HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87G - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (2) •
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: Arapahoe Townhomes Preliminary P.U.D.
DATE: November 4, 1993
DEVELOPER: The James Company
CONSULTANTS: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
Mr. Terrance Hoagland, Cityscape Urban Design
Mr. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer
PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins
The meeting began with a review of the agenda and the topics to be covered. The developer,
Mr. Jim Postle of The James Company, was unable to attend, and he was represented by the
consulting team. As a second neighborhood meeting, the agenda was more focused than the first
meeting. The agenda was as follows:
I. Discussion of the 1991 O.D.P. Amendment
II. Traffic
III. School Capacity at Johnson
IV. Compatibility/Mitigation/Blending
V. Greenbelt
I. 1991 O.D.P. Amendment
Ted Shepard gave the background on the 1991 Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. Amendment. Originally
approved in 1987, the 158 acre Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. designated the subject 10 acre parcel
as "1C" with an anticipated land use designation of "Patio Homes". In 1987, it was estimated
that this parcel would support a density of six dwelling units per acre for a total build-out of 60
units.
In 1991, the O.D.P. was amended. There were nine changes to the original O.D.P. The most
significant change involved converting a large tract (Parcel 1F - 44 acres) from "Multi-Family"
(12 d.u./a.) to "Single Family" (3.5 d.u./a). While this conversion seemed to capture most of
the attention at the time, Parcel 1C was amended to add the land use designation "Multi-Family"
as an alternative use to "Patio Homes". It was estimated that this parcel would then support a
density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total build-out of 100 units.
A neighborhood information meeting to discuss the 1991 O.D.P. amendment took place on
February 28, 1991. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the amendment on April 22,
1991. The minutes to both of these meetings are available and indicate that changes to Parcel •
1C were discussed.
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 2
Neighborhood Response:
1. What is the review criteria for a request to amend an approved O.D.P.?
RESPONSE: O.D.P.'s, whether new submittals or amendments, are reviewed by the elements
of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. These elements have been adopted by
the City Council. Chief among these elements is the Land Use Policies Plan (adopted in 1979).
This element is a "policy" plan versus a "physical" plan. Based on the City's Goals and
Objectives (adopted in 1977), the policies are designed to implement the desired form of future
development of the City. This desired form is for the City to grow at a moderate growth rate
with concentrated land use.
2. We were living here in February/April of 1991 and do not remember any change from
Patio Homes to Townhomes on the O.D.P.
3. We have reviewed the file from 1991 and the letter advertising the neighborhood meeting
for the amended O.D.P. did not reference the change from Patio Homes to Multi-Family.
RESPONSE: The O.D.P. was amended to add the "Multi-Family" designation to Parcel 1C as
an alternative use and retain "Patio Homes" as the primary use. Under the "Land Use
Breakdown" on the O.D.P., the estimated density was raised from six d.u./a. to ten d.u./a. As
mentioned, there were nine changes on the O.D.P. to amend the original 1987 plan. The letter
highlighted the major change that involved the most acreage which on Parcel 1F.
4. In the City's estimation, what is the difference between a patio home and a townhome?
RESPONSE: Patio homes are considered single family units that are located on less than 6,000
square feet lots. (6,000 square feet is considered the minimum lot size allowed in the nin
Code). Patio homes are characterized by very small yards, and, at times, could feature a zero
side yard setback on one side. These homes are detached from one another. Owners own both
the house and the lot.
In contrast, a townhome is an attached unit and is considered a form of multi-family. These are
usually grouped in the form of three up to six "plexes". (Duplexes are defined as a form of
single family.) Typically, the owners do not own any lot or yard area but open spaces are held
in common ownership and maintained by an association.
5. Is there a difference in the number of elementary school students generated by a patio
home project versus a townhome project?
RESPONSE: Yes, it is the finding of the School District that townhomes generate fewer
children of elementary school age than either single family or patio home projects.
