Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOTTS PUD PRELIMINARY - 6 92 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS�1 ITEM NO. 11 MEETING DATE 4/27/92 STAFF Steve Olt PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Potts P.U.D., Preliminary - #6-92 APPLICANT: Ram International Inc. c/o Kevin Sheesley 1415 West Elizabeth Street Fort Collins, CO. 80521 OWNER: Ram International Inc. 1415 West Elizabeth Street Fort Collins, CO. 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for 22 multi -family dwelling units on 1.67 acres, located south of West Elizabeth Street and west of City Park Ave. This property is contiguous to Taco Bell and the Pott's 1991 Parking Lot, to the north, and the Matador Apartments, to the east. The property is zoned RP, Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for 22 multi -family dwelling units on 1.67 acres. This site is adjacent to apartments to the east, single family to the south and west, and various commercial uses to the north. The project proposes one point of access from West Elizabeth Street to the north, culminating in a cul-de-sac on the south end of the development. The Larimer County Canal No. 2, lined with existing mature trees, serves as a buffer for the single family residential to the south and west. Landscaping consisting of evergreen trees will provide good buffer between this development and the parking lot to the north and apartments to the east. Ten of the proposed twenty-two dwelling units will have attached garages. The remaining twelve dwelling units will have perpendicular parking from the street in front of the units. This project earns 111.8 points on the Density Chart, justifying the proposed density of 13.2 dwelling units per acre, and meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Coffins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Statement of Planning Objectives Potts' P.U.D. Preliminary March 23rd 1992 P&Z Meeting The project is supported by the following policies as shown in the Land Use Policies Plan #3A- Maximize utilization of land within the city; The development is on currently unused land which is surrounded by existing developments #26- Availability of existing services; This development is served by existing utilities #50- The importance of mass transit; The site is served by an existing bus stop. All units are within walking distance of the bus stop (the furthest is 670 feet away). #64- Pedestrian and bicycle access; sidewalks are provided within the site and will tie into existing higher density residential area. fn: cbpl FDTA"k? o?u.-e f(,� L, wuharI ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION I5 the Criterion CooliCable? Will the Criterion be sotstleo? If no, please explain �F�� �' ,LSO Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Comparability 2. Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Capacity 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slope Hazard 13. Significant Vegetation 14. Wildlife Habitat 15. Historical Landmark ki� 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands I I I ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality 21. Noise 22. Glare & Heat 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features 29. Energy Conservation o 30. Shadows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Open Space Arrangement 34. Building Height 35. Vehicular Movement 36. Vehicular Design 37. Parking 38. Active Recreational Areas 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience 41. Pedestrian Conflicts ✓ 42. Landscaping/Open Areas 43. Landscaping/Buildings v✓ 44. Londscaping/Screening 45. Public Access 46. Signs a-/2,/a2 Na Gip AS. Gia(ar orieu�iav, -12- ENSITY CHART ebm2 f u..v. minxlmum Ecrneo Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit O 20% 2000 leer of on em ngof approveanelgncornooa sn000ing center. b 10% 650feel otone.mrrgnansitstaa. 4p• a �J C 10% a000 feel of an ecsnng or 000rweareglona snonoing center d 20% A 3500feetofanevmngorfeserveanegnoornooaparv.communiryparkorcommunlryfaol[N. Aver ar W/ a 10°o loo01", at a scr a- meeting an the reaufements of me co/maulsory eau anon laves at me State of Coloraao. f 20% 30001eer of a Motor employment center. / ^D /q}-,..