The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 2 MEETING DATE 415/01 STAFF Steve Olt Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Westbrooke Planned Unit Development (PUD), Second Filing - Final, File #3-90H APPLICANT: Jeff Couch Team Engineering 114 East 5" Street Loveland, CO. 80537 OWNER: P & B Partnership 375 East Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 41 single-family lots on 11.47 acres. The lots range in size from 6,789 to 15,527 square feet. The property is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District and is located east of Seneca Street, north of Wakerobin Lane, and south of the future Troutman Parkway extension. The Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal bounds the east boundary line and the Westbrooke PUD, First Filing is adjacent to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request for the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final: Is not in substantial compliance with the approved Westbrooke PUD - Preliminary. It does not meet the criterion set forth in Section 29-526.F(5)(b)[1]b of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) regarding a Final Plan's "substantial compliance" with an approved Preliminary Plan. The applicant has requested a variance to this criterion. Meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT I I No Text I• I -- GRAPHIC SCALE \ a LZ ELEMENTAR✓ SCNOIX ' 24 7 SENECA STREET (E)OSTING) 25 ---------- __�. ;w 57eRpD,rf R.UO. ,• •`�` I i 15 10 .7 i 23 24 FILING 6 I Isf ; II •, 1 I 9 l i ` 26 r 14 i'-`Vf�'''_ it 22 - 25 1 \` `\ — ` 27 1 S 1 I + I I I 17 j % j / 1 + 1 1 1 28 _ _ 1 10 j 13 1 ; 18 1 21 II IF 1 26 i fl i i i ) I ) I I I i I I 10 \ 2 it 12 20 27 <.` 40 39 37 36 i 41 36 5 45 \`. - ` ---- `--" "� 33 32 31 30 29 28 I a \ t � 34 -- 54 II 55 56 a HES7HROOKE P U.O. $2 v. tsf FILING YIB,nn,� A LAI. G.,L —______— ` m '.iwm n"Nai'uwaw .'<D) UNPLA rrL'D Tg— urr� Dr wK + o-w.xm°1yApwis'rin"'m+m'8.F`q°ygm mw'a M m'9rr emoRj,awq r �. ., r.^�r^u .mom _ _ _1H )� omv acc+rs wrLHe. _.�..n yYgc amea.mur rmu +n zr �r�i+,iirzr"'��'a mm Rim �•'..� n�.'.�oanam^�.' .� �.:.•u~<a mc: iKm: �':'Qa". o � ul, mi r`�a�3°w'€"a.:�m •iK L � e sz+..• a.w.�en K ..nrn a... R. m.o� ' > � � � ."a1� � '6' wi'k)°nac".•m rm.. m��:<p:Lmu9ai°roa" a ,n, n°.4"°'.^L^w."""c,.m • nN.+mm+ a µ.<a� m nm ,wa,. RL a^u rw .._ .:room Dlllluq uYn 'wniO.ac ,�.. m «' "o%Sm m m n . fLiliiMG nr nYl[Rea Mt1V06M MP'xO nY¢+ IOiµ YYY�DaW �Lw6 a'Msry ,sLn�m, ; .Lxo-r-Rrz rnmRaam avmaMo-nR ..LLn �.wmmwwm�r.rvn rw.,a.. ri R.Or CrlQll 4RM+. Dllr Omr GD>•L nOMIW ros mrtl � rulBlntlDL DIK ! se uaaw�w ��.;iar[A v u � uR 6 RMM+ e .vl�nrw ^ lama Y + K y � 49Yr JF 11 L aun+r CIID eYe �o n n z� e�men.ednr®ramr + + � w u Od 3� Mi7"9dia� r a a u 9 + cLIK)aE a 9 q a 1 i + a gg �' 11110E IYiK Z LL _ (n Z i N aJ W O 2 z n 6i d 0 2 LNEFB m 0 �` m Pp OM MHP nn co d N (07o) V m-w13u 0 w f1�WlPidINB 3 LLAu [nDINEERwO, a[ TW YDe K)WD�R M2 UXrt W. 3 run ar9as, m�oNenO emze (D)Oj SDI-IBID PYM R1.9. RL swaLes ns wuw Dmv[ rom cauN; eA519 rcr x�vew (BID; SSB -M, 4kEi NUUBEt+ 1 o 2 • • S , H� 9"Le r Ir �.-m♦° ft, � � r Mir I Y� \ 5} n n r un cnemMa un n x 101N AgSR YQl ix[ {ryP p1Exl.TA1 l9A2O�T s4! IV4 YL f1® fqT' (bl R[! MMI. IROrQ MXucf At . wV.v n rNrw fq) i fMYt Y]Mif Al r.1 Nµ�µylp R � ItMNIV!! EGLID�At.d. n 1N/hN I.M 4 E M .Es`�vrsiun nV u•E 6JJm fH 111[ Iw.CNI RIbPn UM.6 M[ LCLRY Y y,M4i t(y,W1 µqp !.y L V, f A S iX VKIIINLI �i E QITID MO b4® E[i/Yld WfSNx. u q Yr YaM/.,Iq gl.IDi q} yp u1V(yvq wM .lf fxx([S VMIy. Y S�M.RT SM1[p. V.Ip .x0 trLt fq frlM x .1'O I K n KTAI�gI ilYYl 94vOIf L +wm:Axw nl®r..s,wcr� i iu wlmL ac w.dL SR`µ b Vl W4XIVS N4l L M!v-gyp If(pRLN A 4NO lullW fq4 �MY M.4M WMMY YLVI/.101n1K 14Y1 GM ! MTM M S WA YM.. { iFIR •.M I. JIIP n O®!. I1iM P RbgYw2 MN ip lyy n �E vNYL 6 11R LMCL.IK 1 MlNN1A qIT A M 6N1H2 R I. m1BIC.R [F IXdiAJR Epl YYr LltL4i M MS IEyIYx(Ni YESTBROOKE P.J.D. l,t RONO TREE FLAMING BETAR 5>z L(9E1. Y MAR IAi 'ENCE O (PEE Y� COBBLE AREA EMSTRO STREET LWNT TR PROPOSED STREET L(NT ZA ACCESS RAMP AmgMi WMIY n l.Z4;M Um .LYA ,•-L. EJIO L16 1iffi lll 1 GRp(i BACK v!lwiYMN -YF �� wl.v aN LW fV YARSIIYL FAA%INUS YEN. 99 'Hm NUYBFIE GRRP ASx Pc�hNSriVAHCA rT JOHNSON Mom'" I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I 11— rtnaru� — .rrtxnox roxe� �Mx�NtaRt�.2af ;:—� WEBBER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL �\ r arun ux.En � i V PAREH•AY ne wilwil -. i _ I' \� J � ®iAHEROBIN LA �V v EXISTING \ DETENTION \ POND rwwfao r.t rua PARSONS & ASSOCIATES — a wf f.f .