• •
•
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 3
6. How long has the property been under contract?
RESPONSE: About six weeks.
7. I'm concerned about the amendment in 1991. It seems as if the whole focus was on the
Woodridge P.U.D. changing out about 40 acres of multi-family to single family. Not enough
attention was paid to adding "Multi-Family" as an alternative use on Parcel 1C next to Regency
Park. This change was skimmed over without the benefit of public participation from the folks
in Regency Park Second Filing.
RESPONSE: It is true that, at that time, the main focus was on the Woodridge P.U.D., under
contract to Mr. Gary Berger, WoodCraft Homes. This is probably because the Woodridge area
of O.D.P. was being considered for immediate development and that Mr. Gary Berger,
WoodCraft Homes, was present at the meeting to answer questions regarding his particular
development proposal.
Parcel 1C, on the other hand, was not being considered for immediate development. In
addition, Parcel 1C, at that time, was owned by the underlying land owner, G.T. Land
Colorado, Inc., not WoodCraft Homes. With no immediate development proposal on Parcel 1C,
most of the discussion centered on other areas of the O.D.P.
8. Was Regency Park Second Filing included in the notification area for the amended
O.D.P. in 1991?
RESPONSE: Yes, the mailing list is available for your inspection.
9. As residents of Regency Park Second Filing, we would rather have the patio homes than
the townhomes. Is there any way the citizens can initiate a zoning change on Parcel 1C of the
O.D.P.?
RESPONSE: In order to re-designate (not technically rezone) Parcel 1C to remove the "Multi-
Family" as an alternative use, the application must be accompanied by some form of permission
from the owner. Lacking the owner's permission, the Planning and Zoning Board would be
exposed to legal action if such re-designation did not have the owner's permission.
10. Will these townhome owners own any land or yard area?
RESPONSE: No, these owners will own only their individual unit. Exterior spaces will be
owned, in common, by the association. One advantage to this is that the developer can run one
water, sewer, electrical, etc. service per building versus one per unit.
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 4
11. Thank you for explaining how the Land Use Policies Plan encourages mixed densities
in neighborhoods. Would patio homes qualify as multi-family?
RESPONSE: No, the Planning Department considers multi-family to be a housing type that is
greater than a duplex. Patio homes are considered single family.
12. Why has the developer selected a townhome product?
RESPONSE: The developer feels there is a strong market demand for townhomes in this
community at this time.
13. We want to re-emphasize that the multi-family zoning is a complete surprise to us. We
had no pre-knowledge that this could happen. Somehow, there was a communication
breakdown.
RESPONSE: The Planning Department is concerned that you were not made aware of the
amendment to the O.D.P. Two mailings were sent out, the property was posted with a sign,
and the Planning and Zoning Board agenda is published in the newspaper. Steps are being
considered to improve the notification process.
As a minor point of clarification, however, please keep in mind that there has been no
"rezoning" on Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. The zoning in the entire area (Woodridge, Regency,
Westbrook) remains R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. An O.D.P. designation does not
grant a vested right to develop nor guarantee a certain density. The right to develop and the
ultimate density can only be guaranteed after Final Approval of Planned Unit Development,
processed in accordance with the Land Development Guidance System. This requires two public
hearings by the Planning and Zoning Board.
14. What happens if the townhome market goes soft and the James Company goes under?
RESPONSE: The James Company is a solid company. The project will be developed in three
construction phases so there will not be speculative building on the entire project.
15. There is a strong demand for patio homes. Why can't the James Company respond to
this market demand?
RESPONSE: The market research indicates there is also a strong demand for townhomes. This
is the product that James Company would like to take to the P & Z Board.
16. Why doesn't the City Planning Department support low density, what is wrong with low
density?