�p` 1 �, ( e to • 1(MC Vt v • sv ^ �'�/ rn g 5% 100ofeet atacritic care center. h 20% Ttorm•Fon Collms .1 20% The Central&amess District. , - - ActOlecr whose courgary is contiguous to existing uroan ae.9raafTBnf. Crean may ce earmea astojka 0%— Fat arOlects whose oropenvt»uncary nas0 to 10%contigufry . . - J 30% 10 to 15%—For aaectswnose oroeeM oOurWary nos 10 to2 gContiguity., 15 to 20% Far afaecnwnose efocerrv0ouneary nos 20 to 30%conngulfy. 20 to 25%—For ataecmvmose O(Ooefrvoaly OunOnos 30 to e0%conngurty "/O 25 to 30%—Fail aOlectswnos Orocerrvcounaary nos 40 to 50%connWry, k If a can aB aemonsnatea mat me arorecf wit feauce non-renewaale energy useoge eltner mrougn me aporrcation of anemafrve energy systems Or mrougn cornminea energy conservation measures oevona mat nomrWlry teourea ov Cihy Coae.a5% bonus may use eamea for every 5%reauchon in energy use. Calculatea 1% cans tot every 50 ocr s,ncwaeam me crorecf. m Calculate me percentage of me teat acres in me pra-Yt mat ore aeyolea to fecreanonar use. enter 12 of i Wi percentage cis a Bonus n me a0encanf cemmlts to ereserwq permanent ortmeopen space mat mean me Citvs mlrumum reaufements calculate me cerc enrage n of to open space acreage la me taa aevelooment acreage. enter inn cercenroge as a eons it can of me rotor aevelooment puppet is to ce scent on nergnoornooa pudic nansa facrlmeswnrctr Ore not omen nse reouirea cy CityCoae. O enter 2%pOns for ever, stoo pet c.erlvg unit mvesrea If bon Or me total Oe ,Opmenr pu i is to pe scent an neignoornooa twllre ana seryrces wfycn ore not omerwise reeulrea Ov GN Cone. p enter a 1% Dons for even S100 pet C+eiling unit rnvestea it a commmnent is oeng Moe fo Bev D a soeaheo cetcentage at me total numcer of owening units for row Income families. enter mat Q percentage as a earn,& uo to a mt4 xt rrn of 30%. a a cornmrnmenf is eerrrg mane to ae o a soeclfieo eercentage of me totat nurrwer of awerrmg units for Type -A" Ono Type 9" hanaicoacea- Z hi ca aehnea Ov me ON Of For; Collins colcutOte me bonus ca 1011Ows: Type-A'unfs . iyce'A"— .Sfimes O T lotaiunns rnM Type-8"—tOtimes Tvoe E'unris - roramnm In no cp snail the went nea ponce greater man 30a n Me site or aaacent aooeM contorts an nistonc aunfomg or olace. a bonus may oe eanlea for me IOlbvnng 3% — For orevenfnrgormmganfg aursrae influences feg efMfonmenWLlanause.aesmetlG economic OnCISOCIal factonl aavefse forts S presersrorrcn: 3% — For ossunnamatnew situ ,. .ilpe rnveeorrgv mecnorcclerafine dnldmgwplace.wnneawlainq rotor units 3% — Foror°p°ina accowausect me ourrang or pWce matwrll leaa tom=nnnuanae.oteserwnOnanarmvr eme linan acoroarUernannec It a portion of all of rule reoueeo aa'Vg m me mumble fornity croleal is croVlaea unciefgmounrl wamin me curlansg arm an ereW w panting structure as an accessON use t0 me Cnmary structure. a Bonus rrspy ce eOmea as t°llawi t 0% — For prcrvtomg75% a more of me coming in a structure: 6% — Forprow3mg50-74%otmeoanmginosmjct—: 3% — For orovgnrg 25-E0%ormeoarcmg mo strove. V it a commllment n cerng mode to arcNae coormeai avornahc fire esnnguunrng systems for me awelling umm enter a cons ofl0%. TOTAL i•a 4-IZi /a2 GAD Minutes for a 3HBORHOOD MEETING Date: January 22, 1992 Project: POTTS P.U.D. (formerly Matador Apartments, Phase IV) Applicant: Ram International Inc. Kevin Sheesley Planner: Steve Olt, City Planner Location: Westminster Presbyterian Church This is a request for 26 multi -family dwelling units on 1.67 acres, located south of West Elizabeth Street, west of the existing Matador Apartments, and northeast of the Larimer County No. 2 Canal. The following questions, comments, and responses were expressed at this meeting: 1. QUESTION: What about parking? This proposed development is at our back door. ANSWER: This development is required, by City Code, to provide enough on -site parking to accommodate the proposed number of dwelling units, depending on the number of bedrooms per unit. 2. QUESTION: Will you have room for 52 cars on this site? ANSWER: Yes, we will: That is required by the City. 3. QUESTION: Is this development to be managed by the Matador Apartments or someone else? ANSWER: The owners of C-B & POTTS Restaurant owns this property and will be the developer/manager. 4. COMMENT: These will be up -scale apartments and some of them will have garages. 5. QUESTION: Will there be a fence along the irrigation ditch? ANSWER: There could be, depending on the circumstances. 6. COMMENT: My experience with this development, and in the whole area, is that there is not enough parking for all the businesses. 