HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMERHILL PUD FINAL SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING - 41 93A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS• ti
.r
CA
- - --- ------------ -- -- -- --------------- ------------ -- - -cam:-- -� - -
"I
!Sc4_N.oR_.N__T I�ENlJ12lCl<S�IV i10310 INE�"rSy'TU/`?/ZT -----
�U,Surt--
���u.e� �'1u>7lct��C
c L 12. Ak,
i
—
_D_rFlo
U
j 1
27. Question: How often does the City review its long range
development plan for this area? Do they do that on a 2 year or
5 year schedule or something like that?
Answer: The City does not have a long range plan for this
area in terms of specific land uses that should occur on a
particular piece of property. Private interests make a
proposal for development and the City reviews their proposal
against the established policies, regulations, and criteria in
the pertinent elements of the comprehensive plan.
28. Question: If this goes to the Planning and Zoning Board on
November 15, 1993 and is denied, is it the intent to build the
existing approved plan for Underhill P.U.D.?
Answer: Yes, that would be the intent of the current owner.
29. Comment: It is our understanding that there is a high water
table in this area that.could impact development on this site.
19. Comment: When these people come in there will be a larger
number of people and dogs that will use the City's natural
area for their backyard and dog walking areas. This will have
a significant impact on the wildlife. Your covenants for this
development should address this concern.
20. Comment: The City should look very closely at the ecology of
this area and evaluate the impacts of the higher density.
Response: The City's Natural Resource Department has been
very involved in the entire review process for this
development.
21. Question: Where is the open space? How far does it go south,
east, and west?
Answer: The open space goes south to the property lines of
the homes along Stuart Street and I do not know for sure how
far east and west it extends without asking other City
departments.
22. Question: Have you considered a reduction in the density for
this development?
Answer: No, we have not considered that possibility to date.
23. Question: If the Planning and Zoning Board were to put a
restriction on the density and require this development to
lower its density, you would have to do it, is that correct?
Answer: We would have to reconsider the density at that time.
24. Comment: I don't think we should underestimate the Planning
and Zoning Board and presume its inability to listen to the
neighborhood.
25. Comment: We who live on the south side of the New Mercer
Ditch, along Stuart Street, enjoy our ability to experience
the openness and the more rural feeling that we have along the
open space. The lights from this development will be intrusive
to this feeling.
26. Question: What are your plans for the buffering of headlights
coming from this development and what type of security or spot
lighting will be on the buildings.
Answer: The City will put standard local street lights on the
public streets. The private streets will have low, down
directional lighting and the security lighting will have to be
down directional to prevent light spillage from the property.
r
9. Question: What are you going to do to cut down the sound
barrier? What will be provided so that we won't have to listen
to 68 more units?
Answer: There will be sufficient landscaping in the setback
from Prospect Road. Since most of you live north of Prospect
Road, you probably will not be as aware of this development as
you will the traffic noise from the street.
10. Question: You intend to sell these as family units. Are there
provisions for play areas for children?
Answer: Other than the common open space areas within the
development there are not planned playgrounds at this time.
11. Question: What is the price per unit planned to be?
Answer: The units will range from $89,900 to $92,900.
12.. Question: Where will you build your first unit?
Answer: We will build the first unit south of Prospect Road
and east of Underhill Drive.
13. Question: Do you have a plan for this development if the
units do not sell in a certain period of time?
Answer: I can only say that 5 units are presold and the
market is very promising.
14. Question: How far from prospect Road will the units be that
are right along the street?
Answer: Approximately 35' from the curbline of the street.
15. Comment: We are worried about the condominiumization, the
proliferation of townhouse units, and the increased volume of
traffic on Constitution Avenue in our neighborhood.
16. Comment: The City should look at the overall planning effort
for this area and evaluate the long range effects of new
development, especially high density residential,, on the area
and the existing neighborhoods.
