Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASTLE RIDGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 54-87J - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 2 Member Klataske moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. CASTLE RIDGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - CASE #54-87.T Member Cottier asked why the density requested variance for less than 3DU/AC was not included in the packet and why it was justified. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated that the density variance request was submitted by the applicant but was inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report. He stated that the lower density request by the applicant was justified because the overall density of the residential portions of the Oak/Cottonwood Farms ODP was over 4DU/AC. The ODP was approved in June 1992 which established at that time a maximum of 848 dwelling units on 184 acres for an overall density of 4.6DU/AC. The ODP indicated densities less than 3DU/AC in the area that has since been platted as Upper Meadow at Castle Ridge and at other appropriate locations. They are currently conceptualizing the site plan. He added that in the final analysis, it was conceivable that the ODP would contain a 728 dwelling units on 173 acres for an overall density of 4.2DU/AC. He stated that this site includes some of the steepest slopes at Oak/Cottonwood Farms, a wooded area of approximately 1/3 acre, the inclusion of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north, and the Werner Elementary School to the south, which in all, would create the need for this. Sensitivity to all of these elements is best achieved with the plan and the density between 1 and 1-1/2 DU/AC is what is proposed for this project, which is 1.3DU/AC. The direction of the slopes at Castle Ridge would provide lots of over 15,000 square feet which would allow homeowners the option to respect the natural topography and still maintain the solar access to these lots. Chairman Walker asked why topography was an issue to lower the density. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. and consultant for the applicant, replied that the topography was given on the ODP. This had been reviewed by the applicant and established a maximum number of units on the ODP for the various residential parcels. The applicant did not want to represent an ODP with 20 units and then go before the Board with 30 units. The estimates in the ODP were based on the thought that the piece could be divided with two parallel cul-de-sacs through it and smaller lots than what are currently being proposed. The applicant then reviewed the details of the topography and the City's Engineering requirements. He added that by taking this approach, they were able to design downhill lots with walk -outs to preserve the views, etc. He stated that to force another row of lots would have made a less livable situation and more of a scarred hillside for view from the surrounding areas. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 3 Member Cottier moved for approval of Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD Preliminary and Final with conditions presented by Staff. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. TOPANGA AT HII,LPOND PUD - PRELIMINARY - CASE #2-8711 Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, gave a Staff Report for the proposed project recommending approval with four Staff conditions. He stated that, based on the P&Z worksession discussion, condition of approval #1 would include a 20 percent level of participation in the off -site improvement and condition of approval #4 would include a change in language to read "at the time of Final PUD, Building "T", illustrated to be a three-story 12-plex, shall be substituted by a building with a smaller envelope and reduced in height in order to provide the necessary transition in scale and mass on the east side of the site." Steve Roy, City Attorney, stated that when there is a PUD that includes a variance request, two votes should be taken, after a complete presentation, with the first vote being on the variance request and the second on the proposal. Should the variance request be denied, a second vote could still be taken on the proposal. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects and representative of the applicant, Mr. Ron Gray, gave a brief history of the area, prior projects in the area that were approved or denied by the Board, design, style and height of the buildings, roof materials, building exterior colors, and the proposed diversified rental program. He stated that they have met with the neighborhood on this proposal. The proposed plan is an evolution of the comments made at that neighborhood meeting and from Staff. The major changes made was the elimination of the tennis courts, the removal of the buildings along the eastern boundary of the parking lot and relocation of the maintenance building into that area, the incorporation of an internal bike trail that ties into the Spring Creek Trail exiting at the northwest corner of the project, the addition of water quality ponds to filter pollutants from the parking lots, the intensification of landscaping and berming along the eastern boundary, the placement of smaller buildings along the eastern side of the project, the increase of the setbacks from residences along the eastern boundary from 240 feet to 350 feet, and the redesign of the roof lines from gabled roofs to hip roofs. He stated that the height of the buildings have been reduced from 40 feet to 33 feet. He presented a slide comparing the Ram Village building heights with the proposed project's building heights. He discussed the location of the proposed berming and existing vegetation along the Spring Creek Trail and the tie in with proposed landscaping. Mr. Vaught continued by stating that the density of this project compared equal to or lower than other similar existing projects in the community. He stated that the number of four -bedroom units has been reduced from 180 units to 66 units, which is 30 % of the total amount of units in