natural Features (A-2.3) 7. Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Transportation (A-2.1) 8. Shading (A-2.9) Staff Response• The Board properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in making a decision to approve the PUD. The development proposal was reviewed appropriately against criteria and guidelines of the LDGS, the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance. The Board heard testimony from the applicant and audience and received written information from staff concerning the facts of the development proposal. There is evidence in the record that the Board properly interpreted the Code, including the above listed criteria of the LDGS. The Board's interpretation of these criteria is consistent with the way these criteria have been interpreted in the past. 1. Buildina Placement and Orientation (A2.2 The purpose of the criterion is to ensure that the way in which the physical elements of the site are arranged on the site: (1) is adequate for the purposes of the proposed land use, and (2) considers the neighborhood character. The Board interpreted this criterion in a consistent manner. The proposal is for single family detached homes next to single family detached homes and two-story attached townhouses. The Board found that the proposed building placement, heights, architecture, and July 20, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FM: Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner TH: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Ron Phillips, Planning Director RE: Staff Response to an Appeal of the June 6, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board approval of the Indian Hills Village Planned Unit Development (PUD), Final. The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Notice of Appeal, regarding the Indian Hills Village PUD- Final, filed on June 20, 1994, by homeowners on Busch Court, a neighborhood adjacent to and west of the subject property. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Abuse of discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record; (2) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of Code and Charter; (3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that; a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its finding which was substantially false or grossly misleading; 1. Call Meeting to Order. ,l 2. Roll Call. 3. Consideration of the Appeal of the June 6, 1994, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving the Indian Hills Village PUD, Final On June 6, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve the Indian -Hills Village PUD, Final with conditions regarding execution and filing of the utility plans and development agreement, height of homes on ��y 1 Lots 40 and 47, a variance to allow 7' wide on -street parking, and `C incorporation of a neighborhood agreement into the development agreement. The Indian Hills Village PUD is a residential development for 35 single family lots and 12 duplex lots on 6.25 acres with a gross residential density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The site is located on the south side of Stuart Street., east of Busch Court and West of Stover Street. The property is zoned RP, Planned Residential. The preliminary PUD was approved on January 24, 1994 with conditions regarding landscaping, parking width, and fire protection. On June 20, 1994 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by homeowner's on Busch Court, an adjacent neighborhood. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. r �L� Zo 9S City of Fort Collins printed on recycled paper Available Space Calculation Space Acre Sq Foot % of area Total Area Calculation G.215 270,728 100.000 I Public ROW 1.497 65,226 24.093 Driveway0.754 32,829 12.126 Open Space 0.677 29,507 10.899 Includes Drainage w/ concr & grass Total Public Space 2.928 127,562 47.118 Total Available for lots 3.287 143,182 52.888 Front Setback O.620 S 27,000 9.9731 Driveway0.150 6,530 2.4121 House (at widest) & Garage 1291595 0.440 19,140 7.0701 35 @ 1870 1.503 65,450 24.176 Total House & Garage 1.943 84,590 31.245 Total-House,Drive & Front 2.713 118,120 43.631 Total RemainingLand 0.574 25,062 9.257 Minimum 6'/house side setback 0.366 15,933 5.885 -remaining Possible Land 0.2081 91129 3.372 For 47 sites if side evenly dist 0.012 533 0.197 Along Av Len th 0.000 7.206 0.003 Page 1 I Deve lope /s - - ( I P nc Typical StreeLsce e c Cj C (,, IC-41 e Ciryo I TM pA 79pical Str"tscs Possible Resolutions Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • SLOWDOWN!!! BEST • Go back to the requirements of the old PUD 40' setbacks, maximum height 24' Busch Court Neiuhbors' Concerns Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • Setback From Existing Homes • Height of new homes • Drainage • Other Neighborhood Compatibility: > Landscape Buffer, visual > Light Pollution > Noise Pollution • Stuart Street (Parking, width, etc.) • Possible non-compliance w/LDGS. shadow requirements •, Minimal open space. for aesthetics and drainage Resulting Challenges Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • Tall Homes (Massing) I • Small setbacks from our property lines to homes (151) • Little room for drainage or landscape buffer • Little Green Space for aesthetics and drainage • Roads in our back yard (9' from property lines) • Garages in our back yards mewngs Innovative Concepts Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • Cottage Concept • Garage access in rear • Maximize land usage Nm�c Neiahbors'/Developer's Common Ground Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • In General, Busch Neighbors Support Development • Cooperation between Neighbors and Developer, meetings • Single Family Homes • Quality Homes • Frustration with inconsistent/changing plans > Surveys > Drainage Plans > Buffer Plans • Want Height of homes reduced • Developer flexibility regarding neighbor's concerns (within constraints) • Innovative Concepts However: Innovative Concepts pose unique challenges that must be overcome! History from Neighbors' Perspective Indian Hills PUD Hearing 6/6/94 • PUD for land established May 1979 • Many new neighbors move in relying on PUD • 1992 School acquires land, removes PUD? • School plans fell through • Land acquired by different developer December '93, Town Meeting for Indian Hills Village Issues Brought up by Neighbors: Height of Proposed Homes New Home Setback from Busch Ct. Drainage Tree Buffer/Landsacpe Garages as viewed by Busch Ct. Light Pollution Stuart Street issues (Safety, parking, etc.) • New PUD applied for January '94, Neighborhood Rep • Staff Report Issued, recommends conditional approval • Feb. 3, Busch neighbors met w/City to discuss issues • March 7, Busch neighbors meet w/ Developer • March 31, Final PUD submitted • April/May, many changes: Drainage, Property Line • June 1, Last meeting w/Developer to resolve issues addstly LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Bruce Cohen + FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: June 3, 1994 RE: Draft / Mutual rac i itinn 1. Lagunitas Company shall consider Busch Court neighbors input and specific provisions regarding Indian Hills Village covenants and incorporate same where possible. Possibly provide for Busch Court neighbor to be involved in the Indian Hills Village HOA in some fashion as appropriate, such as member, non -voting member, Board of Directors meeting participant or otherwise. 2. Busch Court neighbors reserve the right to have an independent engineer review the drainage plan after ground leveling and prior to City inspection to assure that it meets City requirements (133% times 100 year flood carrying capacity). Lagunitas Company will make related engineering information available to Busch Court neighbors and / or their engineer and furthermore will advise Busch Court neighbors at least one week prior to City inspection time'so that neighborhood and their engineer will have time to assess and review the efficacy of the design and provide input to the City. 3. Lagunitas and Hari lyer will draft letters regarding the desirability of including Stuart Street on the new traffic study about to be commenced with copies of each letter to each party. 4. Lagunitas Company agrees to include a provision in covenants prohibiting Indian Hills Village residents from passing through the Indian Hills Village west boundary line buffer and onto or across Busch Court neighbors yards without their express approval. 5. Lagunitas Company will meet individually with each Busch Court neighbor and consider what their preferences are with regard to thinning and trimming existing buffer and with regard to how it best can be supplemented with new trees, deciduous, evergreen and / or ornamental. Furthermore Lagunitas Company will put together an overall plan for the full west property boundary buffer and review same with the City Forester. Every effort will be made to incorporate Busch Court neighbors suggestions and desires into the overall buffer plan and furthermore every effort will be made to encourage the City Forester to approve such a plan. 6. Buffer plan shall include evergreen headlight buffers opposite each street and drive which runs perpendicular to west boundary line. Op Ww�r and Light requirements - 8 street lights (29'pole, 100 watt) 6)"' -1 1 37.00 i . i I U M I L -4 Z 0 C) F 4 1 W N -16 NI I 0 - Developer preferred - 10 street lights E NrT DUF LEX (U L 58.50 (15' pole, 50 watt) 2 PARKING SPACES ��3 PARKING' PARKING F91 NI + 1 HC PARKING SPACE =-T' 3PEASPACE "'O� - SPACES �SPACES TRACT A ------- b+ of ACCENT PAVING CXFSTJ fIIr. w� 1&1�1 Slide #12 58.09 L'j H > 3 r5l x > 10 L' -ji 1- 0 a- 10. 11, �6. 50N is 43, vv. PUBLIC R 0 SPAC 3 PARKING IT EXI' 21 UTIL EASEMENT A oa-- 14 5, Uj- 1LIry 5.16 '0 0 34-.,-, EUENT A2/o 60- 3v7o-c 2 - - - - - V 1 10- Al DU LEX cj L 11, J F11 I z 19 / % I I @ �A W A . I ml 56.50 1 /�- 01 08 19�. 00 17 1 L .00 16 -25 L- 'a'- 00 G 14.5' LITIt ITY EASEMENT If 70.06 W '3�.23 I. 1 1 2 W I I . I W W PEN PA E, r - - - - - - - - ;IIJ 37 1 . 2 1 L 36.00 C `3 -7-039- 7 50.90 FRI ATE DRIVE K U 49.5E Li1.30 32.00 25 31 ml OPEN SP 37.00 RACT 26 H 5 ; 131.6 r CL R. 100. :�7-21_ 2 _j _ 14.5- DU Ek PARKING TILITy EASEMENT 55 UTILITY S EXISTING WATER LINE 55.00 4,3, 1 A J PARKIN PU L/c G SPAC O h 55.50 ACCENT PAVI S IAN HI 'CIRCI - + S COLORED CONCRETE. TYP. z 0' 11 PARKING \% 55.50 55.67 1' . SPACES �,2 PARKING SPACE > F- [L a IN ^'1 .. .c_sa o - J-1�'. Q1O42 oo^-lI1 zJ� 14.5' UTILITY EASEMENT j -T -T I- 055.50 T 4. 7::) 56.50 : �;- D PLEX 10 4 LU 1H39-T- - - - E3 > 7� Z n3 34 33 O I Ii /\ �: A 0- LJ 0 x SjF4ftj,- IM0 0 55 87 1 0:� W F 011.1' 55.50 _j -;7, ;.7. Side Yards Diagram Slide #11 e e � e �4e\o e �0 House A' House B House C I Eas ment l i Ease ent ; /� t f ate_ a�''• •��. 5ey�et° �`°�a .. •. i Slide #10 IHV - SIDE YARDS AND HOUSE TO HOUSE DISTANCES # of Lots Side yard Width Minimum Maximum 25 12' 15' 21 15' 22 1/2' 1 35' Conclusions (Excluding 1 - 35' Side yard): Minimum side yard width: 12' Maximum side yard width: 22 1/2' Side yard offset: 4' - 8' Minimum house to house distance: 6' Maximum house to house distance: 18 1/2' Side yard Offsets 4' - 8' 4' - 8' 4' - 8' House to House Distances Minimum Maximum 6'-T 7'-11' 7' -11' 14 1/2'- 18 1/2' 31' 1 ZLI.2 3 2- House Height Photo Slide #9 I/ 2e. y Buffer Section #C Slide #8 LI I J� 1 V 1 T P,�tv� tire - -"I I\ l 11VI. 1IL Slide #7 I k Buffer Section #A Slide #6 Nash 1828 Busch Ct. gz ry Cohen Follett 1824 Busch Ct. -7. -72:jr Nornes 41 : 1808 Busch Ct. A L 4 c5Urr EH PFIO R Slide #5 SZapiro 1816 Busch Ct. Wear 1804 Busch Ct. Buffer ' zrhead View Slide & cco II�� 11�--��--•� t-^ i .�::. d.:�-.cam: Z::s �� ---•_. _ . I 1...1 i ! ..s� i 4 s3�2\ A - i I i 0 iii1L FO W MIN AI��1 0 014 Vf ROW / Easement Cross -Section Slide #3 � Y =1 �` 4` ✓,,3y¢ 4. 5 z fir: ,�� - (G_ q 3 Z 4 tILJ _� y��# � --__--—.._-<?`�' �► " -E-a fir w,%p�r�-------------- - �{��#-�,_.*�^� � VITI Typical Stm�tecee PLAN 8 M.i, Le'd WA ef. U.., f,,.l 432.&� Indian PLAN 9 UPW 1d 1 432 f. WW ills Vi P.U.D. Final Architecture Slide #2 PLAN C U", Ln.] 9" d. loft PLAN C dcNViiin—g thorpe James 18"t " SI-1. 5-11- 1-3 OWd.l. Cmw.d. 8030, coat w-naa m•rNR n eA •NA N.rs�• NgM1q m�� R.N. $T0. RARNMC IN OART S - 9A 5]•111 (} SPK(5/LOT) a EsI PANOWI : 30 L•KES 1063 sRKES}t OR WROI NRNRIo _ _ _ I MTN. RARI:w.. "as - 11A WOU : E 11 P.An , 11 CAR,, Final Site Plan Slide #1 SITE TABILATION CROSS S"t ART, 11,T1, I 4]I•...Is LWz CR055 91E OENSOv AI 1015/6> ] -MI - ].56 1U/KRE • NmXC R.O.. 65,}]6 51 1.11 KRES ]IS • p1N(w.Y LANES : 32.111 Sr 0 15. KRES 11S • M. Vwx (OS.)' _}9,50] Y _ 0.6]) ACRES 11; •. NET OnSLORAIIiE (EOLS) 'I. J.IE] V 3]6] ACRES 53% LAN NONI ..ARw. ANor ART . sa...n .xw LR(. o.. .. VOTRRK_'49_ • `NN :Ov�ucN fn�uRL n'walene o n:+r 1-m Im WIT. Lr R{ altwRr • MN1NC I:NON'T rM A hKh 11' . I , II.M] T1. fFPG [:M16[ MC. 10 ITTIN • _ {q LA1l5/IAIN L. PROVOSEO hRC4 TOOI 1 qM In 1,280 SF PROPOSED TOTAL Sfc[N . U UNITT I,Op le Is SI. UNf TABLLAI%III: • am" AX.ZE EANEq OETK.•EO .11111) 35 NAM "LISTER STR E (Au0.T (0111Y(I(5) 12 WITS (6 gIRERCS) TOiH IT SOLAR OT8ITATTON O(aNANm I ss . W., WTI, I- O,NlAnoN o+omuKE 0C PAIN - to's W[ o[slcNAltO e.. p) A VARIAASE TO NA +.OPNPCNt N11 M "I 5MM OAONNAU N 4 C+4rtCO AT Iv[ TIN( OC ry PREtmlFv PPWAL OR 171 q N[ NON-OWCTYwC LOTS (33F 12i . 65% Clh R[OL^Rl u(N1; BLDQ ENIELOTEILOT WE DIAGRAM ----!� MAl- 1N N .a ss' u1NIA:w In•LOT1y 1015 vAm HllMly IS 5: J 1 rII \�L�I._ J' ulxluvu =139'-N1N E (NI'.IEp( SF{RKN Iy WILL pl I (ENYCI V 15 tlEM1{(x }9' - 19') NR ATI 01 • /A7 (RIOT2AIES NOOEL NONE LOT) 0-T sutr 1 w' 1 1 n RLOC. �.,. 3' SCE 5LTBK f h N. ENKtCK' OF SEOV,N OR OURE. 1 / 1 04 SIYEIR01 CPFRgN) 1 / 1 I- punyWIN UTAITT EASENENI AL Y I,Vu 'PONT SVFAO1 GENERAL NOTES 1. $p(PLOi: R PoTCNTµ P111[R WI PIJIT TIT,CpIRgp05 Lon ANO M{ ) A L'PCWTE SINGLE WII -111 A COOTPRM NO IAPCCP T. IW,T µEONTD IT, 'NE MO AIVLgNL LO15. }. TRION PICPUP SN At OF CLWNI AI OOTTO OA L015. 3. NA.ONELSNG UTAIS Am' NAK ALL :•TTRT N CC 17E Im51 IMATUIT -415 n1. ISr 1111 Ot AN AP LORTO CAL KCC"r EMNE OR %IOLIC SIREr, FINAL P.U.D. SITE PLAN PEgPJS®UNDUSE: CLUSTER SINGLE FAMILY (P.U.D.) EI(LSTIG ZONING RP {k3�5'ning _ Ilx)rpc lAn3cs C SHEET 1 OF i Rry, 5/II ,A R 5/1 1 3/31/94 13,11.10 A L Z—Ii �ye e HOME PUN IDEAS SPRING 1993 FULL OF GOON NOOKS GZ � tW A white picket fence sets the Victorian tone, and the house plays along like a symphony. The Victorian detailing includes a box window with crown molding, window trim that matches the sharp angle of the gable, columns, and corner brackets. 0ressed in a cool, rich green and featuring a shaded front porch, this house makes living seem breezy on one of the street's best lots. 'This one sits right next to the creek, and the comer lot makes it very special," Coburn says. "The house itself also has lots o t'salvaged material like brackets and old lights on the front porch." Special touches are evident on the outside: a centerpiece box window, intriguing moldings, and even a detached garage with French doors. The extra effects are most apparent, however, once you step inside the 1,650-square-foot home. The entry is cordoned with 3�4-foot-high half -walls, enough to create a "room"without breaking the view. To one side, BEDROOMRFEC the entry space opens to the grind living room, a 12xt0 IIIXII INI6-foot space that features a two-story ceiling with a balcony overhang. To the other side of the entry is the dining and kitchen area. The U-shape kitchen includes a niliy, protected work core that has easy access to the dining room and rear deck. The 94bot ceilings add spaciousness; a built-in dining room UP aquarium adds specialness. Two bedrooms and a L•wndry nook are hidden from the high-trrtlic areas of the main level. ENTRY =_�_ _ _ Upstairs, the balcony study with a dramatic LIVING - living room view seems to be suspended at the 12x,5 ` - top of the stairs. The master suite tills the rest of PORCH _ the top -of -house space, complete with a long. private covered porch with a 3-lbot-hi6h railing. MAIN LEVEL 1,859 upcim Iuul COST f12a,UfxL uu]u4p bl Ae .11ll\IIIIfYM1I x, sm,"".Co 47 f BLtter Homes ai Gardensa Sped �n rest Pub canons .♦ _ r, t - id ,osiered'casuWfy-toget/reronua et/iat "4 w� t t ,I torksinoreasasrdeµalkthanastreeK'tkese ty ',300- to 1,70&igitare foot /wires are ' :est;ned fursmnll jnurilies or.swgles who a a 1 iateayeii forrrerg/rbur/woifkvurgrrr tctonimsry/e 't .T •T It I. T R1. \. �.�L' y r'K. ♦ l IL.tM1 a➢T rJ,-'�.i"'^ i - > '� L-1a.1✓] \t.� t: ouL i� rR"T ai Ll- W, ...L.....n^, ti .:.�.v. �-+-- +fir.'. '` f.:�i #t� ` ?t �f',•r•t i-/ jt. S w: r, �F"�Sy ,.� t� �.r.,,,��1F { y Jx •4 (i��' `. I s•¢T LAY, • )�'h v. 4t�, V• ,t tLiG Tr. `•Y.t� ��• fit ., t#-sl -a. a '; {' r iii--- rA`�'' nrdw-' ✓.• a "'j r• 3'..t? �. t; (i�l!d R 11 tt l -- - �� ���-'�-011� '..Ira ' i�'Y • � tN` i ��i�t ��l�i���l 1 �`-�-•c.. -" N]'. 0`, "rT3. �+ '1 a .1; a.17•I^ 1hM%Ita1�� _ 1ri.`yy'F'trG.` .•�vt A -ill --A. �'{t � 11 t � 57`�1('•s�" .°St tr - r, x'. 4„ � r�. .` �,..- .v. • . � F �{ IMM ' `.. � , k, t L � tom.. •i�. �C I `1'' i 1��- f'{� ♦ # • ftl '9 �• r r � t • ' �ti1 �: a., 't' • •�l a; t .1 C<vi.A !JJ , -�, "s! mat ,a .{ hi•♦ �)t 1 l.'r '• 1 ?,'\'. ✓. 1 n q;1 ` .4,?a [ •r42 F`. +•� '� • aFlb7JA t/��S i t! 11_ •� si .� - f .` 'y�trr�J" rf4 'r` rs t��� B L If) � `'i.•�,'' �, _ . t';� r t` ,I.<� �` � ai. ': j'51.3`�nt y.l y '%t�n�77 �rr'+<< + t;. evt �i. 'i '..`.•c..# ';L �i 'I a a 5,- L ; � z ;'r ,(r•+)r iJv'}"Y � 1r.�1 r�� r l r r i tr� � �i ♦V� �♦i i y' �.. P+ 1.��r : � �a i�+ �� �{ •' P ,vtl 1.�t7' .N. ( r� ?tiit •k , , � .�.�� a. 4 - � • r f !:a (r.' �1 a i'. 1 (y �;j�l /l, r;l Rai' jiP��llt.it tw i :�'� �'}1"i Y ''� J• ♦ • o � Y\ -)y��} L' � S ,I , 1 iL. 4q �e eif T •Ja••r.41^� ,. t 'M..u1'btj ,.�\\� �', -M1' -/iY, ~'�i � � l� / >.Y_�T(��r9 � .� + �- 4.'w'1 "\ •7J � .. �v .,,} ti. ' � � v • -G3� SIGHT LINES AND SHADOWS W,Z19 house can be easy to build, yet tough to beat This 1,300-square-foot home teaches a lesson in simplicity with its straightforward design, few interior walls, and few sashays into the land of frills. "Because it was so simple, we added some elaborate siding and ripped fiberboard to make lap siding to create great shadow lines," says Coburn - The result? It's simply appealing. From outside, there is just enough Victorian ornamentation to aptly set the mood: a covered porch, columns, oval -windowed entry door, and a blend of gables and hip roofs. Even the soft white color speaks the Victorian language without a yell. Inside, the simple strategy works especially well, helping make the small house seem larger. The entry door swings open to a through -the -house view that rollsArough the living room, dining room, kitchen, and out the mudroom. An artistic arched divider gives the foyer definition, but doesn't hug it too tightly as would a full wall. Because few extras were added, each special touch carries added oomph. Sprinkled about the house are transom windows, salvaged Victorian -style leaded windows, built-in shelves, a window seat, and decorative moldings. The niftiest touch, however, is the hardworking floor plan that doesn't waste a step. The living room opens to the dining room and the kitchen, and a cherry floor flows through all three. Only a kitchen counter draws a boundary between the spaces. The homeowners usually enter from the rear of the house, which is close to the garage. A mudroom with a vinyl floor capttues the dirt, yet the kitchen EW it only takes a handful of interesting extras, supported by a strong design, to make a house a hit. This 1,300-square foot house is dressed in a Victorian theme, but sports an open, no-nonsense plan underneath �I UP STORAGE 11 x4 W MUD BEDROOM R BEDROOM GARAGE 17x10 9x12 11x19 OFFICE KIT t Oxt1 0 1tx15 DN DN 0 BAT►+ - DINING Up I 10=a 1.300 square leet COST. S95.000, excluding lot to constr sled in Boulder= Add S 13.000 Ia garegn7 . LIVING MASTER 19x 13 17x 13 NTRY kCCBEDRO0M MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL HOPE PLAN IDEAS SPRING 19M 43 TREK MAIN LEVEL n rupurrnuul p� rI ch sel 171 Im tint-lenipu lirrudr. hrnnnun,4 11•11h lirrh', rnri�ururing drruil.c uprm. Soothing. and WITH TURRET ow would you build a home that is fit for a queen.' I f you have Queen Viciona in mind --or even just, your o'. n family — you might start with some of the smking Victorian details and strong desteit elements found throughout this home. From the front. an octagonal attention -grabbing turret climbs two stories and anchors an intriguing roofline of assorted gables and hips. A wood -plank wraparound porch, studded with Doric columns, basks in the sunshine and breeze. "This house is the most visible one in Walnut Hollow," says architect Coburn. "With such high visibility, it was important that we have some distinctive features." But the real beauty of this house run; deeper than shingles and paint. Inside dwells a grand. BEDROOM Iighi-filled Floor plan that is surpnsin gly only 1.650 12xt0 square feet. The 7xI0-foot entry area is two stories high. 516xlO adding doorway drama for guests. The entry is also open to the living room, making both spaces seem more roomy, and the kitchen and dining core isjtr_st steps away. Tucked to the back of the first level, two bedrooms each provide private entry to a bath. Upstairs, (see plan page 39) an octagonal study fills the upper turret. It not only catches a good view of the neighborhood, but an inienor window overlooks the entry below. ,Also on the 1.650 wuare ieei second level is a roomy 2lxl3-foot master COST S100,000. bedroom, which includes a huge walk-in closet waetl ioi as cons.n (' 4a 0e,.0O with laundry center, a bathroom area, and a private 1 ~ 0'tlr garage deck. The large double doors to the bedroom can 3A No Text No Text A 1A, LZ PLAN C 9M..f. A Lb PLAN 8 PLAN C Mai. .1 1186.f. PLAN A M.i. I,,I 823.J. Up Level igI IIrIrd 1280 1 U LA lv� , .p.�Jr Level '920 &1: to ". "3.J I v LD NIP- f. JP PLAN B U,,, 6,0 /43 T 34 -,A tiv Indian Hills Circle i 19 tz q thorpe Indian Hills Village P.U.D. It I-1111es -AI 4 L/ SWI. 103 C.T 130.).43�P5 qA A, kv� 4 v 6e 4. Compatibility - Our project is primarily single-family detached units, approximately 70% of which will be relatively smaller ranch and main floor master models and approximately 30% will be two-story models. Of these, six will be duplexes which permit better orientation of yards at the end of rows of houses (12 total units) and the balance (35 units) will be detached. The duplexes will be constructed in a fashion to read as two single-family units and not to read as duplexes. 5. Side yards - Side yards will be an average of 15' wide, ranging from 12' wide to 22.5' plus one side yard at 35'. Paragraph 7 Fire Prevention in the Staff report / correction - reference to Lot 37 should be to Lot 47. 6. HOA / Covenants - There will be a Homeowners Association with strict covenants which will have specific provisions regarding maintenance, leasing, etc. I expect to have a draft within a few days, and as I have indicated at our last Busch Court neighborhood meeting and in my recent memo to Mr. Follett, I will provide Mr. Follett with a copy of the draft to review, make any suggestions on and share with other Busch Court neighbors. 7. Limitation of additional off -site drainage - We support Mr. Follett's suggestion that the City negotiate with Indian Hills West and execute an agreement that they refrain . from introducing additional drainage into the system or creating any additional impervious surfaces. 8. Parking width - Has been increased from T to 8'. 9. Storage - Most units will have full basements providing for extra space and storage. We recognize this to be a very important feature for housing for the markets we are serving. TO: planning and Zoning Board Members Kirctan ni etstone FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: May 20, 1994 U -RE: Indian Hills Village - R Lponse to 5 / 18 Planning Department Staff Report, 5 / 17 Busch Court neighborhood memo, 5 / 16 Ron Follett letter and 5 / 17 Senior Advisory Board letter I will respond to these items together and as succinctly as possible. My remarks are not a comprehensive discussion or answer to each question or issue, however, due to the shortness of time, I think it is important that you have the benefit of my response on these matters however brief.. I can, of course, go into further detail at the P & Z meeting Monday night. 1. Drainage - This is a technical matter for engineers. Our engineer, Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates; the City drainage engineer, Basil Hamdan; Ron Follett, other Busch Court neighbors and I have met numerous times on this matter. I am satisfied from the responses I have received from the engineers that the calculations are correct and that our drainage plan as proposed provides for a minimum of 140% of 100 year flood carrying capacity without going into Busch Court neighbors yards. Also there is additional elevation gain from the edge of their yards to finished floor grade. 2. Landscaoe buffer - There are existing tree buffers along most of both the east and west boundaries of site. We are primarily interested in a) improving the existing buffer consistent with . Forestry's recommendations, including removing dead and unsafe trees, and b) thinning as needed and replacing trees with more desirable trees on a phased basis. As a result of a pre-existing survey pin error there has some ambiguity as to whose property the hedgerow buffer trees were located on. Our surveyor discovered and corrected this survey pin error, and also has located and flagged all adjacent Busch Court lots' corner pins. Property line proceeds along east side of the backyard fences of such lots. Present hedgerow buffer trees are all located entirely on Indian Hills Village property. 3. Density - Previous PUD had 60 approved units for this site. We are putting in only 47. June 6, 1994 Planning and Zoning. Board Members 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Indian Hills Village PUD Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: Enclosed is various additional information which I will make reference to in my presentation. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this project. I look forward to working with you and the excellent City of Fort Collins administration and staff people in the future. -outy dk Enc. around to achieve maximum public and private cost - benefit advantage and to utilize maximum energy and resource efficiency in the development process. Site (zoned R=P) drops fourteen substantial trees to the south buffering it and has dense existing 1 lines buffering it from sii Street (zoned R-L). ten feet in elevation from south to north, has towards north of site, has private opera space from Indian Hills West Townhouses (zoned R-P) rees and shrubs . along east and west boundary -- igle family housing on Busch Court and Stover Site is located on bus route; less than two blocks from Spring Creek bike path and two parks; less than a mile from two schools and three shopping centers; and about a mile from Poudre Valley Hospital, Woodward Governor, CSU and Teledyne Waterpik. The site sewer and water constraints require that the lots be oriented primarily east -west, resulting in 51% solar ordinance compliance and necessitating the variance for the 14% not in compliance. Furthermore, such constraints require that all utilities be located in easement at front of lot and that street widths for Local and Local Access public ROW's each be reduced from standard by one foot. (We feel this is a proper implementation of the Land Use Goal to 'Reduce street widths in new residential development where appropriate" (page 17). This results in a public Local street with two ten foot asphalt travel lanes, seven foot concrete parking one side, five foot landscaped ROW island other side, and sidewalk one side, and a Local Access street with two ten foot asphalt travel lanes, seven foot alternatively parking / landscaping one side, and sidewalk one side (34' ROW). 