Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL ..... 7/24/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 19-94C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 9 Member Mickelson commented that she was pleased with the transitions changes that have been made and that she would support the project. Chairman Carnes commented that he concurs with the other Board members in that an honest effort has been made by all parties to arrive at a middle ground. The motion to approve passed 7-0. HAMLET CONDOMINIUMS AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - #54-87AE Ted Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval of the preliminary. Mick Aller, Aller-Lingle Architects, gave a brief presentation on the location, parking, street layout and accessibility to and from the proposed site, access and size of driveways, setbacks, density, sidewalks, exterior building materials and design, and site amenities. Member Walker asked what is the status of the Mail Creek ditch. Mr. Ailer replied that it was owned and maintained by the ditch company. Member Colton asked how a synthetic stucco exterior compares to a brick exterior in terms of material and appearance. Mr. Aller replied that synthetic stucco has longevity and is a durable product. He believed that it is compatible with brick. He added that the Marriott Hotel on Horsetooth is made entirely of synthetic stucco. Member Davidson asked if there were perspective drawings of the buildings that will be adjacent to High Castle that the neighborhood will be seeing. Mr. Aller replied that he had elevations. He pointed out that the actual portion of the building that faces High Castle would be one story in appearance with the second story bedroom projecting out to a dormer. The four-plexes be will 6,000 sf, which is two levels, but the scale of the building is not that large. CITIZEN INPUT Clayton Shureen, 601 Castleridge Court, had concerns that the density was too high which would increase the traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 8 Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Mickelson commented that, as she recalls, the Board was wanting to have the orientation and placement look different at final. Mr. Shepard replied that he was under the impression that the Board was divided on what clustering means and whether this project clusters or not. There is an attempt to cluster density in a certain location of the site but there wasn't an attempt to cluster to the extent that you a lot of open space. The transition occurs primarily by the placement of relatively large urban -style lots versus common open space. He was not sure that the Board resolved their differences on clustering. Member Davidson asked for explanation of transitioning of the neighbors on the east other than making larger lots. Mr. Ward replied that the lot size is the key item. They did look at an extreme clustering approach with small lots and a higher percentage of open space. However, this did not receive a very positive response from the neighbors. Larger lots were more compatible than to add linear activity. Another key element is with the street connections and not introducing outside traffic into the existing street area. Mr. Ward added that it is part of the proposal to add a substantial amount of landscaping in the back of those lots. Sandy Thomas, resident of the area, stated that she was concerned about the streetlights and the traffic sounds which will also affect the neighbors to the north of them. Anything that is bigger on the east and north sides will help ease these concerns. Another concern is that the lots are not very big and there's no place for children to play other than other people's property. This is a safety hazard with the existing ponds and domestic animals such as their horses and peacocks. Mr. Shepard stated that there will be a row of 18 trees along the rear of lots 15 and 16. These trees meet the LDGS requirements for deciduous and evergreen trees. Member Strom commented that this project is on the edge of what will always be much lower density because of the Poudre River floodplain in the area. There has been lengthy discussions on what works best for the neighborhood and the city. Given the piece of ground and the context that it sits in, he believed that this was in compliance with the preliminary that was approved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 7 Member Bell asked if there are conflicting policies between the Land Use Policies Plan and the LDGS and what takes precedence. Mr. Shepard replied that what takes precedence would be what is an ordinance form versus what is in policy or guidelines or advisory form. Currently, the Land Use Policies Plan of the Comprehensive Plan is advisory and gives guidance. The LDGS is an ordinance and therefore would take precedence. Member Davidson asked how many acres were designated recreational and how is recreational use defined. Mr. Ward responded that the recreational area is the project is 139,505 square feet. This is a percentage of the total area. The LDGS defines recreational space as partials of not less than 10,000 sf and not less than 50 linear feet in the smallest dimension and that public dedications may not be counted. By ordinance, it is a dimensional calculation. Member Davidson states that on Page 25 of the LDGS, under Building Placement Orientation, Functional Considerations, the recreational areas are a linear measurement only and should be designed so they are accessible to the area residents they are intended to serve. He had a concern that these trees are so thick in growth that they could not be accessible to anyone. Mr. Shepard commented that the City wanted to preserve these trees and by doing so, the plan meets the public objective. Member Bell noted Page 15 of the LDGS regarding Wildlife Habitat and asked if the Colorado Division of Wildlife has to make a ruling of yes or no on this property. Mr. Shepard replied that they do not have a general listing for all sites that are reviewed by the LDGS. The City's Department of Natural Resources works closely with the State on these areas. When this criterion is used, the Colorado Division of Wildlife can get involved. Member Walker commented that this proposal is a reasonable approach to meet the varied, and sometimes conflicting, policies of the City in terms of urban level densities, mitigation to different densities around the site. Member Walker moved to approve Woodland Park PUD - Final. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Shepard replied that if there were no pool, clubhouse or playground, there would be no need for landscaping. The points were based on the formula in the Residential Uses Point Chart for a total of $275,000 divided out by the total number of units times 1 % which results in 25 points.. Mr. Ward stated that the landscaping is that which is beyond the minimum requirements of the Land Development Guidance System. The area around the active center, with a setback of 50 feet around County Road 9, is not a standard City requirement. It does not include the typical arterial streetscape landscaping which is routinely required by all development. Member Mickelson asked for the process evolution that has come from the previous plans. Mr. Ward replied that when this began, the direction they received was that they should be aiming for 5 units per acre. The next version dropped the unit down to 135 lots for a density of 3.9 units per acre. After the neighborhood meetings, the lots were reduced again to 127 lots, then reduced to 110 lots. The ability to make changes between preliminary and final was within what could be done and still meet City policy and still be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. There was not a specific condition to make significant changes between preliminary and final by the Board. However, they were encouraged by the Board to make this transition, which is the nature of the changes they have made. He added that there is not a City requirement to provide public open space with a PUD. Along with the density, they evolved an amenity package which is directed at the residence. Member Bell asked if the child care center that was awarded points is an existing center or included in the plan. Mr. Ward replied that the child care center is included in the project. Member Bell asked for an interpretation of the transitioning from urban to rural. Mr. Shepard replied that, upon advisement from the City Attorney's office, the land governed by the Intergovernmental Agreement is for land that is located outside the present urban city limit boundary and yet within the Urban Growth Area. This parcel is in the city and not in the area governed by the IGA. The language and guidelines found in the IGA cannot be used to review this project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Shepard stated that in terms of significant changes between preliminary and final, there was a suggestion that the 35 acres attempt to carry 3 units per acre and there be a sensitive lot sizing along county properties with more dense lotting arrangements along County Road 9 and HP. The majority of the Board members, at preliminary, agreed that this transitioning occurred. In summary, there has been changes since preliminary: the lot sizes along the southeast portion of the site have increased and there has been a reduction of three lots. Glen Schlueter, City Stormwater Department, addressed the water quality concern by stating that presently the City's criteria does not require anything specific for water quality. While this development does have a detention pond proposed, which does have some water quality benefits to it, this was part of the Fox Meadows Master Plan and will outlet into the inlet ditch. He added that the requirement is a two year historic release rate which is a normal afternoon thunderstorm, which will be the release rate of the pond. The erosion of the ditch is the function of the irrigation company. The City has an agreement with them to discharge into it so they are responsible for maintaining the ditch. Don Toronto, TST Consulting Engineers, stated that the Fox Meadows basin restricts the flows to less than what was experienced before the development. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineering Department, stated that County Road 9 is an arterial street. This development will be widening to arterial width, adjacent to the project, their half of the street and provide sidewalks. The impacts of this development to not generate the need for any additional road improvements to County Road 9 but will continue to be widened as other developments occur. As far as speeds on the roadway, there are currently no planned measures being taken at this time, however, Kingsley Drive will eventually loop out of English Ranch and intersect County Road 9 which will show a need for a signal. Member Davidson asked about a public greenbelt or open space area. Mr. Shepard stated that this has always been a central issue discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Preservation of mature trees, the area where the change in grade occurs, and the active open area, which includes clubhouse, day care and swimming pool, are being offered. The trees are in a tract which are not a part of platted lots so the residents who live there have access to them. Member Colton asked how the criteria from the point charts were awarded and how the dollars are included in the calculations. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 4 Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design and representative of the applicant, gave a brief history of the PUD and the area. He stated that this proposal meets all the criteria required and achieved a score of 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. CITIZEN INPUT Scott Courtney, 3256 Nite Court, spoke on behalf of the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood Association. The association understood that when this project was given preliminary approval, it was stated that it would not receive final approval unless significant changes were made to the plans. The association reviewed this project and found that there was little or no apparent change from the last proposal. They would like to see the proposed lots on the north, east and south side be increased to one acre lots. They had concerns about the density, being out of character with the surrounding developments, and increased traffic and safety problems. They encouraged the Board to only approve this project with the conditions that the density be lowered and to have this project create a more pleasing transition into open space. Sandra Thomas, 4104 S. Co. Rd.. 9, spoke on behalf of the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood Association. She, too, believed that the plans have not significantly changed from the preliminary plans. This project would negatively impact the environment from the wildlife to the water to the plant life. There are concerns about stormwater drainage runoff. She stated that Fossil Creek inlet has been running extremely full all spring and summer and the banks are eroding. With the additional stormwater runoff, the banks will erode at a much faster pace. County Road 9 has always been busy and is not a safe street. The association is not opposed to growth but would like to see the growth conform to and fit the area where it takes place. The guidelines and rules of the IGA need to be followed. Martell Nessbaumer, previous homeowner in Fort Collins, was concerned that the City has taken a strong stand to prevent the development of lower density residential areas. In a transitional area, lower density should be considered. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Mr. Shepard responded to citizen concerns by stating that the wildlife concern has always been an issue because of the proximity to the Poudre River bluff and floodplain. The area was subjected to a broad inventory of wildlife in the Poudre River Landscape Opportunity Study. The Department of Natural Resources has advised Staff that the 35 acres does not contain any significance in wildlife. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 199�6 Page 3 WOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL - #19-94C City Attorney Steve Roy excused himself from this project due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Attorney John Duvall replaced Mr. Roy. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the condition that the Development Agreement and the utility plans be filed and recorded in a timely fashion.