HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD, PARCEL A - PRELIMINARY - 46-88A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (2)ITEM NO. 19
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF August 22, Lw
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Park South PUD, Preliminary - #46-88A
APPLICANT: Marc Middel
Vaught -Frye Architects
2900 S. College
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Marc Middel
1407 S. College
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clark
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a preliminary PUD for 44
single family lots on 9.1 acres. The project is located approximately 1000 feet
south of the intersection of Horsetooth and Manhattan Avenue. The property
is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre
is supported on the Density Chart of the LDGS. Issues identified at the neigh-
borhood meeting have been addressed. The single family lots are deemed com-
patible with surrounding land uses and are in conformance with the Park
South PUD Master Plan; however, staff is recommending denial of the proposed
Master Plan and therefore, must also recommend denial of the phase plan, as
well.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Park South PUD,
P & Z Meeting -
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
Preliminary - #46-88A
June 27, 1988
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L-P; Vacant (proposed Park South PUD Master Plan)
S: R-L-P; existing residences (South Glen PUD)
E: R-P; vacant
W: R-L-P; existing residences, (Four Seasons PUD)
This site was annexed and zoned in 1978. The Larimer County -approved Park
South PUD (approved in 1978) consisted of 143 units on a 31-acre site, of
which this is the southern portion. The original plan is still valid, based on
city commitments made at the time of annexation and based on the develop-
ment agreement.
The applicant's submittal for this area as part of the Park South Master Plan
consists of 44 single family lots. The plan submitted for staff review origi-
nally contained single family lots on the southeast corner of the Master Plan
area; however, the applicant subsequently decided to use a portion of the
previously approved plan (which consists of 14 zero lot line units) and has
deleted this area from the preliminary.
2. Land Use:
Park South PUD Preliminary was evaluated under the Density Chart. The pro-
ject achieves a score of 70%, which supports the proposed density of 4.8 dwel-
ling units per acre. Points were awarded for proximity to an approved
regional shopping center, neighborhood park, school and for contiguity to urban
development.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Neighborhood meetings have been held on May 4, 1988 and August 10, 1988 to
discuss the Park South Master Plan and Preliminary PUD (see attached). Issues
that were identified at the neighborhood meetings relative to the preliminary
plan were related to the design of Dennison Avenue and storm drainage.
The proposed single family area would be served by a connection to Dennison
Avenue, which has been designed to prevent a straight -through route between
Four Seasons PUD and Manhattan Avenue. The street, as designed, would
serve to discourage traffic from using Dennison as a through street, but it
would provide residents vehicular and pedestrian access between the two subdi-
visions, as well as access to Manhattan Avenue. Limited access into the com-
mercial/office area to the north may also be provided from Dennison Avenue.
Park South PUD, Preliminary - #46-88A
P & Z Meeting - June 27, 1988
Page 3
A storm drainage easement is being platted along the southern edge of the
property. This easement incorporates an underground pipe to carry runoff
from the Four Seasons detention pond to Manhattan Avenue and south along
Manhattan into a larger detention pond.
4. Design:
Lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 10,900 square feet. The easternmost
portion of Dennison Avenue has been constructed to the private driveway
(Stream Court) that serves the 14 zero lot line units. This street and driveway
was constructed under the county -approved plans and therefore, do not have
curb, gutter and sidewalks. All newly constructed streets through the remain-
der of the preliminary plan area will be constructed with curb, gutter and
sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed density is supported by the Density Chart of the LDGS. The pro-
posed single family lots are deemed compatible with surrounding land uses and
are in conformance with the Park South Master Plan. However, based on
staff's recommendation for denial on the Park South Master Plan, a denial rec-
ommendation must also be made on the Park South PUD Preliminary.
N M
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: #46-88A PARK SOUTH PUD, Parcel A
DESCRIPTION: 54 single family units on 11 acres
DENSITY: 4.9 DU/acre
General Population
54 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 189
School Age Population;
Elementary - 54 (units) x .422 (pupils/units) = 22.79
Junior High - 54 (units) x .148 (pupils/unit) = 8.0
Senior High - 54 (units) x .127 (pupils/unit) = 6.9
Affected Schools Design Enrollment
Capacity
Lopez Elementary 546 +50 mobile 700
Lincoln Junior High 740 648
Rocky Mountain Senior High 1250 1354
a
0
m
!P �Mlllll1 IN,
NOTES
+... ,,....... RLP �A
PARK SOUTH LUSTER 0.An1 a mw.em .n.cr mw .wa,.w.rt.. tort
�ARCELC 1 ruomcvr w+v,n. ,o awnuc. Ii
URFVE OFFICE 1 1 1 ° coL,ws ,un cooc ,rx ,.. cn, or .w, T�� R
' � h
PARK SOUTH MASTER PLAN I '•"
\ x ucona.s.l s, M.eNMt AROELB
42 \ FUTI.HE LOWAERCIAL/OFFICE
k
HB VICINITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
..........
R�� ��; �1 1 RP �...,.,, ,..,..... .....
��'�pENNISON AVENUE ,,. I-. - /
32g_ U 13 LOTS
1823 �I/� � \. '� `� — � � �<rv...u1.[.....e[,e.a�eie.r....e�.. ni.•`I...`,,.I. ..ef.e, `+.
3
zt �
2
a LEGAL
T28 LAND USE
I
a
z
y
,e� ,� ��- fox ver+>E � � /.� � i ............ .. «. .�.. Imo.,.. •� ,.
..n
PARK SOUT%
RLP
3 2" rt '° . PARCEL A PUT
PARK SOUTH MASTER PLAN
\�I3RA� i PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
ALBION WAY
VFRYET
Ij
.uw s c u.s.EN.E.N
� n4Mll
..
DENNISON AVENUE
7
24 j__
zr
RLIP
�.
L IT
RLP
ALBION WAY
yOJP �
P Z
d
o W SOyln 4v91EN R.N
y �. (vS.ML I>LREv .UIS
=3 �f Kenn �11 a
NOTES 7
HO VICINITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
RP
2
<
=
LAND USE
EGAI
a
F
a'
z
i
PARK SOUTH
PARCEL A PUD
PARK SOUTH MASYER PLAN
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Flo
PROJECT
INANE:
IV
- GL-/
PROJECT
NUMBER:
-����-
_ D
ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the Criterion apalicable�
Will the Cr
be satlst e
If no, please explain
cP Yes No
ra
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatibility
2. Neighborhood Character
3, Lana Use Conflicts
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Stondaras
9. Emergency Access
10, Security Lighting
Fx
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13. Significant Vegetation
14. Wildlife Habitat
1& Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water Quality
21. Noise.
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations'`
24, Exterior Lighting
25. Sewage & Wastes
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
27. Site Organization
28. Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
31.
Open Space Arrangemen
32.
Building Height
33.
Vehicular Movement
34.
Vehicular Design
35.
Parking
36.
Active Recreational Areas
37.
Private Outdoor Areas
38.
Pedestrian Convenience
39.
Pedestrian Conflicts
40.
Landscaping/Open Areas
41.
Landscaping/Buildings
Public
Signs
-12-
P
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 center.
��ff
/1
V
d
20%
3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park community park or community facility. W)46t-W 1'
We
10%
1000 feet of a school, meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the States of dolorado. UPEZ
V
Qf
20%
3000 feet at a major employment center.
g
5%
1000 feet at a child care center.
h
20%
'North"Fort Collins
1
20%
The Central Business District.
A prooctwhose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
0%— For projects whose property boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity,
30%
10 to 15%— For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity; _
has 20to30%contiguity,
J
15to20%— For projects whose property boundary
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:
0
If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy useage either through the application of alternative energy
k
systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by City Code, a5% bonus may be earned
for every 5% reduction in energy use.
1 .
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
M
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus.
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent ottsite open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage
n
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 Citv Code.
O
enter 2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested.
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City Code,
p
enter 1%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested.
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families, enterthat
CI
percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%.
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type Wand Type'B' handicapped
Z
housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
Or
Type'A' — .5 times TTotal
coType
o
"B' —1.0 times Type'B' uni"
Total units
In no case shall the combined bonus be greaierthan 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
$
preservation;
3% — For assuring that new structures vAll 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 thatwill lead to its continuance, preservation and Improvement in an
appropriate manner.
If a 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 may be earned as follows:
t
9% — For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure;
6% — For providing 50-74% ofthe parking in a structure;
3% — Forproviding25-49%oft he parking in a structure.
U
it a commitment is being made toprovide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%.
TOTAL
- 30-
IN,.
ACTIVITY
Residentiol Uses
pp �
C
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 recreational uses as a principal use; uses
providing meeting places and places for public assembly with inciden-
tal office space; and child-care centers.
CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the development
plan.
