Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920915 ~ t/ r - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15. 1992 Following site visits to Meadows bridges and the City shop: Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:50 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr was excused. There were no Commissioner, Staff or Public comments. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Kim made presentation as attached in record. ,-... I '- Staff comments: I would like to voice my concern that we have lost some extra parking spaces from the original plan submitted and discussed last week. Specifically referring to not identified parking for each individual affordable town home unit. But that we have lost 4 guest parking spaces on the affordable town home site. I think that we need to try and find a few spaces available. A dedicated open space and play area which I think is important to the future residents of this project. The site is still very tight. Yvonne this afternoon had indicated that in a safety measure they would do some decorative things to try and keep the kids out of the open ditch area. Chuck Roth, Engineering: The Eng Dept received comments from some of the citizens and it is our intention to pass those on to P&Z and share the concerns of the citizens. We are happy that the access point has worked out to be what it is. The ROW width appears to be deficient. We spent considerable time among staff discussing what the ROW width should be. This is on Hwy 82. The Municipal Code is pretty specific about prescribing what the ROW width for an arterial collector a local and an alley is. For an arterial it is lOOfeet. For a collector it is 80 feet. For a local street it is 60 feet. For an alley it is 20 feet. We haven't determined yet what the City is going to require for that ROW expansion. I do know we will want to see a sidewalk put in there in front of the project. And we would like some of the mapping to be improved a little to show the ROW lines on both sides of the Hwy 82 and labeled dimensions to the existing curb and gutter that is adjacent to the property. ~ We might want to have RFTA take a look at the area. There are bus ~ stops up hill and down hill from the site. They might want to look whether they want to have a new bus stop or re-Iocate an existing - '.,"- ..,......- '- PZM9.l5.92 bus stop. That might be something that could figure into the ROW analysis of the project. We went out and looked at the parking there on Cooper Ave/Hwy 82. Downhill from the project there is parking on the street. You go up hill from the project to me it appeared that there was parking. But then we had trouble discussing whether it was acceleration, deceleration lanes for adjacent properties. There is very wide pavement. I don't think staff is going to recommend that there be on-street parking in front of the project. But P&Z might want to consider that for their own recommendation. Bike lane is another factor in what makes up the ROW. Snow storage for in the winter. Kim: When Chuck mentioned he wants to see dimension drawings of the whole ROW width and what all is included in that--I would also like to see that in section form to get an idea of the topography. Rob Thomson, Engineering: I would want to check whether that diameter of the turn-around is there in the access area to determine whether that meets with current code. Even though it is going to be maintained as private access it still needs to be built to specifications of code. Brian Denning: At the conceptual level here what we are trying to reach is is it basically OK with everybody. We didn't have, as a group, enough time to go and do a finished product. We basically took the blocks that were there before and spread them across the site to show that it could work. We might be able to add a block or 2 on top of other blocks and maintain the same square footage and the same number of affordable houses and not come up with this same basic design. This is not his best work because of the shortage of time. We proved by this that it can work. We tried to, with concerns about play area, give up a little more ground to put that little play area in there. It may be that we could get our 4 parking spaces off the very narrow portion of the park. These are things we will spend considerable time and money to try to perfect it so it is the best for everybody that is involved. Chuck to answer your concerns, the sidewalk is not a problem with us. We figure someone needs to start ones through there anyway. There is not much ofa sidewalk on that side of the bridge. We did go to the Hwy Dept and that was one of our threshold concerns as to the feasibility of the project to get access to it. They gave us a permit which we will have to go back and renew. So that at final if you see this thing the way we do we go back and work with you and the Hwy Oept very closely to make sure everybody is 2 PZM9.15.92 satisfied. As we get further into the final we want to make sure that we address all the City and County specs that we are required to. Yvonne: Lot #8 has increased in size to accommodate the access going through there for all the free market lots and the restricted units. We still have a 7-lot configuration for the free market lots. The lots have been reduced in size. They now average between 8,200 and lO,200sqft. That is the