Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHORELINE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 32-87 - - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF July 27, 1987 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: The Shoreline PUD - Preliminary - #32-87 APPLICANT: Dengler & Associates OWNER: Gary Blue 748 Whalers Way 1048 Strachan Drive Bldg. E - Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for preliminary PUD approval for 12 single family lots featuring "patio" style homes. The site is located at the northeast corner of Boardwalk Drive and Westshore Way and is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Shoreline PUD achieves a score of 70 on the Resi- dential Density Chart. The site plan features common entry areas, common streetscape areas, and a pedestrian bridge over to the adjacent office park. A variance to allow a 28 foot street on a 46 foot right-of-way has been requested and approved. The lake would be dredged and the fill mate- rial added to lots one through five. The shoreline area would be treated with a naturally vegetated area to prevent excessive weed growth in the lake. There are several issues relating to the landscape plan which must be satisfied at the time of final submittal. OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FThehoreline PUD - Preliminary - #32-87 27, 1987 P&Z Meeting - Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RLP; Single family S: BP; Boardwalk Office Complex E: RLP; Harmony Reservoir W: RLP; Harmony Cove Townhomes The subject property was part of a large annexation in 1977. This property was originally platted as a multi -family area of the Landings Fourth Filing in 1979. The parcel was replatted in 1981 as the Second Replat of the Land- ings Fourth Filing to contain 25 townhome units. The present request repre- sents a conversion from 25 townhomes to 12 single family lots. 2. Land Use: The Shoreline PUD is a patio home project featuring traditional single fam- ily detached homes on lots averaging 8,333 square feet. The 12 homes on 3 acres equals a density of 4 dwelling units per acre. The planning objective is to create an exclusive area identified by a dis- tinct entry and quality common area treatments. The five lots bordering Harmony Reservoir will directly benefit from this water feature while the remaining lots will be part of the homeowners' association which would have recreational rights. As of this writing, the existing homeowners on Harmony Reservoir are negotiating with the ditch company to purchase, in fee simple, the lake and its immediate shoreline. The density of 4 dwelling units per acre is justified by the score of 70 on the Residential Density Point Chart. The project benefits from proximity to the Landings Neighborhood Park, the South College Highway Business Zone, and a transit stop on Boardwalk Drive. Along with contiguity to existing development, the project scores well beyond the required score to allow the proposed density of 4 dwelling units per acre. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: The proposed residential use is compatible with the existing single family to the north and the existing multi -family to the west. The current pro- posal is also a lowering of density from previously approved plans. For these reasons, the request is considered a compatible land use and no neighborhood meeting was held. The Shoreline PUD - Preliminary - #32-87 July 27, 1987 P&Z Meeting - Page 3 4. Design: It is important to note the approved restaurant pad to the south in the Boardwalk Office Complex. The parking lot for this pad was constructed in conjunction with the parking lot for the existing office buildings. The development of this restaurant pad will require the installation of the eight chokecherries and shrub beds adjacent to the ditch which, along with the required fencing, would provide the buffering of the Shoreline PUD. A pedestrian bridge over the ditch would provide a link from Southshore Court to the Boardwalk Office Court, future restaurant pad, and improve access around the lake. The perimeter of the site along Boardwalk and Westshore Drives would fea- ture street trees planted on 40 foot centers. Staff is concerned that the preliminary landscape plan calls for these trees to be Marshall Seedless Ash at 1-1/2" caliper as opposed to 1-3/4" minimum caliper as required by the Administrative Guidelines for standard deciduous trees. Staff is also concerned about the maintenance of the undeveloped lots in the event that some lots remain unbuilt for extended periods of time. A note should be added to the final landscape plan that either the developer or homeowners' association will maintain undeveloped areas and specifically control weed growth. Fencing along the perimeter would be restricted to cedar materials not to exceed 5 feet in height. At the intersection of Westshore Way and South - shore Court are the common area tracts containing the entry feature. These tracts would feature fencing not to exceed 42 inches in height to maintain traffic visibility standards. In addition, the side and rear yard of Lot 7 would describe a "no fence" zone to prevent infringement upon a traffic visibility area. Both tracts A and B would feature landscaping to be main- tained by the homeowners' association. The cul-de-sac bulb would contain xeriscaping and a fire hydrant. This area would also be maintained by the homeowners association. The patio style homes would typically feature a 7 foot sideyard setback for a 14 foot separation between buildings. Front yard setbacks would typically be 32 feet except for 20 foot setbacks for lots 5, 7, and 10. Rear yard setbacks would typically be 20 feet. The notes state that there would be an architectural control committee to ensure quality and consistency in reviewing materials and design. FTheShoreline PUD - Preliminary - #32-87 27, 1987 P&Z Meeting - Page 4 5. Transportation: The applicant has submitted a formal variance request to the Planning and Zoning Board to allow a 28 foot street on a 46 foot right-of-way versus a 36 foot street on a 54 foot right-of-way. In Design Criteria and Standards for Streets, the City Engineering Office allows for the 28 foot street provided they are used in a PUD and meet the following criteria: 1. Be a loop street or cul-de-sac which connects with only one public street. 