3). Cottage, Conceot We are proposing an innovative cottage home concept with attractive . streetscape, small side yard, and attached rear- two -car: garage which enables us to create a very aesthetic and functional residential community white still achieving eight units per acre density. We believe this is a superior alternative to monolithic blocks of townhouses or patio —, homes with two -car garage as their predominant streetscape feature. Indian Hills Village will have an attractive streetscape with traditional cottage designs with, front porches and generous landscaping in front yard -� and ROW island. Private side yards permit views from house into side yard and enhance the openness of the house with this indoor - outdoor relationship. Hiehiy efficient and aesthetic' interior layout and design are incorporated. into three major house plans: a) ranch plan,.• b) two story with main floor master, and c)- two story with bedrooms up. Garage access is by private drives which are softened by their proximity to the adjacent open space and landscaping, as well as overhanging tree canopies from adjacent private yards and other landscaping. Housing will be a mix of detached and duplex units. Duplexes are necessary in order to locate side yards adjacent to ROW at the end of each row of houses rather than having a zero lot line with house right up against ROW. In such cases, it is planned that a ranch unit be coupled with a two story' unit so that attached units read as single family detached units with separate identity notwithstanding their common duplex wall. Our goal is to provide three basic model concepts, each of which can be .tailored with floor plan and features to meet individual consumer's needs, design tastes and budget. Our goal, furthermore, is to provide for the diverse housing needs of empty nesters, singles and couples, single parents, and small families, whose needs include low maintenance, small yards and the convenience of central location proximate to shopping, schools, parks, bike paths and employment. 4. Landscaping Fourteen Chinese Elm one to three feet in diameter are located toward the north end of the site. The City Forester recommends saving four or five of these, including one which provides a buffer between project and ..existing residence at northeast of site and also including a majestic three foot in diameter tree with exceptional size, limb structure and aesthetics. Existing dense east and west property line buffers will be pruned and thinned consistent with safety and health, and an annual program of supplemental and replacement tree planting will be initiated. The east property line landscape buffer is located not just on site, but also on adjacent ten foot City owned alley - easement. We believe that our development provides the City with two opportunities with regard to this alley - easement: a. City may wish to underground overhead power lines in the next few months while access across our site is possible. b. City, may wish to enter a landscape maintenance agreement with us whereby our Homeowner's Association takes on the obligation for maintaining landscaping in this ten foot strip (possibly vacating this ten foot strip to us as common private open space, or not). New and supplemental trees and landscaping shall be provided along south boundary both on our property and on Indian Hills West townhouses property as is mutually beneficial, as is negotiated with their Homeowners Associat'on. Furthermore, we have offered to participate in the construction of landscaping, picnic facilities, gazebo, and / or active recreational facilities on the Indian Hills West approximate half acre of raw land located at the northwest corner of Indian Hills West and adjacent to our site at the south. A private pocket park may be installed adjacent to the perpendicular parking at the northeast corner of interior housing. Trees and landscaping as well as appropriate signage will be installed as part . of our private open space and project entry at north of site adjacent to Stuart Street. We want this entry to make an impressive statement of community and neighborhood identity, in. harmony with landscaping and natural. environment. 5. Pedestrfan-Friendly Neighborhood Furthermore, central to our concept of this cottage community is that it be pedestrian -.friendly, and that the public roadway, parking, .sidewalk, and related landscaping be designed to help accomplish this. We have proposed meandering 20' travel lanes (asphalt) with parking offsets (concrete) alternatively on each side of street interspersed with 5' landscape right-of-way islands throughout project and sidewalk one side. This results in an aesthetic and pedestrian -friendly right-of-way. Also, units have 35' and 40' frontages and only minimal front yards. Minimum permissible roadway, parking and sidewalk as well landscaping are essential to keep the streetscape and* as space be houses on each side of street in appropriate scale with res,dences and yards,. and to prevent the impervious surfaces (asphalt and concrete) from being the dominant aesthetic feature of these streetscapes. 6. _ Achievement of Planning Purposes We feel that our proposed plan for Indian Hills Village achieves many of the purposes of Fort Collins Land Develooment Guidance System Goals and Objectives. and Land Use Policies, including but not limited to the following: a. Meeting community needs, superior design, creativity, compatibility with adjacent land use and ' healthy community growth pattern (in -fill). b. Higher residential uses near: core area, parks, existing water and sewer service, major employment centers, public transportation, alternative modes of transportation (bike path), and existing high density areas. C. Encourage and promote location and development of residential units in areas which can conveniently and economically provide public and private facilities and services needed by residents. d. Diversity of housing types allowing mixture of income levels in neighborhood. e. Reduction of street width in new residential developments where appropriate. f. Neighborhood identity, proximity to parks, private and common open space, limitation of .extraneous traffic. g. In harmony with nature coupled with superior landscape and aesthetic design. h. Construct a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood and promote bicycle and bus alternative transportation. 7. Assumotion / Rationale Our central assumption is that the significant portion of the housing market will value the quality, aesthetics, livability, and convenience of the type of residential unit and neighborhood we are proposing as an alternative to townhouse and patio home communities with similar densities. 8. Phasing Development of property will occur in on one phase scheduled for spring 1994. Residential units will be constructed on a schedule based on quality of construction and market demand. We estimate build out at two years or less. We look forward to working with the City of Fort Collins and to your favorable consideration of this project. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Jo Pr dk uty LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 December 6, 1993 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board c/o Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Indian Hills yillag6 / Solar Orientation Variance Request Dear Planning and Zoning Board Merr Our Indian Hills Village project constraints that affect our ability ordinance. rs: is limited by certain to comply with the solar ?M611 NAr preexisting. orientation 1. Water and sewer mains have been previously installed on site dictating a configuration of four north -south rows of housing, two rows in an island in the center, of parcel and two rows respectively along the east and west boundaries or property. 2. This is an in -fill site sandwiched between two north -south streets, Busch Court and Stover Street and with access only from Stuart Street at the north. 3. Accordingly, most houses are laid out with an east -west orientation,, making it difficult for such houses to comply with the solar ordinance, except where adjacent to open space or right-of-ways, and as shown in our site plan, only 25 of our 49 lots (51%) comply with the solar ordinance. 4. East and west boundary lines have dense existing tree and landscape buffers which must be maintained and which require strip of project / common space along both such boundaries in order to respect and maintain ` such buffers and tree root systems. �;l Accordingly, we respectively request a variance to solar ordinance permitting 14% (7 lots) .non-compliance and finding that 51% (25 lots) compliance is satisfactory. The basis for this variance request is Section. 29-627 (a), Subsections (1) and / or (2) which authorize Planning and Zoning Board to grant variances in the event that exceptional conditions .peculiar to the site result in hardship caused to subdivider if solar ordinance is strictly applied (Subsection 1) and in the event that exceptional conditions or difficulties exist with regard to solar orientation which will cause hardship to subdivider If solar ordinance is strictly applied, (Subsection .2). SinOely, Jonrouty Pre dk LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3367 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 - FAX 226 5125 January 7, 1994 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board c/o Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Indian Hills Village Residential Street Variance Request Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: We respectfully request a variance in the residential street standard, as described below and in the two accompanying engineers letters, so that it will be possible to develop the innovative Indian Hills community which we are proposing. 1. A problem is caused by preexisting site parameters specifically: A. Water and sewer mains have been previously installed on site dictating a configuration of four north -south rows of housing, two rows in an island in the center of parcel and one row each respectively along the east and west boundaries of property. B. This is an in -fill site sandwiched between two north -south streets, Busch Court and Stover Street and with access only from Stuart Street at the north. C. East and west boundary lines have dense existing tree and landscape buffers which must be maintained and which require strip of project common space A)ong both such boundaries in order to respect and maintain. such buffers and tree root systems. 2. Central t our cottage community concept is the fact that two -car garages instead of domintating the streetscape are located at the rear of 0 units and are accessed by private drives. To accompish this goal on this site requires minimizing street widths, 3. Furthermore, we want this cottage community to be pedestrian - friendly, and we have designed the public roadway, parking, sidewalk, and related landscaping to help accomplish this. We have proposed meandering . 20' travel lanes (asphalt) with parking offsets (concrete) alternatively on each side of street interspersed with 5' landscape right-of-way islands throughout project. This, together with attractive cottage frontages and garages out of sight at rear, results in an aesthetic and pedestrian - friendly right-of-way. 4. This project has small houses with small yards located on small lots. Minimum permissible roadway, parking and sidewalk as well as landscaping are essential to keep the streetscape in appropriate scale with residences and yards, and to prevent the impervious surfaces (asphalt and concrete) from being the dominant aesthetic feature of these streetscapes. 5. The City of Fort Collins' Goals and Objectives articulate the goal to "Reduce street widths in residential. developments where appropriate" (Page 17). We believe this project is an excellent example of the situation where such reduction of width is appropriate. 6. Not only is this right-of-way design, aesthetic and in appropriate scale with the proposed housing, but it is inherently safe because its design encourages a slow vehicle speed in project which is consistent with vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and the nature of the neighborhood. 7. The goals which can be achieved by this project if necessary street variance is granted include: A. Providing adequate guest parking at the front of every house (resident parking is in two car garage located at rear of each house and accessed by driveway lanes). B. Obvious and self -enforcing nature of parking without the use of striping and signs (City request) in order to reasonably insure that parking never occurs in or partially encroaches upon asphalt travel lanes, assuring that they will always be clear for fire and rescue vehicles C. Enough landscape offsets to allow the scale of the street to read as a downsized Local Street appropriate for the scale of the project, not- withstanding the fact that this street has two full-sized travel lanes and very adequate and convenient guest parking. D. Sufficient yard landscaping and landscape offsets (5' wide in right-of-way) so that the community has a pleasant, warm, attractive feel about it and is aesthetically attractive rather than looking like a wide bowling alley and a sea of asphalt with small homes bordering each side, close to each other and totally out of scale with the right of way. Please call me for any additional information you may require or with any questions. We look forward to your favorable action on our request. Thank you. Jonrouty,� President Enclosures dk I] LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 December 6, 1993 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board c/o Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Indian Hills Village Preliminary PUD Submittal / Statement of Planning Objectives / Phasing c e u Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: The purpose of this letter is to introduce Lagunitas Company and to describe in summary the proposed Indian Hills Village housing development in the context of City of Fort Collins planning, goals, objectives and policies. 1. Developer Lagunitas Company is the lead partner in a joint venture between Lagunitas Company and Wonderland Hill Development Company. Both companies ,have been involved in commercial and residential development and construction in Boulder County for more than twenty years. Wonderland is known for, its award -winning passive solar and innovative residential PUD and home design. Attached please find our complete preliminary. PUD submittals. 2. Site 6.25 acre site is located at the south of Stuart Street between Busch Court and Stover Street. It was part of the previous Indian Hills West townhouse PUD which was developed in -1979 and is located adjacent to the south. At that time, rough site grading was done and water .and sewer mains were installed on our property, however, it was not otherwise developed or built out. This condition of existing installed water and sewer creates a challenging site constraint which should be designed Krager and Associates, Inc. December 3, 1993 Mr. Jonathan J. Prouty Lagunitas Company 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 re: Trip Generation for Indian Hills PUD Dear Jon: Per the requirements of the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering. Department, Krager and Associates has reviewed your PUD submittal for the proposed Indian Hills residential neighborhood. Our analysis is based on the proposal to construct 49 single-family homes on the south side of Stuart Street between Busch Court and Stover Street. Access would be provided by one access point to Stuart Street. According to standard trip factors from the Institute of Transoitation Engineers, this PUD can be expected to generate approximately 468 daily trips. The anticipated peak hour trip generation and distribution are shown in an attached graphic. To accommodate the new access to Stuart Street, it is desirable to re -stripe Stuart Street to include a left turn lane for, inbound traffic. In the PM peak hour, twelve vehicles are expected to turn left from westbound Stuart Street into Indian Hills. This amount of traffic will require only a minimum left turn lane. By eliminating on -street parking on Stuart Street for approximately 440 feet, a 50-foot left turn lane can be provided. The. on -street bike lanes are not impacted with this design. I have provided a sketch of the striping -plan for the City's review. With the restriping of Stuart Street, the. surrounding street system can safely accommodate the proposed development of Indian Hills PUD. If you, or City Staff, have any further questions, please feel free to call me. ' Sincerely, 10 Kathleen L. Krag P.E. 4090 Estes Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (303) 425-0805 FAX (303) 467-2354 exiting from the project will be either coming to a stop before entering the project, slowing down close to a stop in order to make a safe right angle turn into project, or slowing down to a stop before exiting from project. Accordingly, traffic proceeding through curves #1, #2 and #3 will be in the process of accelerating from 1 - 15 mph or decelerating from 15 mph to'a stop in these areas. If you have any questions regarding the variance requests, please call. Sincerely, Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. President The parking will be delineated by being concrete with 10 foot wide driving lanes being asphalt. The standard width for parking, or alternately sidewalks, cannot be met with the neighborhood design we are using with the garages at the rear of the lot which is desirable in order to avoid an ugly streetscape with double -wide garage doors being the dominant design feature. Neither alternative will affect traffic flow or safety since the driving lanes remain 10 feet wide in either case. 2. A variance of the Local Access Street right-of-way from 54 feet to 34 feet and the AAll flow line to flow line width from 36 feet to 29 feet, Table 1, Page T-1. The street would have parking only on one side of the street. The A.D.T.. for each street where this dF& �. section is proposed is 600. The standard cannot be met with the garages in the rear of 0'�� the lot due to added land needed for width of the garage access drive. The street N 1 would have parking on one side only, and no parking signs will be provided by the ' developer. Tfie lots on the Local c(;ess Streets are within_ 150 feet of the residential street and therefore do not cause a problem for fire fighting. b 3. A variance of the southeast Local Access Street allowing a public hammerhead turn -around at the end designed to meet City of Fort Collins alley hammerhead specification. The justification for this is the low amount of traffic which will occur and will require turn -around for this street. Fire department access requirements are met because this Local Access Street is less than 150 feet long and no fire department equipment will be proceeding down it or required to turn around at the end of same. IM 4. A variance of the northwest Local Access Street whereby egress loop will be Permitted by means of connection to private driveway lane provided a) a public easement shall be granted for such use, b) all maintenance of private driveway lane y shall be responsibility of Indian Hills Village HOA, and c) visual differentiation in paving shall be provided at connection point between the Public Street and the private drive. The justification for this is the low amount of traffic which will occur and will require turn -around for this street. Fire department access requirements are met because this Local Access Street is less than 150 feet long and no. fire department equipment will be proceeding down it or required to turn around at the end of same. 5- A variance for curve radiuses permitting less than the "standard 240 feet (30 mph design speed) is requested as follows: Radius #1 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, radius #2 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, radius #3 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, and radius #12 variance from 240 feet to 165 feet. This is justified by the design of the project which requires that traffic proceed at a low speed of approximately 15 mph in these areas. Specifically, the short distances, the undulating roadway character and the alternating right-of-way landscape offsets contribute to creating slow traffic speeds in this project of approximately 15 mph. Also, traffic flow entering and 7. Covenants will be aiafted to include a provision providing for a monthly fee to be charged to the Indian Hills Village homeowners to go into a reserve for the annual project tree buffers pruning, thinning and replacement program. 8. Lagunitas Company shall work with the City Forester to modify the west boundary prune, thin, supplement program to include annual contact, to the extent reasonably possible, with each adjacent Busch Court owner in order to consider their input with regard to annual changes. 9. Lagunitas Company shall work with Power and Light to shield street lights as necessary to minimize street light glare from Indian .Hills Village street lights toward Busch Court neighbors. N17 STEWART&ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors June 5, 1994 Mr. Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mike: This is a request for variances for residential streets in the proposed Indian Hills Village located at the intersection of East Stuart Street and Stover Street. The variances are as follows: Q A variance of the right-of-way width of a Local Street from 54 feet to 43 feet, and the �5 flow line to flow line width from 36 feet to 34 feet, Table 1, Page T-1. A. Our preferred choice to achieve this 2 foot reduction is to reduce the parking <<a� width from 8 feet to 7 feet. Our data (800 measurements taken in 16 different Fort Jp� Collins residential neighborhoods) indicates that people park within 1 foot of the curb 99.9% of the time and that with the exception of RV vehicles, passenger vehicles are less than 6 foot maximum width. In addition, numerous other communities use 7 foot residential parking widths and our traffic engineers report supports the same N V conclusion. B. However, in the alternative, this 2 foot reduction could be achieved by a sidewalk width variance from 4 feet to 3 feet. This sidewalk width is adequate due to the very low pedestrian traffic on the site. C. A width reduction variance is necessary because of the constraints of the site due to existing water and sewer and the limitations they present, as well as existing easements and tree line buffers on both east and west sides of site. The utility easements on either side of the street would be widened from 9 feet to 14 1/2 feet James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482-9331 Far .'inA/dA9-QZA'J 1 N.. 108 400 r V Ilk = 4f1� v �23.235OCS F..: 4.. a�u[7 - ,O, !w O a •"vN 9 =°' . as �.Zn 1610 O 000.0]!r. \J- gO-ed.. .. •ee= Ogw '04 Itt 1c1-11 bO.gv,6;li�0?3^,t[ N{M.w' cc OOL Cr W W O' 40o wt i ' M . �.Y% Y w± _ Z 8. 4� _ ],': ],Y 9 i [O 2{.00 NGf 2, E Ia33' 1 &V , Y „� •t ^ \'�'- w P �i' L 2{pp SCO^Ot'30'w :5a0 L89 W s• " w 1 2400• 2wOd NOO°OY � '3a. =[b. mot)• d; �0.. '.STi /L o o nr .dn' �, o• W ; WI • V c /'� / cc p N00°0/70E 3 2{•YJ 2' No 5o0°0]'30•W TRACT 6no°y] tl . (n 2..Od „8 ro. s 131. 6°co'oo.E ACRES) 6.44 �.-L �.� - i1•p', N00"0]30�E Nlw°o{'oo'w ,: - : r 55 6b 67 zi'0 z{.00 z4.00 r.w 8. 69 65 z . 7.0 71 72 ' 3t .� I.60�:A GO W O O O = n - r: a V Y• O O?a O ^ 3 r \' 33. _ o 0 °� ` 2{.00 24.od S100' _ m" •+ z y o y d (�'�y i . 6{D/ N.. Wq \ NCC•a] w E L..L: I, - rB.° LS.Sc' . SA'. 2apO• za.oc' Iew' zwoo' z{.oy {. 306° '4�4.f so6^:b'60-r. .•'Ic.b�• 00'0z ad 0 w S00°CT'3p-W J:...:.: -. 33o5• - 241 - . I. 'a 1• 1194°OQO6. CH n _No -E_�.jfj1 ;n(A0.. W OCrH1A' r4.63' 74100 N a t 305°Ga' Sa4° Na4a ` rt -p 00 w 00.0 -� - I 500°0]•30"w 15479' •C.00. 07E _ w 1 N O d z.p 7000 .4 W 4 15405•,^n ry N00°OT'70"E I R I nc C O V N O N ]pop• IEdG SF. w- o ao O o 500•� ISIv` S F. ill N e N " 3 8L s r tl a p o d♦ `v., m ISaO S.F Q e i s IoP_F v e TRACT: t,gnt. p s :5.0 - 0 tl " d 9 O 1320 4_ F n 8 p ^' i5-IO 5_f O c i O ;680 S.F 4 I - S00°0 '30 w <SGS -_ t0 gj °1 7G.00' O O' t o MCA°0]'30"f - 500°07 30'M e•- :51 - 1 t 'd 'rg O O 3.0' a s ' �l N s ii1 _ Ic 60 S- f 8 N tl 'w s o O tl I � Z d _a,la• say N : di.M d a = IJ2C YF O t2T 3eU91Y w •Z •1..... O 12 Q.A' P 5. N tl i-� ry S5U17 ..i n _c�+ IOOG O 4 ' icre 1 2100 2100' \ -"' .. "'S00°0TS(i'w - �: WIh, , 1 . • 2090 n n �• W 1 I _ °� a dI N00°07036-E � 3� o a 86 . 1 4.9 55.00 c i nzc IF. 81 24.00' 24.00' soo°m'w w gt5 , s o N. d " °! $ 3 - O• c e v d 1560 S.F. a v s o'W _ 500•J] 70 M - N06°00'G0'E , ' 306•o C'00-w W C - 6S00 • 2000' S.C.Q. 7 i -136C S F 'v N 1 O O W 73 74 W O 8 a "; 0 I wl '•� •S O S h d N O d• d . n w i S 136C_FyO ' n J 4:9 Lam}/ cn0" / , 5os°00'0o'w /i IG' Utility EPnm... u.00: i TRACT "A" (5.1956 ACRES) TO: Bruce Cohen FROM: Jon Prouty, DATE: June 3, 1994 RE: Draft / Mutual resolutions from Busch Court - Lagunitas Company 6-1-94 Meeting 1. Lagunitas Company shall consider Busch Court neighbors input and specific provisions regarding Indian Hills Village covenants and incorporate same where possible. Possibly provide for Busch Court neighbor to be involved in the Indian Hills Village HOA in some fashion as appropriate, such as member, non -voting member, Board of Directors meeting participant or otherwise. 2. Busch. Court neighbors reserve the right to have an independent engineer review the drainage plan after ground leveling and prior to City inspection to assure that it meets City requirements (133% times 100 year floodcarrying capacity). Lagunitas Company will make related engineering information available to Busch Court neighbors and / or their engineer and furthermore will advise Busch Court neighbors at least one week prior to City inspection time so that neighborhood and their engineer will have time to assess and review the efficacy of the design and provide input to the City. 3. Lagunitas and Hari lyer will draft letters regarding the desirability of including Stuart Street on the new traffic study about to be commenced with copies of each letter to each party. 4. Lagunitas Company agrees to include a provision in covenants prohibiting Indian Hills Village residents from passing through the Indian Hills Village west boundary line buffer and onto or across Busch Court neighbors yards without their express approval. 