PC Minutes 3/16/05

ITEM NO. 8:           PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HUTTON FARMS WEST; NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD & EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (SLD)

                                                   

PDP-12-12-04:  Preliminary Development Plan request for Hutton Farms West.  This proposed planned residential development contains 159 units and is approximately 38.423 acres.  The property is generally described as being located north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way.  Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for North Forty L.C., property owners of record.  This item was deferred by the applicant from the January Planning Commission meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, a preliminary development plan for the northeast corner of Peterson Road and what will be Monterey Way extended.   Residential developments have been approved to the west and south.  Approval for the Springhill II development to the southeast had expired and the property owner was considering some other kind of residential development. 

 

Staff responded to several Study Session questions:

• Peterson Road was planned with a 10’ recreation path maintained by the City. 
• Sidewalks along Monterey Way would be the maintenance responsibility of the property owners abutting the sidewalk.
• A roundabout had a greater capacity to handle traffic, but the increased capacity was hard to quantify.  Staff provided the example of the significant reduction in traffic backup at the intersection of 19^th & Barker after installation of a roundabout.
• The arterial profile for Peterson Road was for a three lane street – one lane in each direction with a center turn lane.   This profile was considered adequate to handle traffic in full build-out conditions.
• If more lanes are deemed necessary for Peterson Road in the future, the City has acquired enough right-of-way to increase to 5 lanes (without a median).
• The intersection of Peterson & Kasold was designed with a traffic signal.
• Peterson Road was designed with anticipation of full build-out.

 

Staff said the applicant would address conditions reflecting the Stormwater Engineer’s concerns about stormwater drainage and detention.  The plan currently suggests that much of the stormwater infrastructure would be contained in the right-of-way.  Mr. Voigt recommended these areas be called out as easements.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Werner said the applicant was in agreement with Staff’s recommendation except for the added conditions about stormwater elements.

 

Mr. Werner explained that Mr. Voigt’s comments were based on a previous plan similar to Hutton Farms east.  The revised plan was for single-family detached units intended for owner occupation, with private streets and no alleys.  Mr. Werner said the comments and subsequent conditions regarding stormwater were not applicable to this revised development design.

 

Mr. Werner said buildings were not shown on the revised plan because the developer proposed to sell individual empty lots.  The buyer would construct the home of his choosing.  This was quite different from a typical PRD, where the plan designated the specific unit and where it was placed on the lot.

 

It was clarified that the applicant was asked to provide contours for the overall project, not for individual lots.  Mr. Werner said this was difficult, because each home constructed (each different depending on the owner’s choice) would impact grading.

 

Mr. Werner asked that the requirement to show storm sewers be applied to the Final Development Plan, so the applicant would not have to go into this fine level of detail on the Preliminary Development Plan or Preliminary Plat.  He commented that the majority of stormwater runoff would be maintained in the private streets, making condition 5f inappropriate, since it called for public review of a private system.

 

Regarding condition 5g, the applicant asked the Commission to consider the project as a regular subdivision, in which building permits could be obtained for phases.  Mr. Werner said the second phase would be presented as a revised Preliminary Development Plan for Commission review.

 

The applicant was amenable to condition 5h as written.

 

Mr. Werner addressed concerns about the need for another detention pond for this phase of the development.  He said the detention pond at Peterson & Kasold was designed with a capacity to serve the entire 38 acre development at full build-out.  He was not sure another pond was needed but intended to provide Mr. Voigt with more information with the Final Development Plan.

 

Mr. Werner responded to questioning that no comparison could or should be drawn between this phase and the development north of Hutton Farms. 

 

The Commission commented on concerns raised at the Study Session:

• It was suggested that more thought be given to the type of exterior lighting provided for individual units and the entryway into the development.  The high-pressure sodium lights in the existing Hutton Farms development were considered inappropriate and intrusive.
• The applicant was asked to consider providing pedestrian access to the recreational facility and clubhouse, as well as the recreational path on Peterson Road.  Mr. Werner said the applicant intended to provide better pedestrian connectivity, but asked that path(s) be required on the Final Development Plan, so optimal location could be found.  
• Screening along Peterson Road was discussed, both to deal with the rear-facing homes and the steep slope leading to the street.  Mr. Werner asked that this detail also be required on the Final Development Plan.
• The applicant was asked to provide detail about the materials and methods proposed to stabilize the steep slopes.
• It was established that the parking requirements for this development would be for the provision of two spaces outside of the setback for each lot.  Mr. Werner said the applicant did not propose to restrict parking on both sides of the private streets.
• The Commission asked for a more detailed landscaping plan to show how the applicant proposed to deal with the homes backing onto Monterey Way.  Mr. Werner noted that this developer preferred landscaping to fencing and typically used elaborate landscaping design.

 

It was established that Mr. Werner requested the removal of conditions 5a, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f and 5g.  He did not object to retaining 5b or 5h.  He also asked that all conditions for additional information (street design, landscaping, storm sewer, contours, etc.) be applied to the Final Development Plan instead of requiring a revised Preliminary Development Plan.

 

Staff responded to questioning the requirement of a note saying the sewers would be public and the requirement for submittal of a public improvements plan to Public Works was a reflection of the expectation the sewers were a public system because they would cross multiple property lines.  Mr. Werner contested that the sewers would not be a public system because they would be located in a private street. 

 

There was discussion about leaving out some of the recommended conditions with the applicant’s understanding that they might be applied to the Final Development Plan.  Staff said the Commission must be careful about attempting to make significant changes from the Preliminary Development Plan.  It was suggested that the minutes reflect the Commission’s intent to consider adding the discussed conditions at the Final Development Plan stage.