2. Have less than 750 ADT (average daily trips). 3. Are not accessed from an arterial street. 4. Are not used in a single family area where single family homes face each other across the street. 5. One side shall be marked with signs indicating "No Parking" on stan- dard City signs. The applicant meets all the criteria with the exception of single family homes facing each other across the street. In seeking the variance, the applicant states that each unit would be provided with a two car garage as well as driveway space for two cars. In the event of a large social gather- ing, parking could be shared with the unconstructed restaurant pad which features a fully constructed parking lot connected to Southshore Court by a pedestrian bridge. Parking would also be available on one side of South - shore Court wherever there isn't a driveway cut. The applicant further con- tends that the homeowners' association is a mechanism to prevent the long term parking on the street of disabled vehicles which would rob available parking. Staff finds that the character of the single family cul-de-sac will result in limited traffic. Sidewalks on both sides will provide for safe movement of pedestrians. Parking for the 12 lots appears adequate and no parking on one side will allow safe vehicular access for emergency equipment. Staff, therefore, approves the variance request for the 28 foot street. 6. Resource Protection: There are several existing, mature cottonwoods on the site. These trees are indicated on the landscape plan and will be preserved where there is no conflict with the street or building envelopes. The Shoreline PUD - Preliminary - #32-87 July 27, 1987 P&Z Meeting - Page 5 Tract B contains vegetation associated with a wetlands area. In order to take advantage of this existing vegetation in a common area, the developer has agreed to replace the concrete drainage pan with a cobbled swale for a more natural appearance. Similarly, the elements of the preliminary lands- cape plan for Tract B will be revised to enhance the wetland characteris- tics. Final design of Tract B landscaping will be determined at the time of final. The existing shoreline of Harmony Reservoir will be filled in with dredge material from the lake bed. On advice from the City Department of Natural Resources, the shoreline would be treated with variety of native grasses, trees, and shrubs designed to promote a natural area between the waterline and the traditional bluegrass lawn. This natural area would help filter out organic runoff and prevent excessive weed and algae growth within the lake. The final design of this shoreline natural area will be determined at final. Since the lake is not a public drainageway, the 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is not required. Staff is concerned that permission from the owners of interest in Harmony Reservoir for the dredge work has not yet been submitted to the Planning Department. Written permission should be obtained prior to final approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the request for preliminary approval for the Shoreline PUD is justified by obtaining the appropriate score for a residential use according to the Land Development Guidance System. Staff also finds that the variance request for the 28 foot local public street is justified by the unique conditions associated with this particular site. There remain issues which must be resolved prior to final approval, staff, therefore recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The final design for the shoreline natural area shall be clearly defined and in sufficient detail on the final landscape plan. 2. The final design and treatment of Tract B shall be clearly defined and in sufficient detail on the final landscape plan. 3. All 1-1/2" caliper deciduous street trees shall be upgraded to a minimum of 1-3/4" caliper on the final landscape plan. 4. A note shall be added to the final site plan stating that mainte- nance and weed control of undeveloped areas shall clearly be the responsibility of the homeowners' association or the developer. 5. Permission from all owners of interest in Harmony Reservoir should be obtained by the time of final submittal. D-1 ..f�rh Rk Shoreline RUE 0 Vola landings park for her ony cove Ove Ne ` 1 \' I I I 17 Ir -j - kt OJ G L (D (OD iti harmony reservoir 6 "do A -®r) , r2n" (D single family V Inim prelim site/landscape plan 7 170 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ,e� TA --77 f,e IU 1e _ego. Cez.F john dongler Nd SHORELINE P.U.D. t 4t CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 27, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Project Planner Jim Newell, Civil Engineer I RE: Design for the Shorel'n PUD - Adding a Sixth Condition to the Recommendation The Planning Department and Engineering Department of the Department of Development Services have agreed that a sixth condition should be added to the recommendation of approval for the Shoreline - Preliminary P.U.D. The sixth condition would read: "The final design of building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (all lots except 5 and 7) shall be setback from the street a minimum of 34 feet in order to allow four off-street parking spaces in the drive- way." Staff has agreed that the parking issues associated with the 28 foot street where single family homes face each other would be alleviated by increasing the driveway length. By providing four off-street parking spaces per home, parking on the street would be discouraged, thus allowing two open travel lanes on the 28 foot street. The applicant has been contacted and agrees to adding this condition. Unless requested by a concerned citizen or a Planning and Zoning Board mem- ber, staff recommends this item remain on the consent agenda. OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING 300 LaPorte Ave. - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 - (303) 221-6750 0 • POPULATION PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: #32-87 SHORELINE PUD - Preliminary & Final DESCRIPTION: 12 single family homes on 3.008 acres DENSITY: 3.99 du/`acre General Population 12 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 42 School Age Population Elementary - 12 (units) x .422(pupils/units) Junior High - 12 (units) x •1 48(pupils/unit) _ Senior High - 12 (units) x •127(pupils/unit) = Affected Schools Design Capacity Barton Elementary 364 Boltz Junior High 930 Fort Collins Senior High 1310 5.06 1.78 1.52 Enrollment 345 879 1314 TPE SHOeELINE poo DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 feerof an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center. �.' b 10% 650 feet of an existing transit stop. 'Ai.—,N C 10% 4000 feet of an existing or opproved regional shopping center. d 20% 3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park community park or community facility L AN:, ) . UJ ' A C/) e 10% 1000 feet of a school, meeting all the requirements of the compulsory educoton lows of the State of Colorado. f 20% 3000 feet of a major employment center. �` 55% g 1000 feet of a Child care center. / � h 20% 'North' Port Collins. / )�f I 20% The Central Business District. f f✓ A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit rnoy be earned as follows: 0%— For projects whose property boundary has 0 to 10%contiguity, 0 30 /0 10 to 15%—For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity, 1510 20%—For projects whose property boundary has 20 to 30% contigurty,- 20 to 25%— For projects whose property, boundary has 30 to 40%contiguity, 25 to 30%—For projects whos property boundary has 40 to 50% contiguity k If it can be demonsfroted that fhe project will reduce non-renewable energy useage either through the application of arternam a energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normary required by City Code. a 5% bonus may pe eamed for every 5% reduction ,n energy use. I . Calculateol% bonus for every 50 acres included in theproje t. m Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreationol use, enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. In If the applicant commits to preserving permanent ofhite open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage, enter this percentage as a bonus. If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code. O enter2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested, If part at "total development budgets to be spent on neighborhood facdities and services which are not otherwise required by City Code. P entera1%bonusforevery$100 per dwelling unit invested, C/ Ito commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of awelling unrts for low income families, enter that Q percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%. Z If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type'A-and Type'B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: Or Type'A"— .511mes T co Type 'B"-1.0 times Type '8'units of }7 s In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%. lithe site or adjacent property contains an historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following: 3% — For preventing or mitigating outside influences (e.g. environmental, land use, aesthetic, economic aria social factors) adverse to its s preservation; 3% — For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units 3% — For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will jeod to its continuance, preservation and improvement in on appropriate manner. If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family protect is provided underground, within the building or it) an elevated paring structure m an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows: t 9% — For providing 75% or more of the parking ,n a structure: 6% — For providing 50-74%of the parking in a structure: 3% — For providing 25-49%of the parking in a structure. u Ito commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems forthe dwelling unit& enter o bonus of 10%. TOTAL - 30- John denger and associates, pc. A RC H I T E C T S/ P L A N N E R S May 6, 1987 Mr. Ted Shepard City of Fort Collint Office of Development Services/Planning P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: 12-Lot Subdivision in Landings 4th Dear Ted: At the Conceptual Review Meeting yesterday for the above -mentioned pro- ject, it was brought to my attention that I would need to request a variance to City Standards in order to achieve a 28' public street on this project. I would like to formally request a variance for the following reasons: 1. The main access to this street is an existing 28' wide public street (Westshore Way). 2. This is a very small cul-de-sac servicing a mere 12 single family homes. 3. We have greatly reduced the intensity of the previous plan for this property and increased its parking potential regardless of any parking along the street: Old Plan (25 units) New Plan (12 units) 25 one -car garages ...............25 25 tandem driveway spaces ......... 25 26 additional off-street spaces ... 26 Total potential spaces ...........76 or 3.0 spaces/unit • E-1COV90 12 two -car garages.............24 32 tandem driveway spaces ...... 32 Total potential spaces ........56 or 4.7 spaces/unit 748 WHALERS WAY / BLDG. E SUITE 200 / FT. COLLINS CO. 80525 223-1 512 Mr. Ted Shepard May 6, 1987 Page 2 4. The above ignores the potential for parallel parking along one side of the street which could be accomplished by signs or by actual striping or a combination of the two. As well, it was mentioned that we would need to request a variance to City standards should we want a square cul-de-sac as shown. I feel that the square cul-de-sac fits best in this case with the shape of the property „ especially after centering the road between the two existing cottonwood trees. It allows us to have nicer shaped lots with better access capabili- ties at the end of the cul-de-sac. If we need to set up a meeting to discuss the potential for granting these two variances, I would appreciate it if you could do so as soon as possible and would be happy to meet with you at your convenience. Thank you and I will look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, III John J. engler, II President JJD : j f