5. Lagunitas Company will meet individually with each Busch Court neighbor and consider what their preferences are with regard to thinning and trimming existing buffer and with regard to how it best can be supplemented with new trees, deciduous, evergreen and / or ornamental. Furthermore Lagunitas Company will put together an - overall plan for the full west property boundary buffer and review same with the City Forester. Every effort will be made to incorporate Busch Court neighbors suggestions and desires into the overall buffer plan and furthermore every effort will be made to encourage the City Forester to approve such a plan. 6. Buffer plan shall include evergreen headlight buffers opposite each street and drive `which runs perpendicular to west boundary line. thirty (30) days after the plans and specifications have been submitted and duly received by the Committee, such approval will be deemed to have been given. Section 4. SUBMISSION. Any person desiring to erect any structure in the Subdivision shall submit the plans and specifications to the Association. The Association shall forthwith forward any such materials submitted to the Chairman of the Architectural Standards Committee for consideration by the Committee. .The Association shall.maintain a record .of all materials submitted for consideration by the Architectural Standards Committee Which shall reflect the date such materials were forwarded to the Committee and the action ul Committee thereon: timately taken by the Section 5.. STANDARDS AND RULES. The Architectural Standards Committee shall adopt standards and rules governing the type of buildings to be Permitted in the Subdivision, permitted construction materials, and the like. Such standards and rules shall be as determined from time to time by the Committee. The following standards shall apply to all buildings constructed in the Subdivision: Buildings shall be predominately wooden structures, the total area enclosed within a townhouse structure, including garage, shall not exceed 90% of the area of the lot or lots upon which such building is constructed; no building shall .:exceed.84ieg t.in height above the ground elevation; wooden shingles or comparable from both an aesthetic and maintenance standpoint shall be required on all roofs of townhouse units, and all fencing shall compliment and be in harmony with the exterior. design and materials of adjoining townhouse units. Section 6. COMPENSATION.. Members of the Architectural Standards Committee shall not be entitled to any compensation for services performed. They shall be compensated for anyexpenses incurred by them in performing the duties required by their membership on the Committee. ' ARTICLE VIII PARTY WALLS Section 1. PARTY WALL. The term "party wall" as used herein shall mean and refer to'the entire wall from front to rear, all or any portion of which is used for support or for fire wall'protec- tion between each adjoining townhouse, intended to be situated on the boundary line betviden adjoining townhouses. The owner shall possess in fee simple that portion of the party wall lying within his lot. Each owner of a townhouse having a party wall is hereby granted a mutual reciprocal 'easement for repair or replacement- of Such party wall. No owner shall commit or omit any act, the result of which is an infringement of the adjoining owner's rights in the party ` wall, absent written agreement between such owners. No owner shall.make any structural changes to any party wall without the written consent of all other owners having rights in such party wall. June 2, 1994 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, Co. 80521 RE: Indian Hills Village PUD Since I will not be able to attend the P&Z meeting June 6, 1994 I'am writing this letter for your consideration. I was at the May 23, 1994 meeting but the Indian Hills Village item did not may the time limit. I own the home at 1804 Busch Ct. (corner of Busch Ct. & E. Stuart St.). The major concerns I have are the height of the homes and the set back of the homes from my rear property line. The original plat which is Indian Hills West PUD had an height limit of 24 feet (P. 11, Item 6 of protective covenants) and a set back from Busch Ct. properties rear lot lines of 40 feet. The Indian Hills Village PUD has a proposed height limit of 35 feet and set back from rear properties of only 15 feet. My home has a large lot but a narrow lot therefore the rear of my home is only 15 feet+- from the rear lot line ;therefore reducing the set back to 15 feet and increasing the height limit in Indian Hills Village will have a negative impact on my property value in my opinion. I' am a licensed real estate appraiser and 'licensed real. estate broker (24 years) in Fort Collins, A normal 2 story home is 22 feet to 24: feet in height and a normal ranch style home is 14 feet to 16 feet in height. The ranch style hrnes in Indian Hills Village will be 26 feet high (higher than a normal 2 story) and the 2 story homes will be 28 feet to 30 feet high or even up to 35 feet?. The 2 story homes proposed will be more like a 3 story building. These homes are not compatible with any homes .in the neighborhood (Indian Hills, Busch Ct. or Indian.Hills West) as the highest homes I'am aware of in the surrounding areas are a maximum height of 22 to 24 feet.'.'' I would rather have the higher density of .the Indian Hills West PUD than the reduced set back and height increase of Indian Hills Village PUD. I request that you consider the height limit of 24 feet and keeping the set back of 40 feet from the rear of my property. (Attached part of covenants Indian Hills West PUD & part of plat Indian Hills West PUD) Sincerely, Keith M. Wear . Ph: 303-493-3800 (1). The inf ill nature and pre -determined development pattern, and existing utilities, trees, and point of access are all conditions peculiar to the site which contribute as hardships because these conditions restrict where the streets must be located. To create a new layout, much of the existing utility system would have to be relocated. The loop street divides the property into three sections. With this site layout, with the existing trees on the east and west. property lines and buffer provided to maintain them, and with the developer's desire to have rear access driveways and garages, there is a minimum lot depth that can be provided for each row of lots. The proposed configuration is therefore 4' short of space. The developer proposes to use a 3' wide sidewalk instead of the standard 4' width to fit space limitations. The street is a small loop street which carries local traffic only. The sidewalks provide for convenient pedestrian access within this development. The sidewalks within the development do not lead to City parks, shopping, schools, recreation facilities, employment centers, or to other subdivisions. This is an infill development with no other public access provided because of private property on three sides. Staff finds that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to- the public good and without substantially impairing the purposes of the LDGS. In discussions with Engineering Staff, it was mentioned that a 5' walk is really needed for two people to walk comfortably side by side. The City Standard for local streets is 41. This width provides comfort for single pedestrians. Staff believes that the 3' walk does not compromise the comfort for single pedestrians. In addition, under criteria (3) above, staff finds that the plan contains additional features that render it equal to or better than a plan with 4' walks. The plan still meets the purposes and requirements of the LDGS. These features include the pedestrian. scale front yard areas, rear access garages, existing landscaping on the perimeter, and in general, the innovative :'cottage" concept of the plan. With garages in the rear, the front yards become more "people friendly". The entire front yard is scaled down and sidewalks of 3' instead of 4' are scaled for this design. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow 3' wide sidewalks in the Indian Hills Village PUD. Based on evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.' Planning staff could recommend, as an alternative, - approval of the on - street parking width variance to 7' (see attached information from Lagunitas Company and Stewart and Associates). This alternative being perhaps more in tune with some of City Council's goals and objectives. Again, Engineering staff has not expressed support of the parking variance, although they can support the sidewalk variance. Commu._:y Planning and Environmental cervices Planning Department �X e City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUK DATE: June 1, 1994 TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner-D& RE: Sidewalk width or parking width variance for Indian Hills Village PUD and revisions to pages 3 and 4 of the Final Staff Report. Please include the following as an amendment to the Transportation and Engineering section of the Staff Report for Indian Hills Village PUD, Final #81-93A. The applicant is requesting a variance from the standard of 4' wide sidewalks to allow 3' wide sidewalks throughout the Indian Hills Village development. Staff is requesting the Board consider either the sidewalk width variance or a variance, as discussed at the time of preliminary approval, to the parking width standard of 8' to allow an on -street parking width of 71. Staff is making this recommendation based on Council direction to consider the convenience of pedestrians, with less ­ emphasis on the convenience of the automobile. Engineering does not have enough information concerning 7' parking widths to make a recommendation in support of a parking variance. Engineering staff can support the sidewalk width variance. According to the Code, "when permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize variances under this Article (Article V. Subdivisions) upon its findings that the following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied:" 11(1) That.by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provision of this Article..." 11(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this Article..." 11(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is, equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested". Staff finds that the variance request may be justified by criteria 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 8052-0580 • (303) 221-6750 901 Stover Street ort Collins, CO 80525 ay 19, 1994 Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, AICP Planning Department, Community Planning & Environmental Services City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Ms. Whetstone: This note is in response to notification of Indian Hills Village PUD #81-93A. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember a popular song of the late 1940's early 50's which ridiculed the "ticky-tacky" housing developments that mushroomed in southern California during the WWII days. Perhaps it would be worth digging out a record to hear again or for the first time. The PUD #81-93A is an attempt to inflict a "ticky-tacky" California housing concept that was ridiculed nearly 50 years ago in the area of, its birth and pass it off on the Citizens of Fort Collins as a great new concept. The City should not let this happen. ,A less dense development would be much more in keeping with the neighborhood character. Sincerely, � ,CL, C- C Edward B. and Phyllis E. Reed I am also interested in addressing and working on all other issues which concern you. I have additional detailed information and drawings relating to our plan for storm drainage and buffer which I will provide you for your input and review. I will be contacting you regarding specifically what types of trees you would like to see in the buffer adjacent to your property. There is no reason that there can't be a mix of different trees, evergreen, deciduous, ornamental, etc. along this tree buffer. This would give it diversity and be most likely to satisfy each individual neighbors ihterests and preferences in this regard. Also I am interested in your thoughts on the project and.other concerns each of you may have. Brice, voileii has suygesied ti;at w have anolllet BU;.Cfi Court I:eigiiDorh000 meeting but that it be at a Busch Court neighbor's house. I would welcome this opportunity and will adapt my schedule as possible to meet this need. Tuesday evenings, 6:00 - 7:00 are out for me (kids' violin lesson), Thursday, June 2, 6:00 - 9:00 is out (kids' school program), Wednesday, June 1, 6:30 - 7:30 (kids' t-ball practice), Friday, June 3, 6:30 - 7:30 (kids' t-ball practice), although i could miss one of the t-ball practices to make one of these days available. I continue to look forward to working with all of you and am confident this can be a very attractive project which will increase the value of your property and be a good neighbor to you. Best regards. dk TO: Busch Court Neighbors FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: May 25, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village . 1. Thanks again to all of you for raising questions which need to be resolved, concerns you have and ideas relating to our Indian Hills Village Project. Your input has helped and will continue to help make this a better project. As most of you are aware, I believe, the Timberline debate took most of the P & Z Board's time r,n Monday right a,r„i N� yve.re nnctn�,naa frlr t� .n .p�.,v In f4>n? l r im.p ri _ _ <: _. _ J vie •s . ..� `... �: i.l U'3'4J L'IICII!il! QIIIJ �J G� r can use it to fine tune and improve solutions and designs. Two particularly important and interrelated issues are st; rm drainage and buffer. All parties must be satisfied that the storm drainage solution is a good one and confident from an engineering standpoint that it without a shadow of a doubt handles the 133% times hundred year flood storm water volume. Furthermore it is desirable that the storm drainage treatment be aesthetic as it is a significant part of the adjacent Indian Hiils Village neighbors iiving Environment. It must be consistent with an adequate and attractive buffer. The question of burfer is cornplicated by the fact that there is a significant buffer along most of the west boundary line, however, the City Forester and most of the residents agree ihat it is made up ,of an undcs;rab!e tree type which is largely unhealthy and has been poorly maintained, and perhaps the whole tree .row should be eliminated'. Hr;v.ever.frcm a planning standpoint, I think, and an immediate buffering standpoint (for the rre;:t one - five years at a minimum), the existing br;ffer should probably be maintained, thinned (remove ddead, sick, unsafe tra; s) and additional supplemental and replacement trees planted. This program will continue on an annual basis with an annual review beginning this year by the City Forester. We will invite the input of each adjacent Busch Court neighbor with regard to this process in order to be sensitive to your specific and individual needs, even though the trees are iocuted entirely on oui prcq",eity. The challenge I believe which we are, with your input, meeting is to do the best possible job of both handling the storm water and providing a bufferboth for the benefit of this project and for the benefit of Busch Court neighbors. Last week I was presented, I thought, with an offer by the Busch Court neighbors to support the project in exchange for dropping two lots, and that this would represent in the Busch Court neighbors' ideas a solution. Perhaps I misinterpreted and misunderstood your offer. In any case my attempted acceptance of that offer was rejected and is hereby withdrawn as I believe it is more important for all parties involved to focus our time and energy (and our money) on giving you the best possible functional and aesthetic storm drainage and buffer solutions as indicated above. May 25, 1994 Mr. Tim Buchanan, City Forester City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Indian Hills Village West Boundary Dear Tim: Confirming our recent conversations, Y.W� proceed with final design relating to west boundary line and existing and new tree buffer between our project and Busch Court neighborhood to the west with the following design requirements in mind which you have given me and we have agreed to: 1. Most existing trees are located at about three feet from property line. We will give these trees: a) one additional foot if we drop vertically six inches, b) two additional feet if we drop vertically twelve inches, and c) three feet if we drop vertically eighteen inches, the drop in all cases being vertical landscape timber retaining wall which will be required at the west side of drainage Swale at the two constraints. 2. The four - six feet of space we have for trees will be adequate for planting deciduous, ornamental and / or evergreen trees. This is important because there are no evergreens presently, therefore I believe some of the initial new trees which are planted should be evergreens in order to create aesthetic diversity and more importantly an all -season buffer element. 3. Notwithstanding the fact that the existing trees are all on our property, we both must be and will be sensitive to the adjacent Busch Court neighbors concerns and desires with regard to both thinning and eliminating existing trees, and the type and location of replacement trees. Thanks, Tim. SYnatn Jrouty nnn> n_... n_n_..., A..__.._ C..:4- nnn � I"•..11:..,., nn OnCnC 4. Compatibility - Our project is primarily single-family detached units, approximately 70% of which will be relatively smaller ranch and main floor master models and approximately 30% will be two-story models. Of these, six will be duplexes which permit better orientation of yards at the end of rows of houses (12 total units) and the balance (35 units) will be detached. The duplexes will be constructed in a fashion to read as two single-family units and not to read as duplexes. 5. Side yards - Side yards will be an average of 15' wide, ranging from 12' wide to 22.5' plus one side yard at 35'. Paragraph 7 Fire Prevention in the Staff report / correction : reference to Lot 37 should be to Lot 47. 6. HOA / Covenants - There will be a Homeowners Association with strict covenants which will have specific provisions regarding maintenance, leasing, etc. I expect to have a draft within a few days, and as I have indicated at our last Busch Court neighborhood meeting and in my recent memo to Mr. Follett, I will provide Mr. Follett with a copy of the draft to review, make any suggestions on and share with other Busch Court neighbors. 7. Limitation of additional off -site drainage - We support Mr. Follett's suggestion that the City negotiate with Indian Hills West and execute an agreement that they refrain from introducing additional drainage into the system or creating any additional impervious surfaces. 8. Parking width - Has been increased from 7' to 8' 9. Storage - Most units will have full basements providing for extra space and storage. We recognize this to be a very important feature for housing for the markets we are serving. TO: planning and Zoning Board Members i<irctan ln_stone FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: May 20, 1994 u RE: Indian Hills Village - R sponse to 5 / 18 Planning Department Staff Report, 5 / 17 Busch Court neighborhood memo, 5 / 16 Ron Follett letter and 5 / 17 Senior Advisory Board letter I will respond to these items together and as succinctly as possible. My remarks are not a comprehensive discussion or answer to each question or issue, however, due to the shortness of time, I think it is important that you have the benefit of my response on these matters however brief. I can, of course, go into further detail at the P & Z meeting Monday night. 1. Drainage - This is a technical matter for engineers. Our engineer, Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates; the City drainage engineer, Basil Harridan; Ron Follett, other Busch Court neighbors and I have met numerous times on this matter. I am satisfied from the responses I have received from the engineers that the calculations are correct and that our drainage plan as proposed provides for a minimum of 140% of 100 year flood carrying capacity without going into Busch Court neighbors yards. Also there is additional elevation gain from the edge of their yards to finished floor grade. 2. Landscape buffer - There are existing tree buffers along most of both the east and west boundaries of site. We are primarily interested in a) improving the existing buffer consistent with Forestry's recommendations, including removing dead and unsafe trees, and b) thinning as needed and replacing trees with more desirable trees on a phased basis. As a result of a pre-existing survey pin error there has some ambiguity as to whose property the hedgerow buffer trees were located on. Our surveyor discovered and corrected this survey pin error, and also has located and flagged all adjacent Busch Court lots' corner pins. Property line proceeds along east side of the backyard fences of such lots. Present hedgerow buffer trees are all located entirely on Indian Hills Village property. 3. Density - Previous PUD had 60 approved units for this site. We are putting in only 47. .. n7 Sriuth rnllona A%/Pniin ciflta.9nn Fnrt rnllinc rn nnr9c; LAGUNITAS COMPANY V3032265125 MP5i19194 m11:50AM CV1 AGREEMENT TO: City of Fort Collins Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board City Council FROM: Busch Court Neighbors Jon Prouty DATE: May 19, 1994 RE: Busch Court Neighbors - Indian Hills Village Agreement After considerable efforts and communication by all parties, the undersigned Busch Court neighbors and Developer hereby agree as follows: .1. Developer shall eliminate Lot 40 and set Lot 39 twenty-nine feet back from Indian Hills Village west boundary line (balance of Lot 40 to go into Lots 38 and 39). 2_ Developer shall eliminate Lot 47 and set Lot 46 twenty-nine feet back from Indian Hills Village west boundary line (balance of Lot 47 to go into Lots 44, 45 and 46). 3. Developer shall shield Daemian Court street light to minimize glare from light to west. 4. Developer shall limit height of models (from grade) as follows: Ranch plan - 26', Main floor master - 28', Two-story model - 30'. 5. Below -signed Busch Court neighbors shall support and cooperate with the Indian Hills Village project as represented in final submittals presently before Planning and Zoning Board. Busch Court neighbors: Developer: Jonathan J. Prouty, President, Lagunitas Company LAGUNITAS COMPANY V3032255125 ftsil9194 011:54AM ❑ill TO: Bruce Cohen FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: May 19, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village Following up our telephone conversation, enclosed is the agreement I am willing to sign. This is specifically and exactly what I am willing to do to reach a compromise. This agreement is simple, clear, specific and quantifiable. am, in addition, willing and interested in doing everything possible to make this project attractive and aesthetic both from a standpoint of the Indian Hills Village residents and from a standpoint of the Busch Court neighbors and to continue to work with you to solve any and all issues which may occur. dk Enc. Ve TO: Busch Court Neighbc FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: May 17, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village - I i Foiiow-up Thank you.for taking the time to meet so I could update you on the Indian Hills Village project and so that we could discuss the various questions and concerns which you have had. Thanks to Bonnie for her assistance in helping us uncover and focus on various issues. Special thanks to Ron Follett for taking the time to meet with Dick Rutherford at Stewart Engineering and Basil Harridan, Fort Collins Drainage engineer, regarding the technical aspects of the drainage plan. One additional suggestion he has had which I believe is excellent is to ask the City to require a written commitment from 'he present Indian Hills West development that no modifications will be made to their private property or their common property which would result in greater strong drainage water running off their property than they currently have. This would protect us a!I against this contingency. Furthermore, Ron has indicated that he.will..confirm with Basil that the drainage water engineering -computationsare correct and / or, if there are any further questions or problems which should be addressed. I don't see any, however, I would like us all to be very confident that there are nono. Enclosed are copies of tho latest architectural elevations, site plan and landscape plan. Notice that the landscape plan has been changed along the west boundary to reflect areas which have trees and do not have trees, which is more accurate. Again, each individual owner should contact me directly regarding what they would like done with the old trees, what they would like done with the space between the property line and their fence (berm, grass) and if they would like a deciduous or evergreen tree in their yard. Again, we are amenable to not only oroviding fo; the thinning, trimming and / or removal of existing trees, consistent with neighbors wishes, and a tree replanting program for the west boundary line, but also are amenable to considering each owner's needs and wishes. A draft of the homeowner's covenants will be provided to Ron Follett as soon as they are prepared, so he and you can all see the kind of provisions and requirements which will be imposed in. the Indian Hills Village neighborhood to make this community attractive and safe and a high quality community of permanent residents. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me. Thank you... cc: Kirsten Whetstone ,,F welfare and in fact will result in a project that is equal or better than it otherwise would be. 5. A variance for curve radiuses permitting less than the standard 240 feet (30 mph design speed) is requested as follows: Radius #1 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, radius #2 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, radius #3 variance from 240 feet to 100 feet, and radius #12 variance from 240 feet to 165 feet. The design speed for this project is 15 mph which is dictated by these right-of-way curve radius constraints. This design speed of 15 mph will not be exceeded in this project for the following reasons: a) a complete stop and / or right-angle turn is required to enter project requiring vehicle speeds of less than 15 mph as you enter project; b) vehicles proceed around the circular right-of-way on a relatively narrow 20 foot wide asphalt roadway which limits vehicle speeds to under 15 mph; c) landscape offsets occur regularly both on the right and left-hand side of street requiring vehicles to travel at design speed of 15 mph or less; d) four right-angle turns around circle loop and undulating character of this right-of-way require traffic to proceed at 15 mph or less; and e) the two. dead end Local Access streets are less than 150 feet long requiring traffic to proceed at 15 mph or less. Accordingly, the design speed of this project will not be exceeded. This variance is required by the pre-existing constraints of the project as. described above. Granting this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare and in fact will result in a project that is equal or better than it otherwise would be. If you have any questions regarding the variance requests, please call. Sincerely, z Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S: President flow line to flow line width from 36 feet to 29 feet, Table 1, Page T-1. The A.D.T. for each street where this section is proposed is 600. The street would have parking on one side only, and no parking signs will be provided by the developer. The lots on the Local Access Streets are within 150 feet of the residential street and therefore do not cause a problem for fire fighting. The sidewalks would be reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet, the parking would be 8 feet wide, and the driving lanes.would remain 10 feet wide. The utility easements on either side of the street would be widened from 9 feet to 14 1/2 feet. The 8 foot wide parking area will be delineated by being concrete, with the two 10 foot wide driving lanes being asphalt. There should not be problems in handling the traffic since the driving lanes remain 10 feet wide. The standard cannot be met with the garages in the rear of the lot which is desirable in order to not have the streetscape be all garage doors but rather permit the attractive house frontages and public - private, landscape - right-of-way areas as we have designed. We request that this variance be granted by reason of conditions peculiar to the site, namely the existing constraints caused by the utilities which are already installed and in place including an operational sewer line from Indian Hills West. Because of the existing utilities, there is no other way to lay out a project of this nature except in a looped right- of-way configuration with houses accessed off loop in a fashion similar to what we have shown. Furthermore, this plan is equal or better than a plan without this variance would be because this permits this innovative plan of smaller single-family houses however with character, quality, down -scaled right-of-way feel and excellent public - private, landscape - streetscape frontage. 