Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONERIDGE PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN JUNE 29 1992 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 21 92B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 29, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements - Cooney. Chairman Strom and Member Klataske were absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard and Georgiana Taylor. (Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in.) AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 1 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan, #54-87F; Item 2 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, #54-87G; Item 3 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, #21-92B; Item 4 - Stoneridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, #21- 92C; Item 5 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Fling - Preliminary PUD, #60-91D. OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #54-87F OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM, UPPER MEADOWS AT MIRAMONT - PRELIMINARY PUD #54-87G Mr. Shepard gave the Staff Report on the Overall Development Plan recommending approval with the condition that if the development of Parcel S results in evaluation by the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System.. sv tem. then the design guidelines found in the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center: Design Guidelines. Policies and Criteria (an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) shall be the pertinent valuative criteria in order to promote the desired level of site, landscape, and architectural quality. Mr. Shepard also gave the Staff Report on the Upper Meadows at Miramont, Preliminary, recommending approval with the condition that, at the time of Final, for only 14 lots necessary to reach 65% compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, maximizing glazing on the southern exposure, placing garages on the north side of the structure, or siting the structure on the lot so that the home itself is within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated on the Final P.U.D. Mr. Jim Knight, a resident of Fossil Creek Meadows immediately adjacent to the property, asked about the change in density being proposed. Mr. Shepard replied there were a variety of parcels that had some subtle changes in density. Overall in the entire 271 acres there was an approximate reduction of 242 dwelling units from the 1989 plan which was the plan of record. There was about a 66 acre differential in multi -family and that amount of multi- family was being reduced out of the 1992 amendment. The applicant was here tonight and could give June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 22 reasons, such as Mail Creek, the lay of the land with respect to drainage, then they should grant a variance because it did not meet it. He had a little problem dealing with it did not meet it but, lets do some design things. Personally, he thought that would be awfully difficult to administer and he did not want to get into the nit -picky details of doing that, he thought either they did it or they did not and they had a good reason for it. His feeling on this one was that he was reasonably convinced of the hardships that had been stated here. He tended to agree somewhat with Mr. Knight, they could do some different things here, although it was a close call and he guessed that was what they were up here for was to make that call and he was comfortable with granting a variance because of what are hardships. They grant variances on hardships for a variety of things. He thought the Solar Ordinance, things they were trying to feel their way through it. It was probably more complicated than some, because they had all these conflicting issues of drainage, of slopes, of street lay outs and so forth. He guessed as far as guidance to the Staff, they needed to focus this on land issues and not get into design issues. Member Clements -Cooney moved approval of Upper Meadow at Miramont, Preliminary PUD with the following variance to absolute criterion kl regarding minimum density, and k2 the variance to requirements for solar orientation, because of exceptional topographical conditions peculiar to site Mail Creek Ditch, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict application of the solar orientation ordinance. Because of exceptional difficulties regarding the access alignment of Boardwalk Drive and 90 degree intersections with local streets and Boardwalk Drive, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict application of the solar ordinance, and C because of the incorporation of the design features that meet other city policies and objectives the plan is equal to or better than a plan that has met the 65% requirement. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. NERIDGE P.U.D.. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, #21-92b Mr. Shepard gave the Staff report stating they had gotten their packet tonight, that reflected and administrative change to the Pinecone ODP that they reviewed back in April which showed lightly dotted lines as a potential future connection. That was now upgraded to a full blown local street connection so they gave you a PMT of that reduction that showed that they were still coordinating Stoneridge PUD with Pinecone PUD for vehicular and pedestrian bicycle connections. There was also another item that was included in their packet that asked for a condition on the approval of Stoneridge PUD and the next subsequent item that the second reading was to take place by City Council on July 7th for the Webster Farm Annexation. That annexation was scheduled to take place at the second reading in June, but due to a cancellation of the City Council meeting that had not occurred yet, so that would take place the first Tuesday in July, which was July 7. Staff saw that as a housekeeping issue, a minor issue, but wanted to bring that to their attention. Staff was recommending approval of the Stoneridge Overall Development Plan. Vice Chairman Walker asked if they needed to take any action on that? Mr. Shepard replied yes. He believed they did need to enter that into the record June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 23 Mr. Shepard also gave the Staff report of Stoneridge PUD, 1st filing, Preliminary PUD recommending approval with the following condition: At the time of final, for only eight lots necessary to reach 65% compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, maximizing glazing on the southern exposure, placing garages on the north side of the structure, or sighting the structure on the lot so that the house itself is within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated on the Final PUD. Mr. Shepard stated their also a variance for the minimum density on a gross acreage basis for filing one of Stoneridge. Member Cottier asked for a clarification, the preliminary information presented by the applicant on the first filing lists a density of 3.01 so she was just asking for clarification of who was right. Mr. Shepard replied they were conservative, they took their information off the preliminary subdivision plat that was prepared by the consulting engineer. Sometimes these things change a little bit depending on the survey. They see it as being below 3 dwelling units per acre and went through the various exercise. Les Kaplan, representing the Kaplan Company, stated they were the applicant for this project and also the developer. He wanted to introduce the team that worked on this project. Frank Vaught with Vaught and Frye, and Stan Myers with RBD Engineering who were both here this evening, and Grant Reid with Reid Design who couldn't make it this evening. He wanted to make a couple