Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 10/16/2017

Home

Board Member Covart stated that there tends to be additional guest parking with townhomes and noted that does not appear to be provided. She asked if the guest parking would then eat into the greenspace currently provided. City Planner Anderson replied that it is his understanding, that much like Riverstone, the road would be proposed as a 29-foot width road with parking allowed on one side of the street. He noted that request has not yet come forward but staff is assuming that would be part of this package. He stated that although these are detached townhomes, they would be similar to a single-family home on a more compact footprint, and would have a 29-foot wide driveway which would allow for parking. He stated that the internal greenspace would not be converted to parking without the loss of a few lots. City Planner Anderson asked if there is any additional input, noting again that this is not the last time the Board will see this item. Board Member Valentine stated that there was discussion regarding boulevard trees versus front yard trees. He stated that while boulevard trees are great, it would be hard to determine if there would be sufficient space for that. City Planner Anderson noted that there would be sidewalk along one side of the road which would preserve four to six feet of boulevard. He stated that may not be enough space for each home to have a boulevard tree but there could be a boulevard tree every so many feet. He stated that on the side of the road without a sidewalk there would still be right-of-way area, which would in essence provide more space for boulevard trees and therefore a requirement could be made for a tree within ten feet of the back of curb. He confirmed the consensus of the Board to support the suggestion for boulevard trees. He stated that perhaps in the future the Board can create a list of overall goals to suggest to developers to provide in these instances. Chairperson Stodola agreed perhaps that could be placed on a future agenda to create that list of goals. He noted that the Board tends to make similar suggestions to the plans that are reviewed and therefore it would be helpful to have that list, noting that the Board would still make specific suggestions to the plans they review. 5.02: Sketch Plan for North Fork Meadows City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the purpose of the case is to introduce the EPB to a proposed Sketch Plan for North Fork Meadows. He noted that the proposed development is located along the south side of Alpine Drive, immediately east of Puma Street, and adjacent to the Riverstone project. He stated that this review is similar to the previous case. He stated that this development would include 97 units with a mix of small lot single-family homes and townhomes. He stated that this project has gone through multiple iterations, noting that this is concept five and includes less density than originally proposed. He stated that the developer would be requesting a PUD for this development and advised that density transitioning would be required between this parcel and the neighboring development. He stated the developer for this project and the previous case is the same. He noted that the developer is proposing 80-foot wide lots along the adjacent boundary along with a 45-foot zone that would provide additional transitioning buffer. He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting the previous week the developer went on record stating that they would be willing to contribute additional trees for the Environmental Policy Board / October 16, 2017 Page 5 of 9