3. A variance of the southeast Local Access Street allowing a public hammerhead turn -around at the end designed to meet City of Fort Collins alley hammerhead specification. The justification for this is the low amount of traffic which will occur and will require turn -around for this street. Fire department access requirements are met because this Local Access Street is less than 150 feet long and no fire department equipment will be proceeding down it or required to turn around at the end of same. This variance is required by the pre-existing constraints of the project as described above. Granting this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare and in fact will result in a project that is equal or better than it otherwise would be. 4. A variance of the northwest Local Access Street whereby egress loop will be permitted by means of connection' to private driveway lane provided a) a public easement shall be granted for such use, b) all maintenance of private driveway lane shall be responsibility of Indian Hills Village HOA, and c) visual differentiation in paving shall be provided at connection point between the Public Street and the private drive. The justification for this is the low amount of traffic which will occur and will require turn -around for this street. Fire department access requirements are met because this Local Access Street is less than 150 feet long and no fire department equipment will be proceeding down it or required to turn around at the end of same. This variance is required by the pre-existing constraints of the project as described above. Granting this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or STEWART&ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors May 18, 1994 Mr. Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mike: This is a request for variances for residential streets in the proposed Indian Hills Village located at the intersection of East Stuart Street and Stover Street. The variances are as follows: 1. A variance of the right-of-way width of a Local Street from 54 feet to 43 feet,Table 1, Page T-1. The sidewalks would be reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet, the parking would be 8 feet wide, and the driving lanes would remain 10 feet wide. The utility easements on either side of the street would be widened from 9 feet to 14 1/2 feet. The 8 foot wide parking area will be delineated by being concrete, with the two 10 foot wide driving lanes being asphalt. There should not be problems in handling the traffic since the driving lanes remain 10 feet wide. The standard cannot be met with the garages in the rear of the lot which is desirable in order to not have the streetscape be all garage doors but rather permit the attractive house frontages and public - private, landscape - right-of-way areas as we have designed. We request that this variance be granted by reason of conditions peculiar to the site, namely the existing constraints caused by the utilities which are already installed and in place including an operational sewer line from Indian Hills West. Because of the existing utilities, there is no other way to lay out a project of this nature except in a looped right-of-way configuration with houses accessed off loop in a fashion similar to what we have shown. Furthermore, this plan is equal or better than a plan without this variance would be because this permits this innovative plan of smaller single-family houses however.with character, quality, down - scaled right-of-way feel and excellent public - private, landscape - streetscape frontage. I , 2. A variance of the Local Access Street right-of-way from 54 feet to 34 feet and the James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482.9331 FAY ;n'iiaa9_agA9 May 17, 1994 Ms. Kirsten Whetstone Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Indian Hills Village / Variances Dear Kirsten: Following up my recent meeting with you and Mike, we have agreed to Mike's suggestion that we drop the variance request for seven foot parking and instead pick up the one foot that the project needs by reducing the sidewalk from four feet to three feet. These changes have been reflected in the Plat and Utility plans. Sincerely, Jo tK n J. Pr6uty PreVent ent dk cc: Mike Herzig 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 -sTO k Z SPACE - - - - 1) While the layout appears well planned, I believe that consideration should be given to storage. Empty nesters and retirees are not without adult "toys" and sporting items such as fishing gear, skis, bicycles, golf clubs, etc. Especially given the make-up of the current and upcoming generations of seniors, we can expect them to stay more active for much longer. So they must be provided some form of storage. The inside units, themselves, do not appear to accommodate that. That would probably not be an issue if there were room for storage in the garages. But if the garages are at the minimum width of 201, then it would appear that storage would not be possible, in the garages. Storage must also bA accessible and not require hanging from or storing on --- - - rafters or at heights. 2) This also seems like a very narrow width for parking two cars. Again, even as we hope to remain more active into later years, our perceptions and our manual dexterity is still usually affected with the increasing years. This could make parking difficult, especially if a close turn is required before entering the garage. Again, this appears to be a much needed type of development and I commend the designers on their attempts. I would ask, however, that you seriously consider the above in making final determinations as to variances involved in this project. A response would be appreciated. Sincerely, 4Xay Ribs Chair Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board 160 Circle Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524. (303) 482-0753 May 17, 1994 City Planning and Zoning Board Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Indian Hills Village As the current chairperson of the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board, I would like to comment on the proposed Indian Hills Village. Our Board is appointed by City Council to address issues of concern to Senior Citizens in the Fort Collins area. It is with that responsibility in mind that I offer the following comments. I find the concept of the Village to be intriguing and innovative and one which, I'm sure, will address the needs of a number of citizens of all ages. Since the anticipated tenants include "empty nesters and retired people," I would ask, however, that you consider the following concerns: PARKING: 1) As the Field Supervisor for the Colorado State University Office of .Parking Management for the past 17 years, I consider myself. somewhat of a "parking professional." Given that experience, I believe that a parking stall width of 7' is quite small. In fact, the Institutional and Municipal Parking Congress recommends 8, to 8 1/2 feet width for any low -use or residential areas. In addition to that, consideration needs to be given to the changing needs of a mature body. Getting out of a car, for a more mature person, usually requires that the door be opened to its full span. So this width would seem to be extremely limiting. and could cause serious future implications. 2) Handicap accessibility should be of utmost concern. The number of stalls provided should not correspond to the overall parking numbers, but rather based on each individual setting. For instance, in a lot that has 41 stalls, one or two handicap spaces may be sufficient. But if those stalls are broken up into several different areas around the development, then.more handicap spaces mity becomes a key factor. Indian Hills Village PUD May 17 .. 1994 .... - and Zoning Board, the Cheyenne Drive entrance was vacated. Currently East Stuart Street is shown as the only access to residents of Indian Hills Village PUD. In fact East Stuart Street is designated as a collector street. But it is not a standard collector, despite "average" traffic count shown in a 1992 survey. Narrower than the city standard (only partially offset by the proposed new markings), East Stuart Street contains no standard cross streets for its distance from Remington Street to Lemay Avenue, one block short of a mile. From Stover Street to Lemay Avenue, or fully two-thirds of the distance, there is no through street to Prospect Road. Already East Stuart Street is the sole feeder for single-family homes, PUD's, and neighborhood care facilities to the north. Traffic from Whedbee south and Stover north and south, and from Mountain Gymnastics and the Spring Park ball diamonds at Busch Court all converge within a single 1 112 block segment. The Indian Hills Village PUD will add further parking and traffic congestion in an area already narrowly defined. 6. Homeowners Association While homeowner associations are not usually a city consideration, HOA's give assurance that an area will receive due care and maintenance. With its. private drives and lack of yard space in contrast to areas surrounding, Indian Hills Village PUD may benefit from an HOA. Area residents would appreciate knowing the plan for maintenance and its mandates under such an organization. Overall, drainage and compatibility issues remain a primary concern. One solution may be designation of the two home sites closest to Busch Court as green space. With that, there would be enough land to resolve drainage concerns and to accommodate trees and landscaping at the boundary with Busch Court. Further, a decision not to build at the southwest corner would allow pedestrian access to the community in a green space highly visible. The Stuart Street facing would be enhanced as well. /I cc: Jonathan J. Prouty Kerrie Tim Buchanan Busch Court neighbors Indian Hills Village PUD Mav 17, 1994 'lines will remain to buffer and screen this use from the existing single family houses on Stover Street and Busch Court.... Staff finds that due to the innovative sensitive design and well landscaped buffer areas, the proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses." 3. Height of Units Standard for two-story dwellings is a site building height of 22.' Indian Hills West PUD covenants restrict building height to 241. In contrast. Lagunitas Company has secured a site maximum building height of 351. According to its elevation submittal for Indian Hills Village PUD, ranch elevation may exceed 22' and two-story elevation will approach 35.' Only the steeple on nearby Trinity Lutheran Church boasts a similar 35' height. Busch Court neighbors request that the site maximum height be renegotiated with the city and the community. It is their hope that Indian Hills Village PUD units may be compatible to existing neighborhoods without compromise to the aesthetic of the homes within and surrounding. 4. Green Space Standard PbD's usually have planned, open green space, added before city approval is given. While green space may not be a city requirement for a single-family PUD, area residents believe green space an important consideration in this instance. With all properties accessible on front and back to vehicle traffic, and only a 3' buffer side and back and 14.5' front area, Indian Hills Village PUD will take its character from concrete and asphalt surfaces. Traditional single- family lots have 20, front, 15' back and 5' side buffers. Neighborhoods surrounding the PUD follow this pattern, with Indian Hills West in particular making creative use of its non -housing areas to maximize green space. Non -paved areas are essential to the aesthetic quality of the development overall. Green space eases run-off as well. 5.. .Transportation In an earlier plan, there were two entrances slated for Indian Hills Viiiage PUD, one from East Stuart Street and the other from Cheyenne Drive. On January 24, 1994, at the Preliminary Hearing of the Planning May 17, 1994 TO: Rirsten Whetstone, Project Planner �i�,ne_ Lae6er", FROM: Busch Court Neighborhood Group RE: Indian Hills Village PUD On May 11. 1994, Mr. Jonathan J. Prouty, President, Lagunitas Company, met Busch Court neighbors a second time on the Indian Hills Village PUD. Following are concerns unresolved: 1. Drainage City officials and .residents of Busch Court continue to review drainage concerns. Recent adaptations to the site plan show a swail expanded to meet the minimal flood standard. Projected to accommodate run-off for Indian Hills West and Indian Hills Village PbD, the swail follows the western boundary of the property to the north, to East Stuart Street. Still, the area sufficient to carry the run-off would absorb any buffer zone between Indian Hills Village PUD and Busch Court. Reduction to the site plan as a result may not have been sufficiently addressed. In the meantime, changes are required in grading on the Indian Hills West property trade to the south. As yet there are no plans for these changes, certain to impact drainage. In fact elevations decrease as groundwater moves from Indian Hills West and Indian Hills Village PLD along natural drainage contours to Busch Court and the northwest. Residents in the drainage plain foresee a higher water table with impact to subsurface areas and yards. Neighbors would like to see a comprehensive plan for grading well in place with signed agreements and easements prior to confirmation of drainage, site, and landscape plans, and final PUD approval. 2. Neighborhood Compatibilitv Trees and a means to ensure their place in the site plan are also a concern. 'Typically the city requires trees along property lines within a PUD. Yet in the most current plan for Indian Hills Village PUD, there are no trees designated for the periphery. While there are vestiges of old hedgerow trees within some of the Busch Court properties, there is no tree buffer of any kind behind two of the six properties adjacent. In addressing neighborhood compatibility, the Staff Report for the Indian Hills Village PUD, Preliminary, #81-93, section 5e, appears "The existing dense tree plantings along the east and west property May 16, 1994 Commun. Ping. & Envrmmntl Srvs. P.O. Box 580 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Sirs, The purpose of this letter is to express concern that off -site impacts of drainage water from the proposed Indian Hills Village PUD (IHV-PUD) along Busch Ct. (Drainage Basin E) have still not been properly considered for the following reasons: 1. Currently, the Busch Ct. Neighborhood Group has been unable to ascertain whether there is any agreement with Indian Hills West that the drainage discharge that they contribute to the IHV-PUD will not increase. Currently, the proposed designs show that, for a 100 yr storm, Indian Hills West would contribute 23.9 of the total 28.2 cubic feet second (cfs) of surface drainage water that must discharged through Basin E to eventually cross Stuart Street and flow into Spring Creek. A written and legally binding agreement that this discharge will not be increased appears necessary to assure that the planned drainage capacity along the boundary of IHV-PUD and the. Busch Ct. Neighbors is not exceeded. 2. The land -surface elevation of South side of Indian Hills West (along the Arthur Ditch) is 4990 ft. Water is then discharged off of Indian Hills West onto Basin E of the IHV-PUD from.a land -surface elevation of about 4980 ft and discharges at Stuart Street at an elevation of about 4966 ft. The vertical drop from the Arthur Ditch to Stuart Street is about 24 feet over a total distance of about 970 ft. The vertical drop from the top of Basin E to Stuart Street is about 14 ft over a distance of about 570 ft. 3. The calculations provided to us by the Lagunitas Company of the size of the ditch required to accomodate storm drainage along their west boundary need to be questioned because they show the flow velocity of the water decreasing with distance along the drainage ditch, even through the land elevation has dropped dramatically (see Item 2 above). This needs to be carefully considered since the effect of gravity on water velocity appears to need to be considered. iture mend -ing andt. sg_ I Existing Walk 16 l I N a I 4 Exi ting li I N I Re ide al i I 3 �--- — G 5I�/ 6 _ 7 O.S. } I C sp. MH S + d 8ri - ane I O.S. -+ 1 35' I Iw 15 72 1/2' Min. ew o i -_y! �� ay o 04 33. i I25' \ . \ ��� �3 c 34 O jo � h � a� I 35 J O t 74' 'Lp > 36 37 Zo,, I , 10. 7e 4' \ ,—r'e Min. R I u c .O.W ..I { ± 75' �gim( 42 1 y"a) 0 1O , — �--- :44 4 ,0 Existin Denseree. \ Outside of est Prope G.. +; stumps shall be brought down to within two inches or less of ground level. i. This Existing Tree Thin, Prune, and Replace Program shall not limit developer and / or Homeowners Association in any way from installing additional complementary landscaping except that no such additional. or complementary landscaping shall be installed which would substantially interfere with the access necessary to complete and carry out this Program. Singarel)j, on dt J. kProuty v' ident Enc. dk Above described Indian Hills Village Existing Tree Prune, Thin and Replacement Program has been prepared with our input and consideration and is hereby approved by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Department. ------------- -- Tim Buchanan, City of Fort Collins Forester Date Above described Indian Hill Village Replacement Program has been prepared and is hereby, approved by the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources. Department. Susie Gordon.. n onmenta P anner 9Lnt / /ff`>< Date W6 )W49,c 1z;p4 ees )wAfC i A memo 2 /Ae,/ mee& Elm trees, primarily in the 4 - 6" diameter size. Most have been topped. A great deal of dead wood is present and in many cases, they are growing too close to each other. b. East tree line is comprised of approximately 40 - 50 Siberian Elm. In addition, a few Green Ash; Blackberry, Cotoneaster, Cottonwood and Box Elder are located here. Some dead wood exists, particularly in the Siberian Elm. Tree sizes range from 2 - 6" diameter. c. Year 1 - Tree lines are thinned and pruned as follows: Fort Collins Forestry Department identifies all dead and diseased trees to be removed. These are removed and the remaining trees are pruned for removal of dead wood, safety and basic aesthetics. (Medium prune). In addition, new trees shall be planted to begin filling in major voids in tree line as further described below. d. Years 2 - 10 - The balance of the original Siberian Elm trees shall be removed and replaced on a phased basis over the next nine years, approximately an equal number each year. Fort Collins Forestry Department identifies all dead and diseased trees to be removed. The goal in this regard is to allow the new trees to grow and gain some height and density before the old tree line is entirely removed. Healthy and desirable existing trees and shrubs such as the few Blackberry, Cotoneaster, Cottonwood, and Box Elder which exist shall be saved. e. It shall be the continuing obligation of the Indian Hills West Homeowners Association to continue this program, and this obligation shall be specifically reflected in the Homeowners Association covenants. f. In no event shall trees be pruned or removed which are located on adjacent neighbors property except to the extent that they overhang the Indian Hills West property, however, adjacent property owners will be encouraged to engage in a complementary program relating to the health, safety, and aesthetics of their adjacent trees along this common boundary line. g. Replacement shade trees shall be a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, including the following: Green Ash, Honey Locust, Blue Spruce, and Austrian Pine. Deciduous trees shall be spaced at 20 - 40' and Evergreen trees shall be spaced at 10 - 15' as per City of Fort Collins Forestry policy. h. All pruning and replacement work shall be done by established professional companies. Stumps shall not be removed because the removal process would threaten the survival of remaining trees, however, 2. Existinq interior shade trees a. These trees have been identified and inspected by City of Fort Collins Forestry Department. Thirteen significant interior trees, all Siberian Elms, were identified. See attached plan with trees designated "a" through "m'. The condition of each tree and City of Fort Collins Forestry Department recommendations are as follows: Tree Condition Recommendation a Dead Remove b Partially dead Prune and save, if possible. Otherwise, remove. c Good Prune as necessary. Save. d Dead Remove e Dead Remove f Dead Remove g Dead Remove h Good Prune and save. i Partially dead, Remove crooked, topped, ugly j Tall, thin, Save if reasonably possible, partially dead otherwise, remove. k Good Prune and save I Good Prune and save m Dead Remove 3. Existing east and west tree lines a. West tree line is comprised of approximately 120 - 150 Siberian Indian Hill Village Meeting with neighbors at City Hall on February 31 1994 from 3:OO to 5:30pm. Attendance Mike Pretz- Poudre Fire Authority Kerrie Ashbeck- Engineering Department Mike Herzig- Engineering Department Basil Hamdan- Stormwater Utility Tim Buchanan- City Forester Susie Gordon- Natural Resources Department Gary Diede- Director of Engineering Joe Frank- Assistant Planning Director Steve Olt- Planning Department Kirsten Whetstone- Planning Department Dick Rutherford- Stewart and Associates (applicant's engineering consultant) Ms. Weber 1836 Busch Court Mr. Iyer 1840 Busch Court Ms. Nash 1828 Busch Court two or three other residents of Busch Court front, rear and side yards. The building must fit within the minimum setbacks. The City can have the applicant add a note to the site plan stating that any setback variance request requires the adjacent property owners be notified. The applicant has explained to me that some of the units will have rooms over the garages, therefore picking up some square footage on the second floor. If you have additional questions about City related issues please contact myself or the appropriate City staff person and we will do our best to answer your questions. If you have questions of the developer, please contact John Prouty at 226-5000. oriented than typical single family subdivisions and meets many City policies related to higher density inf ill development in close proximity to schools, parks, trails, shopping, employment, etc. 5. Drainage The drainage plans are preliminary in nature. The City Stormwater Utility staff assured me that they will keep you informed and involved in the review of final plans. They assure me that the proposal will meet City standards and that storm water will NOT drain onto your property. You may not realize that the subject property will be regraded, the large mound of dirt will be removed and that the property will be approximately 2' lower than the backyards on Busch Court. Water will not flow uphill to the west. Please be assured that the City will not release any building permits until all drainage issues have been resolved. 6. Landscaping a. Berming around existing trees conflicts with stormwater. This will be addressed with the final landscape plan and final drainage and grading plan. b. Landscaping along the western property line. The applicant will submit a final landscape plan prior to the final Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The applicant has indicated that he will be adding trees to this area where there are none now. He will also be removing the undesirable and dead trees and replacing them with more desirable species. I believe that the applicant has contacted one property owner who does not have many trees along this boundary to get their input on the types of trees they would prefer. When the final landscape plan is submitted, I will send you a copy for your comments. C. Landscaping on individual lots. This landscaping is not generally a City concern. In single family subdivisions the City does not monitor what or where people plant trees or shrubs. We are concerned that there be foundation plantings to aesthetically enhance the buildings. d. Street trees Street trees are a requirement of many Planned Unit Developments.. The applicant will work with the City Forester to assure that his proposed street trees will fit in the proposed landscaped areas and will meet the City's recommendations for setbacks from foundations, walks, and streets. , 7. Building envelopes and setbacks The applicant will submit with the site plan, a minimum setback for 20' unimpeded fire access travel lanes will not be varied. Parking is more than adequate for this development. b. Parking on Stuart Street The Transportation Department has communicated to us that the south side of Stuart Street will be signed for "no parking" to allow a bike lane along this side of the street. Guest parking for the houses fronting on Stuart Street will be located off of the entry drive. The City will require a sidewalk connection from the parking to the front doors. C. Traffic Study The applicant submitted a modified traffic study to address the number of trips generated by this use and any modifications to Stuart Street that this project would require. The City Transportation Department reviewed this study and determined that the number of trips generated would not adversely impact surrounding streets. Stuart Street is a collector street and it is expected to carry more traffic than a local street. Please contact Rick Ensdorf at the City Transportation Department if you have additional questions about the criteria used for reviewing this project. d. Geometry of entry The City is still working with the applicant to design a entry to the project that meets City standards and safety concerns. e. Cul-de-sac streets The City is still working with the applicant to design cul-de-sacs that meet City standards and safety concerns. 4. Traffic and air quality The traffic issued has been discussed with the City Transportation Department. They believe that the numbers projected for vehicle trips are accurate and that the impacts on surrounding streets will not be significant. Stuart Street will be signed for no parking. along this property to facilitate a bike lane and the street will be re -striped to facilitate turn lanes. The private access drives will be paved. The gravel that was mentioned is a 4' edge added to the 16' driveway to give the tree roots a better chance of surviving. The City does not require the drive to be 20' wide, as it is not to be used by emergency vehicles, and believes that 16' is adequate. The applicant is providing the additional 4' to give homeowners a little more room to pull in and out of their garages. The City's Natural Resources Division supports this proposal from an air quality standpoint because the project is more pedestrian Commui-.y Planning and Environmental _rvices Planning Department. City of Fort Collins February 28, 1994 Bonnie Weber 1836 Busch Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Ms. Weber, I am writing as a follow-up to our meeting of February 3, 1994 regarding the proposed development known as Indian Hills Village PUD. For your information I have included a list of those in attendance. The applicant did not submit final plans on.February 7, therefore the Planning and Zoning Board will not be hearing this project on March 28th. The earliest that the project could be heard is April 25th, if final plans are submitted March 7th. You will receive a letter informing you of the exact date. You expressed several concerns that you wished to have addressed in writing. I understand that the applicant, John Prouty, has also written several letters addressing these concerns and has meet with you on several occasions. Please be aware that the only plans we have seen at this time are preliminary in nature. Many of your concerns will be addressed with the final plans. According to our meeting notes, you had concerns about the following issues: 1. Neighborhood meetings that you were not invited to. The applicant did have a neighborhood meeting with the Indian Hills Townhouses homeowners prior to the City sponsored neighborhood information meeting, which you were invited to. The applicant is allowed to meet privately with any group without following the City's notice procedure. 2. You had concerns about the process. We briefly explained the review process and I am including an LDGS brochure for your information. 3. Safety a. 7' parking widths The 7' parking widths were not approved and we are still studying the matter. The City has asked the applicant to provide additional information about this. The. street width is currently the standard 36' width with landscaped islands alternating with parking. The 281 North College. Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 ( iV ,.let , wkt� ; i : i w 441 LAGUNITAS COMPANY 4 303 226 5125 8W2/25/94 02:57 PM ❑ 111 LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fbrt Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Mike Herzig FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: February 25, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village Following up our meeting and subsequent conversations: 1. Southeast Local Access Street will be a Public Street and will have a public hammerhead turn around at the end designed to the hammerhead specification which you provided me with. 2. Northwest Local Access Street will be a Public Street and egress loop will be permitted by means of connection to private driveway lane provided a) public easement is granted for such use, b) all maintenance of private driveway lane shall be responsibility of HOA not withstanding public right to use same, and c) a clear visual differentiation must be provided at the connection point between the Public Street and the private drive. dk cc: Dick Rutherford Bill Reilly Donna Musser Kirsten Whetstone Jim Leach LAGUNITAS COMPANY It 303 226 5126 MU2125/94 03:08PM DIM LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Sulte 200, Fort Colllns, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Kirsten Whetstone Mike Herzig Mike Pretz FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: February 25, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village / Meeting Follow-up Thanks for the opportunity to get together Wednesday, February 23rd, and discuss final questions relating to Indian Hills Village. In summary: ;. 1. We will evaluate with our architects and planners the tradeoffs and plan requirements relating to 7' wide parking, 8' wide parking, sidewalk one side and sidewalk both sides. I will ask them to reconsider 8' parking and sidewalks one side. Their conclusion will be based on the following considerations, among others: safety, access, site limitations, right-of- way design and other design considerations. 2. You have recommended increasing the size of the ingress and egress streets at the entrance from 12' to 20' or eliminating island. 3. Street curves and entrance shall be based on design standard (240' radius at 30 mph) or a variance request shall be prepared by our engineer. 4. Southeast Local Access Street shall be public and shall have a public hammerhead turn -around. S. Northwest Local Access Street shall have either a public hammerhead turn -around or a looped egress connection by means of private drive. Mike will speak with Gary and let Jon know their position on this. 6. Four houses fronting on Stuart Street shall share a common front walk to Stuart Street providing access for emergency personnel from Stuart Street. dk cc: Donna Musser Dick Rutherford Jim Leach taod"lyeatyr a 4W� 10 sc (J'W 'Y6 j1ih. L,6+- ot— (.zql LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Bonnie Weber FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: February 21, 1994 RE: Concern about adequate front yard and street trees have met individually and together numerous times with City Planning, City Engineering and all Utilities people regarding the most efficient and best possible location of utility lines and utility easements in order to meet City and Utility requirements, and in addition, to make the neighborhood, the right-of-way, the streetscapes and the individual yards and houses as attractive as possible. Enclosed is a copy of a detail of our Site Plan . showing right-of-ways, utilities, front yards and house frgnl�ges in a cross-section view so you can see how they relate. \ I . Notice how the 43' of rightfof-way is softened considerably by the landscape and parking offsets tt� the left and right of the street and 'also the trees which will �ocated both in the right-of-way landscape offsets and in front yar $. I know you wer concerned about how it was possible to locate trees in front yards. W sha a this concern and have worked with the City and Utilities people t assure that it will be possible in most, if not all, cases. Best regards. dk cc: ri lyer irsten Whetstone Tim Buchanan LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Bonnie Weber FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: February 17, 1994 RE: Proposed Busch Court Neighbors Meeting Thank you for your recent call during which you related and we discussed the various concerns which you and other Busch Court neighbors have relating to Indian Hills Village. Thank you for bringing these to my attention (and independently to the City's attention). I will continue to �at er, additional information and will be prepared to respond to them and dot er qu stions you may have at the proposed upcoming Busch Court neigh mdeting scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, February 28th at (directions:). The Boulder Cottage project is called'' Walnut Hollow and is located at 2100 Walnut in Boulder. It js��mifar in concept to our project in the respect that it is successfp largely because of the innovative type of public right-of-way which s sed. While achieving the functional requirements of a public right-of-way, a major effort was made in this project to make the right-of-way aesthetically pleasing and an integral part of the neig or od. There, of course, are other similarities and differences between this project and our project which I will be happy to discuss with you. Enclosed is more information relating to this project. R011 cc: Hari lyer iXrsten Whetstone LAGUNITAS COMPANY, 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 February 17, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Don Nash 1828 Busch Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nash: In speaking with Bonnie Weber about various concerns relating to Busch Court neighbors, it was brought up that you were concerned that there was no existing landscape buffer immediately to the east of your property and that you hoped one would be installed. Our plan for the landscape buffer along the west edge of the Indian Hills Village property (along your east boundary) is to: a) thin and trim existing trees with the primary emphasis on removing dead, unhealthy and / or unsafe trees and limbs; b) . supplementing existing tree line with additional new trees and shrubs; and c) continuing this process for five - ten years as part of a long-term phased replacement program as approved by the Fort Collins Forestry Department. In the process of executing this plan, trees will be planted* in year one .to fill in breaks in the current tree line such as the one behind your house. Do you have any specific suggestions as the type of trees and / or shrubs which you think would be attractive and do well in this location? Please let me know and I will refer your suggestions to our landscape architect and landscape contractor. If you need more information and have any further questions regarding landscaping or our project in general, please give me a call. Thanks. Sincerely, Jonathan J. Prouty President cc: Bonnie Weber �11<frsten Whetstone Tim Buchanan ... .. .. - k' '' j r F� t } y % A . ; 6 tit hog, W�� 0070001 7,_ PIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . boa 0,00, wo i R ' s4jj... .... �. `1►�.,'l..r,�Pkpu� �•• i:� a � r' - t s � � .�� ..:. of __ Y :� '! a ' 9. ^'Sr Py,s ,Y y i k •. -. ,L+ti '',,,, ii ii__�� r �� ! k � r. L'�`A� � . :. , �... ��•;,. .. '.. ' lf! (� 7 ,�� i /�R'�}.le'�1+'s y.aa.w �uh�Yl,�. TAf;. � 2�.' ,N�$�}• �c�J W� ter' x'i i .�{�Y i � #.' �{LTV j'; P� �ki iI Y .t�lT, hot .• Iiv ._Xw� _ •. ^ � Pr .. }) .,2•Y �ii�; Y r "�f v + n L. v^:r :+-'. r �j'A's"^ -+.y'!'+jfts.' ``�;if;C + `: h;s 41. 7-2 +�'Cr �+�t l't.-.P..k/'!'C Yy'.'di+ fn.>.'�Y•+. '. a .. � i h. aaW.tl`f"'+y �5 9. _ . ,�.(. +�a�t♦ F` [Y� V � ��- 1'),.h{ .. i _ t l af.'1yy S _+�A C i w•wn�Yw�°." r. ft, �, d t•t' 1ri � (.R i ♦ Ale fi .r .n I '; I °-: 3 • �+' ...w.X—i.fi�r.ri }{ f �"r� :. I y%� t s . 3xf, +S!'++��'r'.C'E s .i . �•� �`"^ „Y i tii«4'.ti. R4S1^�x t, 3a til rl + y. n•.J _ � r .�' '._ s •r r3r+ _rVAx ���•'! � � t1f rR r y r .. h♦ v r.. r -'V .� } `♦ x tf - ,VCM? �.1'•,j,•�`.,F1-C1j1 K't>.17a 7! 31�.+3 •.V �Yl it v+�♦ �,Yti'i{, cv. 4sy1YX tM1y`'. f_ .....vw� a F + •C� th E: r 3Y 4 Vv 1V�ft �•ir +' • +r tR r,•" f � ., � w..1�.0.....Y.,.�,�� t ' � .3 � � 41t ^.' `�£-Y . h.'i■-1 �i♦'"�rrlr� I ft��.»'.fT f fir.. +. tk � �.++'."".� !':.1 3 �>:c p 4 t" 3dk��4��..eM}��'a f ��..p 3 4j• ? S` t o fyj'��,{vt ����y�4�bt.', ♦' y.., �. f ♦ ... b ri. x f.. �.1Y A' r `t+ v nyy .i iYQ'�> /�'�' ..t FI v+ 1 - t t r .. i y - V x v+ +rid PC .,n•. i. j w1 : .y r t• ^+ r C..- ♦ ��'v L • � c ' . � -r r r i + • 3 t. s ij'�-♦r�+) v+ r`S �- J�'y@y' •f .' r �•' � E F w'Y 1 0.. � i• r vY ,f 1! YS x �x. r Y f. tYfy '� �1• ,yE•.., i yYYy� � {���F'♦'>. •. �,;F'- ♦ y..^ r :� x r .w + 9 . �' � F � . Y t 3 I� � t rr'�f;r+�$i'i4 3 l� lyr,4` f��:', 1 4: ♦ ♦ t 'rF A t .J6 � '►:)�p.i f4':�'s t y�• C • 1. a Y. � ` +�,Y�.+/ - !JJ' {.•. I • + ♦ ''j ♦F � �qr� a ril f:i'.� ��/ i.`�}yfi V�YCT�Y Yrfy Y.c Y, Ev �•��IY Et�.V ~�1. -+�F�,��, a .h.� I` j:,. ♦ e 1 ti. ''}. I3i, �Y� f V 'i. ,RV f'�i f i! ♦� 3. tM1 •.�•��. r.. t•�. ak; . ..: "+ fr '11.Y _ d '.y _ :Y r"�3 !':.r. .'Y -: 4•t Y'.�♦n§•+ .'r h .kF- . ¢--j W 43:411. A''�vyt�r�,'i}L,F. .,+� ✓ } • :!�rFex�4 '� F.�n- r t Aiw '�+ �M 77 • 17. (!rl �-' .7.. nS. _iiLJ:• ("1i !a X'Q:. .aa� , .:� ., � ' '• '�_____3 r:.,i-t•4��;✓ ;-..•lip •r J , _ , .7 - _ � G ar"emu. if'' Y. is '�? +�{2 �-bn\.�AY�,•�r t ., . Y ♦ a y�yy� tv^.ts"yyM 4y {"+`.y tv G1 \�A,. �' w � • y c. A .r--. :.,L�'+7P�,:[N1lA�i , ��7le.k ... se+'t!:�.fya _'...r`a•." 1� f ,C. . LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Kirsten Whetstone ✓Mike Herzig FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: January 31, 1994 RE: Adequacy of 7' Parking. Space Photos Here are some photos showing the adequacy of a 7' parking space Also, the last photo, a Lincoln Continental, is only 6'2" wide and therefore also fits in a 7' parking space. -As I previously have mentioned, and Mike and I have discussed, if we use a rolled curb, which we are agreeable to do, most people park with their wheel on the flow line assuring that the vehicle is parked within the 7'. Furthermore, we are agreeable to include a tough provision in the Homeowner'.s Association covenants requiring that all on -street parking be within the 7' parking space (clearly visually obvious by the concrete - asphalt differentiation) and. that any parking of any vehicle which extends past the concrete into the asphalt travel lane shall subject property. owner to immediate vehicle towing and an onerous penalty. If I can assist you further in resolving this critical matter of 7' parking favorably, let me know. Thanks. dk Enc. JAN-24-94 MON 15:22 P.O2 t hope this additional information plus my re -enumeration of "other considerations" you are already aware of help resupport a favorable decision in regard to this matter. 0 0 G JAN-24-94 MON 15:22 P.01 c 4 f LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. sulte 200. Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 TO: Mike Herzig FROM: Jon Prouty DATE: January 24, 1994 RE: Indian Hills Village / 7' Parking Widths / New Curb Design and Additional Documentation 1. 1 have ten slides of various medium and large -size cars parked on residential streets near Indian Hills Village. All of them indicate. that vehicles park so that outside edge of vehicle is well within 7'. 2. Also, these slides show that most people park within 3" of the flow line, mostly right on the flow line, when parking against a "rolled" or "drive over" curb. 3. 1994 Ford Lincoln Continentals measures 6'3" maximum width. Even this gargantuan vehicle parks reasonably easily within a 7' space. 4. Ou, f,ar;. ass,3h%zar, Ka%F+laon Kragor of KrcL nr nnrl Aocnr'iotca fccic that based on the above consideration plus the low traffic volumes and : pZ-J'2 'dgPhIA1 14j:ll -u'A;' J I I.adian f lillo lfilln�jn, +hn 7' rinrllino urirlth le reasonable and satisfies public safety requirements. 5. Other considerations: a. The few number of cases where road is actually reduced to 27' rwhorc thArA it; narking on Ute lan j�� in� offsets b. The constrains o e site nt a oy a tstuly WUL01 W IV acvrai mains and east and west landscape buffers. 15vi I fnr-nrhrato rtrivcs anrt rAar Ar rFisse.d Post -It-" brand fax transmittal memo 76711 r of payee ► f To From co.1=� Dept. Phone a 7 ? � •• trio=� Fax T Fax N 01/07/1994 14:10 4672354 KRAGER & ASSOCIAI�� PAGE 02 Mr. Jonathan J. Prouty Lagunitas Company January 7, 1994 Page 2 separation of the parking areas from the.travel lanes, I do not believe these variances will cause any public health, safety, or welfare problems if it were approved. Sincerely, Kath %en L. Kr er, P.E. Krager and Associates; Inc. January 7, 1994 Mr. Jonathan J. Prouty Lagunitas Company 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 re: Street Variance Request file: 2.4347var Dear Jon: Per your request, I have reviewed your application for a varianc!t! to the City of Fort Collins residential street standards. I understand that you are requesting two variances of the local street width of 36 feet to 34 feet with parking on bothisides and 29 feet with parking on one side within your Indian Hills Subdivision. This reduction in street width would be accomplished by reducing the on -street parking width from eight feet to seven feet. The use of a 34-foot flow line to flow line cross section is an accepted engineering practice. Within the Denver metro area the Cities of Westminster, Thornton, Arvada, and Lakewood all have 34-foot flow line to flow line Local street standards. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, in their Transportatiioi arm Traffic Engineering Handbook also recommends a 7-foot depth for on, -street parking. The proposed design of paving the travel lanes in asphalt and the parking areas in concrete will provide a strong visual aid to drivers to help assure that parked vehicles do not encroach on the travel lanes. The landscaped endcaps to the parking areas will also help define the difference between the parking area and travel lanes. The variance to provide a 29-foot flow line to flow line cross section will accommodate a seven -foot parking area on only one side of the street. Adequate parking for each residence has been provided in this subdivision, and thus the additional parking spaces are not needed. The City of Lakewood allows a 28-foot flow line to flow line street when adequate parking has been provided. Since these street cross.sections are considered a standard design in many communities and your design emphasizes the 40% Estes Street Wheat Ridge. Colorado 8W33 (303( 425-0805 FAX (303( 467-2354 i�ir. Mike Herzig January 6, 1994 Page Z The access to the garages were called private drives on the preliminary submittal. In fact, if they are designated as alleys by the City, they do not need a variance. If you have any questions regarding the variance requests, please call. Sincerely, cat L Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. President rar/jm STEWART&ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors January 6, 1994 Mr. Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mike, This is a request for two variances for residential streets in the proposed Indian Hills Village located at the intersection of East Stuart Street and Stover Street. The variances are as follows: 1. A variance of the right—of—way width of a Local Street from 54 feet to 43 feet, and the flow line to flow line width from 36 feet to 34 feet, Table 1, Page T-1. The reduction would be in the parking width from 8 feet to 7 feet and the driving lanes would remain 10 feet wide. The utility easements on either side of the street would be widened from 9 feet to 14 112 feet. The 7 foot wide parking area will be delineated by being concrete, with 20 foot wide driving lanes being asphalt. The standard cannot be met with the garages in the rear of the lot which is desirable in order to riot have the street scape be all garage doors. There should not be problems in handling the traffic since the driving lanes remain 10 feet wide. 2. A variance of the Local Access Street right—of—way from 54 feet to 34 feet and the flow line to flow line width from 36 feet to 29 feet, Table 1, Page T-1. The street would have parking only on one side of the street. The A.D.T. for each street where this section is proposed is 600. The standard cannot be met with the garages in the rear of the lot due to added land needed for width of the garage access drive. The street would have parking on one side only, and no parking signs will be provided by the developer. The lots on the Local Access Streets are within 150 feet of the residential street and therefore do not cause a problem for fire fighting. James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins. CO 80522 303/482-9331 Fax 303/482-9382 Phis is an. example of what we do not want Indian Hills Village's KUW and streetscape to look like i'l, t { r r ti� w 'ir -. i= Seattle Cottage Project - a sea of asphalt and concrete totally out of scale with small houses on small lots with short front yards. PLAN A PLAN r ■ LA HR7 VV, ;AN .KIT 10 2 M LIY h,d t del , I - �Ar t • signaga eccenl pavement nnamental plantings ruw.. rrl I/ •Residential 1 r.l..Ma.. ¢.M...tie I See Preliminary Site Plan for Information on existing trees to the north end of site. Views down Local Streets shall locus on ornamentals to enhance drive experience x rlaing laldenllsl Ey om c LLLLLL 1 lid ..... �r=..�« C EUMIih-_- R me tial pruJrve existing bass to act aJ butter along east and weal boundariei 'Driveway Lane planting shall consist of small shade trees to soften rear architecture I I I 1 I I Y .!'ding Open LEGEND Existing Shade Trees f Conceptual Street Tree Plantings shade tree) Dr veway Lone Planting I&!nail shade tree) wV Ornamental Accent Trees Groundcover l� cam.:° i:.iiyi•, • s••�`l•IM..n.n e. a..r.+.wl. w a.MM.«.. or a ! Ornamental trees with Street Tree ! backdrop shall occur along Local Streets where open space 1 jalns on both aid,,. — Front and side yards may have low pick!, fences r 7.61. g .li. - -A - Supplemental planting to the south will help transition to existing townhouse project nasrr.. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN F.>da 0 Vicinity MIS dse•a.x.M.:��.-�— J \ iel L_f il- Y !. •1 ryry �Ir lM•. ' ••xnljWe. Eb.,C.17... .G41•nE•x•r] I -li 'dLi I..~ " l I . --.+.r.r. a ...w x ar.• . e... •Ira.i' I1I G-,I -1 I • 3elldertlial � ��i n, J r• •. Mw.•w .I•e• n•In •x NIIY. •1. CM fYln.x ea"q • slr.yw. a.nl.y In c.r.a.. A w.n. P wa«w,ye • C {I VrNna ILA a".) Le. w.nww) • ae•arw ortM_ __. ___. _� w'O' _ TOW Pletep Ian rP«ea -_ __ IIaNI s..T.a vraM a erase. L........ . L•I Ay , SI.••I Site Tabulation -P.b eM1 Yry E.n KPri.{MLI IN\ 6av A• pwWE r AA.Ac •1'I.uN[noa.• '1'I PI•wY Lw• .n K1 A,LeeN1 II.ER '11 oEel [V•P"IDfI .rL KI»....... V.{t IYIdrM•yNLIL•bl••• >L no ...... .11 N.Et .•tee•, • IIM 4wIxw••IxIM.IMNM.M.C'•IM.N wIN•IM IIOVI.1 .. Y•M rw. bx.•.•W M•Ye WINM••M.M.4ry gx..M•••.Mwl.•b IY4N .•• Dnbr.11lm.{ • [•aqY! I.. rYp Y••. M dl4 N rla N• b L.I eM b Y dbmi.G 1P•n fM 4eAll•a.N I• p••4g0. • In. E�e@'aEmem I. nn. as. n la Ir.1,uwL .rn.....Ir IIMMEM+LOE.hr aLr sr..�19.L. a.R lass III." [..•N.uLa a..04•e••.1 IYD-6�dD,_ERyslops/4Sl.;gSG la Eam ss.u'Lor .. ..... _ P A. I.RD SID[ rim ,. L r... I z;� �I EEIsling 7.IL Unit Statistics • e.b..:.•mwl: Lao • ^... sb. MM1Mr. s' • ry••N rn.IMIwM: I.EOe-IrN •.I.:.r.E••N tNM •.IWI: LO.S . I,ew•1. Unit Tabulation • nwa•r a mSlerwurldl•.Ma wl•I. ar WYu •CNnw Apy fwea11Ap1•M.1: nlMa lS dyNM1 a•1.1 -N V•Ia1r.N Wi.CI .SIar, Orientation Ordinance . ntl ta• a1Rl EYw DM. arbrn.a Iw EI.I Lsl• b. M•gMIN aE: (� . e VN•M M1 NYy rygbyN M IA / M Ii.Pbel]Yq l.l• o.R . IA • bR aa. e..wry.•ly NYalu PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE: Cluster Single Femity,P.U.D.) 1•, •�'q EXISTING ZONING - RP .....n.... o�.............. and Environmental Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins February 15, 1994 Pearl Street 19th Ltd c/o Jonathan Prouty 3307 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Indian Hills village PUD - Preliminary, #81-93 Dear Sir: On January 24, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins approved the above referenced project with the following conditions: 1. That a replacement schedule for existing landscaping be submitted and approved by the City's 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. If you have any questions, please call our office at 221-6750. Sincerely, Kirsten Whetstone, AICP Project Planner YAW/ gj d 281 North College avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80322-0580 - (303) 221-6750 We intend to present a plan to the Indian Hills HOA detailing our landscape ideas for this area. We also welcome the idea of, coordinating this effort, as we believe both parties will benefit. 19. You need to make sure the landscaped area between the existing houses and the driveways is a good buffer. I would liks to see trees, shrubs, grass, etc. We will be looking at those areas in detail at the time of final submittal, but we agree, these need to be adequate buffers. 20. What is the timing of construction? We would like to begin in the Spring with site development which should take 2 to 3 months to complete. The houses will probably take 2 years to build out. T 21. Will people be -parking in the 16' drive lanes? We don't want that. One of the reasons the lanes are narrower is to discourage parking there. There will be guest parking in front of the houses and two car garages for each house. There should not be parking in the drive lanes. 22. Will garbage be collected from the rear of the houses? Probably not, the public street will be in front. The drive lanes will be private. )� 23. The density seems very high, we don't see how you can put all of those houses on only 6 acres. The density is actually less than the previously approved townhouse plan, or the Indian Townhouses that were built. The houses are not large,. the street is scaled down to a pedestrian scale, the front yards are scaled down, porches are emphasized, and the side yard setbacks are reduced. We are trying to accomplish a village concept of housing where there is a neighborhood feeling, where it is safe and pleasant to walk along the tree lined streets, and where the scale of the streets matches the scale of the houses. The concept is not really new, it is the way neighborhoods were developed 50 years ago. We believe that this will be an attractive neighborhood and it an attractive alternative to typical townhouse developments. (We are not including the Indian Hills Townhouses in that description because we believe that is a well- designed project). 24. What about solar orientation? Will 'you be able to get solar access if the houses are so close together? We will do everything we can to meet the requirements of the city's Solar Orientation Ordinance. The way the houses will be constructed, the design and combinations of ranch and two story We will consider the existing homes when we design the lighting. When we have more information about lighting it will be made available to you. 13. What about streets, will they be public or private and who will maintain them? We are working with the City Engineering Department and Poudre Fire Authority to work out a reasonable alternative to the standard 36, wide city street. We would very much prefer. public streets and believe that a 28' paved street, with a 20' drive and 8' parking area on alternating sides, is more in scale with what we are trying to accomplish with this design. 14. How far is the driveway edge from your property line at the southwest corner? It is 131. Nine feet of landscaping for the existing trees, then 4' of gravel or non -hard surface to give the trees and root systems some protection, and then a 16 asphalt -drive way. The back of the garage will be 3-4' from the drive way. 15. What will you do with the existing emergency access at the southeast corner of the property? It is no longer needed by the Fire Authority, it will be landscaped. There will not be any vehicular access between the existing townhouses and this proposal as was shown on the previous townhouses plan. �16. There are some serious drainage issues on the site and in the area, especially for the people on the east side of Busch Court. The current situation is not adequate at all. Where will the water from the townhouses go when. this property is developed? Right now it just flows over this property and sometimes onto our lots. Will it be piped? We hope you can solve the drainage problems in the area with this plan. All of the drainage issues will have to be resolved. We.will have our engineers look into the situation you have described. All drainage from this site will be piped directly to Spring Creek. 17. Could you explain how you plan to deal with the stormwater on the site and through the .development, especially out of the existing drainage pond? We can generally show you on the plans how the drainage is intended to go, but we are still in the preliminary stages of engineering design so we can't be that specific. The water in the existing drainage pond will have to be dealt with on our plans. y� 18. We would like to see some coordination between you and the townhouses HOA on . the landscaping between the two developments. entrance feature. S. Could we get copies of the plans that you intend to s:>bmit. Yes, we will send plans to anyone who is interested. -1 6. What will the height of the buildings be? Approximately 30' at the highest. The steep pitched roofs give the houses'a taller profile. 7. Will you level the.site or regrade it? We will not change it•much from. what you see. 8. How many houses will there be on the 6 acres? Approximately 48. 9. Will the landscaping be maintained by a homeowner's association? Yes, everything outside of the individual building envelopes will be maintained by a homeowner's association, including the streetscape landscaping. 10. What do you intend to do with the existing trees along the east and west property boundaries? Who will maintain them? We intend to preserve them. We will work with the City Forester to determine which trees are worth preserving, because some of them are dead or dying, and we plan to work out a 5 or 10 year replacement program. The developer will do the initial pruning and maintenance and the HOA will take over after time. . 11. Bull doze them all now. They are mostly weeds and are not that great. We agree that many of them are not that attractive and for those we would work out a program to replace them with other more attractive trees. But the existing trees do have value now as they provide a pretty dense buffer'and screen between the existing houses and this site, especially in the spring,' summer, and fall. *12. What about street lighting? We don't want really bright lights, but something like our development which is more subdued. I would be 'interested in knowing more about the City residential lighting scheme, as far as luminaries of light. Also, please consider second story windows of existing housing when you design the lighting. We will be working with Light and Power to work out a street lighting scheme that will be subdued and adequate but not overdone. We also don't want to light up the place, but want it to be safe. Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Indian Hills Village PUD The following are comments, concerns, and estions expressed a neighborhood information meeting held o December 2, 1993. The proposed project, known as Indian Hi is Village PUD for approximately 48 single family and duplex o imately 6 acres. The proposal is for a "cottage" type community, with rear accessed garages, front porches, steep pitched roofs, and a scaled down, pedestrian oriented street scape. Note: All responses are by the applicant, unless otherwise noted. 