7. COMMENT: I think a stop light should be put up at the intersection of West Elizabeth Street and the private street with this development. 8. COMMENT: This land should be developed, but should it be developed strictly for financial gain? 9. COMMENT: The primary access (ingress/egress) to this site will be from West Elizabeth Street. 10. COMMENT: There is too much traffic already on West Elizabeth Street from all the existing uses in the area. 11. QUESTION: How does this project fit into the overall transportation scheme for this area? ANSWER: The traffic study that will be required for this request will identify the current traffic impacts and make projections for the amount of increased traffic that will be generated in the area based on the proposed use on this site. 12. QUESTION: What is this street through to the Matador Apartments that is identified as a "fire lane"? ANSWER: That is proposed to be a secondary emergency access for fire vehicles, in the event that the primary access is blocked. 13. QUESTION: Is Diamond Shamrock aware of this proposed. development and do they approve of it? ANSWER: They are aware of this proposal, having received a notification letter and responded by telephone, and they do not have significant concerns at this time. 14. QUESTION: What about landscaping? ANSWER: The landscaping will be thoroughly reviewed by the City when preliminary documents are submitted and will have to conform to at least the minimum city requirements. 15. COMMENT: There are real concerns about the noise and disruption from the residents in the Matador Apartments. RESPONSE: We can use landscaping and berming to help create a noise buffer. 16. QUESTION: Is this development to be primarily student housing? ANSWER: This development is planned to be an up -scale, graduate student or married student apartment complex. 17. QUESTION: Will there be a resident manager? ANSWER: 18. QUESTION: Probably, yes. Can this project be adequately served with sanitary sewer and water? What about the site drainage? ANSWER: These questions will be more adequately answered with the formal submittal of preliminary plans to the City for detailed review by all departments and outside reviewing agencies. 19. COMMENT: The way this plan sits now, it is probably low at the south end of the project. I haven't heard anything concrete yet in terms of engineering for buildings and utilities. RESPONSE: An engineer has not yet been retained to do the work. We plan to submit plans to the City on February 3 for preliminary P.U.D. review. 20. COMMENT: I have real drainage concerns about this site. 21. QUESTION: The purpose of these neighborhood meetings, is it to continue nudging the densities upward with a series of concessions? 22. COMMENT: The City should look at the overall concept in that CSU is beginning to look like CU/Boulder and similar to California concepts. RESPONSE: CSU has come to the realization that they have to work with the City on the overall transportation plan. They are no longer a landlocked, independent entity. 23. COMMENT: This area has become very congested with multi- family housing. 24. QUESTION: Is the Solar Orientation Ordinance in effect for new development? ANSWER: Yes, it was adopted in January, 1992, but it does not apply to multi -family housing projects. It is for single family lots and two-family units only. 25. QUESTION: Will the fireplaces be wood or gas fueled? ANSWER: We are not that far into the thought process yet. Potts P.U.D. - April 27, 1992 Page 2 COMMENTS: Preliminary, #6-92 P & Z Meeting 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: BP, Existing commercial (Taco Bell, Pott's Parking Lot, Diamond Shamrock) S: RL, Existing single family residential (Fairview Ninth Subdivision) E: RP, Existing multi -family residential (Matador Apartments, Phase III) W: RL, Existing single family and multi -family residential (Fairview Ninth Subdivision) The property was annexed into the City with the Fairview 6th Annexation in February, 1965. This property was subdivided as part of the Matador Apartments, Phase IV, for multi -family dwelling units, and approved by City Council in 1973. The Potts parking lot and the extension of the Taco Bell site for additional parking, both completed in 1991, are the only development activities to date on the previously approved Matador Apartments, Phase IV property. This property is now owned by Ram International Inc. 2. Land Use: This request is for 22 multi -family dwelling units on 1.67 acres, which translates into 13.2 dwelling units per acre. It is being reviewed against the Residential Density Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System and earns 111.8 points, with credit being given for: 1) 15 of the 22 units being within 650' of an existing transit stop, for 6.8%. 