17. Comment: The Prospect -Shields neighborhood, and its current
planning effort, should be extended to include a larger area
in the City's long range planning effort.
18. Comment: This type of development will have a negative impact
on the area and the viability of the remaining natural areas.
2. Question: What is your market that you are targeting? Will it
be college students, married couples with children, or older
couples without children?
Answer: These units are to be sold at a fairly high price,
which is not conducive to college students, per say.
3. Comment: I am concerned about the Bridges development, to the
east, where it was planned with enough parking but with the
transition to college student rentals there is not enough
parking.
4. Comment: I am concerned about the density of this
development. If these units do not sell then the units will
become rental units and, especially if the renters are college
students, there will not be enough parking.
5. Question: Are you going to have a driveway to the bridge
across the New Mercer Canal? College students party in the
open space and the fire department has had to respond to fires
on numerous occasions.
Answer: No, a driveway connection is not planned. There will
be a pedestrian connection form Underhill Drive to the bridge
for access into the City -owned open space.
6. Question: How high will the buildings be?
Answer: They will be 22' to 24' high.
7. Question: What are the exterior colors to be? The blues on
the Bridges condominiums do not appear to be very sensitive to
the surroundings that they are in.
Answer: These buildings are intended to be a light sandstone
color.
8. Question: If these units are sold and couples with children
move in, how will the number of children and the access to the
schools be dealt with?
Answer: There is room in Moore Elementary School for the 8 to
9 students that this development will generate, based on
standard projections for multi -family housing. The school is
designed for 546 students and there are 455 students enrolled
this year. The access issue will have to be dealt with at
another time.
City of Fort Collins
Comm._ _cy Planning and Environmental __r_v_ices
Planning Department
A Second
Neighborhood Information Meeting
for
SUMMERHILL P.U.D.
Date: November 8, 1993
Applicant: Mel Price
c/o Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort collins, CO. 80525
City Planner: Steve Olt
Location: Bauder Elementary School
The Summerhill P.U.D. is a 7.36 acre site that is planned for 68
multi -family residential dwelling units. This property was granted
preliminary approval as the Underhill P.U.D. by the Planning and
Zoning Board for in excess of 80 dwelling units in 1982. The first
neighborhood meeting was held on June 30, 1993 and there were 7
participants present in addition to the potential applicant, his
representatives, and the City planner. Summerhill P.U.D. was
granted preliminary approval by the Board on August 30, 1993. It is
bordered by West Prospect Road to the north, the Bridges P.U.D.
(multi -family residential) to the east, City of Fort Collins
natural area to the south, and Sonoran View Estates (single family
residential) to the west.
The purpose of this meeting was to give all affected property
owners and potentially affected interests in the area a chance to
express their concerns about this proposal after the Planning
Department learned that everyone within the minimum area of
notification had not, in fact, been notified.
The following questions and concerns were expressed at this
meeting:
1. Question: You indicated that the buildings will be
predominantly 4-plexes and that there will be 3 parking spaces
per unit. Where will the other (4th) car be parked?
Answer: There will be 3 parking spaces per unit provided,
totalling 12 parking spaces for each 4-plex building.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box'580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
Will the crterion
Is the criterion abolicaole? be XListled?