1. What is the projected price range and size of the houses. Approximately 35-40- of the units will be ranch style with the remainder being 2 story houses. There will be a mix between single family and the attached duplex type houses. They will range in size from 11000 sq. ft. to .about 2,000 and some will have basements. Our projected construction costs are approximately $100 per square foot. - We estimate the houses will be in the $160, 000 to $210,000 price range. 2. Will you be taking down the overhead power lines behind our houses? We would like to see them placed underground. We will consult with Light and Power about coordinating the undergrounding of those lines with installation of the underground lines for this project. 3. Where will the teenagers and children play, there are no green belts or parks? Even with one child per unit there could be 48 kids with no place to play, and even worse, there could be 48 dogs with no yards. The development will likely not appeal to families with children as the yards are small. We anticipate that the development will appeal to empty nesters, retired people, young professionals, etc. The sort of person would doesn't want a large yard to maintain, yet wants to own an individual house. We also anticipate interest from people moving out -of larger houses looking. for a high quality smaller house. There are also two City parks within a half mile, with Spring Park just down the street and Edora Park a short distance down the bike trail. 4. If you end up not using the front area along Stuart Street for detention what will you do with it? It will be incorporated into green area, front yards, and an r' i t F w '*� ,., i 1 ° f 1..., i^ �'+•' �' v ht��,f• `1 ..r \' Sr �� y �s'��.Ik u elf i , � r ����• �l1 :J^ '! _,� a r {v Fr\' i 2 r- rj I � fol 1{ •. . \ i r'J' gj5^j�i 1"t r , (1 i � ., � ` I} r r, � �f �ry �i i I+� 'r j 7 f ef1i�ry t , } ' '•� S I V It r r.•iv -(•.J� 1 a. n/ ..�''Kl^�M r i iF,y f_ 1 '` . .+Jvi 1 7 ,',.i t;. ::,. ;:.' ..., -'.. '.'•' t fir( v e i 1 ! vll jt;. It IMER rig u f52 MYSITY INNOVATIONS IN THE ROCKIES : PLAN 9 PLAN A DENVER: 10 TO THE ACRE I. AN Downing; Thorpe & James is developing a 10-per-acre `,'ached progrzirr for a. builder in Denver, where typical affordable single-family densities are in the 6-per-acre range. The land plan mixes wide-shaltow and long - narrow lots in groups of four to six along short street segments. i:vo- car garages are to the rear, accessed by alleys. "Moving the garages !o the back gives the concept its biggest marketing boost," says the firm director of community design, Steve James. "It produces a friendly street scene that reduces little -used front yard Space, yet leaves enoa,n -front yard for landscaping and strong entries." The 1.000.10.1.400- square-foot cottages include a mix of one- and hrro-stcry plans. .. ".: ie Margarita. and Por;;aibn in Tustin R nch. iltis partr,rrship !c .I!- { Newport Court. Homes, will likely he managing general parmer for the deve!ooment and safe of CourtHume cumm.:ni!'.es as well. ThN Town Court Collection in Ran- cho Santa MarganU illustrates RGC's un- orthodox develocment strategy. At build -out. the collection will include 129 townhouses and 3o7 CourtHomes. But rather than build ;.!carafe model compiex- es fur each prod ,ct, as Orange Counr; builders n•pically do. RGC was able to ne- gotiate with the deve!ocer to group ail models near (he Town Court Coilec'ion entrance. "We're ;tar!ing with just enough land for the entr: and (he models." Moray says. ' %Ve'11 buy adc tional parcels for each new neighborhood as we need them." Phased map)in:; and site improve. ments arr. another %vay of reducing front. end capital needs.:Nlerar says. Municipal and count' officials have agreed to allow permits and fees ro he paid throu.vhout the prniri! r*c!e rat -• ,flan :m front 1.::d RGC ne;luti;ued . a' architects. e!ig;. I.PM veer=-, and other team members to defer a Percentage of payment until close of es. crow, The next step is to work out a >in- gle-source supply relationship with subcontractors and suppliers in exchange for accelerated construction schedules. But how much does all this stream- lining actually save? For a 164-unit project. more than S11 million in peak capital. Nlu- rar estimates (see charts on previous Page). "That translates to a significant re. turn on investment for our equity Providers. even with the smaller mar- gins —and lower prices for the consumer." COURTING OTHER MARKETS Not surprisingly, word of RGC'srecord. breaking densities is getting around. 'vVe've gonen some calls from landowners in Dallas and Seattle. They have parcels zoned for multifamily, and want to know more about our CourtHomes.' Murar says. The concept would work best, he says. in areas where monthly rents are in the >500-toS1.000 range. "Sumeune pay ing !hose rents could afford to buy a CuurtHunte. especially now (ha( iiu- limits can provide financing." He's not too wor ied abo:ir wl:, builders rippin,¢ riff RGC"., CnurtH,,r: scheme. -Most people would lets ing to figure out the puzzle." he cha% i. "We've spent four years and County <. hours putting the pieces togeth-r. I: much easier for us to do it than for song, one else to reinvent the wheel." Nom !h• less. RGC has copyrighted butte t! CourtHome name and the designs. A!:' the company is exploring ways to CourtHomes to builders in other nrrrke! "`fie might send a team from our own �%;, out to consult with another builder, im fee plus a percentage of sales." Nlu;... says. RGC would come in once the la::.' was in place, tailoring the "clien('s" bn>: ness plan. supplying the necessary dl*W ings, and preparing a complete peck„, for presentation to lenders. But for now. the top priority is term.: ing Orange Counn•.s densest -ever affordable de(achcd houses (o and selling them. ■ AqLrChit(e(CtUr;e American Heritage Cottage 2000... An American Favorite Revisited Visit most cities in Middle America and you're likely to find one or more still -charming neighborhoods of 60 or 70-year-old cottages. An impor. tant aspect of the charm is the ab- sence of garages from the street scene. In the "good old days," garages were placed at. the back of lots and reached via side driveways or alleys. The long drives consumed sizeable downin thorpe fames chunks of the lots, and alleys were StreetScene Character frequently maze -like —but the street scenes were generally much stronger than in small -lot neighborhoods today where garages are typically dominant. Today's neighborhoods generally offer more usable yard area and privacy, as weas much improved floor plans. Planners and designers at Downing, Thorpe & James, Inc. have evolved a new approach to small -lot develop- ment that gives back the charming streetscape, yet overcomes the shortcomings of the older approach. TheAmerican Heritage Cottage Z000 idea combines the best of both front -loading and rear -loading strategies into a unified neighborhood planning concep t. It utilizes the alley, but does not allow it to dominate the land plan. It Incorporates front-load- ingoff public streets, but in anew "shared - drive" approach that expands lot sizes and enhances privacy between homes. It pre- serves backyard space, indeed, expands it with more usable side yards. The new cottage product concept offers more similarity to the benefits of "Z-Lot" products of the 1980's than to its historic counterpart. Although the steep pitched roofs, high gables, dormers and front porches offer an authentic cottage look from the street interior spaces and floor Neighborhood Cluster plans are opened -up and more functional arrangement of tiny rooms. The design also allows views through the house to the "private side" of the lot, significantly ex. panding the feel of the interior space and the indoor -outdoor relationship. Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AIL CR'ITE;;IA �.�. CCr. MUNITY-WILE CF.I T E.=IA 1. 1 Sct-r Qnentaticn 1.2 Ccr.-crenersive Plan 1 `f/ilClife Hacitat 1.a Nlireral Deccsrt E_c;cgicaUy ScEnsitive Areas 1.5 Lares cf A.CrIC::Iturci ImCCr',ar1Ce 1 7 E^ercv Ccnser.-aticn 1.? Air Qualitv 1._ W='-er CL.ality 1 10 C_•..�_rc _nLt �J�J_etnc A 2. NE:GHEOF,HGCD COMPA.TiEILI i 2.1 V=r:c::!�r. F=_�==t,;an. Eiice Transcenat 2.2 E_•iicirc P!acament anc Orientation 2.3 N2--'ra! Fe_rtUr_s 2.= Vesicular Circulation and Par'king 2.- E:rercercy Access 2.: Fec=sman Circulattcn 2.7 A.res;tec ur= 2.E Eudcirc Heicnt anC Views 2.9 Si-adinc 2. 1 u SClar nCCaS� 2.11 Histcrc CescU'rcas c 2.13 Lares ce 2.14 Sicns 2.1- Site Lighting 2.1E Ncise and Vicraticn Hea p/A— HGaa_raercccr us Materials NGNEERING CRITERIAERIA Utility Cacacity ".2 Design Standards _._ V` 2(er HC:_res ... ' Gac: !c Ha_2rCs IAPrL1CAELE CRITE=tq CNL r I +c: kau7 be 3x=r..?7 31 jg Yes No If no, please a --lain 1 . I 1X Ireserwled (reserved 1X1 I T I I X I Vcik'�r,NCE Fy vim;: 1-1-11 1 r1cl Oc(- a DENSITY CHART Maximum Critericn Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Earred C:eait a 2000 2000 feet olan e.ennOp CF C�ea necropr.00a vvcp.p center. b 10°o e.50feercrened1fln0eonsllstoo. --- 10% c 10% s000 feet of onemtnoa aasvpredrr�pcn sneoprh0censer. Z 10% d I 209O J500feel ofon"icno0fhowmrkcOrrm pvPam vcorry rvfaclity. Lij f ^ C. 10010 IOOp feeldascnod. meenrp an me reculremennof ere ecr.wtayecuc �on C„ of me 5las of Cdoroco. ' 10% Q 1 2000 3000fee�efamcbr erroloy+shenlcenter. s --- 9 5ao COOreetof0Cndcaecentef. 5$ h 20% wcm- Fan cdn ft I 2000 the Cenhafihaineucistnct, --- • A poled worse botxhaaN is ca,n.,vota to edsryhp croon ae.eponynl. Geat srhay W eomeo a roeow: 0 %—Far pCIeQ w'60" pWMN ecurKxw ncs 0 t0'o%ccnaguft. ro to ISx — Fa pCfeCa wrhose Frooeny bounaon nm ro ro 20%com,c nY 3010 15 to .'%—Fa paean wross voFem Cawhacry has 2010 M% conhwrr. 20:025x— Fp ctoiecs whose pooenv omrnd has 30 to do% can^Gw+N. 2510 30%— Fa mlecs.+ros Froo" bounvary has e010 •-a%cann5,iary, 30% k nItCahbeaMK,vssRa}ea;na!ttyafCiecsVADfeciscsrhOn-renewpaeenemy.sneapeeimerrnrawnineCmAcch ndcnetnt,"e Qy sysremf p mrou0h c_vrvrvned enemy cpuerwmsn meosues beypna Most rcmcay fecu,ea by city Cone. fOr even 5x reCUC.'Cn n 9Mtry W. a 5%bon may De earned --- Calf K. B O 7% bpW3lp evacres hcssdea in the pClBCt. --- m Cclr�'e me cetc en lcCe of me sofa Oaelnma paeClTcrOe eswted breast-epna Sys, enter l/f efTa peresnl n nme eeFicenrcamnvn to pawn•nr.OFermonenlonvle Doan sauce mormeen me C:Ns minimvr, rewrernenK cdcviare rna oereenra0e of IM3Oxen sooce acreapelO mefCta Ce+BbCmerhlacreC(;9. enter lhisaMCBmC�y CSa COrYrl --_ --- O e can or melotadevelxnanr OtraCef is to oe Sept Cn negnoornood Cuac.'CANl IOCMes wr.cn are rot Cmen.+se feovreo Cy GN CJCI. -enren 2%borrn 1p e.ery S:CO Ferc..ewrpwrvw•esteo p Ifp;rl cf metolclG@'tedpnenf C{fdCBtn lO DB fOenf Fn ne'CrhDOrMOtl facslhes aha servCes wean Ore nolemer.+»reatnrsa Cy C:NCnose. enter a r%Fonus la ehery 5:00 oaf cwescnp um if*+esrssG --- --- �- Q If O ccnynTnenr is bewv moee to C"loo a soeoeed awcemope a ew rota nurow d(�a.el Facsntcce Cl C DcM UC lO a nblmrrm of JOX whO Whfa lC,v+hcorry lamtllei enter rna -- Z MCC-n Imfsnl A bei4v mans to ceveloo a s fled"tcsnloge of the fares mynasr of FM "Whfpf nousuro cs Cannea Cy me CiNCI son Colnnt cckUae the Doran Cs fdla.: vDa -KaW type '8� nprplCCaaea O r N"'A'— .Snmes Froe A Wh alaunns 1 cc Type 3_ f 011mef f"ps'�" Wn araTTixna In no cue shall me cFmolned both to greater man M%. ' eehe vre accbcenr pooerryCCAI*A% m hitrana buldng or Froce, a DerxGmcy bs aamaa la ma(0110, a --- J% — asa048 a nrn0pmnparvhp oNsbeirv4»hassle.6 erntaerhenral bna taa.oeveyllC eeonornle aha soodfaaonladverse bip servonom 3%—Rhclnew 3mfeveswll be i+Yeeprhp wsh ehe onpacrerd me DVik7rh0d CbCe.vnie ahoiarhq total tarts tODOse CCCC ue 01fne Dlilarhpa Froce shots it leadto MCCnrlrxrOhCe, prnsnpllphFna IsnFfo•wm In an copoorhalenrlyher. . IF a censon a at of In, rear+eC Fcmkn yh the Is Lsedw fcn%* pcea is pov ded vhaespowld wlnln e+e tx. smcnrra u cn occeuory tx tome sW+G a ih ah eW Cs w 0cft Q FnifOn/ ]mrosure. o bprlG may W sastvd a Iplawt --- t OX —For powrhO lSXamaedehe pCrlerhr)ehosmcUs. 6% —For pv.Cb+p 50.7d%olma FcstlnOnattnclrre•. , 3% —Far pcManC 2Saa%uehe Fortyh0 yha mueNs. --- U e a e�mlmem is eemG made lO 010"Ce a C`nCwomc4c-0-es n*hP+e++q systems ra me awalFn9 tnrK enter o Dontn d ro%. TOTAL 85 -30- ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART - ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY n m• Cnu,� caacoaa o• a.rFw• CRITERION ?�``'� Yes No If no, please explain NE!GHBCRHCCD COMPATA81LITY 1. Netgncotheoa Chorc 3. LcnC Use Conflicts d. ACverse Trertic Impac PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Ccmcrenensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Ccpccity 7. Ulirty Ccccctly 8. Oesign Slcnccres 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. WCter HczcrCS RESCURCE PROIECTION Q. Soils & Slope HazcrC 13. Sicniticcnyvegelatlon 14. WilClife HCcitcl 15. Historical Lcncmcrk 16. Minercl Decosif 17. Eco•Sensitive Areas 18. Agriculturcl Lcncs ENY12ONMENTAL STANDA204 22. G;cre & Hect 23. Vicrcricns 2d. El!ericr Lighting 25. Sewcges & wastes SITE DESIGN 27. Site CrCcnizcifcn 28. NClurcl Features 29. Enercy Ccnservotlnn J 1. Soler Access X 32. Privacy X 33. Open Sccce Arranoernent ., r UICr 38. Active Recrecticnal Arecs 19. Privcte CUtCcor Areas 1 �0. PeCesiricn Ccnvenlence .; 42. LcnCscccing/Open Areas 43. LcnCscccing/8uilCing3 eG. LcnCseccinc/Screening X 45. Puclic Access 1L f:-.. 9 As PLAN C INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE m4f ON ti m if jo DEFINITION: All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority -houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec- reational uses as a principal use;..uses.providing meeting prlaces and plaee-s for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. Each of the following appl CRITERIA icable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the develop- ment. plan. Yes No 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the averaae residential density in the project at least three (3) dwelling units per acre (calculated for residential portion of the site only)? 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI- DENTIAL'PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ® ❑ SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DUELLING UNITS/ACRE; 40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS=,5-6.DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS =.677 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS =`.7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 OWELL1NG UN ; 90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE. VlcinllY Nep Y Ity r, _r-- _ Q- :: � Tr • +'•r W III I p. — � _J w wl. rr11Y» N b W - �� 'I enllal I�I .»f•.••f•uh �r,Lw. ar,M1r'Fve• lV.. rr»•. GYI.Y•NNI t1 �l_, L •Cj �•.Y �u..11�NY I_ I I E.I.IM� �Iik I� _J11•LI TL ` jL• W MI•r.�nlr1 r I =lrts / 11 I. l �..IY• I aNYY! 1 o.� rrin il�.: I �1.�"iw�J� 1 I ED i. N Cll lr, ' \ n� �• pry L--�J--. rLl. w n» w,. .0 w.I» iwI m.N. 1\«a 1..�W Y r.r... .• rY ce f I Ownersft [ In •n • y.,�..� p anOmmolning and Zonina Approval PING ON••».•.r•.r YW '�••• MYI • Lwlcvw•„ • arr.e T•rbq N n».aN M r.• (2 ay....ke+n . .........� ... r. r r.x=: .It,wp Y••W M a".) •I lepa .11.•a.r MYp r 40 •»» •• •� �•••••• Taw q•" »e.yee I'mrrIs F-" la Weave I I �r Lr•,•w'h•LN .V•..uw 1 Calotiny Open tL..•SP�:'...N Site Tabulation a.»ro.Y•r tNwK •111•w+•a0 w.• ul Kll.na LLl t• \ •1'I pl»••V l.r .rl Kll•AN•V 111f • N 4» aIr• ••lo.k.l .N K I ll.•IN rl Ilk Ivvpv » (W.1••• lw KpIk.N•ul NA• bW4IW C�y! CC/ *11 iL� Y•„IrN» I.VY.1»•»w. W . L'.V,•M •w.Y W a.0 e 1 • h»1...»»r..••M..VN••»M•.rl.y»•I»Nr. •,r.»wr•.••nl.N•» • V®NWT -k•Nw.IY rYV Y..W11,Y.VIW Y»YWYY N LLwWN eI»,ILr 4Vub•.YOnV..Y . r•I. aeliaberNYlrT lr.nNlw •,,,••LL . nw IIT, y aabatprar..al.a Y IN a1..11114.1T Lam_ T f� I.r nl. a•le!••V»•Icpn�\I•. p•Y�1 t1M4 V ' 1Yb81G0.�0Y11Y➢R).u.. VYIBLD[GIQ � r Lor . -r 1 I: a i _ I All I- - -1 Iaplr •aeo — w f� �Eel•Ilny Q Unit SI.tl.II a O • •. VM.11•y,r. N . . rv•.•.N M1I. r»•n.•: I.N•. n.. .I.: rvY.•. r.,V •.I I VM; LN• . L W I. //• Unit T.bul•Ilon � •Cw•»�•^M lYN. to»»w wllk lr wl. •"'• • cwlY aLyy I�••aoyw».1. v wn N O.Y...q H �"'� wir ownu.•. our Kl ^ O S Olientm on Oralnanc H U .fw L�nlvr.k.r p+�l».r .k.•... NYpYr1 •v:G E-1 • u1�Y`:\. ��'lw• e»o.rµe W (%1' � .mar PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE: Cluster Single Famllyl P,U.O.) t\ypq• EXISTING ZONING - RP e ,.•,,,„,r,•• wln to 0 VI.W on 1h rase i s down tLlnopcal �SeUt.r..e..wsenYtrl.@l.0 Yr. h.Yaarinl focus numntals Ip enhance drive experience c yvst e' I I I I I � II wa...laa .w.2 crlr..r.e accent pav*ment ,namenlal plantings See Prolknlnwy Sib Pbn la Information "existing Iw.. to the north and of Ube 9 I LEGEND Existing Shad* noes Cane•ptu*1 ghee. Iles Plamings (shad* Ir*,I Drlww•K Lang Pbnllnp �" O (*map •ads free( Ornamental Acc*nt Do** Uroundcov.r ale, � E. sting Tit. lr... will, Str..I Ile. backdrop shelf occur •rang -- Local Sir*.,* whe,* open space loins on both sides. 1 ♦-- Front and aid. F.rd. May have for presa r•nc•s - E•laling - 1 F• % _ 'E ling Open Ce 9uppl.m.ntat planting to the .oath wm help / I \ o""Y' *r � _. '�—oY w' � I Iranalllon to abllnp townMu*. prol.et . AYA .lti l�l I r E•I t 1 1 I w existing lrl.s to act • butler along iewVnew.a(.bounder . —011vawry Lane Plant" •h-V consist of .map shade bw. to ..it" war .rchtt.slw. a rd.Ty PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ,eoa SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD - Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 49 single family units on 6.25 acres DENSITY: 7.84 du/acre General Population 49 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 171.5 School Age Population Elementary - 49 (units) x .450 Junior High - 49 (units) x .210 Senior High - 49 (units) x .185 Affected Schools (pupils/unit) = 22.05 (pupils/unit) = 10.29 (pupils/unit) = 9.065 Design Ca aei Enrollment Laurel Elementary 568 532 Lesher Junior High 725 640 Fort Collins Senior High 1300 1418 Garfield St. c i oe m Gar $t a > o Edwards SI t rn C� a_ Q Doc E m o L - E co �% o a: E.M Pitkinc 3 St. cn W eds',dso'S �� E J E Buckeye St Bucke a `o\ V) E. m S f o c St' z o, E.Lake St• o a m " ` c v E. iv �; o off,a PI. to o n Vie. Q' 4J P�eC t N S t. E. Pros P. e c t Ra w U o c E. Prol « C .n w 0 « m JN D ine W Porkar St a s CL a E C7 L `lam' • �____ .W At erlt Avea `- W.Albert ow . C dov..-S E CL•''0' Y . V E Stuart 3 S t. B.Cf I noon Meadows - E c N Lane ^ `�-� V ` Q ison 'S nn ' Ear 'br > C kee �o L he Qt • rryn�c `o � U y5") c Indian o $umm 1. Arthur.. © Cheyenne ; E 3 o _ u o ui Dr E a �.�� pfch,� DarlmOUth c `� u o O N a Q Clone; m arrm Tr i1 e OUth T i U Cir. Rutgers Ave0: 44 pu hippewa rC t L C e L n. _ = ' o u o a c ,n Qp 6.. �� o �_ 3 u o ° 0 J a Columbia o Y o O Z I a _Olumb;a Yale Wce Corn II Ave ` Cambric! 'Qo Par t 0 eat anderbitt rtDoi if) ITEM: ' N ®aAN H I LLS ve LLAG E PUD - Preliminary Nora, NUMBER, 1 =93 Indian. Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 9 Basted on the findings that the request satisfies the criteria found in Design Criteria and Standards for Streets, staff recommends approval of the request to allow a 28 foot wide street, with parking alternating from one side to another and a minimum drive aisle width of 201. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 71, as opposed to an 81, parallel parking space width (see attached variance request). This would in a sense vary the street width in some places to 271. At this time staff does not have enough information to make a recommendation to the Board on this request. The applicant has indicated that this is a crucial element of the design, given constraints on the east west dimensions and utility locations and requirements.. The additional width would have to come from the landscaped buffer on the east and west property lines, as all other areas.are at a bare minimum. Staff would like to have a better understanding of this request prior to making"a recommendation and is therefore recommending a condition that the on -street parking width issue of 71 versus 81 be resolved prior to submittal of final plans. 7. Stormwater A preliminary drainage report and drainage and grading plans were submitted and have been approved at this stage by the City Stormwater Utility. All flows from this development will be conveyed and released into Spring Creek. There will be no on -site detention. There are issues concerning existing drainage problems, grading, existing vegetation on the west property line, and,flood plain issues which will be resolved prior to final approval. RECON3 MATION Staff finds that Indian Hills Village PUD, Preliminary: 1) Is. in -::conformance with and satisfies the criteria of the All Development Criteria of the Lpo, provided that a variance to the Solar Orientation Criteria is granted and that a variance to the public ROW and street width for the local street is granted. 2) Sufficiently mitigates potential land use conflicts and represents a compatible land use with the surrounding area. 3) Meets the absolute criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the LDGS as the overall density is greater than 3 DU/acre and the proposed density of 7.84 DU/acre is supported by a score of 85% on the Residential Density Chart. Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, J81-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 8 Staff has reviewed the applicant's variance request and has made the following findings: .a. The main street is a loop street. b. The street has less than 750 ADT. C. There is no direct access to an arterial. d. For the most part the lots do not face each other, although a few of the homes served by the, loop street do. Due to the nature of the design, with garages in the rear and guest parking in clearly delineated areas in front of the houses, the parking is self enforcing and the 20' drive aisle width, necessary for emergency services access, will remain clear. e. It is not recommended that one side of the street be signed "no parking". Instead, the parking will alternate from side to side in delineated parking bays; separated by landscaped islands. The Fire Authority wants guest parking to be self enforceable and to be provided near the vicinity of each front yard.. Given the target market, (retired people, empty nesters, and young professional people or couples with no or few children), observed parking patterns at neighboring townhouses provides a probable example of the extent of on -street parking that would be required. Very little guest parking was observed at the Indian Hills Townhouses to the south on:several occasions. Each unit there has a garage and guest spaces are interspersed throughout the development. Staff finds that Indian Hills Village PUD will be of similar character, but there will be a two car garage for each unit, plus an additional 41 guest parking spaces available throughout, and parking will be more successfully provided on alternating sides of the street than if it is restricted to one side of the street. Staff finds that the variance request,is appropriate for the scale and character 'of the Indian Hills Village PUD. The request has been reviewed by the Poudre Fire Authority and was .found to be acceptable. The low volume of daily trips combined with. a sufficient amount of guest parking spaces allow the 28' street to function safely in accordance with the standard criteria for the City of. Fort Collins. Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, 181-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Staff finds that due to the innovative sensitive design and well landscaped buffer areas, the proposed land use is compatible with t:ie surrounding land uses. Neighborhood compatibility issues hav been addressed. Access to the site is from a single entrance on Stuart Street. A traffic impact analysis was submitted with this development proposal. To accommodate the new access to Stuart Street it is necessary to re -stripe Stuart Street to include left turn lanes for' east bound traffic. This can be accommodated with the existing cross-section. With re -striping, the surrounding street system can safely accommodate. the proposal. Access for the entire development is on Stuart Street, a collector street, and therefore the development does not significantly impact surrounding local streets. ' Y The main loop street is proposed to be dedicated as public right - of -way (ROW). The applicants have requested a variance to the City Street Standards (see attached) to allow a 28' street on a 43' ROW for the main loop street and a 28' street on a minimum of a 34' ROW for the local access street stubs. There have been several utility coordination meetings to resolve utility conflicts and to locate and- size sufficient utility and sidewalk easements. The City Engineering. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed ROW widths, provided all utility requirements can be met. According to the- City of Fort Collins Desicm Criteria and Standards for Streets: "28:fcot wide public streets may be used -in the City of Fort Collins provided.they are used in a Planned Unit Development and .meet -the following criteria: a. cap street or cul-de-sac which connects with only dy .: y. one;"public street. b._= Save:_less than 750 ADT (average daily trips). C. Are. not accessed from an arterial street. d. Are not used in a single family area where single family homes face each other across the street. e. One side shall be signed "no parking". kndian'Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 6 houses and garages. Houses range in size from 1100o sf to 1800 sf. b. The proposed density of 7.8 DU/ac is supported by the U ,a Policies Plan and criteria of the LDGS.c_ The proposal includes landscape buffers, both existing and proposed, which mitigate perceived land use conflicts for surrounding land uses.. This is an infill site and the proposal for higher density residential development at this location addresses City goals for infill development, diversity of hous::ng types, and convenient location to shopping, employment, schools, and recreation. C. The City Light and Power Utility has a residential street lighting standard which will be used for City Streets in this development. d. A drainage report and drainage and grading plans are being reviewed by the City Stormwater Utility. The proposal is required to meet all City .requirements for stormwater „ including detention and off -site flows. The current drainage problems in the area will be resolved to the extent possible when the drainage system for this proposal is constructed. e. The existing dense tree plantings along. the east and west property lines will remain to buffer and screen this use from the existing single family houses on Stover Street and Busch Court. Thirty foot setbacks from the rear. garages to the rear property line of adjacent single family lots provide additional buffering. The dense stand of trees along Stuart Street will remain to provide a landscape buffer for the existing house. The applicant proposes additional landscaping on the adjacent Indian Hills Townhouses common open space to� provide a better landscaped buffer between the two: developments. All setbacks to existing dwelling units meet or, exceed standard, use -by -right setbacks as stated in the Zoning Code. f. A traffic impact analysis was submitted with this development proposal.. The surrounding street system can safely accommodate the proposal. Access for the entire development is on Stuart Street, a collector street, and therefore the development does not significantly impact surrounding local streets. g. The proposal meets Air Quality Goals in that it provides infill and higher density development located near the Core Area which in turn helps reduce automobile dependency, urban sprawl, and air pollution. Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Pace 5 de..neated by concrete paving, in contrast to the asphalt drive ai%;les. On -street guest parking is broken up with landscaped islands of shrubbery and street trees to reduce the amount of hard surface. All landscaping, outside of the individual building envelope, is maintained by a homeowner's association. A. combination of single family and duplexes are proposed. A combination of two story and ranch style houses are proposed. All rouses have an attached rear access garage, front porches, pitched roofs, and a combination of brick and wood siding in a variety of colors. The maximum building height is 351. The houses range in size from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft. Where possible, some houses will have full basements. Existing dense landscaping along the east and west property lines provides a buffer between the proposed houses and the backyards of existing single family houses on Stover Street and Busch Court. IThis landscaping will be maintained and augmented over the years, according to an annual program of supplemental and replacement tree plantings and pruning. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping on the Indian Hills Townhouses property to the south to increase the buffer between the proposed single family houses and existing townhouses. Staff is recommending, as a condition of preliminary approval, that a replacement schedule for existing landscaping be submittad and approved by the City+s Natural Resources Department and the City Forester. Staff is,also recommending, as a condition of preliminary approval; that as agreement Frith the Indian Hills Townhouses HOA, regarding> off -site -landscaping and maintenance responsibilities be -submitted and approved by the Planning Departmont,.or that the landscape buffer along. the: south boundary be provided°.on:the .Indian Hills village PQD property. S. Neiah$_:i:cod- Compatibility A neighbo=ftood:meeting was held on December 2, 1993. Minutes to this meeting; are attached. The. primary concerns were physical characteristics of the houses, density, street lighting, drainage, landscaped buffers and setbacks, traffic and air pollution. t a. The houses are proposed to be a combination of 1 and 2 story units with attached rear. two -car garages and front porches. The advantage to rear garages is that it removes the garage and auto element from the pedestrian oriented front yards. Housing is proposed as a mix of detached single family and attached duplex units to get away from a monolithic row of Indian Bills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994 P.& Z Meeting Page 4 "(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provision of this Article." "(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this Article." "(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested". Staff finds that the variance request is justified. Under requirement (1), the infill nature and pre -determined development pattern, small size of this site, existing adjacent streets and development, existing utilities and trees, and point of access qualify as conditions peculiar to the site which causes a hardship to plat additional solar oriented lots. Staff finds that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purposes of the I•DrS. in addition, under requirement (3), Staff finds that the plan contains features that render it equal to or better than a plan that could have met the 65-1 solar orientation. These features include the pedestrian scale front yard areas, rear access garages, existing landscaping on the perimeter, and in general,. the innovative "cottage" concept of the plan. 4. Desian The proposal is for 37 single family and 12 duplex lots with rear accessed garages. The average lot size is 3,032 sq. ft. with an average front yard setback of 151. The proposed side yards vary from zero lot line to 51. All lots front on either the main local public loop street or from a dedicated local access street stub, with the exception of Lots 34-37 which front on Stuart Street but have vehicular access from a private drive in the rear. Garage access for all units is from a system of private driveways. The proposal is an innovative "cottage" or "village" concept, where the public portion of the development, ie. the front street right- of-way and utilities are reduced to a more pedestrian scale, garages are in the rear, and the streetscape is an attractive combination of front yard landscaping, a detached pedestrian walk with a landscaped parkway, and street trees. Guest parking is well Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, t51-93 January 24, 1994.P & Z Meeting Page 3 ans: for contiguity to existing urban development. The proposed plans achieve many of the goals and purposes of the Land Use Policies Plan. The proposal is an infill development and staff believes that the proposed project meets the goals of 1) encouraging residential development which is conveniently located near the core area, parks, employment centers, public transportation, bike trails, and other higher density residential uses, 2) providing a diversity of housing types in the community, 3) development of infill property with existing utilities and services, and 4) encouraging alternative modes of transportation. In addition, the design is innovative and achieves compatibility with the existing, surrounding land uses through enhanced landscaped setbacks and building and street design and orientation. 3. Solar_Orientatio The Solar Orientation Ordinance requires that 65.1 of the lots within a single family PUD or subdivision be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. The Preliminary Plan indicates that 25 out of a total 49 lots, or 51%, are considered to be solar oriented. An additional 7 lots would need to be solar oriented in order to meet the 654 compliance requirement. The applicant has submitted a variance request for relief from the strict requirement of 65% orientation compliance' The request is attached. In summary, the applicant states the fallowing: A hardship is caused by preexisting site parameters, specifically, a) Water and sewer mains are existing and dictate a configuration of four north -south rows of housing (two on the inside "island" and one each along the..east and west boundaries of the property), b) This is a small infill site located between. two north -south streets, namely Busch Court and Stover Street, c) Access, -id restricted to one location off of Stuart Street and essentialii a loop street through the development is dictated, d) There are existing landscaped buffers with dense plantings of trees, requiring additional unpaved open space to be dedicated to protect the root systems and maintain the buffer. According to the Solar Orientation Ordinance: "When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize variances under this Article upon its findings that the following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied:" Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994.P & Z Meeting Page 2 COXXENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RM; existing duplexes S: RP; existing townhouse (Indian Hills West PUD) E: RL; existing single family residences (Indian Hills) W: RL; existing single family residences (Par_kside) The site was previously the location of the Sunset Drive -In. In May of 1979, the property was rezoned in the LaConte-East Stuart Street Rezoning, from R-L, Low Density Residential, to conditional R-P, Planned. Residential Zoning. The conditions of this rezoning stipulated that the non -conforming status of the drive-in would be, abandoned, upon rezoning, with the operation of the drive-in ceasing within 15 months. The Indian Hills West PUD was approved in June of 1979 for 110 townhouses on the entire 12.5 acre site, at a density of 8.8 DU/ac. The drive-in was removed and the southern half of the site was developed, containing 50 townhouses. The remaining 60 approved - units were to be constructed on the northern 6.25 acres, now known as Indian Hills Village PUD. At the time of approval of Indian Hills West PUD, "significant activity" on the site was required in order to retain the validity of the PUD approval. Since nearly half of the site was developed under the approved PUD and utilities were installed throughout the 12.5 acre site, the PUD was considered to be still valid. In July of 1992 the Planning and Zoning Board approved a proposal to abandon the undeveloped portion of Indian Hills West PUD in order for a private school to develop the site as a "use -by -right" under the RP zoning. The school has since abandoned plans for developing the site, therefore, there are no existing approved plans for this 6.25 acre site. 2. Land Use The request for 37 single family units and 12 duplex units, for a total of 49 units on 6.25 acres represents a density of 7.84 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). This proposed density is supported by a score of 85% on the Residential Density Point Chart of the LDGS.. Points were earned for proximity to transit (on Stuart Street), regional shopping (College Avenue), neighborhood park (Spring Park), schools (Spring Creek Country Day School and Rivendell School), a day care center (Mountain Center on Stuart), ITEM NO. = 15 MEETLN'G DATE 1-2d-ad STAFF _41rsten i +-±g_ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD a.ar�•, ,tom '!:I',FTF REPORT Indian Hills Village PUD, • Preliminary, #81-93 APPLIC.INT: Jonathan J. Prouty, President Lagunitas Company *3307 S.-College Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 ONMR: Pearl Street 19th Ltd. 3307 South College Avenue, Suite.200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PRCJBCT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a preliminary PUD for 37 single family and 12 duplex. lots -on 6.25 acres. The project is located on the south side of Stuart Street, between Busch Court and Stover Street. The zoning is RP, Planned Residential. R3CL%EXEDMATION: Approval with conditions EMSCUTIV3 SUXXARY: The request for a total of 49 single family and duplex lots on 6.25 acres is comparable in terms of density and housing type to the previously approved Indian Hills West PUD on this site. The proposed use is compatible with and adequately, screened and buffered from the surrounding houses and townhouses. The proposal complies with applicable All Development Criteria -of the LDG,g. The proposed density of 7.84 DU/acre is supported by a score of 85% on the Residential Density Chart of the LP91. Staff is recommending a variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance as only 5l-%,of the lots meet the requirements, due to physical constraints of an.infill site and existing. utilities and trees. In addition, a- variance to the City Street Standards, to allow a narrower ROW for a 281 local public street is being recommended by staff. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The "village concept", of single family infill lots with rear access garages and pedestrian scale front yards and streets, is innovative and meets City policies and locational criteria for higher density residential uses. Conditions regarding landscaping and parking width are being recommended.. CO,MMUNLrY^PLANNING A"ND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 291 N. CoL'ege Ave. P.O. Box 380 For. Collins. CO 8051%0380 13r,3) 2? 70 05/03/1994 23:02 4672354 KP.AGER & ASSOCIA. PAGE 01 Krager and Associates, Inc. May 3, 1994 Mr. Jonathan J. Prouty Lagunitas Company 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 re: Street Variance Request file: 2.4347var2 Dear Jon: Per your request, I have reviewed your application for a variance to the City of Fort Collins residential street standards regarding the use of a public hammerhead turn -around at the southeast Local Access Street and the connection of a private driveway lane to the Northwest Local Access Street. Both the hammerhead turn -around and the private drive will serve six dwelling units each. Each of these streets can be expected to serve less than 60 vehicles per day. Due to -the low volume of traffic projected for these street sections, the proposed designs are acceptable. The hammerhead turn -around is based on the fort Collins Standard Street Dimensions for alleys. The use of alley standards is consistent with the low projected volume of traffic for this street section. The connection of the private driveway to Northwest Local Access Street is also. consistent with the projected low volume of traffic. it is my understanding that the Home Owners Association will be responsible for maintenance of the private driveway and the design of the connection will provide a clear visual differentiation between the private driveway and the public street. I do not believe that these variances will cause any public health, safety, or welfare problems if approved. Sincerely, Kirsten Whetstone City of Fort Collins Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Indian Hills Village / Phasing Dear Kirsten: Because of existing utilities for part of the project which are in place, Indian Hills development will be phased as follows: Phase 1 - Put in all roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk; and existing utilities modifications required for Lots 1 - 8 and Lots 15 - 22. In addition, install entry feature and Stuart Street landscaping as is possible and consistent with Phase 2 site work. Install all temporary turn arounds and accesses which are required by fire department. Phase 2 - Phase 2 would involve the completion of the project in all respects including development of the entire balance of the lots. dk 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 U#1i-93A Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRfI ERION Is the criterion apolicable? will the criterion be satisfied? If no, Please explain r A s a Z Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation xUf (QYt[Z' !t (t'(WI•G (a 1.2 Comprehensive Plan 1.3 Wildlife Habitat tx 1.4 Mineral Deposit 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance 1.7 Energy Conservation X 1.8 Air Quality 1.9 Water Quality x X 1_10 Sewage and Wastes A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation Ix 2.2 Building Placement and Orientation X 2.3 Natural Features x 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking X 2.5 Emergency Access X x 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation x IJ( 2.7 Architecture XX 2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shadingy. x 2.10 Solar Access X �( 2.11 Historic Resources x 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape 2.14 Signs 2.15 Site Lighting 2.16 Noise and Vibration . 2.17 Glare or Heat 2.18 Hazardous Materials A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity X 3.2 Design Standards I x Iaill 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 Geologic Hazards Indian Hills Village P.U.D. "ho� ���`' 0�1�: i/IS/Y1 1B81 BIO 911SBI. Suite 103 BdMst Golot.do 80303 WOW 443-7533 INDIAN HILLS "IS[ND wKN — PROPOSED WITKOW RiON rtNCL (4' `11h) lri '.il ri il!hl 11.0 INSrWa IMIDSCIPE AiEER NONG WEST PIIaP mf ME 02 -I50 To— - STrM a .•Wngx4I ENT lMpSfJANG NLO TREES PER PoRNME ILREEYEM WITH PWNgtV1 Ell CT. NEIGRRDRS. VILLAGE P.U.D. EXISTING CANOPY/SHADE TREES •":'I (To he removed)1. EXISTING CANOPY/SHADE TREES O ITS (To be preserved) 83 'STREET PLARING--$ Minimum Caliper .ITACTOR"Miss; s; U1 ONE (forge Co (...Shade Trees) x FORE D1611R5 40 xsr.lin-la xoi Iree - lingo pity BEFORE CIXSIRUCIgN .0 Ill CW e - L,loe a Ir reWOxy iRY R > lRn ewaalo - I:akkpl Iinm fin eny wow. wRr) ... 61 •DRIVEWAY CANE PIAMING--2' Minimum Caliper /Yl (MPROx. r RM) (Small Shade Trees) CD 11 NeNrvwrM Ill..- TY . -nun. 'Ne6•v+J'... J. s.wnP NMe W - Ovneu• llivvr IL I I EVERGREEN TREES--6' Minimum Height 4.,". Pne Fl— , 6 (a—Spua - Pi pxgens ES OR On ROW. To BE 64 ORNAMENTA ACCENT TREES--1 1/2' to 1 3/4' Minimum Caliper MR IPPLE OKY 11 Lo%la ... Cnerry - Pn nus rv9uluru 'YNulexY�((1W(�'�. 1) 1— s WM• - n 9ivnM yl a a'Vvivl `v a.. >,vvq yw l'r.b fur rlv Nrrw .v/Y) ES AND 9e Ill 64 DECIDUOUS SHRUB PLANTING--S Cal. Minimum f� :RORJP SIw L . REETS MNIRE UMSCAPE I l . .x. 11.1. . 11— • inl.0 aN D]lll $IU[$ Np i ;unPul M: r^ in CrW1.erY :. ,.Ju n.+r Ir1\d±i..'.•nYv\I n.J HNINpT+N1Y L YMOs INp IMIIM4MIL lx. vvr ,ryY�n^1yxlvry 114'ilu.n 11 a.v..p r .. 11•Y Y / ivi un 1\.I.•'Jx .WYvw ] f.rc.Ml LLv.N 1 . Irvn Irrus.il Y. suflor 11 NN�a.1.I nucn,. .nssr.\k I..rsrr ne) YOCET 11 I.y IYq.ml -, Cunr1 un'e �.Wati Qm) 64 EVERGREEN SHRUB PIANTING--5 Gal. Minimum n TO ,x ow ws N, CA co,,NO1 APPL MULE Ip E—n,ra.ur Junpn - E—inus s.Lim 'BrEowose ..." se:l.xu : SNIN R F $LTTE MOK4 le LmergJ Cwnrmrn - Euonymus IwIWn 'EmerdJ 4Jieli SWIN foR ME BENF(IT I6 JuL V.pwh.m - VVCumum . Npir 5. 16 lam JrnTn - Junperua yotWO. Iwmiulab �N N nrR.Ow. 10 DF 500 GROUND COVER --Quart Minimum If -'7 ay Izs unnlwl - LYsivu lw numnWu [+6.o..n1 'RIVr:TE - 115 Ereepvq Poe. - Nic..wJm In seOwn - sPnlm.e uv,pwpweu '=1(:1. con - tannnmwm SEEDED TURF AREA TARES WY WE ��' ES •_=.ae J`lvmsz. ENT. �CENI TREES MD CEIIpNMfi/CV[RGR[[N yWUB PiAene:5 MO. •5 Zre r pp . LL Y rlut Ufa TREES pq lllp'RM1d15/[KRUi[Ex ••.•IiMens .i wYy q u lT .Mn Yny .i 1-16. IW wn la 4 Iw•t pe• do, GENERAL NOTES I. Ire Ilan —1 v Asswulnn ,nap ae .� msipk 1. Y Ire.s Ip pe paRM mq purbpnJ Iw In. mw.lxnw. nl m e_ e. e1.:Y e.a, w x mxpnn .ur n r "'In Hu .rK4Wq re. n In. veA, ROw... noel rare '•a Pn Nx Is. r.m wpmaille lu er As .'In ..v mJen LVW wem YW ae nLL-nM gn. alluglr IMv..meaW pmuo.s la an a T YYeI W rrvtn. n-n. er n e.N rvn m e In .vnW Ivp-in, wn Ine Y.IAic I.ene1J n .N-nvrininJ 9. CJyy aM opu Cel.een Iwl uM shuts. .W lun.lse.tye wm. eJ9uq rCuliq lul al.i pe 1\nn nln Ixnsn suhee 3. Iruar µ.\-uy slap re eups�0e al Irml al W1. ID. Y .eeJ•J Irvl wens aNY pe o rw.lue nl 3 cuxivar. of '— h Eti'ue. ]. alq .aal wrJ .eL nee ns a 1-1 pe Imm�N. p.uKN, 11. A Iree -1 u mull pe o el Irwn Ire UI fw ealel rey-eJ rl� T. IM'Insl • wE e. Jrp over ens -see Y trees w sloops as rI. I IbisYW or . In, on fnv, 0epulnuM ppnleJ, poop w .emo.•J M IM p.E4 RaN. e oll� J " ul N . rlln maroax pnn n W 1/e in IIn 1'bavq l.A Rpurc)I].NIM ab1 Ire% N 1. IM 0l Wr4 pets. pw.lirq Riealims. vuer pbnluq nslsn...Iw.mlm enaYJ or a orv.n. pw4N pY 1. Lnv`. a 4[1n.K1 N•w to emalruel.W 4. Sn.el lr ue µplea SS' hnmJ . v (IYP) S. Sill R9nlirq slap M puMra ai I.ml uelul.[lwe S. 111 m sroll aIn,ror.bze ..In 4W rs M+.bPb' 5pntilKallorrs lw Nunipnr on. 0.,1. 14. O-leelw la milt u1J1Y bewiens pv Ill, plonlinp nnn .aInnxw w. h .rga.J -TOM •,w.I-1N...- III.- n u s.up pNees IP Tell 15YO. aKwlilrI Inn,- my..n n wI.vo.wm Iro- hLLe..eurs.alenl .X gv_" PND An. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN . PDOPOtEl IA1D 1$ r CLUSTER SINGLE FAMILY LP U_INI ENISTMiEcRil HP m++mue . rNa i3O. s� n�oAar Yn�wa o wu bua a.o rN MO PARKING W GARAGES 9A SPA," (2 ".Es/101( GUEST PµNNG : 39 SPACES (0.83 SPACLS/L01) IA`AI PANNING 1 $PALE IMK PARKING SPACES 1} WIE : 01MLE PARNM IN WMkS DSISE TA T*NI GROSS SUl µEA : 270.728 SE 6.215 ACRES IWS GROSS SITE MNS TIf : a) LOTS/8.21S ACRES • 2.56 W/ACRE • PUMC R.0 w.: 65.226 SE I.492 ACRES 24S • ORMWAY ONES 32,629 SE O.25A ACRES 121E • OPFH SPACE (O s.) : 29.5p2 5( 0.11 ACRES it ., NET M LWAOUE (LOTS) :143,182 SE 3.252 ( RES 53% wrzs: ' R6 IfGAbRARS IYwMC. x0 A' )IIwNwS niha M KOx. ((YM NOTES . [C.. N. 11. MDL u0.10 tt RWw OOA TO EOI gi[ TO R gl(wNNRD WE[[IYS 6 —O"C' . [x•(I. Iq AP b'. 12Y.1 A•>5' I�5!_ • RAIO OF W Li ENTItl WA TO IOI yiE 1 b1 S!. Ui ?b 1. (YL M1R(4 P W [M(IpS/L01 SR OYAw) UNIT STAT IIFTtM I . e[MODYS UO. AU , RL00. YC 10 : IJS' PROPOSED IYPICK F. PE RIU : I,WO 10 1180 S!. PROPOSED LOIN 5.1. PER UNIT 1,000 to I,BW 5.1. LINT TA9ILAT10N I CwS1ER SI C (AYIv (MIACNED UNITS) A UNITS CLUStfR SINGLE FZLY (MKEKES) 12 UNITS (6 WPLENCs) TOIK ."/ UNTS (),56 W/IRE) SCIAR CRIENTATION DCNANCE I (2S/.] LOTS (SJZI NI SgxlAtOw N buxLE (SCE %µ - LOT$ pM piME DESIGNATED WAXCE TO ZE REdWENENrs K LK SOURoRONY1LE wA5 "ANTED AT TxC ONE " PRCU. , APPipYK !OR 12F M TRE NON-g O WG LOTS (SUL E 12% . 5% CYry TROAREUENE) AL"ENLELCPE/LOT SIZE MWRA A WO -owl. INa YI F -I—LOTS 35- YWIWY LOT Vµi BEIWECNT j JS' Iq (INDICATES NODE✓NOTE LOT) aNO SCNE : V _ 50• 1 3' YWIWY Sf,Wo, I 29' MIN 2B' YIN. E_� PE I (CN LOPE V ES DETITTEN 29' - 39-) I I IR / w ENYELCPE' 3AIC SETBACK. TY%CK QFW SE'WK EON DUPLEX OR SUFLRI01 COUNT..) 1 1 �N. 5' YIN. U7NUPV FASEYENT L YINYVY IRONIC SswR GENERAL NOTES I. SUPERLOT: A POTENIAL WYER YA.Y PUgCILASE µV 1M'0 CONt1000U5 L01S µO BITTED A SINCLE UNIT WRN A (WiPRIM W `,O ER 11AN 1NAt NIMED Dl 1N[ TWO INpNpAL LOTS. 2. TRASH PICKUP SNYL BE CUROSIM A( IRONC OI LOTS. 3. ALL GNELIINO UHlis YVSt 1AL2 KL PMDWS M THE IIRSf BOOR FFIfRgR wKLs wIDRN I5p (Ffl OI µ APPROVED FRT ACCESS DRIVE OR PUBLIC STREET. FINAL P.U.D. SITE PLAN PRCFVSM LAD LIE: CLUSTER SINGLE FAMILY (P.U,G.) Emma ZONIO. RP Eknvning TI3LTTjle . )ANTES i m GorfieIa St. ` c o Q, > Garfield S c obi Edwards St, r cn Q D L v c aEi O = E r l ``� ��� O E_2Pitkin 3 St. W Wards y�. J N o c�\ . vi Bucke a St 0`10 Burke e � S E Z E.Lake o_ St, E., �4 e PI. N �0 4c v� 'fit St. E. Pros Pect Ra w E. Pr u o o c ICJ Ul N v Defines L Kz J 0 � Q Parker St a a E ; 4ui T L AI ert Aver „ W. Alpert^, _) v+ Ow c doves .� .. Ct. E ` O n t o— o 0' o 5. Gt. • fJ E Stuart 3 LA S t E3 on v, Indian Meadows E. (^ Lone _ � cq t• Q o son •S rin r br, > Ch kee ` c c eye o I nd i o H �, nne c sun d m Cheyenne „ " o E 3 L -Art t �' Or. t a 0� v o ai �r ,- p,lCn _ o «� — p 0 a_ > for Dr artrho4j Do.rtmouth p c c Tr iI a b h T v C i r. , . .... __-- - — Nio( Rutgers AY �� e hippeI C t j r v e Ln. a > T o 3r ter° 0 0 0 >`r C a ar Columbia Y ou J n L Wool G N Yale a horn II Ave _olumb;a Yale Wa =°' 0 Combrnd Ra Pa Hey p 71.derbiN w ITEM: INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD North Final NUMBER: 81-93A SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL:, INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD - Final DESCRIPTION: 47 units (35 single family, 6 duplex) on 6.2 acres DENSITY: 7.58 acres General Population 47 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) 164.5 School Age Population Elementary - 47 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 21.15 Junior High - 47 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 9.87 Senior High - 47 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 8.70 Design Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment Laurel -Harris Elementary 568 - 652 Lesher Junior High 725 640 Fort Collins Senior High 1300 1418 n Planning & 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 Fontane commented that her preference would be to reduce the parking widths and she would go along with the parking variance. Member Fontane 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 Fontane 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 Fontane 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 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 238 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 100% 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. 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 - 1808 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, 1994, 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 6, 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. o� Planning & Zoning Board Minutes APr June 6, 1994 Page 32 ITEM 5 - 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 Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, July 26, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on June 6, 1994, regarding Indian Hills Village PUD - Final (Case 481-93A.) The appeal has been Filed by Keith Wear, et al.. You may have received previous notices on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning. Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. Written comments are also welcome. If you have any questions, require further information, or wish to submit written materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Agenda materials provided to the City Council will be available to the public on Thursday, July 21, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. al Wanda M. Krajice City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: July 12, 1994 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue 0 P.O. Box 580 0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 • FAX # (303) 221-6329 City Attorney City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: June 21, 1994 TO: ' Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk ,� /// FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorneyo/' _ RE: Notice of Appeal Filed by Keith Wear, et al., Re Indian Hills Village PUD Pursuant to Section 2-50 of the City Code, I have reviewed the above -referenced Notice of Appeal filed with your office on June 20, 1994, regarding the Indian Hills Village PUD. From my examination of the Notice of Appeal, it appears to be in compliance with Section 2-49 of the Code, and I have found no obvious defects in form or substance. WPE: whm / 300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520 Ed & Bonnie Weber 1836 Busch Ct Fort Collins, CO 80525 493-1784 Hari & Pam Iyer 1840 Busch Ct Fort Collins, CO 80525 224-2943 Gene & Betsy Berwanger 1841 Busch Ct Fort Collins, CO 80525 484-6168 zzp —) �J 444,�;a &42 E onnie Webe Owner of home within 500 feet of Project; notified of hearing Ald '6 L�- Hari&am Iyer Owner of home within 500 feet of Project; notified of hearing Gene/Betsy Berwanger Owner of home within 500 feet of Project; notified of hearing Eric Hicks r "—'''� 1901 Busch Ct Eric Hick Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner o home within 500 feet off Project; notified of hearing Gerald Puls =1-_, Z-711 1821 Busch Ct Gerald Puls It Iv Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 feet of Project; notified of hearing Walter & Mary Houston Al' 1908 Busch Ct Walter ary Houston Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 484-8584 feet of Project; notified of hearing V. pQye g e� 2D�4 bat Notice of Appeal submitted this #th day of June, 1994, by the parties -in -interest who own homes near the proposed project, have received notice of hearings concerning said project and/or who appeared at the neighborhood meeting concerning this project, or who have appeared before the P & Z Board to speak against the Indian Hills Village PUD. Keith Wear 1804 Busch Ct Keith Wear Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 493-3800 feet of Project; notified of hearing Howard & Sonia Nornes 1808 Busch Ct Howard/Sonia Nornes Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 482-8584 feet of Project; notified of hearing Bruce Cohen U� 1812 Busch Ct Bruce Cohen Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 224-4035 feet of Project; notified of hearing Benito Szairo J 4W 1816 Busch Ct Benito S o Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 Ron & Dorothy Follett feet of Projeecct;notified of hearing 1824 Busch Ct i%Dorotlny Follett Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner of home within 500 224-5321 feet of Project; notified of hearing Don & Jean Nash 1828 Busch Ct D n/Jean Nash Fort Collins, CO 80525 weer of home within 500 484-5537 feet of Project; notified of hearing I 'ale S of GI w be caused to a subdivider by the strict application...". Since parking is not "solar orientation or access" we feel this is not a acceptable reason to allow the P & Z board to create a variance under this article. . The P & Z board approved variances to Transportation & Engineering based on."(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such a plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested." Since no plan incorporating compliance to the codes was submitted (although we demonstrated how this was possible within the confines of the constraints to the site) we. feel that a variance was premature and not within the allowed discretion of the P & Z Board. PQye, 7 of C1 5. "The application shall not be approved if, in so approving, any portion of the subject property remains developed or to be developed and, because of the abandonment, amendment or redevelopment, such remaining parcel of property would no longer qualify for approval as a planned unit development pursuant to the criteria and requirements of Section 29-526 of the Code." Since neither the Indian Hills Village PUD nor the Indian Hills West PUD include the area at the southwest corner, there is an parcel remaining which cannot be developed. The ownership of the undeveloped parcel appears to be the Indian Hills West HOA, acquired through a land trade with the ownership of Indian Hills Village PUD area. This information was not addressed in the Staff Report. The report refers to "6.25 acres" for the Indian Hills Village PUD, provided site plans for "6.21 acres" and indicated that Indian Hills West was complete on the southern half of the site. Since the information deleted the hole in the combination of PUD's, it was , lead to conclusions that were based on false and misleading information. It also must be recognized that an undeveloped parcel of land that has a major effect upon the drainage of Indian Hills Village currently exists between the prior Indian Hills West PUD and the new Indian Hills Village PUD. This parcel is part of neither PUD appears to be prohibited in the current LDGS. The importance of this parcel to the required drainage is shown by the neighborhood nickname of it being called the "mosquito pond" or the "rice paddy". 