HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... 2/06/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 18-94B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 6, 1995
Page 17
that exist are an important natural feature that provides a lot of
windbreak.
Moved by Member Fontane, seconded by Member Strom: To approve the
Woodland Station PUD, Preliminary.
Member Fontane also suggested reducing the density around the
northeastern perimeter.
Member Strom added that in cases such as this, the Board must
follow the policies set forth and make their best judgment based on
its view of the project. He believes that this project meets the
policies in the LDGS and on that basis supports the motion.
Member Walker stated that two primary considerations exist. The
first consideration is set forth in the policy and requires three
units per acre. The second consideration is set forth in the Land
Development Guidance System and concerns compatibility. He
believes the second consideration to be more of a judgment call on
whether or not the lots are big enough to make an effective
transition.
Member Cottier agreed with Mr. Walker's comments and stated that
she did not feel the transition was adequate on the eastern
boundary. In addition, she stated she will not be supporting the
motion based on LDGS Criteria A2.2, A2.3, and A2.13. She also
believes the location of the recreational complex is poor and not
centrally located.
Member Bell stated that she will not be supporting the motion for
the same criteria cited by Member Cottier and Criterion A2.10.
Chairman Clements stated that in the absence of an established
transition policy, she believes the projects meets the findings of
fact as stated in the Staff report.
Member Carnes stated that he would be supporting the motion.
However, he relayed that if the project does not come back at final
with a better transition, it may not have his support at that time.
Motion approved five to two, with Members Bell and Cottier voting
in the negative.
Other Business: The Board was reminded of the upcoming work
session and Board retreat.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:58 a.m.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 6, 1995
Page 16
Chairman Clements explained that a City required 3 units per acre
density policy was there because of infrastructure needs and for
growth to pay its own way. There did not seem to be a comfort
level with anyone with regards to this plan.
Mr. Ward responded that the proposal as outlined by the
neighborhood was not workable, they can't do a plan that they
simply cannot afford. The other thing that comes in is that they
have provided a substantial amenities package to the tune of over
$2,500 per unit. As the number of units goes down, the tag for the
facilities goes up and they would have to provide less facilities.
Mr. Ward felt they have a legitimate preliminary P.U.D., that meets
city standards, and is as compatible as a great many other
projects. He suggested that the board give a positive vote with a
recommendation that they consider seeing if they can enlarge the
perimeter lots between preliminary and final.
The Board members expressed their frustration in dealing with the
issue of creating a transition between City and County properties.
The determination was made that discussion of the Intergovernmental
Agreement concerning transitioning needed to take place at a future
work session of the Board.
Member Bell expressed her concern with setting a possible precedent
in raising points for issues including: decorative walls and
landscaping, recreational use of thicket of trees, doubling points
for solar access and energy efficiency. She believes all of these
areas have been stretched in this project.
Member Cottier expressed her concern with using energy conservation
points and questioned the assurance that projects are actually
built to a set standard in the future. Mr. Shepard replied that
the Building Inspection Division monitors those situations by
examining the PUD for requirements when a building permit comes in
that is part of a platted lot.
Member Cottier questioned drainage in the area. Mr. Shepard
replied this property was determined by the Natural Resources
Department to be located up and outside of the Poudre River flood
plain. Basil Hamden, Stormwater Utility responded to drainage
questions and stated that a drainage plan study is currently
underway for this lot layout. However, no more drainage will be
allowed to drain into the slough than the historical rate.
Member Carnes had questions concerning the shading caused by the
hedge of trees on the solar orientation lots. He cited Criteria
A2.10. Mr. Shepard stated that these lots did meet the strict
interpretation of the solar orientation ordinance, and the trees
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 6, 1995
Page 15
Mr. ward explained that the bonus section was utilized to meet the
new 60-point minimum. Three bonus criteria were used: calculation
for the amount of open space on the site, energy conservation, and
provision of a number of neighborhood facilities.
In response to questions, Mr. Ward explained that he could not be
more specific in how each unit would be placed on the point chart
concerning energy conservation due to the fact that lot sizes vary,
multiple builders will be used, and the lots which meet that solar
orientation requirement would be different in their requirements.
He stated that builders will have opportunity to pursue different
methods of achieving the necessary score on the point chart.
Public Comment: Herb Murphy, from the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood
Group, presented the group's concerns and handed them out in
writing to the board. He stated that the proposed PUD is totally
incompatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed density
of three units per acre is approximately 20 times the average
density of the neighborhood. This density being placed next to the
established neighborhood with no buffering zone is inherently
incompatible.
Mr. Murphy explained that the group is seeking a variance to the
current minimum density requirement of three units per acre because
of the need for more compatibility.
The group feels the plan presented by the developer lacks any true
open space and feels the proposed neighborhood facilities are
placed in poor locations that would raise questions of safety due
to the need to cross County Road 9 and Harmony Road. The
neighborhood also stated concerns with schools, solar lots, and
environmental impacts.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the increased density means more
pedestrian and bike traffic with no safe routes.
Mr. Murphy relayed that the neighborhood group is still willing to
discuss the issues and is open to suggestions that truly address
their concerns. He also stated that the group is willing to
propose a further compromise as follows: No objection will be
raised to the higher density town homes or patio homes currently
shown if the developer will enlarge the lots on the northeastern
boundary to one acre sites and enlarge the lots across the street
to 1/2 acre lots. By expanding these lots, a buffer zone would be
created and the development will be more transitional.
Board Discussion and Vote: In response to questioning, Mr. Ward
stated that it was impossible to respond on the spur of the moment
to the neighborhood group's proposal.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 6, 1995
Page 14
uses. These uses are in compliance with the approved Horsetooth
East Business Park Master Plan. Staff is recommending approval of
the project.
Applicant's presentation: Eldon Ward, with Cityscape Urban Design,
stated that he believes this is a good mix of uses and stated he
was available for any questions from the Board.
In response to Board questioning, Mr. Ward stated the following:
One fast-food restaurant with a drive -though window is allowed.
Two other free-standing restaurants and possibly a restaurant such
as a deli or coffee shop within an office building would be
allowed.
Some potential users are anticipated, however, opening dates are
uncertain.
Public Comment: No public comment was heard.
Board Discussion and Vote: Moved by Member Carnes, seconded by
Member Strom: To approve the preliminary for Horsetooth East
Business Park PUD, Filing Two. Motion approved unanimously 7-0.
Woodland Station PUD, Preliminary: 0.40
Staff Presentation: Ted Shepard gave Staffs presentation of this
project and presented slides of the area. Details of the request
were outlined in the Staff report. Mr. Shepard noted the revised
point chart in the Staff report on Page 4.
In response to questioning, Mr. Shepard stated that the acreages of
the houses adjoining the property to the east are as follows: 15.5
acres, 2.29 acre minimums, and 14 acres.
Applicant Presentation: Eldon ward, Cityscape Urban Design stated
that he would give his written presentation to the Board so copies
could be made in an effort to expedite the proceedings. He
believes a plan has been reached which contains changes made to
address comments that had been received and an interpretation of
the point chart. Elements were taken from the two -acre plan to
leave the perimeter that interfaces with the neighbor's homes at
the same lot size and introduce a larger variety of lot sizes and
housing types behind the windbreak.
Mr. Ward also noted the neighborhood facilities that have been
added including: a clubhouse, pool, day-care center, and a
playground.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
j CONTINUATION OF THE JANUARY 23, 1995 HEARING
\J FEBRUARY 6, 1995
STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD
COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Rene
Clements.
Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Strom,
Walker.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Olt, Shepard, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff,
Mapes, and Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the discussion
agenda for the items continued from the January 23, 1995 meeting:
11. #2-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding the North
College Avenue Corridor Plan.
12. #11-81M Huntington Hills PUD, Filing 5 - Preliminary.
13. #28-89D Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion PUD -
Final.
14. #34-90A Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change.
15. #43-94A Horsetooth East Business Park PUD, Filing Two -
Preliminary.
16. #18-94B Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary.
Discussion Agenda:
North College Avenue Corridor Plan:
Staff Presentation: Clark Mapes gave Staffs presentation. Slides
were shown of the area being studied. The plan has been in the
making for approximately 2 1/2 years. There would be no decision
on this item tonight, this hearing is for public comment only.
The plan was done primarily in three phases:
Phase 1, a thorough analysis of existing conditions;
identification of issues and problems such as transportation;
drainage; and the means of area development from past to
present.
Phase 2, further analysis of existing conditions; development
of a vision for the area; workshop held for citizens and the
committee; and a draft report issued in February of 1994.
Phase 3, recommendations.
The Dry Creek Drainage way has posed the most significant problem
for the corridor plan. This deals with the flood plain of Dry
Creek and how to reroute the creek for storm flooding. The
preferred alternative is to divert Dry Creek to the Poudre River
thereby eliminating the flooding possibility. Storm water Utility
has been studying the issue. The plan recommends that Storm Water