Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINDEN GROVE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 49-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 6 Member Bell asked if this project is built in the next year, but the improvements wouldn't be complete for five, what is the outcome of that. Mr. Schlueter replied that the units shown in the floodway, the multi -family, cannot be built until the improvements are done to Dry Creek. Member Bell asked about the density and why was the 10 acres removed out of the total. Was it not still part of the 59 acre development. Planner Olt replied it was. If we still had a 60 acre development with 186 dwelling units, it would be just barely over 3 dwelling units per acre. Member Strom asked for clarification for the record of the changing of the Findings of Fact with regards to Engineering design criteria, and water hazards and utility capacity all have to do with the floodplain issue. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Member Bell asked if they are eliminating the lots in the southern portion, was there still some duplex and patio homes remaining. Planner Olt replied yes, there would still be three types of units. Member Walker made a motion to approve Linden Grove P.U.D., Preliminary with the condition that the staff has stated and also with the condition that in the Chancellor Drive area in the floodway be evaluated to determine its feasibility to be built. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. WOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY, #18-94B. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, stated that this project was postponed from last months Planning and Zoning Board Meeting to be considered this evening. The request is for 98 single family lots on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road 9, north of the Hewlett Packar3 Plant approximately 1.2 mile south of Horsetooth Road. The property is zoned RLP with a PUD condition. Mr. Shepard stated that the applicant was here to make an announcement and staff could answer any questions after that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 5 Planner Olt replied that in the discussions with the applicant, they did not discuss that at all. It is a concept that he just became aware of this evening. Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition that that should be addressed before final approval. Mr. Herzig replied that should be something that should be conditioned that the issue be resolved at final. Chairman Clements asked about the ability to build Chancellor Drive, to make it a complete loop and how will it affect the lots along that drive if it cannot be built. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility replied that the floodway does extend up onto Chancellor Drive, and if they could build the street so there is no fill and the street at existing ground or lower, it could be in the floodway. They would have to go through an analysis to prove they have caused no rise in the floodway. Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition. Mr. Schlueter replied it could be put on the plan, or cover it when the final review comes around. Member Cottier asked when the Dry Creek improvements will be finally designed and when they might occur. Mr. Schlueter replied there would be an answer by the end of the year on what alternative they are going to use. It is looking like the original alternative that was in the 1980 Dry Creek Study. If they stay with that, by the time a bond issue is done, probably 5 years. Member Strom asked how certain it was that the Dry Creek would be channelized, and if not, what effect would it have on properties existing to the south if we allow construction in the floodplain on the south 1/3 of this proposal. Mr. Schlueter replied that when a study is done, a floodway and a floodfringe are defined which break up the floodplain. The assumption is that the floodfringe is filled out to the floodway line. It would have no effect on what they physically put on the map today even if they built out all the way to the floodway line. The homes in the floodfringe would have to elevate 1 1/2 feet above the projected 100-year elevation, and FEMA would require flood insurance. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Ward replied that the affect of the drainage channel on the lots in question, really all of Alta Vista, will be helped, and upon completion of the floodplain, all of Alta Vista will be out of the floodplain. Mr. Ward also replied that the streets in Alta Vista should not connect into this subdivision, the drainage channel is enough of a barrier, and with the future alignment of Lemay, Lemay would become a local street and will provide a local connection between the existing and proposed neighborhoods. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department, added that they met with Cityscape to discuss alternative street connection issues. Transportation was concerned that the existing streets in Alta Vista should be extended to connect into the new development, however, there are concerns regarding the structure of the existing streets and the current street standards. In addition, they have heard from neighborhood residents and their concern with people cutting through their neighborhood; and, that integrating more streets would increase that problem. The solution discussed was that the streets need not be integrated if at least one street connection is provided into the adjoining vacant parcel. That when the vacant parcel develops it would be a system of streets that shuts traffic back to Vine Drive, sheltering and relieving the temptation of cutting through Alta Vista. Main Street in Alta Vista would also be a choice for a future connection. Chairman Clements asked if that needed to be a condition. Mr. Vosburg replied that was the agreement at the end of the meeting and that it would have to be on the plan, therefore not needing a condition. Planner Olt pointed out the note on the revised plan. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department went over the cul-de-sacs, Martinez and Alta Vista Drives should be cul-de-sacs or connected back into Lemay Avenue. He confirmed that the streets should either be connected or cul-de-sacked. Chairman Clements asked if he could address the issue of the alley. Mr. Herzig replied they have not seen anything on it, the idea of another street similar to what is out there is a possibility. He would not call it an alley, he would call it a street that is similar to what is out there. It may be an option, if they want to provide something like that. Chairman Clements asked for staff's comments on that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 3 Planner Olt replied yes. Chairman Clements asked how that would affect the density. Planner Olt replied he would calculate that and get back to them after the applicants presentation. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward spoke on the density of the project and the issue with the floodplain. Mr. Ward asked for the board to consider, because preliminary approval has been given in the past, as well as final, with a condition that no building permits could be issued until the flood plain was amended. Also, other structures in the Alta -Vista area have been built by the Housing Authority in the flood plain. He did not see any compelling reasons they should be restricted with this development plan based on past actions by the City. They have made it clear that this would be preliminary only and no final plans would be submitted until the floodplain amendment was done. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Joan Cusack, 815 Alta Vista, the north end of her property boarders what is now the drainage area. She asked what effect moving the drainage area would have on her property. Ms. Cusack was also concerned with the fact that the street is a dead-end and everyone uses her drive -way for a turnaround. She was under the impression that when development occurred, the street would be extended or arrangements would be made for a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. Alice Rogers, Martinez Street, Alta Vista Subdivision, also thought that the existing streets would be joining together. She has now been told that would not happen and would like that clarified. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Chairman Clements asked Planner Olt for the density information. Planner Olt replied 186 dwelling units on 50 acres, 3.7 dwelling units per acre, if the 10 acres and 27 dwelling units were taken out of the floodway. The plan currently has 3.6 units per acre, so there would be no change in the overall density. Chairman Clements asked about Ms. Cusacks question regarding the effects on her property when the drainageway is moved. Also the street she lives on, and would that become a cul-de-sac. How would the street system tie into this area and effect their subdivision? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 2 The motion was approved 7-0. Member Bell pulled #8, Linden Grove P.U.D. Chairman Clements abstained from voting on item #7 due to a conflict of interest. Member Strom moved for approval of consent agenda items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. The meeting was turned over to Vice Chairman Cottier for a vote on item V . Member Fontane moved for approval of item V . Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with Chairman Clements not voting. Linden Grove P.U.D. - Preliminary - #49-94. Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: 1. That Lots 44 through 71 are being shown for Preliminary P.U.D. approval only. A plan for these lots cannot be submitted to the City for final P.U.D. review and approval, nor can building permits be issued, until the Dry Creek channel realignment is completed, there by taking this area out of the floodway. Member Walker asked if Chancellor Drive had to be dead -ended for Lot 77 to be built on and was the fire protection adequate if Chancellor Drive could not be connected. Planner Olt replied that the Fire Authority had stated that if the portion of Chancellor Drive that could not be completed at this time, and the street dead -ended, the lots would have to be evaluated as to which lots could be built on. Stormwater would be the one that would tell whether it could be done. Chairman Clements asked if they were looking at a part of this plan that in the future may not develop if the realignment of the channel does not occur. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1994 STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Strom, Walker. Staff Present: Ludwig, Olt, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Blanchard, Eckman, Shepard, Herzig, Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas, which included the following items: 1. Minutes of the September 26 and October 24, 1994 Planning Zoning Board Minutes. (Continued) 2. Shepardson Elementary School - Advisory Site Plan Review, #46- 94. 3. Beattie Elementary School - Advisory Site Plan Review, #47-94. 4. Wuerker Residential Addition - NCM Site Plan Review, #48-94. 5. Market @ Horsetooth, Seven Oaks PUD - Final, #96-81P. 6. English Ranch Subdivision, 5th Filing - Preliminary & Final, #75-86P. 7. The Arena PUD, JFK Office - Preliminary and Final, #9-80J. 8. Linden Grove PUD - Preliminary, #49-94. 9. Windtrail Park PUD - Final, #66-93E. 10. Dakota Ridge PUD, Third Filing - Final, #60-91L (Continued). 11. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 12. Resolution PZ94-17 Easement Vacation. 13. Resolution PZ94-18 Easement Vacation, (Withdrawn). Discussion Agenda: 14. Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary, #18-94B. 15. Willow Springs PUD, First Filing - Final, #3-94B (Continued) 16. Hugh M. Woods PUD - Preliminary, #26-88D. 17. Bridgefield PUD - Preliminary, #45-94. (Continued). 18. Spring Creek Farms - Amended Overall Development Plan, #75- 860. 19. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Design Guidelines, #29-90. (Continued until November 21). 20. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Design Guidelines for Large Scale Retail Developments, #54-94. (Continued until November 21). Member Strom moved to hear Spring Creek Farms second on discussion. Member Fontane seconded the motion.