CRITERION e
„a:�'° F.�°' �,` Yes No If no, please explain
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Computability
2. Neighborhood Character
3. Land Use Conflicts
4. Aaverse Traffic Impact
rLnrva ANu r%JLit—ICJ
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
✓
8. Design Standards
9. Emergency Access
V
10. Security Lighting
11. Wcrer Hazaras
✓
w
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: SUMA ERHILL PUD - Final
DESCRIPTION: 68 multi -family units on 7.36 acres
DENSITY: 9.24 du/acre
General Population
68 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 217.6
School Age Population
Elementary - 68 (units) x .120
Junior High - 68 (units) x .055
Senior High - 68 (units) x .050
Affected Schools
Moore Elementary
Blevins Junior High
Poudre Senior High
(pupils/unit) =
8.16
(pupils/unit) =
3.74
(pupils/unit) =
3.4
Design
Capacity Enrollment
546 448
960 754
1235 1121
EN
PLAN
SCALE 1" . 20'
R
'E PLAN
(TYP)
ITPUC AL k-UNU4
SCALE 1" = 20'
PRIVACY FENCE
BETWEEN PATIO
SCALE 1' = 5'
7'FMQ%L ro-UHU4
SCALE 1' = 20'
40SCAPE
TEEN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
X6 POST
2X4 RAILS
1X4 PICKETS
4' X4 POST
uA
LANDSCAPE TIMBER
RETAINING WALL AS
NEEDED. 2' MAX HEIGHT
@P@
.roan d .iga m<.
SUM7 MERHILL PUD
�IIUh1LS rnn vne: Ina
rnoscr ra, VIM,
pla
U�D�6QPC� DC�'QU��
d,E a �NW>IM`. ,�-
xesoxs��
WMTW3 - 3
Y,7.1,1.
WEST PROSPECT .,.,
RE
a r
��. ,. III. ,•,-Y=`�, lu_ e.
I ■
•� - fnnl��lliC :� � ••
SONORAN VIEW
ESTATES
6.
-• �� l��.;!! nil= � `,♦ � ♦ /
1111=�
�•.�(`"rl •� �' 1,1ipiPJI
# ,• yM�; n '� ..A o ..0 # # �f Citys ape
y it.Ii
NEW MER R CANAL
###
` FINAL
# # #SYMBOL LEGEND LANDSCAPE FLAN
# # CITY , ,.T COLLINS # lymp,c
�I## # # ,. SPACE G DECIDUOUS
# _
�.
el w
rnr.
rrFr .
ws.
ory .
vx+
r�
z SI GLE FAMILY
3
rn
WEST PROSPECT ROAD
------- --- / --
Jill
IF ry?.
is iL
#
All
R�{
1 •� r
'fir
I.
I
IN
I
SONOR4AN VIEW
ESTATES
I IIIIIIII��
- • /y :\�` - vi � 1 —soy_ _ ,
� l.e ` SIGIYANRE eoyx _ _ _
e - Stt{f)h.EI I �AMIL / r
fy1 11 l �
v I NEW MERCER C x.RO. oxR. d..i FCfE rnP1 � _�
umiFxr l .� _— `- — _ANAL
�—
Poom��--
/neo------------
Ili CITY OF FORT COLLINS //— J/ j// it I ------
OPEN SPACE--=o.R-- /q////�\I \/ SYMBOL LEGEND
s crexun0 PI sR.U,E
R .NCM
xxxomv RMIP
wr VON -'xa R,ulwxc - iIRC w+r
4 .waux_m G.nwrr. �.
.. _•_ wnnrnome.v W.w pi..uo
uqrep@p@
wDgn ".1gnn
MONNI
SUMMERHILL PUD
AO Fi¢, m11.
INI NO. 710
glX[ 1' 90
.x OF F,,@NmN . 7-O6-93
m a �
v¢Fr NO. 1 - 3
r
- !Lrchard PI ~\ C
\lo
echoed PI vi Broadvie > ,. � g or a wOrchard PI. c` PL m' m a st
o in By
�w Plu st - Y m� `
.
> st. Plum
E Q` E MCAT I Ste
~ 3 Ct W El izabeth St.
07 Poplar Dr, " d
c o o
a ` 1V JDLeesdale
o E
Tamarac° o� 'P `
Dr - e fl ; E A U Ct
w o o
E Crabfr a Q. o v U o Ct a
Dr o r�,d v� u !! 0
01
o H J CI arview P.�e. pr. v Sk n
nirid PI. j y a Y. o W OOd Dr Q d o f
v_ Bradbury' _ SP ngf eld O 5 r'n t t v
m �^ W Lake St . E to ;
d
Ct �r Ur E L v o c Fai<,
o Ever green er ` C t
Knotwood Ct
WEST PROSPECT ROAD O� �� W Lake ml o m W. Lake St
f N
_ / m
0 o
CP° o_ L
Ork-
tc Pi
Cover` Ct T. J COO PB r�
Chorlestgn t)r CedorWood Dc L0ry worth Rd.