• rr.. u.•: Er. conil. cei..•s• Effu o.Nr•� cUMEULlIM4 ENGINEERS costs'..... arNl•wr MV w u.ur uvf Lnf.rn w. n. rY m a.uf ufw uvrn w. n. o-.cfNaam py Rwu I. —I I..w n 4y1 m� mwy nm Las mini II I II eem n II �LaE w. •mssf rr .m rrm u r•n VICINITY MAP KT.S LEGEND � vxavam mwnNw n m rN.s —�}--sxurwm wv rma ryr orArbl P� vnsm.x �wrc nxmm. f en 1. nnr `.n`.n I.11 ar l.talM.ta... al Id MR.M. bt '' wtw :itm'r`m• nn n ocln cm u mr mum .. m wmin• ar•acm+a a rmw.n rm m. .. u mmtlura.•ua�n �m ;mt;imp I ®.'irni n a..m. anmu.t. n ni I- I. Ra<•nun.4F muN,.6 .'•ucr«r°w nI ruu 4•w:c'..i rW"m.'. �" " .m.•. L44 nm ru` n n. e�u'I. iie er mu wn its Ltrt I'M" •,1.. m Llnnm M. mNln 1. MM.4 a. n ran gym• In. Lu w Len. n wrr u: :ue n`mI,M4I: wam e�_i.: 1` 1 ...M wrn w.Fw.KI . numi'n' .+u u'anmm a rm n m nm Lw.c.n rtu.. +- avow n ......+ Na .n•.. M....e� m m W. M. • . «.... r ..a..u.:.. ear •rTli a.• :a .e l «r� .mn .e n .F'mi �.`�..:4 Lc°' a.:.i `w:i':e :.0 n"•nr r': <.. • m•a F rN ri®iy ya MIn .+rf al w cl.. et Ie.. emus•, w[e..w m [ai•— I •t .atl.. [•a•er •t aN rlslry y W Gft HX W= r L' THE PLATT PROPERTIES I s/ N .47TR PLAN .Pr I.An.QCAPh PLAN The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 2 1. Background: On January 8, 1997, the City Council enacted Ordinance 161, 1996, commonly called the Transition Ordinance. This Ordinance provided for the review and processing of land use applications under the regulations in effect at that time (Land Development Guidance System, subdivision regulations, special site plan review) during the transition period until the adoption of the Land Use Code and established a temporary delay in the acceptance of new applications. The clear intent of this Ordinance was to provide a reasonable transition time in which valid development projects could continue to be processed under prior regulations rather than being reviewed under newly adopted regulations. The surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: N: LMN; existing and planned residential (Mountain Ridge Farms PUD) S: RL; existing single family residential (Westbrooke PUD, First Filing) E: RL, MMN, NC; existing single family residential, planned residential/commercial (Westbrooke PUD, First Filing and Pineview PUD Overall Development Plan) W: RL; existing schools (Johnson Elementary, Webber Junior High) This property was annexed into the City with the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation in 1980. An Amendment of Development Area B of the Overall Development Plan (Master Plan) of the Villages at Harmony West PUD and the Westbrooke PUD (Platt Properties), Preliminary were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 24, 1991. There were no conditions attached to the preliminary PUD approval. The Platt Properties (which Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing is a portion of) is Area B of the Overall Development Plan. 2. Land Use: This is a request for 41 single family lots on 11.47 acres. The lots range in size from 6,789 to 15,528 square feet. The property is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District and is located east of Seneca Street, north of Wakerobin Lane, and south of the future Troutman Parkway extension. The Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal bounds the east boundary line and the Westbrooke PUD, First Filing is adjacent to the east. The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 3 A. Preliminary PUD On June 24, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Westbrooke PUD (Platt Properties), Preliminary, #3-90B by a vote of 7-0. The approval was for 109 single family lots on 31.87 acres. B. Final PUD and Compliance with the Preliminary PUD The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final is not in substantial compliance with the approved Westbrooke PUD - Preliminary. The Preliminary PUD was approved for a total of 109 single family lots. The Westbrooke PUD, First Filing was approved on August 26, 1991, and has been developed as 70 single family lots consistent with the approval. The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final, being a request for 41 single family lots, would put the total number of lots at 111 in the entire development, which would constitute an increase of 1.8% over the approved number of lots in the Preliminary PUD. This does not meet the criterion set forth in Section 29-526.F(5)(b)[1]b of the