 

There was discussion about the applicant’s claim that it would be impossible to provide final contour plans because development of each lot would impact runoff patterns.  It was established that the majority of runoff was anticipated to go to the storm sewer system at Kasold & Peterson.

 

It was again verified that the city had acquired enough right-of-way to improve Peterson Road again in the future to a 5-lane arterial if it were found necessary, although a 3-lane arterial was proposed at this time.  There was not enough right-of-way to construct a boulevard and some Commissioners asked if the city should obtain the additional right-of-way needed for that improvement.  Staff said the boulevard concept would require further study and reminded the Commission that the Peterson Road improvements were designed and going to bid soon.  It was considered unlikely that the City Commission would reconsider the road improvement plans at this point in the process.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Kristen Sederstrom, area resident, said she had questions about the proposed development.  She asked if it was definite that this area would be developed as a subdivision.  It was established that the property was zoned for residential development as a planned unit development.

 

Ms. Sederstrom’s second question was whether the Peterson Road improvements would extend to Martin Park.  The Commission agreed this was an important question that they did not have an answer for today.  Burress said the Commission thought improvements should extend that far.  There would clearly be more traffic than 6^th Street could handle and provision would have to be made somewhere.

 

Betty Lichtwardt spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, referencing main points of concern from the League’s letter to the Commission:

• The applicant indicates an intent to retain existing mature trees.  The League suggests the plan designate this area as open space and provides pedestrian access to the open space.
• The area is not being planned as a neighborhood, meaning there are no commercial amenities within walking distance.  This area will have an adequate customer base and a small commercial area, possibly a food source, a small restaurant and a service center should be provided.

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner stated that the requested sideyard setback waiver was typical for PRD’s.

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

There were no closing comments from Staff.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress said the League’s point about commercial amenities was well taken, but asked if there was anything the Commission could do about it, given the zoning of the subject property.  Staff replied that PRD zoning would allow a very limited number of commercial use types.  The Commission had specifically prohibited commercial uses in the development to the east, but the subject property’s PRD zoning was not conditioned upon the same restrictions.  Staff was not sure the proposed design was conducive to the addition of a commercial element.   

 

Mr. Werner responded to questioning:

• The applicant would be willing to consider adding limited commercial uses for the Final Development Plan. 
• Some kind of food service was proposed earlier but dismissed because there was concern about creating a strip center in the development to the east.
• The applicant intended to create a nature trail accessing the unbuildable land to the east, but asked to be allowed to look at options for its exact location.
• Daylily Drive does not currently exist, but adjacent properties were platted to extend to the subject property line to allow connection.
• The applicant anticipated a number of “natural” (unplatted) trails in and around the open space areas.

 

Staff responded to questioning that the open space referenced by the League was critical to the development’s open space calculations and could not be developed.  It was anticipated that this natural area would be set out as a Tract in the Final Plat.

 

The Commission listed multiple elements that they would like to see on the Final Development Plan.  These inclusions should be stated as a condition on the Preliminary Development Plan.  Retention of conditions 5b & 5h was discussed.

 

It was stated for the record that if the Commission struck conditions 5a, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f and 5g per the applicant’s request, these conditions might be considered for application to the Final Development Plan.

 

There was additional discussion about the 5-lane arterial concept for Peterson Road and the need for the City to acquire more right-of-way.  Burress said he did not think the 3-lane profile currently being pursued would handle the amount of traffic that would be traveling through this area.  Jennings said by the time the Final Development Plan for this project was submitted, the Peterson Road improvements (as currently planned) would be under construction.

 

ACTION TAKEN  

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to accept the sideyard setback waiver as presented by Staff.

          Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.

 

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Lawson to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Hutton Farms West and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:

 

1.      Provision of a revised preliminary development plan to provide a pedestrian connection between Daylily Drive and Hutton Way per staff approval;

2.      Provision of a note on the face of the development plan that states the use of the clubhouse and activity buildings located in Hutton Farms (East) is restricted to use of these residents and their guests;

3.      Provision of a revised site summary and parking summary as noted in the staff review;

4.      Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that prohibits structures larger than a tri-plex type building located in Phase II apartment type building located in Phase II;

5.      Provision of a revised preliminary development plan to include the following changes and information per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer:

a.      Show proposed contours for the entire site on a single plan sheet.

b.      Show project bench marks.

c.      Show and label existing and proposed storm sewers.

d.      Show and label existing and proposed drainage easements.

e.      Show the detention basin and system modifications proposed in the approved drainage study.

f.       Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary development plan that states: “All storm sewers and the detention basin will be public systems. Public improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.”

g.      Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary development plan that states: “All public improvements must be complete, final inspected and accepted by the City prior to application for building permits.”

h.      Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary development plan that states: “A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Include the SWP3 in the public improvement plans. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.”

6.       Integration of the following elements into the Final Development Plan:

a.      Provide street elevation for lots along Peterson Road, showing landscape treatments for the streetscape north of the right-of-way;

b.      Clarify that open space/natural area is to be left natural with minimum maintenance;

c.      Consider inclusion of a small service/commercial use to serve residents of the PRD;

d.      Consider inclusion of nature trail/pedestrian path through open space/natural area;

e.      Provide lighting specifications and include General Note that outdoor lighting will include cut-off shields to direct light downward;

f.       Provide street elevations for lots along Monterey Way showing proposed landscape treatments;

g.      Provide additional pedestrian paths on plan that connect in a north-south direction to Peterson Road;

h.      Addition of a note on the Final Development Plan or grading plan describing measures to be taken for retention and stabilization of soil on steep slopes. 

 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.