�i.4 CC ViIl
l/e pr. Suffolk 1 boUr^ „ PromenOd "« 1N.-StUdrt
Gn9 She shire 3 Kingsb °— �--
S Goro- Ryeland Ave. °-° a � Edg Pat
Dorset o Ct �Ron' �9h Dr. e �. '0 Ct
Ll� o EY a 4vg = W. Stuart St � Q $v .ticCt. o
O St °rr Cr s�o
R o ¢ o o o Freed° n.
ones° per �d. `a S! J m a Sancta �• k
4P
` E Glenwood Dr, G rntield 'D
n Q 1 nNh
Scot m C i n c
erino cf. 0/d prive
U.
c
e4on /n Pon Ct. ` c�0 �p e,b U Q .
�S
Ct. gyp. t
�o rea a 6 cons t aso<
I desdale Gr Fac9 oFa d 5 O �p Jc
u Cr Wt^
ITEM: SUMMERHILL PUD - Final /t
North
NUMBER: 41-93A
Summerhill P.U.D.
November 15, 1993
Pages
- Final, #41-93A
P & Z Meeting
If this condition is not met within the time established
herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final
approval of this planned unit development shall become null
and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that
the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting
of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for
the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decisions, of the
Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this
conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is
presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to
be included in the development agreement, the running of time
for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision's shall be
counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such
dispute.
Summerhill P.U.D.
November 15, 1993
Page4
- Final, #41-93A
P & Z Meeting
Meeting that was held on June 30, 1993, the Board instructed the
developer and the City Planning staff to conduct a second
Neighborhood Information Meeting prior to the item being heard by
the Board on November 15, 1993. This meeting was .held on Monday,
November 8, 1993. A revised and updated mailing list was used for
this notification. Minutes of the meeting will be available prior
to the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request is in substantial conformance with the Summerhill
P.U.D., Preliminary and meets the applicable All Development
Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Staff believes
that the condition of preliminary approval concerning the amount of
landscaping at the south end of Westbridge Drive has been met.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Summerhill P.U.D.,
Final - #41-93A with the following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the development
agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the
planned unit development be negotiated between the developer
and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the
second monthly meeting (January 24, 1994) of the Planning and
Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit
development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not
so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly
meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The
Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it
shall first find that there exists with respect to said
planned unit development final plan certain specific unique
and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of
the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique
hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and
provided that such extension can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to
be included in the development agreement, the developer may
present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such
presentation is made at the next succeeding or second
succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table
any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have
had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the
Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made.)
Summerhill.P.U.D. - Final, #41-93A
November 15, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page3
Each unit has a built-in one car garage with a driveway 17' to 20'
in length. The exterior materials will be masonite hardboard siding
and asphalt shingle roofing.
Landscaping:
The project will provide a mix of deciduous, evergreen, and
ornamental trees. There will be street trees throughout the site
and the West Prospect Road frontage will be extensively planted
with shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees to provide a good
buffer .to the street and single family residential neighborhood to
the north.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Summerhill P.U.D.,
Preliminary on .August 30, 1993 with one condition (requiring
additional buffering to an existing single family residence, in the
form of landscaping, on the south side of the cul-de-sac at the end
of Westbridge Drive). The developer is providing 5 new common
Purple Lilac deciduous shrubs, 4 new Tammy Juniper evergreen
shrubs, and 3 new Welch Juniper evergreen shrubs adjacent to the
cul-de-sac. There are existing spruce trees, lilacs, and a garden
area for the single family residence that were not shown on the
Preliminary Landscape Plan. These existing plantings, working in
conjunction with the proposed new plantings, provide sufficient
screening from the cul-de-sac to the residence; therefore, staff
believes that the intent of the condition has been met.