LDGS, which states: (b) As a requirement of approval, the final plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plan. [1] For preliminary PUD's approved on or after March 13, 1981, "substantial compliance" shall mean that all conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board upon its approval of the preliminary plans have been met and the final plan does not: b. Increase the number of residential dwelling units by more than one (1 %) percent. Applicant's Request: The applicant has requested a variance to this criterion for the following expressed reasons: The original preliminary Westbrooke PUD was approved in 1991, allowing 109 residential lots. The approval of Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final would add 41 lots to the existing 70 lots developed as part of the First Filing, which results in a total of 111 lots. The increase of 2 lots would represent a change of 1.83%, slightly over the 1 % maximum change allowed between preliminary and final plans. Several issues resulted in changes to the preliminary layout. The preliminary plan for the Second Filing portion of the development shows lots fronting onto The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Seneca Street. The Final plan eliminated these Seneca Street frontage lots and added two cul-de-sacs to provide interior access to all lots from Westbrooke Drive. This change was initiated because of the following concerns: Agency Concern School District Leakage of pedestrians across Seneca Street outside of approved crosswalks Traffic Concern for pedestrian safety Utilities A sanitary sewer line was not available in Seneca Street. Service to these lots would have required utility lines along back yard easements. The resulting Final plan layout was slightly more efficient and resulted in the creation of two additional lots. The applicant thinks that this variance is justified and does not compromise the intent of the original preliminary PUD. All lots remain similar in size and shape to those shown in the preliminary PUD. Section 29-526(K) of the LDGS states that the Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of this section. Variances may be granted if the Board determines that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section, and if the applicant demonstrates: (1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any other provisions of this section, or (2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this section, or (3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested, or (4) That the granting of a variance from the strict application of any provision would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would help satisfy a defined community need (such as affordable housing or historic preservation) or would alleviate an existing problem (such as traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 5 application of such a provision would render the project practically unfeasible. Staffs Review: The proposed 41 lots in the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final are, actually, only one more lot than was in the "Phase Two" area of the Preliminary PUD. The Westbrooke PUD, First Filing was approved for, and has been built out with, 70 lots as compared to the 69 lots that were in the "Phase One" area of the Preliminary PUD. If the applicant were to propose only 40 lots in the Second Filing then a variance would not be necessary. One additional lot would constitute a 0.9% increase in the number of residential dwelling units in the entire PUD. Only the second additional lot, or the 1111h lot, takes the Final Plan out of compliance with the Preliminary Plan. The Westbrooke PUD (Platt Properties), Preliminary was approved in June, 1991, prior to the adoption of the City's Solar Orientation Ordinance for Residential Lots. Therefore, the Preliminary PUD did not have to provide for solar -oriented lots and was not evaluated against the Ordinance. Only 2 of the 40 lots in the "Phase Two" area of the Preliminary PUD would qualify as solar -oriented lots. Due to the re -orientation of numerous lots in the Second Filing ("Phase Two" area), based on eliminating collector street frontage (along Seneca Street) and providing more cul-de-sac accessed lots, there are now 18 lots that would qualify as solar -oriented lots. Staff has determined that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section, and that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which