range. This gives you for the FAR it is 3,200 to 3,500sqft which is compatible with the average Riverside Subdivision. The underlying R-15 would allow a 4,500sqft home on these lots. What we also have done to meet some of the concerns that were voiced last week was we have located building envelopes on each lot specific to the buffer that had been requested from any of the abutting lots in Riverside Subdivision. We currently have these shown at a 25ft setback. In talking with the Planning Dept we may need to look at that a little bit because of the turn radius. ",'~"-, Also the affordable housing units have not changed in either number or size. That has remained the same. We have lost a few of the parking spaces but have looked at dedicating as open space a play area which has already been discussed with you. David: What is the grade on the driveway? '- Bob: It is our attempt to maintain a grade less than 8%. David: At the bottleneck here at the interior corner what is the width of these driveways? Bob: We have to maintain 20ft for fire lanes. David: I guess part of that is you are still looking at double parking. Are these flat so you are parking under the deck? Bob: Right. David: So you guys have a 30ft are parking under the deck. ? with a 10ft deck and you Michael Gassman: No. The deck doesn't stick out. It is enclosed. David: So the second parking space is inside. - Gassman: Yes. '-' 3 /....--. PZM9.l5.92 .-- Denning: Once again this is our conceptual. There will be some changes in it. Gassman: We have done enough design to assure ourselves that this access will work. We didn't show any parking because I think when we get to final grading we are probably going to have to have some retaining on that driveway. Roger: Part of your problem is going to be--there is a major grade change here and probably somewhere over around the ditch might be a change. What you might consider is lowering the roadway over the ditch and then syphon. Bob: There is a syphon l,200 feet down the road across 82. Jasmine asked for public comment. Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 in Riverside adjacent to the subdivision. I want to congratulate the developer for the modification of the access and we are real pleased to see that. We are also real pleased to see that they came up with 25ft buffer between us and Riverside. We urge that that should be maintained. We do however still think that the density of 7 free market units is too much for the area. We think that the affordable housing project could be spread out and made a lot more attractive and a lot more functional if it were moved back into the hill and the ditch re-Iocated and the density of the lots cut back. Sara: I agree with staff. This is a very tight site. I raised children in an affordable housing complex. I don't think I would want to raise children in this one. It is too tight. There is too much traffic and it is right off of the highway. We always have to work with the developer that it is not going to pencil. But I guess that isn't our job to manage the profit. Our jOb is the best planning for the community. For the best planning of the community I would like to see affordable housing here. I would like to see mixed use for the private lots. But it is too dense. Jasmine: So you would recommend reducing the density? Sara: I would like to change it to affordable housing--the rezoning is agreeable to me. I like the mixed use concept. But it is too dense. The density would prevent me from giving conceptual approval. David: I agree with staff on everything they have said. I agree with Sara. I tend to agree with Lennie if you are willing to '-- 4 PZM9.l5.92 subsidize the difference in the density. I also applaud the developer and the applicant and the team for bringing this to the table. And even though I think less would be better than more, I think they have followed everything that City guidelines have set out to do in promoting the affordable housing with this type of a mixed use. I think it could use some more parking. It could use some more open space. It could use a few more things. Couldn't we all? And I am willing to grant the conceptual approval. Tim: I am willing to grant this conceptual approval. And I am willing to change it to AH Zone. I think this is a good plan. It is not as pleasing to my eye because it is dense but yet I think that in order to maximize the employee units we have to give the developer a chance to recoup his investment. If we have 4 big lots, they are going to have to be big and expensive lots and big and expensive houses. I would as soon give other people in the community an opportunity to build free market houses there. So even though it is not the sweetest deal all the way around it does give us the employee capability that we want. "-.." Richard: It does seem a bit jammed in here. And that may be site constraint as much as anything else. It is, as far as I am concerned, part of the City so that the density pur'se is not a problem for me. I am curious as to how within the building envelope of the affordable units that compares with other projects. Say the West Hopkins or larger projects like Lone pine or Hunter Creek. Denning: Way less. We have got 42,000sqft within this envelope. We are looking to build 18,000sqft. The FAR is 1.1 to __?