Parking:
All 68 dwelling units will have 3 bedrooms. City Code requires 2
parking spaces per 3-bedroom unit or, in this case, 136 parking
spaces. There will be 140 parking spaces provided with this
development; one per unit in a garage, totalling 68, and 72 off-
street spaces in numerous locations throughout the development. The
parking is considered to be adequate for this request.
4. Transportation:
The development will be accessed from West Prospect Road by
Westbridge Drive on the east side and Underhill Drive on the west
side, both being local public streets. The interior streets will be
privately owned and maintained by the Summerhill: Homeowner's
Association.
5. Neighborhood Compatibility:
This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on October
25, 1993. Due to omissions on the original affected property owners
list for a notification mailing for a Neighborhood Information
Summerhill P.U.D. - Final, #41-93A
November 15, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page2
COMMENTS:
1. Background•
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RL, existing single family residential (Fairview West)
S: RP, existing City -owned natural areas
E: RP, existing single family and multi -family residential (one
single family residence and The Bridges P.U.D.)
W: RL, existing single family residential (Sonoran View Estates)
The Underhill P.U.D. received preliminary approval from City
Council in January, 1982 for 220 multi -family dwelling ,units and
one single family residence on 20 acres.
The Underhill P.U.D., Phase One received final approval from the
Planning and Zoning Board in April, 1982 for 47 multi -family
dwelling units on 4.1 acres. Five of these units have been
constructed.
The Summerhill P.U.D., Preliminary received preliminary approval
for 68 multi -family dwelling units from the Planning and Zoning
Board on August 30, 1993 with one condition (requiring additional
buffering to an existing single family residence, in the form of
landscaping, on the south side of the cul-de-sac at the end of
Westbridge Drive).
On October 25, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the
Summerhill P.U.D., Final to the Board's November 15, 1993 public
hearing and instructed the developer and the City Planning staff to
conduct a second Neighborhood Information Meeting prior to the item
being heard by the Board on November 15, 1993. This meeting was
held on Monday, November 8, 1993.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for final approval of 68 multi -family residential
dwelling units on 7.36 acres. It meets 'the applicable All
Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and is
in substantial conformance with the approved Summerhill P.U.D.,
Preliminary.
3. Design:
Architecture:
There are 16 buildings, 14 4-plexes and 2 6-plexes, with a total
of 68 dwelling units. The buildings will not exceed 36' in height.
ITEM NO. I
MEETING DATE 1 1 / 15 / 9 3
STAFF Steve Olt
of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Summerhill P.U.D., Final - #41-93A
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Mel Price
c/o Cityscape
3555 Stanford
Fort Collins,
Urban Design
Road, #105
CO. 80525
Mel Price
2400 Vajobi Court
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for final approval for 68 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 7.36 acres located south of West
Prospect Road at Underhill Drive and Westbridge Drive. The property
is in the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a request for final approval for 68 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 7.36 acres. It is in substantial
conformance with the approved Summerhill P.U.D., Preliminary and
meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System. The buildings will be 4- and 6-plexes,
maximum of 36' in height, with one parking garage per unit. This
request replats a portion of the Underhill P.U.D. that was approved
in 1982. The project will provide a mix of deciduous, evergreen,
and ornamental trees. There will be street trees throughout the
site and the West Prospect Road frontage will be extensively
planted with shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees to provide a
good buffer to the street and single family residential
neighborhood to the north. Staff believes that the intent of the
Planning and Zoning Board's preliminary condition concerning the
amount of landscaping at the south end of Westbridge Drive has been
met. The interior streets will be privately owned and maintained by
the Summerhill Homeowner's Association. Staff considers this
request to be compatible with the land uses in the surrounding
area.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT