Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89C - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSSTAFF REPORT PROJECT: Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89C (aka South Shields Veterinary Clinic, PUD 2nd Phase) APPLICANT: Dr. William M. Musselwhite c/o Richmond Associates 420 West Oak Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Dr. William M. Musselwhite 5001 S. Shields Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for preliminary approval for 9 single family lots on 6.4 acres, located west of Shields Street, 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes 9 single family homes on this site. The proposed preliminary plan is in conformance with the approved Master Plan. The applicant has requested a variance to the minimum required density of 3 DU/acre and a variance for local street width. Staff supports both requested variances, but does not believe that All Development Criteria #13 and 28 have been addressed by the proposed plan. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, 00 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89C September 24, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L-P; existing single family residence (The Ridge PUD) S: R-L-P; existing single family residences (The Ridge PUD) E: R-L-P; vacant (South Shields Vet Clinic PUD - proposed vet clinic) W: R-L-P; existing single family residences (The Ridge PUD) The site is a portion of the area annexed in 1989 as The Ridge Annexation and was zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. There is no PUD condition attached to the zoning of this area; therefore, single family homes are considered a "use -by -right" in this zoning designation. The applicant could pursue subdividing the property for single family homes, rather than using the PUD option. The site is also a portion of the South Shields Veterinary PUD Master Plan. This Master Plan was approved by the Board at the November 20, 1989 Board meeting with a condition that the potential vehicular access from Hepplewhite Court be removed from the Master Plan. The Master Plan consisted of a veterinary clinic and nine single family lots. 2. Land Use: The proposed land use consists of 9 single family lots on 6.4 acres. The preliminary site plan was evaluated under the Residential Density Chart. The proposed density of 1.4 DU/acre is supported by the 34% achieved on the Density Chart; however, the proposed density does not meet the minimum required density of 3 DU/acre and the applicant has requested a variance to this requirement. Points were awarded for proximity to a neighborhood park (Clarendon Hills mini park), energy conservation and for the use of automatic fire extinguishing systems on 4 of the 9 lots. Information to substantiate the proposed energy conservation measures would be necessary with the final plans. Staff believes that this site serves as a viable transition between the Shields Street commercial frontage of this area and the lower densities of The Ridge PUD. Furthermore, given the topographic nature of this site, development at a lower density than the required 3 DU/acre is logical, to further minimize the impact on the site. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested density variance. The proposed single family lots are compatible with surrounding land uses, which consist primarily of large, single family lots ranging in size from .5 ' acre to 1.2 acres. The gross density of The Ridge PUD (including open space areas) is 1.6 DU/acre, with net density at 1.1 DU/acre (excluding open space areas). 0 0 Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89C September 24, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 3 3. DesiQn: The proposed plan consists of 9 single family detached lots. Lot sizes range from .25 acre to 1.14 acres. Access to the site is via a local street, Wooded Creek Court, which intersects with Shields Street. The only connection planned to Hepplewhite Court is for utilities to serve this site. Lots 3-6 lie west of an existing ravine on the site. This ravine is identified as an area of "high sensitivity" on the City's Environmental Management/Wildlife Habitat Maps, due to its structural diversity, its role as a corridor and for existing vegetation. The development of Lots 3-6 is not an issue; however, the access to these lots is a topic of great concern. The applicant is proposing to cross this ravine with a 48" diameter culvert located beneath a 28' wide local street that narrows to a 20' wide street near the cul-de-sac bulb. This crossing, as designed, necessitates a cut and fill which encompasses a width (including the street) of approximately 170' through and along the ravine. The area of cut and fill covers .6 acre. Side slopes are proposed at 3:1 and the applicant has indicated that revegetation of slopes would occur with a mixture of grass and wildiflower seeds and that erosion control blankets would be used to prevent seed and soil erosion. An access to the culvert, consisting of grasscrete, is provided for maintenance purposes. It is anticipated that the City's Stormwater Utility would take over maintenance of the culvert, as well as areas surrounding the culvert and access to the culvert is needed for maintenance equipment. Criteria #28 of the All Development Criteria asks "Is the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in favorable relationship to the existing natural topography; natural water bodies and water courses; existing desirable trees; exposure to sunlight and wind; and views?" Staff believes that the impact of crossing this ravine, as now proposed, is significant and that the impacts have not been adequately identified nor mitigated. The applicant has indicated that other alternatives for accessing the western portion of this site have been evaluated and has provided a report discussing several other alternatives; however, staff has not seen detailed information showing that other alternatives have been analyzed, nor has there been information provided to justify that the proposed culvert crossing is the best alternative. In short, staff is not convinced that the proposed culvert crossing is the best alternative, given its impact on the ravine. There are a number of existing trees and understory shrubbery on the site. The landscape plan identifies a significant area of vegetation, primarily on Lots 7, 8, and 9, although specifics on the numbers and locations of vegetation have not been provided to date. Information on the site plan indicates that trees would not be removed unless approved by both the architectural review committee and the City Forester. Staff is concerned that the placement of rather large building envelopes on Lots 7-9 may significantly impact existing vegetation, to which the extent has not been identified. The applicant has indicated an intent to maintain existing vegetation and has provided a commitment to establishing construction specifications (at final plan review) for the movement and placement of construction materials and soil during construction, so that existing trees would not be damaged. The applicant has also committed to 0 0 Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89C September 24, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 4 re -vegetation of slopes disturbed by the proposed crossing of an existing ravine on the site and for placement of trees on each lot at a minimum ratio of one tree per 1 / 10 of an acre. Thus, the minimum number of trees on the proposed lots would range from 3 - 12 trees. Based on the information provided to date, staff does not believe All Development Criteria #13, which asks "Does the project preserve significant existing vegetation to the extent practical?" has been addressed. The applicant is proposing restrictive covenants to use in the design and construction of homes on this site. These covenant restrictions address such items as fencing, minimum home size, roof slope and materials and building height. These restrictions are intended by the applicant to provide a development that remains in character with the existing character of The Ridge and other development in the area. The applicant is proposing a 28' wide flowline-to-flowline public street (Wooded Creek Court) which narrows down to 20' wide near the cul-de-sac bulb as access for the 9 lots and has requested a variance to the local street standard width of 36' flowline-to-flowline. The 20' wide portion of the street would only access the four westernmost lots. Limitations on driveway locations have been defined, to further enhance the use of the 20' width. Staff has reviewed this variance request and finds that the request is justified, given the limited number of homes this street would serve and the large size of lots, which have the capability of providing additional parking on -site, rather than on the street. The adjacent property owner to the south has requested that the potential for an alternative to the current Shields Street access be provided on the Laurie Subdivision site. Staff does not believe that a requirement should be placed on the developer of Laurie Subdivision to provide access; however, if the applicant is willing to provide the potential for future access, it could provide a viable option as Shields Street becomes a four -lane arterial street that carries increasing volumes of traffic. There was also a potential street connection with the property to the north shown on the approved Master Plan for the South Shields Veterinary PUD. The property owner to the north did not want a street connection provided and therefore, the applicant has not shown a connection on the site plan. Prior to review of any final plans, staff would anticipate evaluating access alternatives to Shields Street for properties along the west side of Shields. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on January 23 and again on June 26 (see attached minutes). Concerns expressed were generally related to the proposed density, covenant restrictions, drainage/erosion concerns and environmental concerns related to crossing/filling the existing ravine. Density proposed for this site (1.4 DU/acre) is consistent and compatible with the existing density for The Ridge PUD (1.6 DU/acre). The Ridge contains a variety of lot sizes, ranging from .5 acres to 1.2 acres, which are generally compatible in size with the proposed lots on the Laurie Subdivision PUD. Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89C September 24, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 5 The applicant has provided several covenant restrictions addressing fencing, roof materials, building size and height to address residents' concerns regarding covenants restrictions. These restrictions are not being required by staff, but rather, represent the applicant's efforts at providing a development in character with The Ridge and other area development. Drainage, erosion and maintenance concerns exist for this site, due to its significant variety in topography and due to the nature of the existing vegetation. The applicant has met the preliminary PUD plan submittal requirements, in terms of the amount of information necessary for utility and drainage plans at a preliminary stage. Drainage, erosion, and maintenance issues will continue to be of concern during review of a final plan for this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary is in conformance with the approved Master Plan and that the requested density variance and local street width variances are justified. Staff further finds that the proposed plan is not in conformance with All Development Criteria #13 and 28 of the Land Development Guidance System, which are as follows: #13 "Does the project preserve significant existing vegetation to the extent practical?" #28 "Is the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in favorable relationship to the existing natural topography; natural water bodies and water courses; existing desirable trees; exposure to sunlight and wind; and views?" Staff does not believe the proposed plan addresses these two All Development Criteria and therefore, staff recommends denial of the Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary #44-89C. mmiz■ r-1 ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criterion be satisfied? If no, please explain � aye ,0:�'�.�'°° Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatability 2. Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Capacity 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slope Hazard 13. Significant Vegetation 14 Wildlife Habitat 15 Historical Landmark 47 16, Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality IV I 21. Noise Ix 22. Glare & Heat 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features 29. Energy Conservation 30. Shadows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Open Space Arrangement 34. Building Height 35. Vehicular Movement 36. Vehicular Design 37, Parking 38. Active Recreational Areas 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience 41. Pedestrian Conflicts 42. Landscaping/Open Areas 43. LandscapingiBuildings 44. Landscaping/Screening 45. Public Access X 46. Sians -12- DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center b 10% 650 feet of an existing transit stop C 10% 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping centerLIJ d 20% / 3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park Community park or community facility. e 10% 1000 feet of a school, meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education laws Of the State of Colorado. Qf 20% 3000 feet of a major employment center g 5% - 1000 feet of a child care center. h 20% "North, Fort Collins. 20% The Central Business District. A protect whose boundary is Contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may, be earned as follows 0%—For projects whose property boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity. 0 30% 10 to 15%— For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity J 15to20%— For Projects whose property boundary has 20to30%contiguity 20 to 25%— For protects 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 demonshated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy useoge er!her through the appkcation of alternative energy systems or through Committed energy Conservation measures beyond that normaW requ:red by City Code, a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5% reduction in energy use. J I Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres Included in the project. m Calculate the percentage of the total acres In the projecttnot are devoted to recreational use. enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. n tt the applicant Commits to preserving permanent otfsite open space fiat meets me Cltys minimum requirements. Calculate the percentage of this Open space acreage to tree total oevelopmHnt acreage, enter this percentage as a bonus O If part Of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code. enter 2% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested. P If pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood focilines and services wnicn ore not otherwise required by City Code. for enter al%bonus every$100 per dwelling unit invested. ID Cl It a Commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for law income families, enter that as a bonus. to maximum 30%. percentage up a of If a cornmirment is being made to develop a specified percentage of Me total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B' hondicappecf Z housing as defined by the City of Fan Collins, calculate the bonus as follows r Type'A _ .5fimes Type'A'units Total Type1B"-1.0nmes Type'B'units Total In no case shall the combined bonus be greater man 30%. If the 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 and 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 lead to Its Continuance. preservation and improvement in an appropriate manner, If O portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the building, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus mcy be earned as toiaws: t 9% — For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure; 6% — For providing 50.74% of the parking in a structure; 3% — For prodding 25-49% of the parking in a structure. u If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing swe-4 for the dwelling units. enter a bonus of l0°r ,�- �o�a TOTAL - 30-