__' And it looks really jammed up here because we just took those boxes and placed them back over. But if we go up l/2 a floor--we are going to be able to take half of this off. It looks rough like it is right now. But believe me by the time we get back through and around it is going to be a different affordable housing project. Richard: I am ready to approve it. We have looked at other projects. Harley brought in an affordable housing project for the Scrabble pit area and we looked at that. He brought in a spa before that which was a lot more development than we see here. I am concerned about the play area being across the driveway. That doesn't look very workable to me. Kim: Prior to final we should look at that. l!'l;'~-' Jasmine: It seems to me that probably there is going to be some re-arranging and another area may emerge that would work better '- 5 PZM9.l5.92 '-- when we get to the final. considering the time constraints that the applicant has had I am willing to believe that this is not their final approach to this project. Denning: These things are in the next go-around. We wanted to hurry up and get something that we could show the folks of the neighborhood. We want to suit them because we are going to be their neighbors. I want to live here. That is my whole reason for spending my last nickel and having a heart attack in front of you folks here. Roger: I will support the rezoning. with respect to the numbers and the size of the lots in the free market area I agree with Tim that if you start going up to l5,000sqft lots for example to match the rest of Riverside which now I don't consider this part of Riverside at all--there is very little relationship between this project and Riverside. But if you follow that rational you would end up with 45,000sqft houses probably well beyond the means of most people you want to attract to that area. So I might even throw up the ball that maybe another lot should be put in there to get the size of the houses down. ,-',..... Jasmine: I agree with the rezoning. I think this is an excellent parcel despite it's constraints for mixed-use project. I think Tim's comments and Roger's comments are very well taken even though it is not part of the Riverside Subdivision. One of the things that makes Riverside so nice is that people there have yards. Second home people tend not to have yards. I can tell you from my own street where 2 monster houses have just gone up with about 6 inches of yard on each side. And that is OK because if you don't have children and you aren't living here year around what do you need a yard for? You want media rooms and things like that. -- This kind of project is designed to that even affordable houses will be meant for people who will be living in this community. Ideally they might want yards also. And by limiting the size of the lots you will be limiting the size of the houses and I think it does make it much more possible that this is going to be a real neighborhood with people who are in affordable housing projects that are subsidized by the free market. And the free market people who are not millionaires but who just want to live here with their families. So for that reason I support the number of lots that we have now. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Kim: The first 3 conditions are specific to the Riverside configuration. /"'..... - Roger: And #4 should be changed permit for access and emergency 6 PZM9.15.92 drive as opposed to the driveway. Kim: Access drive and emergency drive. Roger: And why don't we just say "the project" instead of isolating the affordable townhouse. Kim: What about #5, Rob? Thomson: That goes back to some of the reconfiguration of the blocks that even though you are parking 2 spaces inside, whether they use one or not in all likelihood they will park in front as your rendering showed. I just wanted to make sure that that 20 foot access that there is parking in front of each unit--a little space. I am not looking for 2 spaces out front but out so that it wasn't encroaching into that 20 feet. Kim: How about "Parking design for the townhomes shall be reworked to eliminate conflict between emergency access corridor." ~ Roger: The #6--no problem. Bob: Are you going to require curb and gutter on the access. Rob: No. '- Roger: So then all curbs and gutters utilized in streets and parking areas. Rob: Are you not putting curb and gutter in here too? Bob: No. We are not. Rob: The original plan did. Bob: If we could just put "any" instead of "all". Kim: Bob, are you still planning to bring utilities across Lot #8 for the free market units? Bob: No. Actually there will be an access and utilities between the road. We will have a clear corridor so there is no sense to cut any vegetation. Denning: If it is required by the Water Dept to finish that loop we will do that in the lot line up in the free market. Like on Lot #1 if we are required to finish the loop into Riverside to that fire hydrant that is existing in the cul-de-sac. .