•
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 5
RESPONSE: There is nothing wrong with low density. The Land Use Polices Plan has policies
that direct large master-planned neighborhoods (Arapahoe Farm, Regency Park) to provide for
urban levels of development at a threshold of three d.u./a. with a mix of housing densities. The
theory is that citizens of Fort Collins have the opportunity for a variety of housing types in all
parts of the City. We do not want to segregate the City by housing type. A mix of housing
types and density has advantages in providing cost effective delivery of urban services and
creates opportunities to provide public transit which promotes air quality.
17. There is a big gap in home values between single family and the proposed townhomes.
Does this gap factor into the decision mating process?
RESPONSE: The Land Use Policies Plan and the Land Development Guidance System do not
contain any criteria that address home values. There are, however, a number of absolute and
variable criteria that address other issues by which to review a planned unit development
(P.U.D.)
18. Would a petition from the citizens stop the project?
RESPONSE: The applicant is legally protected to apply for and proceed to the Planning and
Zoning Board for consideration of a development proposal. In other words, the developer is
allowed his "day in court". The process, however, allows ample opportunity for citizen input.
You are encouraged to present a petition to the Planning and Zoning Board to let them know
your concerns.
19. Does the City require developers to meet a minimum or maximum density?
RESPONSE: The minimum density is considered to be three d.u./a. The maximum density is
determined by the performance on the Residential Density Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. and other
factors such as parking, open space, etc. The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant
variances to these parameters subject to following applicable criteria. Based on the 1990
Census, Fort Collins is split between 60% single family and 40% multi-family. One recent large
acreage O.D.P. was approved with about an 80% - 20% split.
20. Does the City have any policies requiring neighborhoods to be financially diverse?
RESPONSE: No, the policies are geared at density and housing type, not by financial
considerations.
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 6
H. Traffic
The developer has retained the services of Matt Delich, P.E., to perform a traffic impact
analysis to be submitted to the City's Transportation Department for review. Mr. Delich
explained the scope of the study and the findings. The primary finding at this time is that the
impact of the proposed development on the Harmony and Seneca intersection falls within the
acceptable category as defined by the City of Fort Collins Transportation, (level of service C).
The study assumed full build-out of the Woodridge P.U.D.
21. Our neighborhood already has bad access to Harmony and Shields. The proposed
townhomes will only make the situation worse.
RESPONSE: The proposed townhomes will use Seneca to access Harmony. Regency Park uses
Regency Drive to access Harmony. Access to Shields can be from Harmony or Wakerobin.
The problem with the Wakerobin access to Shields is that it is very difficult to make a left turn
to go northbound on Shields during peak times. It is recommended that for folks in Regency
or Woodridge who desire to go north on Shields, that they use the signalized intersection at
Harmony Road.
22. We are concerned about the safety of children on Seneca with the traffic and the two
schools. The townhome project will only make it worse.
RESPONSE: Seneca is a collector street, not a local street, and is designed to be wider and
carry internal traffic out to the arterial streets: Harmony and Horsetooth (future extension). The
City's Transportation Department works closely with the School District on establishing "safe
routes to school". This cooperative effort determines the level of safety necessary for each
school depending on location, traffic, etc. These improvements take the form of crosswalks,
crossing guards, yellow caution signals, etc. Each Fall, before the start of the new school year,
the level of improvements is reviewed between the City and the School District for adequacy.
23. The problem at the Harmony/Shields intersection is that there are no separate turn arrows
for making left turns.
RESPONSE: This is a problem and should be corrected to improve traffic flow as well as
safety.
24. How does the traffic consultant determine the volume attributed to new development.
RESPONSE: Traffic volume, or trip generation, is based on land use categories. Each category
is assigned a trip generation rate based on research from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (I.T.E.). The basis of the data is from national research, including the City of Fort
Collins. It is assumed that Fort Collins drivers behave similarly to drivers in other cities. In
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 7
this study, a single family home is assumed to generate 10 trip ends per 24-hour day and
townhomes generate 6 trip ends per day.
25. The national data does not account for that fact that Fort Collins is a university town and
that these units will likely become student rentals. This will increase the traffic over the national
figures.
