Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - FINAL - 55-87K - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • Planning and Zoning Board Minute5 March 28.1994 Page 10 Item 16. Aranahoe Farm Townhouses PUD - Final. Mr. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, read the staff report and recommended approval of the project with conditions. He gave the Planning and Zoning Board an addendum to the staff report are two conditions of approval that staff has recommended. 1. No building permit shall be issued in this development until the vacation of the stub end of Hilburn Drive is completed, which vacation shall include the retention by the City of an easement of 10 feet in width for a sidewalk connecting this development with the Regency Park PUD. Unless otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by the owners of the two properties abutting said portion of Hilburn Drive, the sidewalk reservation shall be located in the middle of the land to be vacated. Said vacation shall also include a utility easement for the existing waterline. The second condition of approval has to do with some of the neighborhood input in this project that has occurred after the staff report was printed. It reads as follows: 2. Approval of this PUD is conditioned upon final plans containing the modifications pertaining to deleting four parking spaces next to Building G. Changing evergreen species from Austrian pines to Blue Spruce. Expanding the notes regarding construction debris and temporary fencing and specifying the roofing materials on the architectural sheet. • These were things that were agreed upon by both the applicant and the affected property owners in a recent neighborhood meeting. Staff is recommending approval of this final. The final is in substantial conformance with the preliminary PUD, heard in December 1993. There were six conditions of approval at preliminary that were satisfied. Member Strom asked if this was a late breaking development and is that why the Board doesn't have these done? Mr. Shepard said it is the language that we have in the standard condition of final approval, as Condition 1, regarding timely filing of utility plans and development agreement. That standard language does not contain language regarding vacation of a public street. We want to make sure that regarding the vacation, it has to go to Council for two readings does not fall into a bureaucratic black hole. Staff wants to make sure that it gets done. He commented that staff wants to tie in the issuance of the building permit with the legalistic follow-through of vacating the public right-of-way. We don't want to have a PUD out there that shows a right-of- way being vacated, when in fact it takes two readings by Council to vacate it. Mr. Shepard stated the second condition is to alert the Board to the fact the plans reviewed at work session did not contain these "punch list" items. Yes, they are late breaking and staff wants you aware of them as is the neighborhood group and such items are to be part of the final mylars. • Member Cottier asked if the 4 parking spaces near Building G will be turned into green space? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • March 28.1994 Page 11 Mr. Shepard said that was correct. Mr. Eldon Ward - Cityscape representing the applicant James Company - This is a final PUD and is in substantial conformance to the preliminary and conditions were addressed through the normal process. The two additional conditions are housekeeping items that came up at a meeting held with representatives of a neighborhood on Thursday evening, the night before the Board's work session. The applicant thought the vacation would be covered in the normal language of the development agreement,the other items are straight forward. He stated minor clarifications such as not all of the Austrian Pines will not be changed to Blue Spruce, just in certain areas that were requested by specific neighbors and the 4 parking spaces to be deleted for the driveway could be shortened, to create more berming and landscaping. CITIZEN INPUT. Mr. Steve Gottschalk - resident of the Hilburn Court area on the abutted street. He stated he was part of a very active homeowners group. They have learned a lot through the process. One of the concerns was the process itself throughout the community. f N O.D.P. mnrNoneivr Oats pie Rs-14W ^Jy 'Pp 86 6u11.7. 1.1,Rezoning"Rezoning to the single-family dwelling homes to the multi-family homes in the Arapahoe Town Farm which wilf'allovtithe townhome project to be built. Most of the homeowners built in Regency Park, The Gates and The Overlook recently, came with the understanding this would all be single-family potential patio homes. He • discussed at length rezoning in the area where inadequate notice was given. 2. Compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Study was extensive and is good. There are concerns with regard to materials that are common to the neighborhood surroundings,over population of the schools which would create busing situations, and berming and buffering. Kevin Walker - 4413 Hilburn Ct. - One of the conditions for approval at the preliminary was for the builder to meet with the residents to talk about: 1. Exterior/brick and shingles.He reported at a neighborhood meeting that brick usage was discussed but no change, roofing material with an increase of the weight of the asphalt shingles to 300 lbs per square feet. That in essence was the end of the meeting. The neighborhood has shake shingles. One neighbor had researched this issue thoroughly with costs and data and wasn't allow to present his report)?At last Thursday's meeting there was an example of asphalt shingles with a shadow line. The neighbors viewed this application in another neighborhood; he maintained his position for wood shake shingles. Perma-tek material was presented as an alternative from the neighborhood with a 50 year warranty which costs 10%more. The issues concerning the brick has been dropped, yet the builder contends the value of the units he is building will be more in value than our own units. If asphalt is not compatible with wood shakes, what is not? 2. Size. The height of these units will be 28 feet. There is a grading and elevation plans • are vague at this time with a possible height to these buildings