Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWIFT ADDITION TO FOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - COUNTY REFERRAL - 33-01H - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 106 Member Craig moved to send a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners for both modification requests as so stated by the findings of staff on page 5 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she very thoroughly read staffs evaluation and findings and she agreed with staff completely. She did not see any circumstance for the modification request. She did not see any reason for the Board to be granting a request. The motion was approved 5-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 105 Mr. Birdsall stated that they have loosened up the street configuration, they have substantially more open space, the pedestrian connectivity is at least equal to, and in their opinion superior to the original plan. One of the major benefits to the revised plan is there is a substantial greenbelt on the south end of the development. The Resource Management Area that is part of the Fossil Creek Plan is between the Swift Addition and Fossil Creek Reservoir. There is a quarter mile buffer of open space that will permanently protect the reservoir from development and encroachment from humans. That area is closed off from human activity to protect the sensitive habitat that is on the north side of the reservoir. Their intention of creating open space between the lots and the Resource Management Area is to create a buffer that will be managed and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Birdsall reviewed their requests again for the Board. Mr. Birdsall requested that the Board recommend that these modifications move forward and recommend an approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Citizen Input None. Member Craig referred to a cul-de-sac to the south that opens up into the green area, that she assumed was to work as a buffer to the Resource Management Area. If that area is opened up would it not make people want to go down into it. Mr. Birdsall replied that originally that was designed as an easement. There is a sewer line and stormdrainage that drain through that area. The Storm Drainage Department does not like to have storm sewer pipe in an easement because if they ever need to get in there and maintain it, they would rather do work over a greenbelt that is owned by a HOA rather than do work in someone's lot. That was a requirement of the Storm Drainage Department to have that as a open tract. The Natural Resources Department is very concerned about that and they will have to do fencing with an open rail fence across that opening and have signage. Member Carpenter asked to see the 7 lots that are being requested to reduce the side yard setback. Mr. Birdsall pointed out the lots on the map the estate lots are colored red and the open space is colored white. Any lot that has open space directly adjacent to its side, were the lots that they were requesting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 104 Recommendation: Denial Hearing TestimonV, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that the property is in Larimer County and is subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Jones showed slides of context diagrams of the site and surrounding properties in the area. He stated that the applicant was requesting, in the area of this plan that is designated Urban Estates, a variety of setbacks. Planner Jones referred to a table in the Boards packet that explains which lots are asking for which setback variance. There are four different kinds of variance requests: • To reduce the side setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. That is all of the lots that are shown on the table (21 — 58). • To reduce the side setback on lots that are adjacent to greenbelts to 7.5 feet on lots 38, 42, 43, 50, 51 and 58. • To reduce the 100-foot minimum lot width to an equivalent of 80 feet lot width on lots 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42 and 43. • A request to reconfigure the lot lines on Lots 27 and 28. Mr. Jones reported that staff was recommending denial of the request. He stated that fundamentally, staff felt the applicant should have just laid the lots out in accordance with the standards, rather than laying it out this way and coming back to ask for a modification. Staff felt that it was a foreseeable situation. Jim Birdsall, Everitt Companies gave the applicant presentation. He explained some of the history of the project. He stated that they purchased the property from Louie Swift, who owns the farm east of the Swift Addition property. There was a relatively short contractual obligation to Mr. Swift as far as a timeline he had for them to do their due diligence. As part of that obligation a plan was put together that they felt was consistent with the supplemental regulations of the Larimer County Land Use Code relative to the Fossil Creek Area. That would be the first plan that you would see on the diagram that Mr. Jones mentioned. The original plan was relatively gridded, the estate area, which is the southern half , is basically a grid. Relatively little open space and very efficient as to the number of lots. There are 130 total lots total and the revised plan has 116 lots. The original had 46 estate lots and the revised plan only has 38. The original plan, in the estate area only, had 1.4 acres of open space and the revised plan has 4.3 acres. They got the first plan approved to fulfill their obligation to Mr. Swift and then they looked at doing some revisions to the plan and the plan before the Board is what they came up with. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 103 23 24 Ply Project: Modification of Standards, Fossil Lake P.U.D. Swift Addition (County Referral) Project Description: Request for a modification for standards within the Supplemental Regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area: Section I.E.4.b.(1) requires lots in the "Estate Residential Area" of the Fossil Creek Reservoir area to have a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Section I.E.4.b.(4) requires lots in the "Estate Residential Area" of the Fossil Creek Reservoir area to have a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mika] Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Gavaldon. Members Colton and Meyer were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Olt, Stringer, Virata, Moore, Hamdan and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 6, 2001, February 21 (Continued), June 20 (Continued), and July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #28-02 Modification of Standards— Park Central Condos Discussion Agenda: 3. #34-02 University Center for the Arts — Site Plan Advisory Review 3. Modification of Standards — Fossil Lake P.U.D., Swift Addition (County Referral) 4. #24-94A Lindenmeier Estates P.U.D. - Final Member Bernth moved to approved Consent Item 1, the December 6, 2001 and July 18, 2002 minutes and Consent Item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.