of comments on the Overall Development Plan. It was 92 acres, the major conditions and constraints that they had to work under was to do first of all, with the contiguous development. There was a development Master Plan, an Overall Development Plan just north of this project, the Pinecone PUD which was single family. The Pinecone development also wraps with the ODP just west of them and they would be looking at that this evening as Dakota Ridge and immediately south of the use was the English Ranch PUD. So they were bordered on three sides by single family and that had a very definite impact in terms of their decision as to the types of land uses on this project. The other major design constraint that they had was the widening of Horsetooth Road with 100 foot right of way and the fact that Caribou Drive in Fox Meadows needed to be extended north and Kingsley Drive had to be extended north. The drainage on the project on the property basically ran to the northeast which was another factor involved with the project. Also, they were requested by Staff to have a street connection to the north and also a major pedestrian bicycle trail which was requested of them to extend to the north. It also ran on the west side of Caribou Drive to Linton Elementary School. So, those were basically the factors that they had to take into account. The objectives that they had in the project was to do something which was more of an upper end, lower density mixed use PUD with a recreation area that was placed at that location which would be built in subsequent phases. The first phase of the project consisted of the single family area which arrived from two points of access, one from Caribou Drive extended and the other from Kingsley and also a patio home area. When looking at the ODP he would just like to point out that one of the significant design constraints that they had in June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 24 working with this project that being the fact that the property line to the west was very close to Caribou Drive extended north. This dimension here was a little more than 200 feet. That created a linear tract of ground a north/south rectangular shaped piece of ground that they had to contend with and that would come up later again when they saw the preliminary plan as a basis for the variance that they were asking to the Solar Ordinance. PUBLIC INPUT None. Vice Chairman Walker had a question on the recreation complex, what were they talking about there. Was that going to be sort of a private homeowners park or what have you, and what size was it going to be. What would the nature be as far as the facilities? Mr. Kaplan replied the nature of it at this point and of course it was very conceptual. It would be approximately an acre in size and it would consist of a swimming pool and a changing room area. He would just like to bring up that in discussing it at this point, he was not committing to it. This was something which was a conceptual part of the ODP. He intend to do something at this location but it would be decided as the project evolves. He was setting the ground aside right now and incorporating it in the overall position of land uses and circulation and making sure there was an area for it. Vice Chairman Walker asked Mr. Shepard how did they need to phrase this issue you've mentioned about the 7/7 council meeting. What was his suggestion there exactly. What wording did they have to bring into this issue. Ted Shepard suggested that they make the motion subject to the condition that was outlined in their memo. He could read it if they like. Vice Chairman Walker replied please do that. Ted Shepard read that the final approval of Stoneridge ODP was conditioned on passage on second reading by City Council for the Webster Farm second annexation ordinance 65-92. Vice Chairman Walker asked what was the rationale behind that? Ted Shepard replied the rationale was that through no fault of the applicant, who was on schedule for a June 2 reading, the meeting was canceled by City Council. Staff was taking comfort in the fact that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the property be annexed, that the City Council had acted on first reading with a favorable vote that it would be annexed. That, consistent with those two public actions, saw no logistical problem in that we anticipate that the third action which would be the second reading to also pass. The annexation was contiguous and met the policies of the Intergovernmental Agreement and so we see it more as a technical housekeeping measure that meets the intent. However, due to a scheduling conflict the second reading did not occur due prior to this evening. Tom Peterson added that if the City Council did not act favorably upon this second reading the ordinance in this approval would be null and void. June 29, 1992 P&Z Bo&M Meeting Minutes Page 25 Member O'Dell moved approval of the Stoneridge PUD Overall Development Plan with the condition that final approval of Stoneridge ODP is conditioned on passage of second reading by City Council for the Webster Farm Second Annexation. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. STONERIDGE PUD, FIRST FILING. PRELIMINARY. #21-92C Mr. Shepard read the Staff Report for Stoneridge PUD, 1st filing, Preliminary PUD recommending approval with the following condition: At the time of final, for only eight lots necessary to reach 65% compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, maximizing glazing on the southern exposure, placing garages on the north side of the structure, or sighting the structure on the lot so that the house itself is within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated on the Final PUD. Mr. Shepard stated their also a variance for the minimum density on a gross acreage basis for filing one of Stoneridge. Vice Chairman Walker asked since in the applicati(n as it was mentioned, they had the density of just over 3 units per acre. Did that negate the need for any variance on that then. What number were we working from. Mr. Shepard replied he thought at the preliminary stage the variance was still appropriate. That way we were not searching for a moving target and it would remove all doubt that this target was close but it did not technically meet on a gross acreage basis for this particular filing of 3 dwellings per acre. Mr. Kaplan stated what he would like to do first was kind of walk the Board through the project and take a couple of minutes to do that, then a couple of minutes for the variances. He pointed out that the main entrance of the project was at the intersection of Horsetooth and Caribou Drive. At the intersection, there would be two ponds. There was a landscaped median which was 14 feet wide. They have a bike trail at this location which was 8 feet wide which went through the landscaped area. During the first phase, they would continue north and intersect with the bike trail system which was part of the Pinecone PUD. There were 26 patio homes. They were configured such that there would be only one curb cut intersection with Caribou Drive. There were 42 single family lots. The average lot size was approximately 9000 square feet. One of the strong design emphasis was the green belt area which would be most visible along Horsetooth Road. They have in this area, approximately 2 acres of green belt. Horsetooth Road was widened to a 100 foot right of way. They had a five foot sidewalk along Horsetooth Road with extensive landscaping. The two variances, the first variance had to due with the 3 dwellings per acre minimum. On the plat they were showing the gross acreage as being 23.8 acres which was different that what they had here in their memo. At 68 units that was an overall density based on the gross acreage of 2.85 units per acre. They