Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD, 3RD REPLAT - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 46-88G - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 4 There was none. Chairperson Bell asked how this development would blend with the Harmony Ridge development. Would there be open space in between. Mr. Ward replied that there would with the open area around the attached housing buildings at Harmony Ridge. The open space should merge together. Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the variance request for meeting minimum score on the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart on the LDGS due to the nature of this particular property and the questionable nature of the multiple housing in proximity. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Chapman recommended approval of the -Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farms PUD, #55-87M subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. PARK SOUTH PUD 3RD REPLAT. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, #46-88G Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval with the standard final PUD condition for final utility plans and development agreement. Staff was also recommending the granting of a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1, Solar Orientation. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates representing the applicant gave their presentation. Ms. Ripley stated that this was a straight forward residential development. The projects density is 5.47 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Ripley spoke on the Overall Development Plan Amendment, design issues with the interface with this project and the 4 Seasons project to the west, neighborhood compatibility, the rebuilding of the fence between the two developments and the stormwater issues. Ms. Ripley reviewed some slides depicting what the interface between the two housing developments would look like. Ms. Ripley stated that they believe they meet all All - Development Criteria except for the 65% solar oriented lots. They have submitted a request for a variance from the solar orientation criteria. The proposed project has a layout of 28% solar and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 5 the required minimum is 65%. The variance request submitted states that the overall solar orientation for Park South is 50% solar oriented. Ms. Ripley submitted a plan that shows 65% of the lots solar oriented, at the Board's request, to show evidence that it was an inferior plan. Ms. Ripley reviewed slides of the plan and stated that the results show that not only did they get lots that are too odd shaped and too long and narrow, but in addition, they have lost 13 lots. This plan only has 60 lots where as the plan they would like to build has 73. The end result would be that the 60 lots would be more expensive than the 73 proposed. That is why they are saying that the plan showing 73 lots is better than the plan that has more solar oriented lots, but fewer lots. Ms. Ripley also reviewed slides of shots taken along Horsetooth where the Warren Farms development (which is across the street from the proposed project), that it has a similar configuration; and, that the houses are setback 14 '/z feet from the fence line and the houses are oriented the same way as proposed in the Park South development. The side of the house is facing Horsetooth and located along cul-de-sacs in a similar arrangement to what they are proposing at Park South. Ms. Ripley reported that their houses would be a minimum of 15 feet from the back of sidewalk and in some cases they would be from 15 to 24 feet from back of sidewalk. Ms. Ripley also pointed out that their project would have landscape on the Horsetooth side of the sidewalk. There would be 10 feet of landscape then the 5 foot sidewalk, the fenceline, and then the house beyond that. Ms. Ripley also reviewed slides of other developments with similar features as the proposed project, including building height. Chairperson Bell asked about the alternative plan that complies with the solar and what would the loss of 13 lots do to the density? Ms. Ripley replied that it would reduce the density to 4.5 units per acre. Member Gavaldon asked about the comparison of setbacks from the proposed project to those in the Four Seasons project. He was wondering if there was opportunity to improve the setbacks to be similar to those in Four Seasons. Ms. Ripley responded that the reason they compared this project to that of Warren Farms was that it was designed in a way that is similar to what they are proposing. Bringing cul-de-sacs out and opening the cul-de-sacs out to the arterial street. The Four Seasons development's homes are oriented to the south so that their backyards are oriented towards Horsetooth. A different configuration that would create larger set -backs. She stated that those homes are also closer together, and that they are only proposing 6 houses along Horsetooth. Member Gaveldon stated that he would like to see a better setback on Horsetooth Road and suggested a design change. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 6 PUBLIC INPUT Mike Schultz, Attorney representing 3 property owners that live in the Villages at Four Seasons. The property owners live in the three duplex units that abut the proposed housing development. Mr. Schultz discussed the boundary lines between the duplex units and the proposed housing.. His clients believe that there is a substantial difference between their single -story ranch units and the proposed two-story houses. Mr. Schultz felt that the developer had taken advantage of the creativity aspect of the PUD process. He reviewed key issues of the neighbors: 1. The issue of one versus two story houses in the row of homes that back up to the duplex units. 2. The ten two-story units cannot be justified against the 5 single story duplex structures. The number of lots should be reduced. 3. That there should be a 55 foot backyard setback for all dwellings that back to the Village. 4. There can be a much better job of landscaping to ensure privacy between the houses and the duplex units, and that covenants should require the owners of the homes to maintain " and replace landscaping. 5. They believe that the units that abut the Village duplexes should be required to have an element of brick in them to promote architectural compatibility between land uses. Mr. Schultz discussed a concern of the neighbors regarding the fencing along the single family homes and that it should be required to be compatible with the Village fence. Mr. Schultz concluded by saying that there needs to be a condition that the development will start at the northwest corner and go down Tract E, so his neighbors can have their portion finished and then the developer can move on, and his clients don't have to look at an open field or construction for the next two years. He summarized that he was there when they objected to the Overall Development Plan, they went to City Council and were told not to worry, that Council understood their concerns. They were told to come back at preliminary and work on the compatibility issue. He feels that the neighbors have some very sincere and well founded grounds to be concerned about what is being built behind them. That was not what they thought would be going in there when they bought their units and made substantial improvements to them. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Bell asked for the applicant rebuttal to the public input. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Mr. Middel, the applicant. She addressed comments that Mr. Schultz made with regard to the question of the two-story buildings and whether the Board Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 7 should impose a restriction to limit the homes to one-story units. She stated that both land uses were single family residential and those are considered under the LDGS to be one in the same. Ms. Liley also addressed the backyard setback and stated that Mr. Middel would be willing to increase from 15 to a minimum of 25 feet. She stated that right now the Village setbacks are between 20 and 25. With regards to landscaping, once again we are talking single family to single family and the offer is to put two trees in the backyard, which is more that you usually get with regard to single family uses. Mr. Middel is also willing to put a covenant in that those trees will be maintained and replaced. With regard to the comments on a requirement to have the units have an element of brick in them; this is an existing project and the building materials and style will be continued to be consistent with the product that is already there. Ms. Liley addressed the fence issue. She did not know about the Homeowner's Association issue, and explained that the Homeowner's Association had approached Mr. Middel stating that their fences were deteriorating and would he build a new one and they would share the cost. Mr. Middel stated that he would. Ms. Liley stated that if they do not want a fence, they won't build a fence, if they don't want a fence attached to their's, they will build one all on their own property. Her point is that it is not a problem. Ms. Liley addressed the neighbors proposed construction schedule and that it makes more sense for him to pickup where the existing development ended, and that their proposal would not be workable for him. Ms. Liley addressed the concern of the Horsetooth setback and the suggestion that the developer loose 6 lots. She stated that they were talking side -yards in their development and the code requires 5 foot sideyards, and they are proposing a minimum of 30 feet. Loosing 6 lots would be significant and would be almost 10% of this project. They request that they leave the side -yards as they are on Horsetooth. It is no different than many developments that have been approved under the PUD system with the same kind of side -yard setback. Ms. Liley submitted into the record some historical information for the Board regarding the Solar Orientation ordinance and variances to that criteria. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Schultz for any rebuttal. Mr. Schultz stated that Ms. Liley has characterized the chart, on page 10 of the LDGS, as some kind of regulation that says that as long as you have houses and houses, they are the same and you can't have conflicts. He stated that the chart is not a regulation, and each development should be considered as a whole and to also consider new land uses in relation to one another and to neighboring land uses. This chart shows likely conflicts to between land uses and the All - Development Criteria is concerned with avoiding or mitigating such conflicts. Mr. Schultz also cited page 11 with regards to neighborhood compatibility. He stated that if the Board did a site Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 8 visit they would see the incompatibility between the brick units and the proposed units made of wood. He felt there was clearly a conflict of land uses. He stated what they were asking for is single -story ranch homes to be built there on wider lots that would provide a nice gradual transition' in uses. Mr. Schultz stated that the Board, with a three to two vote, invited these neighbors back at the preliminary plan so a site specific analysis could be made to ensure that the housing that is developed would be compatible with the duplex units. That is what they were asking the Board to do here tonight, to make sure that the compatibility takes place, and that the investment that these senior citizens made in their homes is protected. Member Byrne asked Mr. Schultz if the Villages at Four Seasons exclusively for senior citizens. Mr. Schultz stated that there are 34 duplex units, and his understanding is that it is senior restricted, but he was not sure if that was the case. Mr. Schultz asked that Mr. Middel, the developer, address that on three occasions Mr. Middel told. the neighbors that there would be 55 foot setbacks in the rear yards and is now willing to compromise at 20 to 25 feet. Member Chapman stated that the concern he hears is one of privacy more than some of the other issues. It occurs to him that whether the fence needs to be replaced or not, the fence would not provide the level of security that people are talking about. He suggested a security hedge be built between the two properties. If that were built, it should be on the highest ground available and that would be on the Associations property. He asked if there was a possibility that the builder and the Association could get together and decide if there was a hedge needed and could it be put on the Association's property at the builders expense, but maintained by the Association. Ms. Liley responded on behalf of the developer that it could be workable and he is willing to pay the entire cost if the Association will pickup the permanent maintenance costs. Member Davidson felt that existing yards should not serve as mitigation for space between properties. He also spoke on the scale of the buildings, the building materials and he felt the houses were too close to Horsetooth Road and the setbacks should be more compatible with what already exists to on the south side of Horsetooth and to the west of this project. Member Davidson commented on the solar orientation of the project. He felt that 29% was not even close to the required 65%. He felt that it was laughable to ask for a variance when they were only getting 29% solar. Chairperson Bell asked about the drainage. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 9 Planner Ludwig replied that the Village at Four Seasons currently has a drainage problem. Currently their drainage is flowing onto Mr. Middel's property, and as a solution to that Mr. Middel has taken their drainage and channeled it into his detention area via a drainage easement along his sideyards. Member Davidson felt strongly that the developer should meet the solar orientation criteria or come up with some good compromises. He felt the developer the developer should also come up with better setbacks off of Horsetooth. Member Byrne commented on street orientation and felt issues like the ones with this project could be avoided with the planning of better street networks. He felt there may be some incompatibility with the duplexes. Member Byrne commented on the setbacks, architecture, and was hopeful that when the change in land use was approved that we would see some attempt at creativity and he is disappointed that that did not happen. He felt that there was a need for some mitigation between him and the neighbors and that this plan was not adequate. Member Weitkunat comment that this was another phase of an existing project and what was going to be built would be similar to what is already there. She felt that this project was constricted by being an infill project and also the size, location and position of the lot. She felt there should be mitigation with the duplex units and she does see an attempt here and hoped that the neighbors and the developer would work on that. Member Davidson moved to continue this item due to insufficient information and would like the developer to come back and with a modified plan that deal with greater setbacks along Horsetooth that would be compatible with Horsetooth west of this project on the same side of the road, some form, both visual and distance mitigation along the west property line. Member Chapman seconded the motion and added that he would also like to see a better attempt at getting more solar oriented lots. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Byrne read into the record. information received regarding 1997 population estimate and housing data. He submitted a copy for the record. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.