Yes No
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average resi-
dential 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 MINIMU14 PERCENTAGE POINTS
AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART' FOR
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? ❑ ❑
THE REQUIRED EARNED CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT SHALL BE BASED ON T}'E FOLLOWING:
30-40
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
3-4
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
40-50
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
4-5
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
50-60
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
5-6
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
60-70
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
6-7
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
70-80
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
7-8
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
80-90
PERCENTAZ
POINTS -
8-9
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
90-100
PERCENTAGE
POINTS -
9-10
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE;
100 OR
MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS -
10 OR MORE
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE.
06 (0
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Response to Neighborhood Comments -
The following is the list of responses given to the residents attending the
neighborhood meeting on Park South PUD on May 4, 1988, as well as
subsequent changes made to the proposed plan to address these comments:
1. What type of buildings would be planned for the office area? How
tall would the buildings be?
Response: Architect indicated the specific height was unknown. The
Master Plan has since been changed to reflect that the phase in the northeast
area of the site would have a mix of one and two-story buildings. Overall, no
building would exceed 40'.
2. What price range is expected for the single family homes?
Response: Architect indicated a general price range, compatible with
existing units.
3. What is the difference in developing the property under zoning (as
residential) vs. the PUD?
Response: Staff gave overview of zoning on site, which is R-L-P and
overview of PUD.
4. How close will building be to the northeast area of Four Seasons?
Response: Architect indicated the specific setbacks are unknown. The
Master Plan now reflects that a 1-story building in this area would have a
minimum setback of 20' and a 2-story building would have a 25' setback.
5. How does the city evaluate what is an adequate buffer between Four
Seasons and this site?
Response: Staff indicated that a buffer can be a mix of .vegetation and
physical separation and/or solid fencing, or any combination thereof. Deter-
mining "adequate" is based on existing buildings and setbacks, building height,
nature of uses, etc.
6. How does the PUD process work?
Response: Staff gave an overview of the PUD process and the Land
Development Guidance System.
7. Residents to the west are experiencing water pressure problems - will
this project increase this problem?
Response: Staff indicated further research would be done on this item.
Discussions with Water and Sewer clarified that the existing water pressure in
the Four Seasons area ranges from a low of 20 psi to a high of 55 psi.
Construction of a new water line (the second phase of which is to be done by -
September 1, 1988) will provide a stable level of water pressure at 55 psi.
8. What type of commercial uses are planned next to the northeast corner
of Four Seasons?
Response: Architect indicated this is not determined. The Master Plan
now shows potential uses as offices, studios, galleries, banks, personal service
shops, etc.
9. What uses could be put on the property to the east of Manhattan,
which is zoned H-B, Highway Business?
Response: Uses -by -right include single family, multi -family and neighbor-
hood convenience centers. Other uses could be proposed through the PUD
process.
10. Has the developer evaluated the need for these uses in Fort Collins?
Response: Architect indicated market research that developer had done.
Staff stated that city policy was not to determine particular "need" for specific
uses.
11. Additional traffic from this development would affect existing conges-
tion on area streets. What will be done about this?
Response: Staff indicated that a traffic impact study would be required
of the developer and City Traffic Engineer would evaluate the study to deter-
mine the level of impact.
12. Will Troutman Parkway be extended? How many houses would be
built without buyers (spec)?
Response: Staff stated that Troutman would be extended west to Taft Hill
Road. Architect indicated that number of spec homes are unknown.
13. How close will houses at the south end of the property be to the south
property line?
Response: Architect stated that lots would back-up to existing South Glen
PUD and that a storm drainage easement would run along the south property
lines in Park South.
14. Will there be a decel lane on Horsetooth and Manhattan?
-2-
Response: Architect replied that this would be determined through the
traffic impact study. The study has shown the need for a decel lane.
15. How can the developer buffer the non-residential uses on this site from
the existing Four Seasons homes - Four Seasons site sits higher?
Response: Architect indicated a combination of setbacks and landscaping
could be used. Staff indicated that building height could also help buffer the
uses. The Master Plan now reflects a setback/building height ratio.
16. What is the difference between the uses planned in Phase A (commer-
cial/office) and Phase C (offices)?
Response: Architect indicated that specific uses are not known. Master
Plan now reflects a list of proposed uses for each category.
17. Comment that the change from residential to office, commercial and
retail will affect area.
18. Will there be covenants with the homes, so that present property values
are protected?
Response: Architect responded that covenants would probably be provided.
19. How can there be commercial and office uses on residential -zoned
property?
