Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (2) S 411 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Wabash Street Patio Homes (Cobblestone Corner) DATE: May 27, 1993 APPLICANT: Ed Seier and Andrea Dunlap REPRESENTATIVE: Merle Haworth, Robb, Brenner and Brelig Architects CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS The meeting began with a presentation by Merle Haworth describing the details of the proposed development. The project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development to be considered in its preliminary form at the July 26, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board. meeting. The request is for 34 patio homes on five acres with access gained from Wabash. As proposed, there is a temporary second point of access to Richmond Drive for the sole purpose of fire and emergency equipment, not public traffic. 1. What is the building setback on the north property line? There are two homes in Skyline Acres that abut the proposed patio homes directly on the north. RESPONSE: These buildings are setback approximately 15 from the north property line. 2 . We are very concerned about how close the northerly patio homes are to our houses. Quite frankly, we do not want homes this close to our house and yard. We do not want to look into people's living rooms and we do not want people looking at us. We recently moved from a subdivision in the southeast part of town where the homes were built on very small lots and there is a real lack of privacy. We moved to Skyline Acres so we could have some elbow room and some privacy. 3 . The treatment of the separation area between Skyline Acres and. the proposed patio homes will be very important in terms of this project being compatible with our homes. There should be an environmental buffer or landscape buffer that preserves our privacy. This should consist of 12 foot tall evergreens on 10 foot centers for screening. Also, we have horses which will need protection from kids and. dogs. Without some sensitive treatment, the P.U.D. will not work. 1 111 RESPONSE: We plan on looking at this setback area very carefully. We are aware that there is a need to provide a sensitive transition between the Residential Estate lots and the patio homes. Different ideas are being explored and no one solution has been determined at this time. 4. We are worried about kids and dogs coming into our neighborhood. The neighborhood is full of wells and ditches that are still active which could be attractive to inquisitive kids. If there are any accidents or injuries on our property, we are liable. This puts us in a position of having to worry about security. 5. The temporary fire access road onto Richmond Drive is a concern. How do we know that its really temporary and won't become permanent? RESPONSE: We do not desire to make the connection to Richmond Drive. It is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority which needs two points of access into a subdivision, or no home being more than 660 feet from a single point of access. Until Wabash goes to Troutman, this single point of access is measured from the Shields/Wabash intersection. The developers, the Poudre Fire Authority, and the City of Fort Collins have no objections to abandoning this connection when Wabash goes through to Troutman. All plans, documents, agreements, etc. will state, in writing, that this connection is temporary to be abandoned in the future when Wabash and Troutman connect. 6. We are concerned about noise. We do not want our horses to be spooked and we enjoy our privacy and our quiet country living. There must be some kind of fencing on our south property line to keep out noise. An eight foot fence may be necessary. RESPONSE: We will consider different alternatives for buffering but an eight foot tall fence is unlikely simply because it is not allowed by the City's Zoning Code. It may be that a six foot tall fence could be just as effective if placed in the proper location. 7. It's a real shame that this site has to develop. We have enjoyed peace and quiet and "country living" for many years. We have enjoyed the open atmosphere and the wildlife. We have watched a red fox hunt on our property and in the adjacent fields. This project will impact our quality of life. 8. The P.U.D. does not provide any logical transition in density. Since Skyline Acres is zoned "Residential Estate" and has two acre lots, there should be a blend of density. It appears the placement of patio homes on our southern boundary is too abrupt and provides no transition. 2 RESPONSE: The developer has no preconceived notions as to how best accomplish the buffering. We are willing to listen to any ideas that provide a sensitive buffer area between your neighborhood and the P.U.D. The developer cannot, however, reduce density to provide larger lots on the north. The project is financially feasible only as a patio home project, not a large-lot project. 9. How will the developer deal with the high water table? RESPONSE: All foundations will be engineered to account of the high water table. There will be no basements. 10. We are very concerned about lighting. As proposed, there are two cul-de-sacs on the north which may need streetlights. Any extra illumination in our neighborhood will be seen as an intrusion. The developer is encouraged to keep streetlighting to a minimum and as far away from Skyline Acres as possible. RESPONSE: We are willing to keep streetlighting to a minimum. We may need to obtain a variance from the City's Light and Power Department on typical placement of public streetlights. We may offer building mounted security lighting as an alternative to traditional streetlights. We will work closely with. Skyline Acres and the City to keep illumination levels down. 11. What will the price be per unit and what are some of the exterior materials? RESPONSE: We anticipate the price per unit to be in the range of $125,000 to $165,000. Brick accents will be used. The siding is hardboard. 