6. The Staff report indicated that "All conditions of preliminary approval have been addressed and satisfied". The conditions stated by the planning department indicated three conditions. 1) A replacement schedule for existing landscaping be submitted and approved by the City's Natural Resources Department and the City Forester. 2) That an agreement with the Indian I -fills Townhouses HOA regarding off -site landscaping and maintenance be submitted and approved by the Planning Department... 3) That the on -street parking width issue of 7 'verses 8' be resolved prior to submittal of final plans. Letters dated May 18, 1994, May 20, 1994 and June 5, 1994 disagree on the parking width issue, indicating a lack of resolution of the parking issue. Additionally, final plans were submitted on March 31, 1994. long before this group of added correspondence was prepared. Therefore we feel that the issue ivas not resolved prior to submittal of final plans and the presumption that the conditions of preliminary approval were met was false and misleading. Further the before mentioned landscape problems indicate the replacement schedule could not be in final form for approval, and no plan for the offsite landscaping and maintenance, approved by the HOA, was provided further indicating the conditions at preliminary approval ivere not met. 7. Information provided by the developer at the P & Z meeting was false and misleading. The developer provided pictures of houses on Mountain to indicate that the height request was reasonable. Though we are in sympathy with his need to find a house in Fort Collins which is as high as he wishes to build, he presented a house 24 feet high and indicated it was 28 feet high, as well as not being in the existing neighborhood. Further his figures and tables indicating side yards were misleading, claiming house to house distances of as much as 22 1/2 feet. His side yard diagram indicated an offset of some amount on the entire length of each house, which is not possible for the houses he is projecting. His homes are, as indicated by the sample street scape which is also misleading, 29 feet wide on a 29 feet envelope, and 34 feet wide on a 34 feet wide envelope. We feel that the presentation of this information was false and misleading and we will provide statistics which further illuminate how misleading this was., 3) based on Sec 2-48 (2-a) of the City Code, we feel that the P & Z Board 1) exceeded its authority or jurisdiction The jurisdiction of P & Z board is defined "when permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize variances under this Article (Article V. Subdivisions) upon its findings that the following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied:" The P & Z board approved a variance to the Street Code for parking less than the standard 8' based on "..hardship would be caused by strict application...". The complete variance statement is "(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would v= Imuye 6 gp I feel that the P&Z board exceeded their authority by approving plans that do not meet city standards without competent evidence to. We also feel that they did not give the attention that the safety issue deserves. It is our request that the project not be approved in its present form and all parties concerned explore ways to mitigate this safety problem before allowing the project to proceed. 8) Neighborhood Compatibility: (A-2.9) Shading. An additional, but pertinent, fact to consider here is the shadow requirement as per LDGS numbered criteria item number 30. The current plan allows 30 ft tall buildings to be located too close to Stuart, thereby throwing a shadow onto Stuart. During winter this will prevent patches of ice on the bike lanes from melting and thus add to the accident risk potential in yet another way. II. Sec. 2-48 (2-c), the P & Z Board "considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading". 1. On the developer's Final PUD Site Plan, it indicates that there will be a "9 feet setback to preserve the existing trees". This is not the case. In some places the drainage ditch will encroach five feet onto this "setback". Drainage ditches are detrimental to trees and should not be considered part of a "safe setback". In reality, there is only 4 to 6 feet setback possible "to preserve the existing trees". Since the 9 feet setback does not exist, the statement is substantially false. 2. The developer, at the Final PUD hearing before the P & Z on June 6 refers to the "dense buffer he intends to plant to mitigate headlights, the closeness of the new homes to the existing Busch Court homes, etc. We are unsure whether this dense buffering will be possible considering the fact that there is only 4-6 feet between the Busch Court property lines and the proposed new drainage ditch. The trees will either need to be planted at the edge of the shared property line in which case they will encroach on our property or on the edge of the drainage ditch which will endanger the ditch, its "railroad tie wall" or the drain pipe being installed under the drainage ditch. We feel a "dense buffer" is not really planned; is substantially false and dependence on the buffer to mitigate when it is not in the plans grossly misleading. 3. The developer supplied drawings of the drainage ditch at "selected places" on his "submitted" drainage plans. According to the Stormwater Department, the plans shown at the meeting were not submitted at the time of the P & Z meeting. Since the information that the drainage plans were "submitted" was false, the assumptions that the forestry plan (which depends on the drainage plan) ivas complete was misleading and incorrect. There are questions as to whether the drainage ditch will even fit in areas not selected or shown. For instance, directly west of Lot 40 the plan shows a 9 foot wide drainage ditch with vertical sides on both sides. Lot 41 (just north of Lot 40) was not "selected" to have its adjoining drainage ditch shown. Lot 41 has even less space for the ditch than Lot 40. Where will this ditch go, directly against the Busch Court property line leaving no room for buffer trees to be planted or directly against the private drive (a vertical 18 inch drop- off next to the drive?). 4. Stuart Street is not scheduled to have any turn lanes added for the entire distance between Remington and Lemay. Stuart Street does not have the right of way given for a collector street in the LDGS (LDGS indicates 68 feet wide, Stuart is only 44 feet wide). New striping is planned. The new striping will allow 6' bike lanes, I F travel lanes, and on street parking only on the north of the remainder of the 44 feet. In the P & Z meeting, the Planning department said "To accommodate the new access to Stuart Street it is necessary to restripe Stuart Street to include left turn lanes for east bound traffic. This can be accommodated within the existing cross-section. With re -striping, the surrounding street system can safely accommodate the proposal." Since the cross-section as provided by the traff a department cannot accommodate the restriping presented at the P & Z meeting (left turn lanes cannot be provided), the information was both false and misleading in the presentation, and the street system cannot be made to safely accommodate the proposal. pale S o� i 7) Neighborhood Compatibility: Vehicular. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (A-2.1): Chart A-2 (A-2.1) (Also LDGS numbered criteria item numbers 3 & 4) Safety is a major concern at the junctions of Stover Street and Stuart Street. Stover makes a jog where it crosses Stuart and this is already posing safety problems in this area. Some of the reasons are as follows. (1) Traffic to and from Mountain Gymnastics which is located about a block or so from this junction. (2) Traffic to and from Spring Creek Park using the Busch Court access to the west side of the park (where the baseball fields are located). (3) Bicyclists, roller skaters, roller Waders, runners, joggers, and walkers, seeking access to the Spring Creek trail system, both from Stuart and from Stover. Access to the trail system is available at the new bridge over the creek on Stuart and at the new bridge over the creek on Stover. Usage has steadily increased over the past couple of years, particularly after the Stuart and Stover street accesses were completed last year. (4) Perhaps most importantly, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by children attending Lesher Junior High School. Some of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is also due to students attending Fort Collins High School, Spring Creek Country Day School, and Rivendell School. The latter two schools are within walking distance from this junction. The Indian Hills West Village project will add to this safety problem considerably due to the location of the entryway to this development. According to current plan, this entryway will be about halfway between Busch Court and Stover(north). Residents of this development will have to make a left turn onto Stuart to go to College Avenue, or make a right turn and an immediate left turn to go to Prospect Avenue. By the same token, residents returning to their homes from Lemay Avenue or Stover(south) will have to make a left turn into their development and those returning from Stover(north) will make a right turn and an immediate left turn into their development. These activities will add significantly to the high accident potential that already exists at this location. Of particular concern is the fact residents coming in and out of Indian Hills Village will have to cross the bike lanes located on the south side of Stuart. This will also make it more dangerous for the school children attempting to cross Stuart to get to Stover (north). This safety issue was brought up by the Busch Court Neighborhood during the preliminary hearing before the P&Z board, and again during the final hearing. We requested that a traffic study be conducted to address the unusual situation that will occur here, viz., the complicated traffic geometry that will result by allowing the entrance to Indian Hills Village to be located within half a block of Busch Court and Stover(north). It is our contention that such a study needs to take into account more than merely the number of additional trips generated , because each additional trip generated from this development will add significantly to the accident potential because of the number of turns, particularly left turns, that will be required, in a location that already has a high accident potential. According to city records, in the year ending 1993, 16 accidents were reported between Remington and Lemay on Stuart Street. We feel that this is an unreasonable number of reported accidents. Eyewitness accounts of near misses are not uncommon, although these do not make the accident statistics. We feel that it would be wise for us to act before it is too late. It would make sense to put in the time and attention this issue deserves before allowing the development to proceed so that the best available mitigation procedures can be implemented. Attempting to do something about the safety issue after the development is already in place will severely reduce the number and the desirability of options that may be available. The city planning engineer (Mr. Mike Herzig ) stated during the preliminary hearing that the traffic geometry at this location was such that it did warrant some special attention. He also stated during the final hearing that the proposed plans do not meet city standards, although he felt that this could work. We page q or we feel this proposed change to the PUD would be extremely detrimental to our privacy and possibly our property values. 4) Neighborhood Compatibility: Landscape (A-Z13): The purpose of LDGS A-2.13 is to show that "a landscape plan can serve functional purposes such as screening ...". However A-2.13 also states, that there should be "Ten (10) feet between trees and water or sewer lines". The present development plan calls for a drainage line to be placed less than eight (8) feet from existing 30 foot tall trees. 5) Neighborhood Compatibility: Landscape (A-2.13): Aesthetic Considerations. The LDGS Chart A-2.2 recommends that backs or sides of buildings not be oriented toward public streets. It further recommends that if backs or sides are oriented towards public streets, visual interest such as landscaping, berming or architectural detail be provided. The proposed project has several homes with sides facing the street (Indian Hills Circle). The homes on many of these lots (Lots 2, 9, 12, 14, 32, and 43 in particular) are only 3 ft from the sidewalk, so it becomes impossible to allow space for visual interest. 6) Neighborhood Compatibility: Natural Features Criterion A-2.3 The abrupt and rigidly engineered grading required for drainage along the west boundary and wall on the south boundary are directly opposed to Criterion A-2.3 which states "Grading that is required should be done in such a manner that the resulting land forms are smooth and naturalistic as opposed to abrupt and rigidly engineered." The guidelines provide that "No grading should occur within the drip line of trees that are preserved." Further it is identified that it may be necessary to provide retaining structures or wells to maintain existing grade at the trees drip lines. Plans presented at the Planning and Zoning Board showed specifically that, as part of the drainage being planned, a drainage ditch will be dug along the west boundary of the IHV project that is well within the tree drip line along the entire boundary and quite deep at certain points. Many writings (the PUD application from the developer, the City Planning Department's Staff Report, numerous letters) all stress the importance of maintaining the existing tree buffer between the new development and Busch Court. The purpose of LDGS A-2.3 is to "ensure that the way in which the physical elements of the site plan are arranged on the site respects the existing... vegetation...". A-2.3 states to accomplish this "no grading should occur within the drip lines of trees that are to be preserved". The existing tree buffer where it exists consists of trees up to 30 foot tall with drip lines 7-12 feet from the trunks. The present development plans call for a drainage ditch to be dug less than four feet from the trees. We fear that this ditch may kill the trees or lead to them falling in windy or wet weather. As stated in Section A-2.13, grading modifications are an important consideration in creating an attractive and functional landscape. This criterion has not been met. Grading for drainage should be part of the overall landscape design. Placing drainage within the drip line of the IHV west tree line, with a virtual trench planned at one point will severely damage the trees on the west side. In addition, utilizing part of a house on the east side as part of the drainage ditch does not at all meet Section A-2.13 criterion for creating an attractive and functional landscape. This appeal by the Busch Court Neighbors is based upon the fact that the Planning and Zoning Board blatantly ignored the visual quality and function of the landscape. We are also concerned that potential erosion and the use best practices for erosion control as well as long term drainage capacity have literally been ignored by their approving the use of railroad ties to be placed as part of the drainage ditch. Railroad ties will likely not rot during the time that the contractor is responsible. However, depending on the age of the ties (use or unused), they may not last much longer. Again, we feel that the Planning and Zoning Board has been extremely remiss in their responsibilities. pQye, 3 e F cl For many of the lots in the proposed development the distance from the sidewalk to the house is not more than 14.5 ft and the houses range in height from 26 feet to 30 feet. An average 6 foot tall person standing on the sidewalk would be looking at a view like this: 0 h-usz The Busch Ct. neighborhood has houses that are at least 37.5 ft from the sidewalk and the tallest homes are less than 22 ft. A 6 ft tall person standing on the Busch Ct. sidewalk would have this view: ho"a The Busch Ct. height ratio also applies to homes along Stover and Stua 's EMS and most of the homes in Indian Hills West. Clearly, the proposed project is not compatible with the existing neighborhood under this criterion. 2) Neighborhood Compatibility: Architecture (A-2.7): LDGS A-2.7 asks if the proposed architecture "contributes to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way". It states that the appropriateness of the architecture should be "considered within the context of the neighborhood" and "will not be evaluated in isolation". Although the architecture being proposed is fine on its own, within the context of the existing neighborhood there are concerns. LDGS A-2.7 states, " buildings should be similar in size to other buildings in the neighborhood...". Busch Court homes are over 25 years old, as such are of traditional design and massing, with a long and narrow view from public streets. The traditional ranch home stands 18 feet tall. The proposed ranch homes in the new development are 26 feet tall, taller than any home, one or two story, on Busch Court today. The plan calls for the other home styles to be 28-30 feet tall. This architectural character is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Additionally, many of us on Busch Court purchased our homes between 1979 and a year ago. At that time the PUD on the undeveloped land limited maximum home height to 24 feet. We relied upon that PUD when we purchased our homes and we feel this proposed change to the PUD would be extremely detrimental to our privacy and possibly our property values. 3) Neighborhood Compatibility: Setbacks (A-2.12) LDGS A-2.12, Setbacks, begins by asking this question: "Are the setbacks for buildings .. consistent with the setbacks established in the surrounding neighborhood ?.." The site plan calls for standard front setbacks of 14.5 feet from the public roadway. The average setback on Busch, Stover and Stuart is closer to 35-40 foot. The rear setback has two of the new homes to be built setback only 15 feet from the Busch Court property lines. The average Busch Court home setback from the new development's property line is over fifty (50) feet. The side and garage setbacks are set at 3 foot, with the existing neighborhood average above 15'. These setbacks are not consistent with the established neighborhoods and will damage the privacy we now have in our back yards. Additionally, many of us on Busch Court purchased our homes between 1979 and a year ago. At that time the PUD on the undeveloped land required a minimum setback of forty (40) feet from the Busch Court property lines to any new building. We relied upon that PUD when we purchased our homes and pale, � 0 1 °� June 20, 1994 Notice of Appeal The undersigned parties -in -interest hereby submit this Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This appeal concerns the actions of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) on June 6, 1994 in approving the Indian Hills Village PUD - Final (#81-93A). We, the appellant, are home owners on Busch Court, the neighborhood which borders the western side of the proposed Indian Hills Village PUD. The grounds for this appeal : 1) based on Sec. 2-48 (1) of the City Code, we feel that the P & Z Board failed "to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter", 2) based on Sec. 2-48 (2-c) of the City Code; the P & Z Board "considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading". 3) based on Sec 2-48 (2-a) of the City Code, we feel that the P & Z Board 1) exceeded its authority or jurisdiction The development proposal for the Indian Hills Village PUD is incompatible with the existing Busch Court/Stover/Stuart/Indian Hills West community as presently designed. Specifically, we do not feel that the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) as revised March 1994 was properly interpreted, adhered to or followed. We request that the City Council review the following points of concern : I. Sec. 2-48 (1): The P & Z Board failed "to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter". 1) Neighborhood Compatibility: Building Placement and Orientation (A 2.2): The purpose of LDGS A-2.2 is to "deal with building placement and orientation as it relates to.. neighborhood integration, privacy, and aesthetic considerations". In 2-2.2 it states, ". Arrange elements of the site plan to.: avoid infringing on the privacy of adjoining land uses". The Busch Court neighbors have several concerns with the present site plan in this regard: a) The present plan has the possibility of 30 feet tall homes being constructed in lots adjacent to the Busch Court home's back yards. This would not integrate well for several reasons: i) Thirty feet is considerably taller than any home in the Busch Court neighborhood. ii) Windows facing Busch Court home's would compromise the privacy we currently have in our back yards. iii) The unmitigated wall or garage of a 30 feet home is not an aesthetic view from a back yard. b) The present plan calls for a row of five (5) garages as the view from the Busch Court Neighbor's back yards. The aesthetics of this is highly questionable. c) The plan calls for two homes to be setback only 15 feet from the Busch Court property lines. The average Busch Court home setback from the new development's property line is over 50 feet. This proposed 15 foot setback negatively impacts both privacy, aesthetics and is incompatible with present neighborhood standards. Further placement problems include: I Page 1 4I C1 /r AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER:3 DATE: July 26, 1994 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Kirsten Whetstone SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the June 6, 1994, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving the Indian Hills Village PUD, Final. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either uphold, overturn, remand or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 6, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve the Indian Hills Village PUD, Final with conditions regarding execution and filing of the utility plans and development agreement, height of homes on Lots 40 and 47, a variance to allow 7' wide on -street parking, and incorporation of a neighborhood agreement into the development agreement. The Indian Hills Village PUD is a residential development for 35 single family lots and 12 duplex lots on 6.25 acres with a gross residential density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The site is located on the south side of Stuart Street, east of Busch Court and West of Stover Street. The property is zoned RP, Planned Residential. The preliminary PUD was approved on January 24, 1994 with conditions regarding landscaping, parking width, and fire protection. On June 20, 1994 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by homeowners on Busch Court, an adjacent neighborhood. In the statement of appeal, regarding the Board's decision on the final PUD, it is alleged that: 1) The Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. 2) The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 3) The Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction. The attached documents include the notice of appeal, Planning Department's response to the appeal, information packet received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the June 6, 1994 hearing, all information handed out to the Board at the hearing, and minutes of the hearing. The procedures for deciding the appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. LAGUNITAS COMPANY 3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 226 5000 • FAX 226 5125 March 7, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Members City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Indian Hills Village / Existing Trees and Treelines Program Dear Commission Members: A condition of preliminary approval of the Indian Hills -Village PUD was preparation of a program for the preservation, removal and / or replacement of existing trees on the site and along the east and west boundary lines. After meeting and talking with Mr. Tim Buchanan, City Forester, and Mr. Ralph Zentz, Assistant Forester, we have concluded. that the following program is the best program balancing the various needs including saving healthy trees, eliminating unhealthy trees, thinning and pruning as safety dictates, preserving large shade trees, and introducing complementary and new trees as are most suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE EXISTING TREES THIN, PRUNE AND REPLACE PROGRAM 1. Objective a. Interior trees - Remove dead; diseased or dangerous trees; prune and save the balance; maintain in a safe and aesthetic manner. This objective shall be achieved in year one. b. Treelines - Thin, prune and replace trees along east and west boundary line with the objectives of providing a landscape buffer comprised of both deciduous and evergreen trees along both boundaries which will provide a visual and aesthetic separation between Indian Hills Village and neighbors adjacent to the east and west. This objective shall be achieved in a ten year time frame. No Text models,'will lend itself well to solar access. The houses will be designee, with solar access in mind. 'rF 25. Will the garages be attached? We don't want a row of unattached garage buildings along our back property line. Yea, the garages will be attached to the houses and will be incorporated into the design of the house. 26. Will basements really be possible given the water level in the area? We believe that basements will be possible for some houses. Our engineers will be looking into this in greater detail. 27. Is funding in place for this project or will it get partially built and then remain vacant if something goes wrong? Funding is not an issue. We, the company that owns the land, are doing the design, planning, and development. 28. Air pollution is a concern here. The area is in a basin with Spring Creek. Any more cars will cause the pollution to increase. This could be a real problem for 'the people who live here now. With almost 100 garages that is a lot of additional cars driving in and out every day. Also fire- places will contribute to the pollution. We have hired a traffic engineer to evaluate the potential traffic impacts on Stuart Street. We don't intend to have wood fireplaces, they will be gas, as required by the City. We will have Natural Resources look into the air quality issue. Indian Hills Village PUD- Preliminary, #81-93 January 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 10 Therefore, based on these findings, staff recommends- approval of Indian Hills Village PUD, Preliminary #81-93, with a variance to the requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance and a variance to the Street Standards regarding ROW and street width, with the following conditions: 1. That a replacement pchedule for existing landscaping be submitted and approved by the City's Natural Resources Department and the City Forester. 2. That an agreement with the Indian Hills Tovnhou"s BOA, 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 vidth issue of 71 versus 8O be resolved prior to submittal of final plans.