Response: Staff explained the PUD process and that it allows uses to be
proposed, regardless of the zone.
20. What is the order of phases after phase 1?
Response: Architect indicated that specific phasing isn't certain.
21. Comment that the proposed street layout in phase 1 may not be able to
accommodate fire trucks.
Response: Staff has reviewed the plan and fire equipment has adequate
space to maneuver.
22. Comment that putting additional traffic on Dennison Avenue to the
west from this site was undesirable to existing residents.
23. Comment that more residential uses on the site is better than non-
residential.
24. When can more details regarding building height and buffering along
Four Seasons be available? Does developer have to stick to notes on the
Master Plan or can things be changed later without residents' knowledge?
Response: Staff explained the purpose of a Master Plan and the
implications of information on such a plan.
-3-
0•
C•
25. How can neighborhood have input? What effect does input have?
Response: Staff explained the review process leading up to the Planning
and Zoning Board review and gave idea of how residents could remain
involved.
26. Has architect been to senior area in Four Seasons to see how this
project will affect them?
Response: Architect replied that he had not, but would like to visit with
the residents.
27. Comment that group should get involved in review of the project and
with the Planning and Zoning Board at their meeting. Suggest a group be
formed with spokesperson to represent group.
Response: Architect replied that developer thought market was for new
types of uses.
28. Where else in Fort Collins has there been commercial uses put next to
residential at an arterial and collector intersection?
Response: Staff suggested several locations (Drake Crossing).
29. Comment that property owner wouldn't have purchased property if
aware that non-residential uses could go on this site. Why doesn't developer
use the original plan approved in County for residential?
30. Will school impact be considered? Some schools are already full?
Response: Staff indicated that school sites are planned by the school
district and that district is notified of all potential projects with residential
uses proposed.
31. Will existing ditch be open? Will there be any maintenance required
for the pipe being install and who will maintain it? What will happen to the
detention pond that is east of Manhattan? What will happen to the detention
pond in Four Seasons and who maintains it? How will drainage get across
Park South to the detention pond east of Manhattan?
Response: Susan Hayes of Storm Drainage responded. The ditch will
become an underground pipe that will be maintained by the city. The deten-
tion pond east of Manhattan will remain. The Four Seasons detention pond
will be completed and be maintained by the homeowner's association. Drainage
from Park South phase 1 will flow to the underground pipe and be piped
under Manhattan.
32. Comment that property owner adjacent to the site on Benthaven did
not receive a notice.
-4-
C0
(•
Response: Staff indicated the typical process for notification. Subsequent
information showed that 30 property owners (an entire filing of Four Seasons)
were left off of the mailing list. Staff provided project information to these
30 property owners and has been discussing this project with them.
-5-
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. in the Forum Room of the Square
Shopping Center, a neighborhood meeting was held on the Park South PUD
Master Plan and Preliminary Phase Plan. In attendance at this meeting were
Frank Vaught and Tony Hughes of Vaught -Frye Architects (representing the
developer), Sherry Albertson -Clark, Project Planner for the City Planning
Department and approximately 40 residents.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the pur-
pose of the meeting. Frank Vaught then provided an overview of the proposed
Park South PUD Master Plan, after which, questions on the proposed project
were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by Mr.
Vaught at the neighborhood meeting:
Question : What type of roofs are anticipated in the office and commercial
areas?
Response:
Roofs would be of materials common to residential uses.
Question:
Where would trash be handled?
Response:
Trash receptacles would be located in parking areas.
Question :
How close would the existing fence be to the proposed buildings?
Response:
Distance varies (20' - approx. 40').
uestion:
What commitment can be made for the installation of berms
and
landscaping along the west property line?
Response:
This could be tied -into the Master Plan a number of ways
(an
example could be when a specific number of building permits are issued).
uestion:
What is the traffic impact on Horsetooth and Manhattan from
this
project? What happens with Manhattan extended south to Trout-
man?
Response:
Mr. Vaught explained the proposed improvements on Horsetooth
and
Manhattan (left turn across median in Horsetooth, decel lane on Horsetooth
and
widening
of Manhattan).
uestion: What is Master Plan process? Does the Master Plan have to be
fulfilled or can changes be made?
Response: Staff provided an overview of the PUD process, explaining the
differences between a Master Plan and Phase Plan.
Question : If Manhattan is widened, where does the land come from to widen
it?
Response: The additional width would come from this site.
Question : How is storm drainage handled along the south part of the site?