RESPONSE: Trip generation rates are based on land use categories, and do not assume
occupancy by a certain age group.
26. The rating (level of service C) of the Harmony/Seneca intersection will deteriorate. By
the time new Harmony is extended to County Road 38E, the level of service will get worse.
RESPONSE: As an arterial/collector intersection, Harmony/Seneca is eligible for a traffic signal
when warranted. It is likely that in the future, there will be better performing intersections in
the area to serve the traffic. This includes a fully improved intersection at Harmony and
Shields, and a signalized intersection at Harmony and 38E. Besides signals, Harmony Road will
be built to the full arterial standard which means two lanes of traffic for each direction with a
continuous center turn lane. It is assumed that improvements to the street system will occur
along with the increase in growth in the area.
27. Did the study include an analysis of the level of service on the Harmony/Regency
intersection?
RESPONSE: No.
28. Did the study account for morning traffic on Seneca? Seneca is busy with parents and
kids in the mornings.
RESPONSE: Yes, the study accounted for both the morning and afternoon peak hours.
29. In my opinion, a patio home project will not have as many rentals. A patio home project
will generate better drivers and be a safer traffic factor than townhomes.
M. School Capacity at Johnson Elementary
As a preface to the discussion on issues related to Johnson Elementary, the City Planner
provided information from the School District that Johnson will be adding four classrooms
(permanent, not modular) to the west side of the school.
30. Our concern is that Johnson is overcrowded. The 76 townhomes will generate more
students and contribute to the overcrowding. The four new classrooms will not accommodate
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 8
this new influx. We are disappointed that the City and the School District do not seem to do
a very good job of planning for student enrollments in the growing areas. If there were better
communication, we wouldn't have this overcrowding problem.
RESPONSE: The School District has had a copy of the original Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. since
it was approved in 1987. At that time, before, the 1991 amendment, the O.D.P. anticipated a
total of 878 dwelling units. After the amendment, this number was reduced to 570 for a total
reduction of 308 units.
31. It would be unfair for any student to have to be transferred out of Johnson due to the
influx of new students from Arapahoe Townhomes. Transferring students at this young age is
traumatic. This is the age when friendships are being formed. The neighborhood school is a
key ingredient in establishing neighborhood identity. Bussing students out of the neighborhood
deprives the students of all the positive attributes of living near a neighborhood school.
RESPONSE: It is hoped that no students have to be bussed out of the neighborhood. It is our
understanding that if students live within the square mile section or the walk-in boundary area,
then they have priority over students who live outside of this geographical area. Also, it is our
understanding that no elementary school student can be transferred more than twice, even if the
boundaries are redrawn as the result of a new school opening up.
32. What generates more elementary students - patio homes or townhomes?
RESPONSE: Although we do not have the precise multipliers, we do know that traditional
single family housing generates the most students per household, followed by patio homes,
followed by townhomes and multi-family.
33. I am concerned about diversity in our schools. I am afraid that our schools are becoming
too homogeneous. Diversity is a positive attribute in public schools.
34. The developer and the Planning and Zoning Board should know that Johnson Elementary
School is presently a three-track school (three classes per grade) with a current enrollment of
576 students. This is over capacity. For example, the recommended capacity of a four-track
elementary school is only 546. The four new classrooms being added will not classify Johnson
as a four-track school. Capacity at Johnson remains a critical issue in determining the impact
of Arapahoe Townhomes on our neighborhood.
35. When the City Planning Department looks at providing a mix of density and housing
types, what is the geographical area?
RESPONSE: In a general sense, the Planning Department considers each square mile section
of the City to be eligible for providing the mix envisioned by the Land Use Policies Plan. For
H
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 9
example, each square mile should be served by an elementary school, neighborhood park,
collector streets, commercial area, employment opportunities, public transit, and a mix of
residential densities. In a more specific sense, each large acreage O.D.P. is asked to meet the
policies with review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
IV. Compatibility/Mitigation/Blending
V. Greenbelt
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave a brief presentation regarding the mitigation
concepts being considered for the greenbelt area that separates Arapahoe Farm Townhomes from
Regency Park Second Filing.
