Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 110 SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Cobblestone Corners DATE: June 15, 1993 APPLICANT: Ed Seier and Andrea Dunlap REPRESENTATIVE: Merle Haworth CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard I. Description of Changes and Details on Revised Plans Merle Haworth, Architect, described the latest changes to the Preliminary Plan which, on June 7, 1993, were submitted to the Planning Department for formal review. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. There are four buildings along the north property line. The two buildings that are opposite the Birdsall and Leidholt residences (B1,B2 and B7,B8,B9,B10)are setback from the north property line by 25 feet, a distance that equals the setback for the two existing homes. This creates a separation between buildings of 50 feet. 2 . The two buildings that are opposite rear yards of the two residences (Al, A2 and Bil, B12) are setback between 10 and 15 feet. This narrower setback is based on input from the last meeting that there is less of a need to provide buffering next to pasture and rear yard areas than the actual houses and outdoor living areas. 3. There are three options for home buyers in Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. The primary purpose of this is to establish a commonly owned open space to control the buffering of the two existing residences to the north. 4. There will be berms ranging in height from six to three feet along those portions of the north property line where there is sufficient width. These berms are primarily designed to buffer the two existing homes. Retaining walls may be necessary to achieve this height in the given width of land area. 5. The building height of the duplex buildings will be one and one-half to two stories. The height of the four-plex buildings will be one story. There will be some windows on the north side of the buildings. Since there are no basements, the structures will not be elevated above existing grade. Solar access to the north will not be restricted by buildings. Evergreen trees will be selected to not exceed heights of 25 to 30 feet to protect solar access. !II 411 6. Individual lot fencing will be allowed but controlled by the protective covenants. Fencing will be limited to one uniform style and restricted in height to three or four feet. Homes with a property line on the west perimeter will be allowed to construct a six foot privacy fence because of anticipated residential development on the balance of Mountain Ridge Farm. II. Response to Revised Plans From Neighborhood 1. The fundamental concern is to keep our neighborhood separate from Cobblestone Corners. Skyline Acres is very different from high density urban development. We have a rural character. We have wells, irrigation ditches, horses, two acre lots, and a quiet street. The neighborhood would like to keep its privacy by discouraging any pedestrian or bicycle connections. If a convenience store is built at the corner of Horsetooth and Shields, then Richmond Drive could become an easy access for walkers or bicyclists. We would like to make our neighborhood inaccessible to any development to the south. 2. We have been advised by our attorney that our livestock represents an attractive nuisance. If a child finds his or her way into our pasture and suffers an injury, we are liable. Presently, our livestock is fenced in by a three-wire fence. This will not keep out mischievous kids. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the developer to construct a fence that deters trespassing. 3 . After a second point of access is gained by Wabash being completed to Troutman, the temporary access at Richmond should be completely blocked with no pedestrian or bicycle connection. 4. A visual barrier is important. Presently, we enjoy an unobstructed view to the south. We do not want to look into other people's homes. We want privacy. Every effort should be made to totally screen the new project from our front porch, house, and backyard living area. 5. The plans should show more detail on the evergreen vegetation, height and location of berms, and height and location of fences. 6. A typical six-foot cedar stockade fence is inadequate for fencing livestock. These fences also do not hold up well over time due to wind and vandalism and require maintenance. Fence design must be carefully considered. 7. Fence design must consider security, wind, aesthetics, structural integrity, livestock abuse, and privacy. The fence design will be key in determining compatibility. 411 8. Acoustical buffering must be combined with the fence. Massing of berms and landscaping must designed to help keep our neighborhood quiet. 9. The proximity of the cul-de-sacs and the potential for headlight glare are a concern. Streetlights should be kept to a minimum and not cast illumination into our neighborhood. Berms and landscaping should totally screen headlight glare. High pressure sodium lights are preferred over mercury vapor lights. 10. The two cul-de-sac bulbs should be shifted south so that there is more area for buffering along the north property line. 11. Construction traffic should use Wabash not Richmond. 12 . The outbuildings and existing trees should be located and shown on the plans for reference. 13 . A reference point should be made in the field so the neighbors can get a feel for how the building setbacks relate to the north property line. The applicant, architect, and neighborhood attendees agreed that these are the key issues that can be addressed on the P.U.D. It was acknowledged that plans are preliminary and subject to future revisions. There are other issues that need to be addressed outside the P.U.D. process. These are water main pressure, location of fire hydrants, and street repair. The neighborhood agreed that these issues must. be taken up with the appropriate City departments independent of the P.U.D. process.