Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTOCKBRIDGE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 27-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 26 Mr. Eckman said that he would like to make comment on the condition of the motion of working with the neighborhood. His concern was "further" definition. It seemed open ended with no time frame. Mr. Phillips suggested the wording include working with staff as part of the motion. Member Strom stated for the record he believed based on the LDGS, a variance wasn't necessary. The percentage point standard clearly states the requirements. He said he would still support the motion. Chair Clements pointed out that the planning staff is still overworked with the absence of a Chief Planner. Two new planners are now on staff and potential appointment of a neighborhood ambassador, and perhaps technical staff will be added. A lot of these issues should have been resolved before they were presented to the Board and the additional staff should provide a better quality of service to the neighbors and applicants so the Board would not be dealing with issues as these in the future. Motion passed 5-0. Item 26. Mountain Ridge Farm Amended Overall Development Plan #55-87A. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, read the staff report. The Planning Staff recommends that the street extension be made at this time for the reasons included in the staff report. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, represented the applicant Miramont Associates, Ltd. He stated that the ODP is merely a housekeeping phase and that neighborhood meetings have been held and lot adjustments and setbacks have been made to the plan with regard to Imperial Estates. The main issues is Westfield Drive. The neighbors do not wish that it go through; it can cul-de-sac with bike/ped access. From the applicant's view, it is better for the street to have a cul-de-sac. The City Planning Department wants it go through as a street. Traffic engineers were present to answer questions. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation of the street proposed. He referred to a memo to the Board that addressed issues of concern and traffic impacts this project may have on Imperial Estates. He went into detail of the alternative plans. Dispersement of traffic would shift to connector streets. Additional traffic to the neighborhood from the City's perspective is that there will be little if any additional Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 25 Mr. Herman indicated not in its entirety, improvements would be going in by phase as the area develops. Member Cottier asked about building heights? Mr. Herman said two -stories maximum, standard. Mr. Birdsall stated his single level ranch home is plus or minus 20 feet. Mr. Herman indicated that the formation of a homeowners association is stated on the plan. Member Fontane mentioned she liked the idea of connecting neighborhoods, the bike/ped trail, which comes first and access, and that there should be a condition for right-of-way, etc. Member Cottier said she believed if the connection should there, the Skyline development should have had it included. She said a bike/ped crossing would be more beneficial and safe and would allow people to go from the park to the school. Member Cottier moved approval of Stockbridge Preliminary without the right-of-way condition, but with a condition that the developer work further with the neighborhood on transition issues, berming, landscaping and fencing. Chair Clements asked if there needed to be a separate vote on the ODP and does that need to occur first? Planner Olt said yes. Member Cottier moved approval of the Seneca ODP. Member Strom seconded the notion. Motion passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved approval of Stockbridge Preliminary without the right-of-way condition for a street, but with a condition that the developer work further with the neighborhood and planning staff on transition issues, berming, landscaping and fencing on the western portion of the property, and that the developer be willing to provide pedestrian/bicycle access across the canal, with the variance to the point chart. Member Fontane seconded the notion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 24 with the designation on the ODP. So why is staff recommending approval? Planner Olt said for the reason given in the statement that follows that on the density chart, there is a table that states 30-40% earned on the point chart then entitles you to 3 or 4 dwelling units per acre in terms of density. Essentially you have to earn point for point. He gave examples. This is a staff initiated variance and is a reasonable request. Chair Clements asked with this infill, would the ODP be built out? Are there other options other than a church? What are the other options? Planner Olt said the Seneca ODP is 31 acres. It is the 8 acre church site and the remainder of the single-family residential. with the change of the 8-acre church site, the Seneca ODP would be built out with single-family. On the Seneca master plan it is a church site and in the RLP zoning district both uses are permitted by right. Planning views them as inter -changeable. Member Strom asked where "contiguity" is defined? Planner Olt referred to the LDGS and read the definition under the residential uses point chart, Criterion J and under existing developments, Appendix D. He indicated that it did not meet the definition of existing urban development. Member Cottier said that the distance to a school should be looked at because in this particular case where it is just outside the 1,000 feet, any elementary kids from Stockbridge would be within walking distance to the school. She believed that some points should be given for that criterion. Member Cottier said that a resident mentioned the need for a greater transition area and berming and landscaping. Mr. Herman said what is shown on the plan is simply illustrative. The request is the fencing, type of plant materials to be used and spacing. That would be done at the time of final design. Chair Clements asked if that needed to be a condition to the motion? Planner Olt indicated it would make it clearer and part of record for compliance. Member Klataske asked about the berming being in place prior to construction? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 23 Chair Clements asked for clarification of the trail along the ditch. Planner Olt stated requests for the bike/ped trail along the Pleasant Valley Canal has been requested in other areas of the community as well. The developer would incur the costs and logically it would be placed on the west side of the ditch. Chair Clements asked about the homeowner's association and its functions and would there be 60-foot lot lines? Mr. Herman said there would be a homeowner's association for the development. He said that the lots along that edge of the development are 130-140 feet deep. There was discussion regarding density, contiguity, right-of-way, connections to the south, enclave creation, bike path easements, trail location, etc., concluding there should be more definitive plans concerning the Stockbridge properties, lot configuration, house styles, buffering, etc. Leo Schuster - Loveland, Colorado - Progressive Living Structures. He indicated after meeting with the neighborhoods, he believed he has met more than half way the requirements for setbacks and buffering. He felt it was an unreasonable request to restrict buildings to two stories. Member Fontane asked about connections to the bike path and relationship to Cobblestone Corners project. Planner Olt said to his knowledge there was no connection, but needed to investigate. Mr. Birdsell - Skyline Acres - He said there was no connection and that it was part of the negotiation of annexation that Richmond Drive remain a deadend. There is an emergency fire access to College. Cobblestone is the first development in the Mountain Ridge. Planner Olt said if there is no connection at this point, he did not see what the future connection would be. There is a dedicated right-of-way in Skyline Acres. The connections could be in the future. Chair Clements read from the staff report that a score of 33% does not reflect a sufficient amount of earned credit to match the density of 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the density is not supported on the residential point chart. The request for single family residential lots is not in compliance Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 22 (3) creation of a homeowners association to supervise the maintenance of the green areas, detention pond and border landscape. It should be clearly defined who will be responsible for the maintenance of these items. He also stated that the traffic will negatively impact the Imperial Estates area. Lois Burr - Denver, Colorado - She stated she owns the 8 plus acres east of the proposed site. She has heard many different things about the impacts to her property and is not clear what will happen and what are the required easements. She wanted these issues clarified before there is a settlement on this project. Jonathan Taylor - 3630 Capitol Dr. - A resident of Imperial Estates and an environmental scientist by profession. His concern was for the densities proposed. These are moderate - income households trying to preserve some of the rural character of the area they selected to live in. He believed there could be more compatibility to the existing neighborhoods. He was interested in what the Neighborhood Compatibility Study would say about their area. Steve Birdsell - 3821 Richmond Dr. - He lives in Skyline acres and agreed with the comments from Imperial Estates. His main concern was density. The access right-of-way is news to all the neighbors and they are not interested in increasing traffic. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked for the reasoning behind the request for access for future connections. Planner Olt indicated it was good planning to create accesses into other sections of neighborhoods. There are logical connections that should be made from a planning standpoint to diminish the amount of traffic that goes on arterials. Chair Clements brought out the drainage easement issue with respect to the Lois Burr property. Mr. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department replied when off -site easements are secured for development from neighboring properties, they have to work with property owners. The compensation for the easement will be between the property owner and the developer. All easements are secured before construction commences. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 21 Mr. Ben Herman of BHA Design representing Progressive Living Structures, with Leo Schuster, President of Progressive Living Structures, pointed out that Seneca is a collector roadway. They are attempting to create a pedestrian corridor, providing for a future trail along the ditch. He discussed further specifics of the plan, mentioning neighborhood compatibility issues, density, transition between neighborhoods and buffering. There has been a provision to supply a greater buffer area to lessen the impact to the homes in the area. He mentioned the plan is better because of the neighborhood process. Mr. Herman addressed the right-of-way issue and explained their plans. He believed the street connection was unwarranted and perhaps undesirable and unnecessary for purposes of access. He believed it would compromise the trail connection along the ditch. He said that undesirable impacts on the neighborhood would occur and cost factors also make it undesirable. Member Cottier asked about the location of the bike trail. Mr. Herman indicated it was off the Stockbridge property. There was discussion regarding the provision of the bike/ped bridge, the adjoining subdivisions, size of planned lots, density for infrastructure, etc. Planner Olt said that the density at Stockbridge has changed from 4 dwelling units per acre to 3 du/acre, leaving the lots at about 1/2 acre in size. CITIZEN INPUT. Peter Dorhout - 3640 Crescent Drive - He represented Imperial Estates and read a prepared statement. He stated there had been a letter of opposition also submitted. His statement covered the size of the subdivision lots, architecture and nature of the unique community of residents. This unique rural area includes livestock and homes for the mentally challenged. He requested consideration of impacts. Issues of buffering and defined transition areas were requested, specifically: (1) guarantees of landscaping with trees, a fence and a berm to abut the rural livestock and agricultural uses. (2) 60 feet for buffering between lot lines of new area to existing with the request that it be in place before construction for safety. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 20 Planner Frank clarified that the new schedule would begin in July. Member Cottier suggested a short time -frame (6 months) and to have the City Chief Planner address these issues within that time frame. Chair Clements said that time limits were appropriate but felt more like a year to bring some one into this job and current political climate to deal with this issue. Mr. Phillips requested that the Board recommend a reporting time of one-year on the performance of the LDGS rather than put a sunset on it. Chair Clements summarized that it would be reviewed in a year rather than it being revoked? Mr. Phillips said yes. Member Cottier said that was conceivable but did not want to lose sight of streamlining the process. Member Fontane said it made sense to have an update as the process evolved within the year. Member Strom moved approval of the extended process with the 30- day delay on implementation and reporting review period within the year. Member Cottier seconded the motion with the clarification that it starts with the July 18 submittal for the September meeting 1994. Mr. Ward said that was acceptable. Motion passed 5-0. Item 25. Stockbridge PIID - Preliminary #27-94. Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, read the staff report with recommendations. Staff recommends a condition stating that at the time of final approval: The Stockbridge PIID shall dedicate right -of -ray to the east property line to provide for future vehicular access from Stockbridge PIID, across the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal into the vacant property to the east.