12 . We are concerned about stormwater runoff. Many residents in Skyline Acres irrigate with raw water. We do not want our properties flooded. RESPONSE: Stormwater runoff will be routed to the eastern edge of the property, along Shields. The runoff will be temporarily detained in a pond and released, at a controlled rate, into the swale that runs parallel to Shields. This controlled release rate will be designed so that the runoff from the project does not exceed the historic release currently coming off the property. The City's Stormwater Utility will require a Drainage Report, Drainage and Grading Plan, and an Erosion Control Plan. All aspects of the stormwater runoff system must meet City Code. 13 . What about the trees to the west of Skyline Acres? RESPONSE These trees will remain. 14 . Who provides domestic water and where is the source? 3 410 RESPONSE: Water is provided by the City of Fort Collins. The source is from an existing main in the future Troutman alignment which will then be extended down the proposed Wabash alignment to serve the property. The water main system will be looped as per City requirements. 15. Skyline Acres is served by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and our main does not loop. Consequently, our water pressure is low which could a problem for fire fighting. Also, our nearest fire hydrant is clear out on Horsetooth Road. Since Richmond Drive is providing a second point of access, perhaps arrangements could be made for looping water lines and sharing a hydrant with Skyline Acres to give us better fire protection. RESPONSE: These are good ideas and would require the cooperation of the City and the District. The developer is willing to work with all agencies to see what arrangements could be made. The neighborhood group is encouraged to contact these agencies to begin the process. The developer is willing to participate in any solution that provides a mutual benefit but would be reluctant to provide a subsidy that corrects an existing situation. 16. Would the developer be willing to reduce the height of the buildings along the north property line to one-story? RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that, due to no basements, the units need a second story element to gain square footage. The height of a two-story unit would be 24 to 26 feet. It may be that some of the units could be one-story depending on the market. It may also be that some of the second story units could be angled so that the narrow axis faces north. The developer will look into trying to reduce height along the north property line. 17. Will there be an association to maintain common setback areas? RESPONSE: Yes, the setback areas, and other open areas as well, will not be under individual ownership but under the control and maintenance of an association. 18. Will two-story units block our solar access? RESPONSE: No, with proper setbacks, solar access to your properties will not be blocked. Also, solar access is protected in the Zoning Code. You do not need to have an active or passive system in place to be protected under the Zoning Code. 19. The units on the north should be pulled away from the existing homes and private yard areas as much as possible. This may require moving units further east into the detention pond area so that the impact is on our pasture, not our home and private yard area. 4 410 RESPONSE: This will be considered to the practical extent possible given the requirement to provide stormwater detention. 20. Along the north property line, the middle two units seem to be the most objectionable. These units seem right on top of us. This area needs a buffer, landscaping, berming, setbacks, or moving the units. If this project is going to work, solutions are needed in this area. We do not want to look into our neighbor's house. RESPONSE: The developer will look into these solutions. 21. What is the developer's time frame? RESPONSE: It is hoped that overlot grading and laying of utilities could begin by this Fall as a best case scenario. 22. We are concerned about unnecessary traffic on Richmond due to the second point of access. We don't want the appearance of Richmond Drive "going through" to anywhere. RESPONSE: The developer agrees and would construct the second point of access so that it is offset from the direct alignment of Richmond Drive. The intent is to not create a vista, or a sense of Richmond Drive "going through" as seen from Horsetooth Road. The proposed width of this emergency access is only 12 wide. 23 . It would help reduce unnecessary traffic on our dead-end street if the existing "No Outlet" sign were perpendicular to Horsetooth rather than parallel to Horsetooth. If the sign were perpendicular, it would be more noticeable to motorists from a further away. As it is now, motorists may have already made a commitment to turn before seeing the sign. RESPONSE: The Streets Department will be contacted to see if the sign can be adjusted. 24. Our final comment is that the treatment on the north property line is crucial for this development to be compatible with our homes and neighborhood. This area will need evergreens for year- round color. We need buffering from lights and noise. Fencing must be carefully placed. Our livestock must not be disturbed by kids or dogs. Solar access cannot be blocked. RESPONSE: This is a good summation of the issues. The developer will try to address these concerns. 5