36. As adjoining property owners, we are concerned with the quality of whatever goes in on
Parcel 1C. This includes high quality construction materials. It is also very important that the
units not be overpowering but residential in scale with a high diversity in appearance. Too much
repetition will detract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood. If there is not enough
variety, then the project will appear to be too massive and out of scale.
RESPONSE: These are good comments.
37. We would like the addresses of the other James Company projects. We are prepared to
travel to Boulder County to inspect these projects.
RESPONSE: We will provide a list of other James Company projects.
38. Please keep in mind that it doesn't matter what materials are used. The townhome units
will never be compatible in price with our homes.
39. The consultants should know that most of us to the east in Regency Park are not fond of
six foot high stockade fences. Please do not attempt to buffer our homes with an unattractive
fence.
RESPONSE: We agree and are pleased that most of the adjacent owners have not fenced in
their yards with six foot stockade fencing. We will not attempt to rely on fencing for buffering.
Rather, we are leaning toward a combination of distance, berms, and a mix of landscape
materials so that the buffer area is aesthetically pleasing and not a harsh fence.
40. The developer's consultants are asked to continue the brick fencing along Harmony Road
into the Arapahoe Farm Townhome site. This would help the project blend in with the
neighborhood. The brick fence also acts as a good sound bather from Harmony Road.
• •
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 10
RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that the fence was constructed in anticipation of Regency Park
developing in accordance with the 1986 O.D.P. which called for multi-family in the area west
of Regency Drive. After the fence was constructed, the O.D.P. was amended to single family
with the result being Regency Park Second Filing. The developer would rather not continue the
fence as this would tend to "wall-off" the project. Instead, the Harmony Road streetscape might
be more attractive with an open appearance that features a generous amount of landscape
material.
41. Why can't the townhomes take direct access from Harmony Road?
RESPONSE: Direct access from individual projects onto the City's arterial streets is strongly
discouraged by the Transportation Department as this defeats the purpose of controlling access
at the collector street intersections. The objective is to keep arterial traffic flowing as efficiently
as possible by limiting access points.
42. The consultants should keep in mind that Regency Park sits slightly lower than Arapahoe
Farm. This difference in grade must be accounted for to help mitigate building mass and height.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The buffering plan will rely on the use of berms to
mitigate the difference in grade. This will raise the height of landscape materials, even before
maturity.
43. We believe that 37 feet is too narrow for effective buffering between the Regency and
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes.
44. Are there any minimum standards for greenbelts?
RESPONSE: No, under the P.U.D. system, the design of the greenbelt is not prescriptive. The
buffering is a function of land use intensity, building height, building mass, etc. The L.D.G.S.
asks that each P.U.D. provide custom designed buffering with input from the affected property
owners. This allows for better solutions than to follow prescriptive buffers that cannot possible
anticipate every unique situation.
45. As adjacent property owners, we do not want to be over powered by massive roofs. The
roof lines are key and must be aesthetic. Wood shake shingles are preferred because of the
upscale appearance.
RESPONSE: Keep in mind that the fronts of the units will face Regency Park, not the rears.
This is the attractive side with cars and garages being served internally and blocked from view.
We believe the long sloping roof line is attractive and lends a residential character. The
developer is very concerned about using wood shake because of cost, insurance concerns, and
concerns from the Poudre Fire Authority.
• •
♦
Arapahoe Townhomes PUD
Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes
Page 11
46. Will there be brick on the exterior?
RESPONSE: Yes, there will some brick on the exterior but most of the exterior will be
traditional residential-looking lap siding.
47. Can the Regency Park homeowners help write the covenants?
RESPONSE: This request will be forwarded to Mr. Postle.
48. Why not delete the two 6-plexes closest to Regency?
RESPONSE: The loss of 12 units cannot be absorbed by the project.
49. One of our neighbors had their home up for sale with a contract. The contract purchaser
heard about the proposed development and canceled the contract. This is of grave concern that
the market would react so decisively about single family next to multi-family.
RESPONSE: This is an unfortunate circumstance. Please keep in mind that this project is in
the preliminary stage and there will likely be revisions before it comes up for final consideration
by the Planning & Zoning Board. There are numerous examples in the City of Fort Collins
where single family and townhome units exist in close proximity without a loss in property
values.
50. The townhomes should reflect the value of the surrounding area.
51. One way to integrate into the neighborhood would be to construct neighborhood facilities
that would benefit the area. The James company is encouraged to consider adding a pool,
clubhouse, tennis courts etc, that could be used by the adjoining residents.
RESPONSE: The project is not large enough to support construction of such facilities.
52. Are the water and sewer plans available for public review?
RESPONSE: Yes, all plans are available for public review.
53. We will need to see a landscape plan prior to the P & Z meeting on December 13, 1993.
RESPONSE: Revised plans will be made available as soon as they are submitted to the Planning
Department.
. . - grt fil) in M'C r f c ri -7-0-i.io-feihe-s- // /1 (1_.›)
•
• Did You Receive Correct
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Written Notification Address?
of this meeting?
Name Address Zip Yes No Yes No
/rI ,SY6-69f.Q C /7 Y / I)aiNi�6 row i .
Wit°1 7>;/e, kZ /i(g 3 Va#e hI.n Ci • X Y .
IY\r^ .E C. t4 cats -- L -)C .
4-?k,i P '.wiz Roo (-Hap `Jr�1C.G4 s-r.. I �;c�� Z ��I.x r .
4
?oZzr-K1 StYNT.--T14 acjgO l..S -STPoLt -1'T CT. X
S-r- /E bE _luIiSciA I-? 13 Ri ARC 4 c T. X X .
eD4-t)r 4- c.4-ELcE 5 PES 45Z5 Z-75'u Pir,�' Y Y X .
/2/,--1;10(- 426-•,,t-r-Stp,-,D 3/e-E3 5"-- P.,:',/sc7C-rt- ep;-• Y Y .
5 i kJ& 6P c cA-44\-t `k moo- E %k.3�:(2._k...i eT t—. X X ,
(1t1 b� `IL/3 7 C rat •icy .� K
X
Jft-I�.o C rc..i c Dr' i(
J
(70 0 En4J /Coid td a t e re : 4/,f)1 ,1; 14Kin
,-4 641:7,-i(-C 1 'WO?xee 2-tc: 0(4c/{(' X
PAI 1); -fthci ,vizki-kct,1/4) (AAJI .40_ ,I "Uz cep r
AL q- ut' -iik.i-r�1 ao Hitat.(iew cT
Yob9-714-9 hiAtik-~t— Y-V-Ls Fe 'ems- ' bA, 4
44, - A". 94417 uS1 -7 r- . 1 b(„,,, c-} ✓ ✓
Tack, (Am. d. M� C,f urci Li-LfrR Sone,eA. V /
/fJ,/li ct- !)A.,01 MV/71/&)LJ YV, gwyric
S r v-c /I rAl :�E s y Lir6 CR,I/6 2e. ✓ ✓
J 40 c N,J-t/J 4.si axtv(-:46-4-1 f -i\II, A I t(-6444u, ort • L/
7i2.--t7 ,44 iIy ft/ / S-f H. / et-2.
s, •
NEIGHBORHOOD It'ORMATION MEETI,G DId You Receive Correct
�'Vritten Notification address?
of this meeting?
Name Address Zip Yes No Yes No
Yloscict- (-)0,0 14 zD (--,,f2ocetti2, Y7)54,
CI tit uck I go Soet 44 u� Ivd go��
h7 i ✓
��
8-a." ( Ch C<;`l�zi�G�( 7/( 1,-fa GtJGt k'Prdiq R)SAC