2) this site being within 3,500 feet of an existing neighborhood park (Avery Park), for 20%. 3) this site being within 3,000' of a major employment center (Colorado State University), for 20%. 4) the boundary of this site having more than 50% contiguity to existing urban development, for 30%. 5) providing energy conservation measures beyond that normally Potts PUD - Preliminary, #6-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 3 required by City Code. The applicant has submitted calculations based on the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code, 1986 that earns 35% credit on the Density Chart in the LDGS. The calculations have been reviewed and substantiated by the Building Department. The applicant had originally submitted a proposal for 26 dwelling units on this 1.67 acre property, which would be 15.6 DU/acre. The on -site parking requirements, by Code, for that number of units is 46 spaces and the applicant was not able to provide that many. Staff thought that the site was too tight, considering the building and hard surface coverage, minimal building and parking setbacks from the adjacent properties, and insufficient landscaping and buffering. After discussions with City staff the applicant reduced the number of units to 24, for a density of 14.4 DU/acre. The required number of parking spaces, 42 on -site, was still unattainable and the function of the site was not acceptable. The applicant at that time pulled the request from the March 23, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board hearing agenda. The current request for 22 dwelling units on 1.67 acres, being 13.2 DU/acre, provides sufficient open space, on -site parking, and better relationships and transitions to the adjacent properties. 3. Design• This project will be comprised of four buildings housing 4 dwelling units each and one building, on the northeast portion of the site adjacent to the existing Potts parking lot, that houses 6 dwelling units. The maximum building heights will be 26' and there will be no more than 6 dwelling units per building. The units are all two bedroom, two story townhomes. These buildings are to be constructed of natural wood siding with cedar shake shingles on the steeply pitched roofs, presenting a single family residential appearance. The layout of this development is internally oriented with the only point of access being the existing private access drive connecting to West Elizabeth Street, to the north, between Taco Bell and Diamond Shamrock. The 24' wide private access drive will culminate in a cul-de-sac with center island at the south end of the development. A total of 10 of the 22 dwelling units will have attached one -car garages with common driveways for 2 units in each case. The remaining 12 units will have off-street perpendicular (and three parallel) parking spaces in close proximity to the fronts of the buildings. This project has 39 on -site parking spaces, including the attached garages. This meets the required number of on -site Potts PUD - Preliminary, #6-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 4 spaces based on the 1.75 parking spaces for each two bedroom dwelling unit as required by City Code. A shared parking agreement for overflow parking off -site in the Potts parking lot is being provided. All curbs which are opposite parking spaces or driveways will be painted red and posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" with approved signs. The curb on the cul-de-sac island will also be marked and signed as the aforementioned. No development identification signage is proposed for the project. Miscellaneous traffic, directional, and building identification will be provided. The landscaping provides an equal mix of evergreen trees and deciduous/ornamental trees with deciduous and evergreen shrubs as foundation and accent plantings. There are concentrations of evergreen plant material along the north property line adjacent to the Potts parking lot and along the east property line adjacent to buildings in the Matador Apartments. The plantings in both of these areas will provide good visual buffer between uses. The Larimer County Canal #2 provides good buffer between this multi -family residential and the existing single family residential to the west. There is a significant number of mature cottonwood and elm trees along the canal that will be retained. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on January 22, 1992 with 12 people attending (please see the attached minutes of that meeting). The primary concern expressed at this meeting was about the amount of traffic that already exists on the surrounding street network and how additional traffic on this street system will be accommodated. 5. Transportation: This development will gain access from the southward extension of an existing 24' wide private access drive from West Elizabeth Street. This drive is located between Taco Bell and Diamond Shamrock and is owned by Diamond Shamrock to the north property line of the Potts parking lot. There is a dedicated public access easement on this private drive. Ram International Inc. is the owner of the property that the Potts parking lot sits on and the property to be developed as the Potts P.U.D.. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed density is supported by the Residential Density Chart and the project meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Potts P.U.D., Preliminary - #6-92. No Text PLANNING .AND ZONING CERTIPtlGATION ;ORNEY CERTIFICATION VICINITY PLAN U- Yri 41LNrM NIICi SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN V- .Er_n DE9ORIP1'ION • r�+n�b O+u+cr.'.xeelnsxixxo� xu� n rtnr .ram>m.im�xux u�w xm�reww.'rt t�i�a� 3�TE DEyELOPMa' DATA IDlf I.N K) YO, P � �TMf ax'i )1• ewueaau 1bP!! NA WENS RNM MW}I DBNIR IEbOW114 M L NI.(.ATMi CW1.om 9.'MiRIM WiR. FIV1)11MY)Cdd� lDf1-R[x�wWC f�:IPt.K rr{ xcVR.It.OlKr� Wn grINMRCP) [iMr lWi arwco) ro.a.r vaa rorw )w�r�aor ryw� x�u.� Mnu.� of erg CALM W0�9 Kr fOYx/.A GENERAL NOTES i f�RPo WdfI�RMIVRW LYZYY)O Wwun M1vn�xia�lCNm mero nE PuwY nw x0 rax�r IRT YO i11TgY.MKwON xO p)Yxr �.R' YnW W Olv6Tf� ippflYl.�W N n1O'!m � ) .y AplC.. i4lc4Y61011Y1T..OrK.bML YO PY4DN1 WIfTJI�r )WYW WLL r IIWmr. ` Irk M1WfY�. .rK s. ino n�rxaawwr.r.�.r �+mvmm •r M WR] YIxMOWr� T4 NC.6t �Mtl� MOfOML! �b✓.Lm ..xax muc*Kx.0 r n . �+vKe reaw.eciaa ` raiu mna.. x.�u r+o �er+mx+wo mown xa mucTMW e� Wma noml. er uonw u.i r n otun.a r�ennm.ro •. ..a m.row ror� xrv.+m Mo awnm r Y Itlf Po fJ1r B)Nt 1t.W.bR ARAxRs :m.w.xwmm.. o.aor n n raoi. w .mwc+ae n.wor u �wssn. g -__- -_ � �°AF •V'S -..� ...o.�•=� l �.iRKINC+ 1991 'Cl HELL o- JAL 70rW oa w 000 u 358DT' 15 S2 i993 O v + m © 07 /� IMDE9IGNATED MATADOR PARCEL SE9'30 _C E LANDSCAPE NOTES miu...w.emr ewu. row.. wo. o•®v.r. m.•o.�m•ro. MieuRsu vMle. ]tGv[rtIx2.0iV+•lfaC�M1• 1 ClL CAi •! M! K e W.eM O.MhY.Y YM •LD Bf��B✓fnM6MOnB M'l.e6Glm WNW �4CR.. •� Y• w•T!E>•06 Y!Y 11,99'.V. meP V •F M4�lni1K.®.VIORertBM > e. uwxJne..e.•row.e.mwuc wl..wisro.e+ o.roe..l.w� a rcr•.raeewc•s. srw.. �a.w ro w""�`•wem.>»u.wi.s ca�waco.ro•�. �.auw+ew. o.hns• rocvaroe rc.0 a r+rura w!•nw WOW`i'�l�vu4 ria�M1 Cu•p1O�l .a �••.smia+..rMx�w.- �. m.�en.•.ao wo row .ra �lm..ceva.,.w.a.na a. «e. cm cede .+w� aa.s�ro.w.es p01i.l�e K! Mom ✓YD! hW'� ufM FlIYhCi1 mplmC+.tlal�lo'eC.©o�v.+•T .bme YOB i�'� MWD tle PP M4D M'IMLLY®.00WC.OMe .K 1Y hT Sl OiA1.n .166 . �nePl r.u>mleec•®.m�•n am.. eemw-aw.w vom M vuW.P /e w,�AD a.W M1ui.'I.Mm m oe r'u�u o • a.�mcrz a au.�+c-. .•mi.e roi.eos.�n+�e.l ..bm.®e.w. own�.e• fRVMOLF RFLf IL-veR'p CACIl1. FULCM..16!!x6 m PLANT MATEMAL 30HEDILE N 'Q- O^: GaaIW MYE GT.WKX NN! 01]! IICM r� Z kOW 1. LOWII' M1-fJl .PMY6 f IV � 4 -I a � s e a.N • wel•.• h•41. ••� 14 T ♦•d '' ^ aA�,w�rai..cr .emu rwmmm: mo - N80-00'00"W 980 "Do, LANDSCAPE/PAVING PLAN It REAR ELEVATION ¢ - CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES WOOD SIDING FRONT ELEVATION SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: POTTS PUD DESCRIPTION: 22 multi -family units on 1.67 acres DENSITY: 13.17 du/acre General Population 22 (units) x 3.8 (persons/unit) = 83.6 School Age Population Elementary - 22 (units) x .120 (pupils/unit) = 2.64 Junior High - 22 (units) x .055 (pupils/unit) = 1.21 Senior High - 22 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 1.1 Design Affected Schools Capacijy Putnam-Fullana Elementary 600 Enrollment 570 Lincoln Junior High 740 617 Senior High 1235 1009