Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87G - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 12 participation is viable to the process and suggested awareness of the LDGS to guide the objections to PUDs presented to the Board. The Board is very interested in citizen input. The motion carried 7-0. ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - PRELIMINARY. #55-87G Ted Shepard, project planner, gave the staff report recommending approval with Staff conditions. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design the consultant represented the applicant, James Company. The proposed project is supported by the Land Use Policies Plan with the criteria in the LDGS and is consistent with recent discussion and decisions by the Board has made a mix of housing types in residential areas. He discussed the density, mix, location, the 7-units per acre and presented slides. There have been two neighborhood meetings where the issue of neighborhood compatibility was discussed. The architecture has many elements in common with the neighborhood. He gave several examples giving detail to the placement of the garages and other design elements. He illustrated compatibility of townhomes with single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Ward addressed roof materials of shake shingle or similar uses which is compatible with the neighborhood. There is an upgrade of asphalt that create shadow lines and appear natural. He stated that he has met with the Poudre Fire Authority and addressed their comments against wood shingles. He stated that cost is a factor, but the safety is an issue and cedar is a limited resource. Both roof materials are found in the immediate neighborhood. The Woodridge Development is using similar roofing to what is proposed. The insurance companies are becoming increasing restrictive to insure multi-family projects with wood shingles. Mr. Ward responded to neighborhood concerns of placement of garages and lowering the density of units. There are now 72 units proposed. Units closest to Regency Park were changed from 6 to 5 units to decrease the scale. He clarified the Woodridge traffic study concerning traffic flows in and out of the project site. The traffic studies will be completed in the current phase at Woodridge. The Taft Hill connection will be made this spring. He stated that Hillburn Drive is proposed to remove the existing street. He is not aware of another example where that has been required of an adjacent property developer. He would like to keep the street as currently constructed and accepted for maintenance for the City of Fort Collins. He requested direction from the Board to treat the applicant according to the same rules that other projects have been. Mr. Ward addressed staff conditions. The area between the townhomes and Regency Park have been the focus of most of the discussion and the applicant is in agreement to Staff conditions 2, 3 and 4. The first condition is to increase a setback. The minimum setback is over 46-1/2 feet at one building and 47 feet at the other. With the angle of the building, the average is 70 feet across the face to the adjacent property. He stated that extensive berming and landscaping has • Nr- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 13 been added in response to the condition and believed this was adequate. The number of units have been reduced, landscaping has been added, with an average of 70 feet. In similar situations, 35 feet is a more common number. In the recent Summerhill Townhome project, it was 30 feet from the adjacent single-family area. The proposed site is arranged so that three- quarters of the open space has been shifted to the property line. Rather than have centrally located open space, it has been moved to buffer the project. Condition 1 requires reduction to 4-unit buildings near Regency Park which will be replaced in other areas near Arapahoe Townhomes. The developer wants to remain sensitive to the neighbors' needs. He requested a change to Condition #1. CITIZEN INPUT Steve Gottschalk - resident of Regency Park on Hiliburn Court - He stated that since October 10, there has been meetings and a 246-resident petition from the Johnson-Webber Neighborhood Group regarding this issue. There would be more if the neighborhood is continued to be canvased. The immediate areas are the Regency Park, the Gates and the Overlook, other areas are Westbrook, Wagon Wheel, Imperial Estates, Rossborough, The Ridge and Chaparral and all have an involvement. Mr. Gottschalk said the neighborhood group had five major concerns: (1) zone change, (2) transitions, (3) traffic, (4) greenbelt and (5) school. Kevin Walker - Regency Park area - complemented Member Walker on his article regarding neighborhood involvement and how to go about it. He addressed: (1) Compatibility. He referred to the LDGS and neighborhood involvement and compatibility. Zoning for patio homes was originally stated in the project plans. He asked if there has been citizen input, partnership and cooperative effort. The developer was very agreeable in regards to fencing and berming but, as it related to other issues, there was an effort to obtain partial interaction of the developer by staff. (a) a request for 4-units along Regency Park (b) address Hillburn Drive - was a cul-de-sac and a developer came in and made it a dead-end street with barricades (c) a request for original plans for patio homes Mr. Walker said the developer has not been at any neighborhood meetings. He believed that Mr. Ward has been vague in communication. Mr. Walker made comments on details of the project. He stated the neighborhoods closest to the development are the Ridge, Regency Park and the Overlook and indicated they all have wood roofs. Composition shingles are not compatible. The neighborhood differs with the developer's • • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 14 position for roofing, stating the Poudre Fire Authority accepts wood shingles buildings. Perhaps there is a philosophical difference, but wood is allowed. The alternatives are cement and wood fiber composition shingles. He stated that the newer developments are using the shingles. The City of Fort Collins allows wood shingles through their codes. The neighborhood is opposed to composition shingles and have given alternatives and requests that alternatives be used. He addressed the brick and lapsiding, other exterior plans and lighting issues. He requested a detailed materials list be reviewed and discussed with the neighborhood by a project person in authority to make decisions at neighborhood meetings. The developer to date has remained vague on all issues. The neighborhood wants more variety in design of the exterior of the buildings and color variation for diversity. The neighborhood desires answers to issues of landscaping: sprinkler systems (if they are self-maintained, will the green areas or portions of it be watered), will there be sod, what are the plans for landscaping along the greenbelt, the lighting on the streets, grading and elevation, drainage. These are issues of great concern to the neighbors. The neighborhood does not want this project to become a "test case" for the builder who has never built in Fort Collins. He pointed out that the sale of some homes adjacent to the project site have fallen through because of the unknowns of the project plans. (2) Process. The process is the biggest issue of the neighborhood. He stated if the patio home use was in the plans, the concern would be less. There was attendance of the February 19, 1993 meeting by the neighborhood who gave input. The neighborhood embraced the concept of patio homes and was surprised with the new townhome plans. The second meeting spent an hour of discussion on townhomes and the petition speaks to the interest of the surrounding neighbors in the project development. He read the letter of announcement which stated: "The applicant is requesting to amend the original 224.4 acre plan for a mixed use development located at the northeast corner of Harmony and Taft Hill Roads." He believed this was an inadequate notification. From the notice, there was no further information given to the neighbors regarding the 10-acre parcel. There was only one person, who was not living in Regency Park at the time, who went to the meeting and raised the question about the patio homes. Mr. Ward responded at the public meeting that "if anything happens there in the next three years, it will be patio homes, retirement housing, 4 to 6 units per acre type project." Later in the meeting he was asked if it would be 10-units per acre and Mr. Ward responded yes--inconsistency in the answers given to the neighbors. The Gates Subdivision neighborhood was told this project would be patio homes. He stated that no one, he believed, was trying to mislead the neighbors, but information was not adequate to give a clear picture of future development. He respectfully requested the Board take an active part in correction of the process. • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 15 Jack McClurg - 4412 Seneca Street - He spoke to the issue of the impact on school, which he believed was not addressed by the process. The two school in the area have not been in the process and have received no notification to date of the proceedings and not in 1991 as well. The two school are already over capacity. The project would have a negative impact on the schools. There is a overcapacity at Weber Junior High at 976, with 900 the maximum for functional operation. The development would increase that number. Mr. McClurg addressed some traffic concerns. The traffic study was conducted by the developer and was requested to perform specific things. The neighborhood felt that the traffic impact on the area was inadequately reported. The peak hours did not reflect the major traffic generators for the neighborhood, specifically the schools. He detailed the traffic flows and stated the grading of C and the development will further degrade the rating, although the traffic engineer did seem to indicate that it would be acceptable for some time. It is the lowest acceptable rating allowed. The 3 percent annual growth rate is not reflected in the reports. The population from the proposed project would add the degrading of the intersection. The impact was examined for Seneca Street and there were unknowns. There was a written report submitted to the Board with a correction of an error stating "Horsetooth and Harmony" rather than "Seneca and Harmony." Dean Hoag - 4517 Hillburn Ct. - He stated his home is located to the back of the proposed project and expressed concerns with the greenbelt issue. He detailed the location and requested a sufficient greenbelt to provide a smooth transition. The details of the request were submitted to the Board. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements asked if the grading and drainage issues had been addressed. Mr. Ward replied there is a plan and is confident it will meet in the final plan. Mr. Herzig, City Engineer, said that the utility and drainage plans will be addressed at time of final submittal. Chair Clements asked for the records with regard to Hillburn Drive. Mr. Shepard stated the fundamental issue was a land use and compatibility issue. There needs to be more neighborhood meetings, Staff and time to address all the concerns. There is no resolution to this specific issue at this time. Chair Clements commented to the neighbors that these issues will be address and are typically addressed later in the process. She asked about the water system to maintain the landscaping. . • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 16 Mr. Ward said there will be an underground watering system and will cover all landscaped areas on the site. This will include all the common elements, everything outside the small patio areas for the units. Chair Clements asked about on-street lighting. Mr. Shepard replied that they are private streets and not under the Light and Power requirements. He stated the details of lighting requirements, pollution, etc., and indicated they would be reviewed before final. Because this was raised as an issue, it could be added as a condition for approval. Chair Clements asked about school issues commenting there was information given to the Board regarding this. Mr. Shepard explained the process of the school involvement. The school gives statistical information to arrive to projected numbers of student population. The school district is given overall development plans to review. There is a school district master plan to guide the staff. There is, however, no on-site meeting with school principals at the neighborhood level. It was alluded to that this needed to be done for the neighborhood. Traditionally, the communication is at the district level. He felt it was a good suggestion to involve the school principals in planning. Chair Clements asked for clarification that the district has been informed of the development and that criteria has been met. Mr. Shepard stated they plan for long-term periods of projections. Chair Clements turned attention to the traffic study and the time and accuracy of that study. Matt Delich, traffic consultant for the project, replied that the study was conducted on typical peak hours and use of the street -- 7:30-8:30 a.m. overlapping into some school hours and afternoons between 4:30-5:30 p.m. for this area. The peak of the school use occurs somewhere between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. He stated that the intersection flows at this time are better than the evening peak times. The selected areas are the Harmony and New Harmony intersection and the Seneca and New Harmony Road intersection. The 1991 studies were conducted on more intersections. Level of Service D and better is acceptable in the City of Fort Collins, as well as other cities in Colorado and the United States. The 3 percent growth rate is per year and is typical. In addition to the 3 percent per year growth rate, on top of that is the continuing growth of Arapahoe Farm. Chair Clements addressed the wood shingles issue and asked for clarification. • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 17 Mr. Ward clarified that it was PFA preference not to have wood shingles but not the position of excluding them. There are extreme concern for wood shingles. Member Strom asked for clarification on enforcing standards for exterior materials. Mr. Shepard indicated that there would be more specifics and detail of the exterior plans. Member Fontane had a concern about the dead-end street. She asked if it would be the responsibility of this project to address the dead-end street. Mr. Herzig said it is the responsibility of the developer to address this issue. The street was provided as an access point to the property and has to be a proper cul-de-sac or approved by another plan. It is a precedent in other locations for the developer to remove sections of streets, such as Windmill Drive adjacent to Cunningham Corners. Member Winfree asked about the street lighting. Mr. Ward indicated there is not presently a specific lighting plan. This is a requirement of the LDGS at the time of final, the intent would be lower level than standard. Safety and security issues will be reviewed at final. Member Walker asked for further design on exterior design and unit density. Mr. Ward said the design will have architectural consistency in the project. The color variations can be opened to neighborhood comment. Member Walker asked about the process of changing the patio home plan to higher density. Mr. Shepard said that in 1987, Parcel 1C was designated on the ODP with estimated density of 6 dwelling units per acre. In 1991, the patio designation was kept with an addition of multi- family, with estimated density from 6 to 10. At the time of P & Z Board hearing, there was a third, the convenience site. The amendment was dominated by the Woodridge PUD, the developer was at the neighborhood meetings, and concerns were the house design, density for part of the April 1991 record. Member Walker said there were mixed uses for this area. Mr. Shepard said that the amendment was for 40 acres that had been previously multi-family, the Woodridge property, be amended to single-family. Member Cottier asked if Building G and J should be four units rather than five. • • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 18 Mr. Shepard said that is correct based on interdepartmental review. The units were reduced from six to four for the benefit of the greenbelt area. Member Cottier said the buildings were 37 feet from the property line. The staff memo states they are 45 feet. The closest corner between the project and the houses is 100 feet. She asked how this measurement compares to normal projects for single family abutting multi-family. Mr. Shepard said the issue for staff is that there are no good comparisons. It is difficult to find comparisons. The issue needs to judged by the particular design and application. Members Walker and Strom had question regarding the reduction of density to four on the greenbelt and understood they be moved rather than deleted. Mr. Shepard said it probably would be a benefit to neighborhood compatibility and a critical area is the on east along the Buildings G and J and if there is a relocation there that can be mitigation in other areas of the site. The project needs to perform on the eastside. Member Strom asked what setbacks would be gained on each of the buildings. Mr. Shepard guessed it would be 10-20 feet. Member Strom asked if the berming and landscaping is sufficient to screen. Mr. Shepard said that it is sufficient. Member Strom said that the Board received school projections for the proposed project and is under 9 elementary students out of the entire development, 4 junior high and under 4 senior high students. The patio development, on the other hand, would project up to 2 fewer students. There is a proposed expansion underway at Weber Junior High, Rocky Mountain High and a new elementary school being constructed in the area. Hopefully that will provide relief to overcrowding in the schools. Member Winfree addressed the type of water to be used for sprinkling. Mr. Shepard said it would be an automatic irrigation system. Member Walker commented on the streetscape improvement to help buffer to the existing neighborhood. He agreed with staff on the plans for the eastside of the project. He wanted the bulk and mass of building scale to be considered for reduction. He commended the neighbors for their participation and felt the issues raised were important for continued planning of the project. The project needs to resolve the Hillburn Drive issue and may need to be a condition of approval. Compatibility of materials used needs consideration. I • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 19 Chair Clements asked if another neighborhood meeting would occur before final. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Ward both replied yes. Member Walker moved for approval of the Arapahoe Townhomes Preliminary and included the following conditions: 1. At the time of Final PUD, the size and extent of the greenbelt area between Buildings G and J shall be increased so as to further promote the buffering between Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. 2. At the time of Final PUD, the area between Building F and the easterly property line shall be enhanced with a landscaped berm in order to promote visual and acoustical screening. 3. At the time of Final PUD, the two parking bays that face east, between Buildings G and J, shall be screened by any combination of additional plant material and berming that effectively blocks headlight illumination and vehicle glare on a year-round basis. 4. At the time of Final PUD, the size of the evergreen plant material, located between Buildings G and J and the easterly property line, shall be increased over and above the specified minimum of 6 to 8 feet in height to eight to ten feet in height. 5. At the time of Final PUD, the Hillburn Drive issue be resolved. 6. At the time of Final PUD, that the materials used on the structures be made compatible with the surroundings. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier requested the addition to Condition 1 that Buildings G and J be four units agreeing with Member Walker that the size and bulk of the buildings next to the neighborhood be smaller. Member Walker and Member Strom said the condition would be acceptable. Member Klataske asked for clarification that the remaining units be relocated. Mr. Shepard said yes. • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 20 The motion passed 7-0. Chair Clements requested, due to the hour, that the Spring Creek PUD be continued to the December 16 P&Z Board Meeting. Member Fontane moved to postpone the Spring Creek PUD until December 16, 1993. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Mrs. Clark responded to a comment Mr. Klataske made to reconsider the order of the items for the December 16 meeting. The proposed order would be Sign Code, Fossil Creek and Spring Creek Village. Mr. Eckman said there needed to be consensus. Member Winfree asked for the reasoning behind the order. Member Klataske said the shorter order of the other two items and allow remaining time to be given to Spring Creek. Member Fontane made a motion that Spring Creek be located at the end of the agenda. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.