What happens to the green belt on the original approved plan?
Would the duplexes be rental?
Response: The storm drainage would be handled in an underground pipe. The
location of the green belt would be the backs of the proposed single family
lots. It is unknown i� the units would be rentals.
uestion: What is the status of the storm drainage agreement?
Response: Unknown. Staff will verify status.
Question : How many cars are on Horsetooth now?
Response: Approximately 4500, depending on direction and time of travel,
according to traffic study.
uestion: How would left -turn across median occur? Would this project
increase the number of left turns over present situation?
Response: Median would be cut. Turns would increase, since there is no
median cut presently.
uestion: What is the level of detail required on the Master Plan? Would
specifics be committed to then?
Response: Mr. Vaught discussed a more -detailed plan representing a potential
layout for the site, stating that this detail was not typically on a Master Plan.
Question: Why this proposal and not residential?
Response: Market situation. Question viability of residential uses along
Horsetooth and Manhattan.
Question : Can developer guarantee the hours of operation for the uses?
Response: If reasonable requests are made.
-2-
Question : Is developer aware of the drainage problem along the Villages due
to grade difference? Basements are flooding?
Response: Unaware of this.
Question : Is this a neighborhood center?
Response: No. There is no food store (supermarket) and square footage is
different.
uestion: What is the maximum number of businesses that could fit on the
site?
Response: Don't know at this stage.
Question : Can you restrict the hours of operation for the users? What is the
drawing point for this center?
Response: Can be addressed. The anchor would be a home furnishings store
and related uses.
Question : Why is a used car lot on the list of uses? Clarify which plan is
the Master Plan.
Response: Use car lot could be temporary use. City is reviewing only original
Master Plan.
Question: Could you flip this site with the HB-zoned site and put these uses
there?
Response: Staff discussed the HB zone and uses, as well as the Land Use
Policies Plan and policies for residential and commercial uses.
Question : Shopping centers in Fort Collins are at two arterials. Do you know
where there are any like this situation?
Response: One at Drake Crossing is at two arterials and a collector.
uestion: What can we do if there is trash and debris on the site?
Response: Staff discussed city weed and dust control measures and added that
developer or property manager could be contacted.
uestion: What about left -turn on Horsetooth?
Response: Must be reviewed and approved by City.
uestion: Has there been any request for left -turns across Horsetooth before?
Response: Not aware of any.
-3-
Question : Concern for empty office spaces, retail space. How does developer
determine need for space?
Response: Marketing study. This project plans small buildings that could be
sold to individuals.
Question : What is maximum height on Master Plan? Is developer committing
to lower buildings south of the Villages?
Response: Forty feet is height over City. Have put height restrictions for
areas along the Villages. Height becomes a function of architecture.
Question : Why isn't there more detail on the plan? Don't 90 degree turns on
Dennison cause problems?
Response: Master Plan and phase plan detail is different. Alternatives for
Dennison are curvelinear vs this design, which helps cut speed.
Question : What is process for preliminary and final plans?
Response: Staff reviewed process.
Question : Neal Jaspers, of 636 Wabash. Didn't want to sign petition against
project. Map being circulated shows there was no contact made.
Response: Staff noted.
uestion: Concern for low water pressure in area. Will this plan create more
problems?
Response: Staff followed -up on this matter after last meeting. Gave overview
of Water and Sewer information, that with completion of new water main (60"),
pressure would stabilize to about 50 psi (or average pressure that each home
has during winter time). This project would not have affect on pressure situa-
tion with this new lime, to be completed by September 1, 1988.
uestion: Are there any documents available to address land use and location?
Response: Staff gave overview of Land Use Policies Plan and LDGS.
uestion: Is the area for duplexes or single family? How many duplexes?
Response: Fourteen duplex or single-family attached units.
Question: Does the detailed Master Plan shown become part of the record for
the Planning and Zoning Board?
Response: Staff replied that it would not.
Question : What role does this detailed plan play then?
-4-
Response: Won't play a role in staff or P & Z review.
Question: Where are copies of the plan available? Can specifics of the
detailed plan be incorporated into the Master Plan? through narra-
tive?
Response: Plan is available at Planning Department. Some of details are
incorporated into the Master Plan (ie. height, setbacks, etc.).
Question : Why is detailed plan not being reviewed by City?
Response: The detailed plan was done to illustrate potential development of
the site.
At the close of the question and answer period, staff clarified the next step of
the process, that the plan was scheduled for the August 22, 1988 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
-5-