HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAMPSHIRE POND PUD FINAL - 44 93A - LEGAL DOCS - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSi
buffering between single family uses of varying densities.
But in this particular case, the developer is starting with a
flat piece of ground with very few, if any, limitations. He
thinks they have several ways they could go about it, either
with heavier landscaping or redesigning the road on the west
side to pick up greater depth or, there may be several other
options. Basically he thinks that it can be done without a
great deal of difficulty and expense and that it should be
done in this case.
1:ONTANE suggested that part of the developer's consideration
in making a buffering to the west, would be the larger width
lots on that side.
WALKER stated he does not pretend to have the ultimate
solution but just consolidating those lots would be one very
simplistic approach, something to that effect. That is an
important element that .should be considered, just so the
applicant gets a flavor of what we're concerned about here.
COTTIER said the depth of the lots on the western side could
apparently rather easily be adjusted. In general, our point
is that this project should provide more buffering on the
western side.
WINFREE does not think that adequate buffering had yet been
provided on the west. It will be an important feature for her
to consider on final.
ROLL CALL - motion carried 6 - 0.
COCA 810 000d 'l1H.lW I HO2IVW 900E Bet Coe 1 0t:01 91-60-066i
I
TO: Lucia A. Liley and Arthur E. March, Jr.
FROM: Janelle Smith, CLA
DATE: September 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Richard Stork/Hampshire Pond PUD
You have asked me to review the tape of the Planning and
Zoning Board hearing of August 30, 1993 at which the Board granted
preliminary approval with conditions of the Hampshire Pond PUD.
There was some confusion as to the second condition of approval, so
I listened to the Board's discussion both before and after the
motion.
After presentations by Steve Olt and Richard Stork, and
comments by Dr. Kieft, several questions were asked by the Board:
why the location of the two access points was limited; why the
Hampshire access point was aligned with the existing Hampshire
Street; how the location of the access points limited the depth of
the lots on the west; why the interior streets were not curved (to
keep traffic speed down and to add depth to the west lots); how the
houses would be situated on the west lots; if they would have
second story decks. Although these questions were addressed by
Richard Stork, Steve Olt and other staff members, it appeared that
the Board still wanted a further concession by the developer
regarding buffering. It was commented that the more intense use,
this development, should be responsible for buffering, so that the
trees already placed there by Kieft were irrelevant to the
buffering question.
Following is a summary of the motion to approve and the
discussion that followed.
CLEMONS-COONEY made the motion to approve with the condition
as stated by the planning staff (provision of access to
adjacent City property), plus an additional condition that
more buffering be provided to the west because this
development is the more intense use. Clemons -Cooney stated
that she did not think it was up the Board to redesign the
project but she thought the street on the west could be
reconfigured so it was not so linear. She thought that there
could be.a more creative plan to address the buffering to the
west.
STROM seconded the motion stating that Clemons -Cooney was
right on point. Strom said he thinks the developer has
several options in terms of how they deal with it. Strom said
he was, generally speaking, 'reticent to get into too much
FOCI 210 °O"d '1iVAW '8 HONVW 8606 28b 606 1 1b:01 91-60-6661
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
110 EAST OAR STREET
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
(303) 482-4322
Telecopy: (303) 482-3038
a maaaammmaaamaamaanmammmamaamm gate aamaammamammaaagagmqaaaaaaammmawamoamaamaa
TELECOPY TO THE FOLLOWING NUMBER: 221-6378
TO: Steve Olt
City Of Fort Collins Planning Department
RE: Hampshire Pond PUD
a vaaa ve ea ea a ama a vaa a==aama= as -a ma a amo a aaan am a a cv c¢ as aaav vaa as a= Ccaa a a
Total number of pagee'including this information sheet: 3 page(s)
Dates September 16, 1993 Time: 11:30 a.m.
Transmitting from Minoltafax 771
PLEASE NOTIFY Janelle Smith at (303) 482-4322 if all pages not received.
=v vav vaaa aoa a�a�-a.. a -.tea _m------tea--ate_ aaa a=aa as FROM: Lucia A. Liley
March & Myatt, P.C.
NOTE: Steve - I am faxing you the summary we prepared of the Planning and
Zoning Board's comments regarding the second condition of approval
on the Hampshire Pond PUD preliminary plan. From our telephone
conversation, it appears we have the same understanding of what
transpired. Thank you.
aaaaaaaaaaa saga.-�9a�a��a�a�aaaaaaaaCaaaaa�aamaaS-..�=-a�-�p�
[
Saoa---oaa¢�aaae� I Hard copy to follow [ ] Hard copy to follow [X] No hard copy to
via mail via overnight mail follow
c caammaa �=amoaaavaZ=a.aa=aaamomvaaaa-ama
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Name of Client: Stork Development File ##
-m�amaaanaaaa-iaa9aa �'S aaSamRaaavagpa-�..-m=mma--_---,-------ama---�xaaa"J' aa0oa�
NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTA12M IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTEMsD ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMBD ABOVE.
IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYES OR AGENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INT8NDED RRCIPIP, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS CMMMICkTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IIQ ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US I==XATELY BY T$LEPRONR AND R$TIIRN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO IIS AT THE ABOVE ADDRRSS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
IOd 210 00°d '11HAW I H021HW ecoo d9b coc 1 66:0T 91-60-E661