- Kim: Shall we omit #7? -- 7 PZM9.l5.92 Bob: I would just say that there should be utility easements over all underground installations. Roger: In other words "There shall be utility easements for underground utility installations". Rob: A lot of these are conditions to be looking at for final approval than they are actual conditions of the conceptual and rezoning. Kim: The last half of #7 Bob: We intend to design everything to the satisfaction of the utility companies and, given the ability to dedicate easements to meet their requirements, that will be conveyed to the utility companies in perpetuity. Kim: So they will be considered public lines except for the service lines. Bob: Correct. And the service lines will be the responsibility of the home owner's association. ,.......,. '- Kim: So we could scratch the last half of that condition. Roger: So "There shall be utility easements for underground installation". Kim: 8 stands. 9 stands. 10 and ll. Bob: In #lo--is that a provision of the code? Rob: Yes. Jasmine: #ll--fine. #12--0K. #l3--#14-- Bob: On #14, we would like to state that ? will be on the plat instead of recorded prior to the plat so that we are not doing things by separate instrument so they are recorded on the plat. Rob: They can be recorded at the same time. I just want to have the book and page recorded on the plat. Bob: Can the easements not be recorded on the plat? So we don't have to do separate instruments. And that way they will be shown- Rob: No. We need that to be separate instruments. ~, Bob: Is that a new requirement? .- 8 PZM9.15.92 ~- Rob: That is a new policy. Yes. It has been something we have been trying to put in place. Because you are just saying that as far as just--if it was recorded on the plat it would show that there is an easement. But according to--unless John wants to work differently with that and you can get all that language on a plat that he wants to see there-- Bob: We will do it to your satisfaction. Rob: My biggest concern is being able to track it once you are pulling out the plat is to look and see where the easements are recorded. Bob: But if it is on the plat then it is on the recorded plat. Jasmine: #l5 is pretty standard. I don't know what happened to #16. Jasmine: #l7 Kim: You will have to work that out now and between final. i"'''''''~> Denning: We are prepared to do that. ~- Jasmine: #l8 is OK. #l9. #20 2l,22 and 23. Sara: I would like to see more open space. Denning: This will be a lot different when you see it again. Tim: I am wondering if we use language on one of the other free market and affordable proj ects that puts the developer in a position where you have to have so much funding or so much construction or so much done on the affordable before you start building or before you can have the free market stuff done. What I would like to do is see the commitment and the construction to a certain point before the construction and development of free market. Denning: That is going to be the first part to start. We hope to build next spring. We will give you the proper assurance that that is going to be one of the first ones because I have already--A.J. Albright with Colorado First is working with us and A.J. wanted to get into it after we got through with this meeting. ,~ Sara: This would be more at final but I would like to have some sort of a parking plan and storage for construction during the construction period for the construction vehicles. - 9 PZM9.l5.92 ~- Kim: I have a condition #24. "Applicant shall include an appropriate financial assurance plan for the affordable housing units." The open space situation--do we want to include that as a condition that the applicant shall further study the play area open space. Roger: I think that was his representation here. I don't think we need to include that as a condition. We will remember. Rob: I think one that we need is to reserve the right for further review of the ROWand will continue to work with the applicant and Cdot and bring that to Council. Tim: Are you planning on having any restrictive covenants within the free market units so that the houses are somewhat compatible. Denning: folks. We have 7 potential homeowners that are all full time Tim: So protective covenants of the association-- ,,-- Denning: They have got to work with the Housing. - MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing project conceptual PUD development plan with the following conditions using as the base the Planning Office memo dated September 8, 1992. Conditions #l, 2, and 3 have been deleted. Condition #4 modified Transportation must grant emergency drive. to read: Colorado Department of access permit for the access drive and Condition #5 modified to read: The parking design for the townhomes shall be re-worked to eliminate conflicts with emergency access and parking spaces shall be indicated on the final PUD submission. Condition #6 modified parking areas must specifications. to read: Any curbs, gutters, streets and be designed and constructed to city ~.a",. Condition #7 modified to read: There shall be utility easements for underground installations. "',,~ 10 PZM9.l5.92 - Conditions #8, 9, lO, ll, l2, l3, l4, 15, l6, 17, l8, 19, 20, 2l corrected 22 and corrected 23 are as in the Planning Office memo. New Condition #24: By final submission applicant will come up with a method of guaranteeing construction of the affordable housing units. New Condition #25: parking and service neighboring property By final submission applicant will have a plan for construction to keep vehicles off and streets. New Condition #26: The Engineering Department reserves the right to further review the ROW. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 7:00 PM. commission then continued with work session on the City Shop Master Plan. "'.<""~ "-~ .,,~~'-, '-' 11