being 8 feet taller. He stated their desire for patio homes than townhomes for transition change from single • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • March 28,1994 Page 12 family. The neighbors proposed that the units be reduced on the boundary line and the builder answered no. There are last minute mitigations of the parking lot and buffering. They requested that more time to evaluate the changes. He summarized that there are elements that do not fit and collectively the residents have a lot at risk as well. There are homes that are not selling because of the property project site and concerns over the proposed development. He contended the real compatibility issues have not been worked out and referred to the LDGS to support his position of incompatibility and transition issues. Den Hoag - 4517 Hilburn Ct. - Greenbelt. One of the conditions in the preliminary was to increase the greenbelt. The builders dropped one unit to gain only nine more feet of buffer. There is concern that it is not sufficient. Most natural buffers between projects is a street with front yards providing buffer. In this case there is a minimum of 55 feet. The neighbors have asked the developer to drop one more unit to gain additional nine feet as a compromise but the Developer is against it. The neighbors feel there needs to be more transition. He believed the berming and landscaping insufficient for the height and mass of the buildings. They requested the landscaping at Hilburn Drive be accomplished at the beginning of the project. He brought photos of a trash problem and requested containers with lids and a temporary fence constructed to control trash from blowing. The greenbelt is the main issue to bring compatibility to the project site/neighborhood for a smooth transition. • Tom Wilberton - 4419 Hilburn Ct. - He is a resident for 5 years. After four months of residence, the sidewalk was removed. The Hilburn street was made deadend with no warning, notice or follow up. After much research, Home Federal the property owner, agreed to some restoration in the form of a landscape timber wall on the southside of the property. There was an additional investment over $1,000 individually for trees, shrubs and landscaping material. He was told at a neighborhood meeting that he is now responsible for the sidewalk (remember his was removed without notice). At the Planning and Zoning Board Preliminary hearing there was a condition that the street be made compatible with the neighborhood. To date this condition has not been met. There needs to be a permanent barrier as a fence and landscaping. Are the neighbors having to assume the costs because the City of Fort Collins changes policy about what to do about this partial street. He referred to the LDGS which reads "privacy control is an essential important consideration in or adjacent to residential projects." With the property line 50 feet on westside and public right-of-way dissecting the area on the south side, it seems the neighborhood has lost privacy. He requested the project be delayed to work out solutions. Steve Gottschalk said many people are not attending these hearings because there is a feeling that it does not do any good. The neighborhoods he represents are the Regency Park,the Gates, The Overlook,Westbrooke,Wagonwheel,Imperial Estates,Rossborough and Chaperal. Evidence of the interest is a petition submitted to the Board containing more than 246 signatures. There is a genuine interest from the neighborhood. He concluded with the submittal of letter from Nan McClurg to the Board concerning issues of inadequate traffic study,further compounding of the population to existing schools, construction traffic, public notification, believed the process has failed. There has been inadequate time to negotiate the vacant land and responsibilities concerning that issue near Hilburn stub. The building permit will not be issued to the developer until the vacation is completed, but negotiation of the problems has not • occurred. He also has fence problems. There is 55 feet from the property to the first building .2 - A'T i.,Ale6e z - u! R46ENGy vox. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 28.1994 Page 13 in the neighborhood. He requested details for final approval, if the developer answers a Board question in a way that is not agreeable to the neighborhood, he would like to be able to speak at that time. Chair Clements asked staff about rezoning of the property from patio homes to townhomes,the definition and history? Mr. Shepard said the "rezoning" has gone from patio homes to townhomes. The patio home is considered a single-family home on a lot less than 6,000 square feet,minimum lot size,typically the homes are smaller. The zone change being referred is not technically a zone change, no zoning was changed, the ODP was amended and that particular parcel was designated as patio homes. When the Woodridge project came in, the master plan was amended, a lot of the parcels changed configuration, this particular parcel was given the designation of patio home and/or multi-family (a townhome being multi-family). The location of the convenience center was debated at that time on the south and west side of Harmony and Seneca and requested to be placed on this site as an alternative use because it was closer to the school and the children wouldn't have to cross an arterial street. This was done in 1991 as an ODP change, a shifting of land use parcels. Chair Clements reflected citizen's interest in why the city encourages a variety of housing types and what are the philosophies behind the approach? • Mr. Shepard stated that within each square mile section throughout the community it is desirable to have a mix of density and housing opportunities for a variety of levels of ages,and income. Housing types and densities should not be relegated to certain portions of the City. ODPs for a Housing mix may not be popular in a given market at the time. The City tries to hold to the mix with the intent over a period of time. Master plans get amended, designations are change and the mix is altered while providing the opportunity for a range of housing types in all portions of the City of Fort Collins. Chair Clements asked about the concern for schools and overcrowding and future busing? Mr.Shepard said he couldn't address the specific school policies,but the school district has had a copy of the Arapahoe Farm and the Mountain Ridge Master Plan since 1987. Since that time, there has been a reduction in density, a reduction in the units shown on the master plan. It is his understanding that the Johnson school is undergoing expansion but can't explain the policy of the School District as to which children get bused. He noticed an article by Carol Agee who does the demographic projections for the School District and Mr. Agee is projecting a rather even growth rate in terms of kindergarten classes coming up. New schools are planned and built which causes a redistribution of boundary areas. The School District plans for what they foresee to be the growth in each area of Fort Collins. When they planned for the Johnson School, they were very concerned that they have a three-track school and they not exceed 575 students--we are starting to see a change in that philosophy with the school expansions. The School District has always been in the throes of boundary adjustments, bringing new schools on line and redistributing the school population so as not to have overcrowding. Chair Clements stated that is what planners and board members have to base decisions on.When • the School District says yes we can accommodate this housing type with the potential families moving into this area and it can be accommodated, we have to go on what they say. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • March 28.1994 Page 14 Mr. Shepard said yes. Chair Clements asked about the asphalt shingle vs. wood shake shingle and is still a concern. Please address the process of working out this issue and Poudre Fire Authority has concerns about wood shake shingles. Mr. Shepard said the Poudre Fire Authority took to their Board a resolution requesting an action trying to discourage wood shake shingle roofs because of fire hazard. At this point, it is merely a resolution, it is not an ordinance or fire code. The comments from the Fire Marshall is that they not be cedar shake. Mr. Ward presented the background information for not using cedar shakes. The Poudre Fire Authority states that cedar shakes are a non-renewable resource, and that there are additional issues with cost and compatibility. He referred to the LDGS states that similar materials does not mean identical materials, similar housing scale does not mean identical housing scale, we don't have to be totally homogenized to be compatible. He showed slide examples of single- family with wood shingles and townhomes with asphalt shingles in the Landings. The difference is subtle and if the colors are sensitively chosen there is similarity. The project will use an upgraded shingle with a shadow line. He noted the buffer between the two projects (Harmony Cove Condos and Creekside at the Landings Single Family) is substantially smaller than his proposal as an example. Their maximum is 55 feet which in his project is the minimum distance. He believed the buffering has been well thought out. He showed an • example from Paragon Point and is the exact material that will be used in the project. He made a report regarding the brick and felt he has addressed the material compatibility issue. Chair Clements said perhaps the berming changed from the preliminary from the last plan they had seen? Mr.Shepard said the berms have increased in length and reduced in number with the net effect there is more berming. He supported this view with slides of the landscape plan. Mr. Ward explained in detail of the berming. He believed the berming had not been reduced. The grading plan has reshaped some of the berms for positive drainage, there is another meeting with the engineer to go over final plans. The change in the parking lot will pick up more land. Chair Clements asked for comments on the trash problem and the neighbor's assurance that the construction trash will not be in their backyards. Mr. Ward said a dumpster with a lid will be provided by the builder at each building site and a laborer is assigned at each area to put trash and debris there with policing of the area. The topic of a fence has come up and any debris that blows over the fence will not be picked up by his laborer. The builders suggestion was to proceed with this plan as stated and if there are complaints that this is not effective,a fence can be temporarily be erected along the areas that don't have fences. Member Klataske asked about the vacation of the easement for the Hilburn Ct. Has the • developer addressed that at all as far as the landscaping, fencing, sidewalk? S • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • March 28, 1994 Page 15 Mr. Ward said there was a meeting 5 weeks ago at the site with city staff members and, prior to that, there had been proposed 3 or 4 alternative solutions. These included retaining the hard surface with a basketball court, to proposing that this deadend street be retained. There are issues with the erosion and temporary barricade at the end of the street. This area needs a more permanent solution at the end of the street with more of permanent retaining wall and some landscaping. Other optons include vacation of the street and perhaps a home being built there. The City Attorney and City Engineering offices state that vacation and demolition is the standard and this is what the City wants the Developer to do. The builder wanted to avoid costs of demolishing the street; and if the neighbors do want it, there are responsibilities in maintaining it. The developer accepts the City's proposed solution, leaving the sidewalk in place and making grading changes. Member Fontane asked about building heights in comparison from the project to the existing neighborhood. Mr. Ward said there are three building types with the same maximum height of 26 feet above the finished floor level of the house. The 28-foot number comes from the finished floor level to finished grade outside the building. Typically there is a higher number placed on the plans because of the topography. The FHA grading plan designates finished floor elevations on the lots, that is not the case with the grading plans that are filed with the City. Therefore, for Regency Park I and II filings we were not able to get the elevation differences. It appears that in the field seem to have a floor elevation of 5117.5 feet to 5121 feet for existing structures. • Mr. Shepard commented to the Board to consider what Mr. Gottschalk referred to in his discussion, regarding clarification, and that he would be able to do so. Mr. Gottschalk said he only requests normal considerations for this project. Some of the concerns about the deadend at Hilburn Court. Negotiations have not occurred between the developer and the residents now that we want to split the property. Thursday night is the first night it was discussed and warrants more final detail and approval. We do think there should be a negotiation. Without the direction of the Planning and Zoning Board directly to the developer to make condition requirements, he believed the negotiations would fall through. He requested a delay because the vacation would occur in the second phase and some projects never get that far into the development. He didn't want to go through the same process or over the same issue with another application and developer. Chair Clements directed staff to address the Hilburn Ct.concern,what phase it will occur, who will be involve and the effect? Mr. Ward said it was his understanding that it would occur in Phase I. This was the City's final position. The grading would be matched to the existing and approved grades at the corners of the property and the City standard slopes which means no steeper than a 4:1 slope and not steeper than 15:1 for the sidewalk ramp. The only thing to work out he guessed is whether or not it is appropriate to saddle this developer with any additional landscaping or irrigation requirements on the adjacent lots. He believed that was not appropriate. Mr.Shepard said that was correct. The process had been outlined and the vision was to replace the proper grading and fill dirt to the east and re-seeding for erosion control. It was beyond• the ability of the City to ask for irrigation systems. There was a discrepancy with Phase I and • • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 28,1994 Page 16 what has been shown on one of the drafts of the utility plans in which the consulting engineer called for the removal to be done in Phase II. There is that discrepancy. The Board has the ability to specify the physical removal of the Hilburn project be done with Phase I and be done to code. If more details are needed, Mike Herzig can answer questions and is coordinating the project. The preference is to have the work done rather than replacement value. Member Fontane asked a landscaping question along the east could be in Phase I, when is that to happen? Mr. Ward said that Phase I is to occur around the horseshoe street in the center of the project and then other phases around that. The materials to berm are generated from the excavation of buildings on the site. The developer has proposed to put money in escrow for all of this landscape buffer with Phase I and install it with Phase II, there will be some disruption with the landscaping in Phase III. That is the proposal and staff has found it acceptable for the hauling of ground and extra costs. Member Strom asked if the escrow was with the City. Mr. Ward said yes, it would be a condition of the development agreement. Member Cottier with Phase II, the four buildings on the north, that is when you will landscape the entire eastern boundary? • Mr. Ward said yes. Member Cottier asked what length of time was anticipated between Phase I and II? Mr.Ward said the developer hopes within a year under the current market conditions. The idea is to continue with each phase after one is completed. Something can cause the schedule to change, but his plan is for continual building. Member Cottier said after excavating Phase I basements, you would just be making piles of dirt along the eastern boundary until completed? Mr. Ward said the berms would be started. He explained grading and the difficulty in putting the landscaping before the buildings and additional utility hookups. Member Fontane asked for the criteria for phasing? Why not go from the east to the west? Mr. Ward said the west is where the utility connections come in. Utilities for the site are located at the circle street, (water and sewer) and typically it makes sense to phase the project based on sequential extensions of underground utilities. This is the phasing schedule the developer has chosen. The realignment of Harmony Road will happen in the third phase, but not Phase I. Member Strom moved to approve the Arapahoe Farm Townhouses with three conditions and • specify along with that the landscaping, phasing and escrow accounting included in the development agreement, and that Hilburn Ct. project be completed in Phase I. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • March 28,1994 Page 17 Member Walker seconded the motion. He mentioned that the biggest issue is compatibility. In his judgment through the use of landscaping and treatment of the eastern boundary, the requirements have been satisfied and the issues of Hilburn Ct. will be resolved. Member Strom stated that part of the justification of his motion the three points made in the staff report that the PUD is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary and the six conditions of preliminary approval were satisfied. The All Development Criteria of the LDGS are satisfied as well. Member Walker further commented that ODP directs mixed uses and in his judgment this project with the element of adding different types of housing is one of the objectives the City land use policy encourages. He believed this meets this City policy of providing a mix of housing opportunities. Chair Clements said she would be supporting the motion. She responded to an earlier citizen comment that citizens do not want to attend Planning and Zoning Board meetings because it is a waste of time. She did not agree with that. Everything is heard. We compliment this neighborhood group and Mr. Gottschalk for early involvement that many of the changes were made for the better. It does make a difference to be involved. This project is among others that have set precedence but it did go further with working with the neighborhood early and researching materials, reducing the size of buildings, trading off landscaping items. The project will work well and commend the neighbors for being involved early. • Motion carried 6-0. •