the variance is requested. C. All Development Criteria of the LDGS This Final PUD request meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: The single family detached lots as proposed are compatible with existing and planned residential development to the north, south, and west of this property. Because of its compatibility with the surrounding areas, a neighborhood information meeting was not held for the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final. The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 6 4. Design: The layout and orientation of this development has been predicated on its proximity to the two existing schools, Johnson Elementary and Webber Junior High School, west of the project site and the potential impacts that they will have on any residential development on this property. This is the first such site in the City of Fort Collins where residential development is located directly across a street from two schools sited next to one another. Increased activity in and around the schools, over extended periods of time during the day, warrants the concept of orienting the homes inward to the development in this particular instance. The overall pedestrian circulation patterns within the Westbrooke PUD have been considered and are designed to direct pedestrians and bicycles along the sidewalks south to Wakerobin Lane, congregating at the identified crosswalk at the intersection of Regency Drive & Seneca Street, and north to Troutman Parkway, congregating at the identified crosswalk at the intersection of Troutman Parkway and Seneca Street. The applicant has met with the principals of both schools to discuss this development. Their concerns support the concept of providing only two crosswalks across Seneca Street relative to this entire development. 5. Transportation: The initial traffic impact study for this development determined that a maximum of 70 lots (of the 109 lots approved with the overall Westbrooke PUD (Platt Property), Preliminary) could be developed with the First Filing without constructing existing Seneca Street north to West Horsetooth Road or Troutman Parkway between Seneca Street and South Shields Street. Therefore, this overall development has been phased, with the First Filing (approved and built) consisting of 70 lots. The Mountain Ridge Farms PUD, to the north, has approved street and utility plans for future Seneca Street from the existing Seneca Street north to the approved Westfield Park PUD, which is in the process of constructing Seneca Street within its development all the way to West Horsetooth Road. Either Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing or the directly affected filing of Mountain Ridge Farms PUD, whichever goes first, will have to construct the remaining section of Seneca Street. 0 The Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: In evaluating the request for the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. It is not in substantial compliance with the approved Westbrooke PUD - Preliminary. It does not meet the criterion set forth in Section 29-526.F(5)(b)[1]b of the LDGS regarding a Final Plan's "substantial compliance" with an approved Preliminary Plan. The applicant has requested a variance to this criterion. 2. It meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to Section 29-526.F(5)(b)[1]b, pertaining to the Final Plan being in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plan, of the LDGS. Staff recommends approval of the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final, #3-90H. CommuSly Planning and Environmental *vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: April 5, 2001 To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Stephen Olt, City Planner Re: Recommended Condition of Approval for the Westbrooke Planned Unit Development (PUD), Second Filing — Final - #3-90H. Staff is recommending that the following condition (regarding the timing for execution of the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD plans) be placed on any approval of the Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing — Final, should the Planning and Zoning Board take that action on April 5, 2001: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to August 2, 2001. If not so executed, the developer or the City staff, prior to said expiration date, must obtain an extension of time from the Board. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute.