Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • • PlanningZoning and Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 19 COBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - CASE #55-87E Mr. Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval with three conditions. Merle Haworth, of Robb, Brenner, Brelig and representative of the applicant, briefly discussed the history of this project, the concerns of the neighborhood, utility access from the south, temporary access off of Richmond, the lessening of the impact on the neighbors, the moving of two buildings that mostly affect neighbors to facilitate buffering, the addition of trees, fencing and berms for buffering, the rearrangement of some of the units to take buildings away from the north property line, and the height of the buildings. He added that they have not yet resolved with Staff the site lighting issue or the buffering concept. PUBLIC INPUT Dr. Douglas Leidholt, 3818 Richmond Drive, stated that he was not opposed to the project but believed that as proposed was not compatible. He stated that their major concern was the security factor since they have livestock on their property. He was concerned that the fencing for the proposed project was not being carried to the full extent of the proposed project. Therefore, the access to the back of their property would be available. He stated that they currently have a three-wire fence and an electrical fence which could be a safety factor if children were to try to go over the fence. Another concern was an environmental block which has been addressed by the applicant but not enough for their situation. He requested that the applicant address this issue more significantly. He had concerns with mass versus height in the 4-plex units. He requested that the landscaping that goes into that area be for both solar access to his property as well as to the buffering and environmental effects. He added that they are attempting to move the Cunningham Barn to their property for use as a museum, which would add one more security problem. Julie Birdsall, area resident, believed that most of the neighborhood would agree that if they had a preference, this proposed property would become an open space. She stated that in lieu of that, they are aware that this project is targeted for retirement age people which would blend in with their neighborhood. Her primary concern was the size and mass of the structures to the west of her property. She stated that the fencing has a break in it and would prefer that it be one solid fence. Bill Trippel, Richmond Drive property owner, stated that his major concern was security on Richmond Drive. He stated that he would like to see Richmond Drive closed and used only temporarily for emergency access. He was also concerned that basements would be part of these units. All of the homes in this area have wells and when the water table goes down, he was concerned what this would do to the wells in this area. • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 20 Howard Enos, resident of Richmond Drive, stated that the security issue was of great concern to him. He stated that if this project is allowed to go through without an adequate security fence across the north end of the proposed property, children will find their way coming down the existing properties onto Richmond Drive. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Clements-Cooney asked if the fencing issue has been resolved. Mr. Shepard stated that the fencing has not been designed and the exact nature of the buffer treatment is still in the preliminary form. A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted and commented on. There is more work that needs to be done on this and that is why the condition of approval has been added. Member Clements-Cooney asked for more detail regarding the height and mass of the structures. Mr. Haworth replied that the four unit buildings are ranch style buildings and the bulk is by footprint and about 20 feet high at the ridge line. He added that the only shadow on the adjacent existing property would be from one 1-1/2 story unit casting a shadow along the edge of the fence and probably not higher than the fence shadow. Member Clements-Cooney asked about the alignment with Dr. Leidholt's property. Mr. Haworth replied that with the street layout, it would not work well to turn the unit. However, through the buffering process, the landscaping could be increased to mitigate that concern. He stated that a significant amount of evergreens, or different species of evergreens that won't grow too tall, would be used to create a more permanent buffer in this area. Member Clements-Cooney asked if there would be a potential problem with the water table with this development. Mr. Haworth stated that, in the past, this area has had problems with high and fluctuating water tables due to the irrigation and leakage from the ditch and this general region being flood irrigated in the summertime. Flood irrigating has ceased and the developers of the area to the south and west are planning to do some remediation on the ditch. He stated that the soils test taken this summer indicated that the water table was approximately 9 feet below the surface of the ground indicating that there would be no problem with basements. Member Fontane asked what was the life of the Poudre Fire access. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Haworth stated that the access would be used until Wabash connects with Troutman Parkway, which is part of the next phase of Mountain Ridge. At the time that the streets are completed, the easement would be eliminated and the access would only be used for a utility access for Water and Sewer stubbed at the end of Richmond Drive. He stated that this has been discussed with the Poudre Fire Authority and they are willing to allow the developer to fence across with a gate that is permanently locked which they would have to cut to get through in case of an emergency. He added that the residential board type fencing is not suitable for livestock and they will discuss alternative fencing with Dr. Leidholt. Member Clements-Cooney asked if the developer was marketing only seniors. Mr. Haworth replied that their target would be directed toward "empty nesters" or young people that have not yet started their families and do not want to deal with the full ramifications of homeownership. Member Clements-Cooney moved to approve Cobblestone Corners PUD Preliminary with the following four conditions: 1) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the design of the temporary second point of access into Richmond Drive shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority for compliance with the Poudre Fire Code. In addition, the design of the area impacted by the temporary fire access shall be provided addressing the permanent condition after removal of the temporary improvements. 2) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the fencing, landscape, and berming treatment along the north property line shall be enhanced so that a solid screen of material, at maturity, shall be provided adjacent to the living areas of the two residences to the north. 3) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the selection of plant material, designed to promote buffering and screening along the north property line, should not have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent properties to the north in the distribution of natural light or precludes the functional use of solar energy technology. 4) Buildings Al, A2, B1 and B2 shall be reduced from two-story units to 1-1/2 story units. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.