Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONERIDGE PUD FIRST FILING PRELIMINARY JUNE 29 1992 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 21 92C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES1 PLANNING 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 Fling - 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, 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 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, lst 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 application 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 June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minuteg Page 26 had different densities thrown around and they really did not know what they had until they had the final plat done. There were some very definitive reasons as to why they were not meeting the three units per acre. First of all, they have this extensive landscaped area along Horsetooth Road, they had the widening of Horsetooth Road. If they simply took out the area which was needed for the additional right of way on Horsetooth Road which was 1.44 acres, they would meet the 3 unit requirement. This property was in an unusual position of having to bear extensive street widening along a major arterial. If that were not the case, they would be meeting the 3 units per acre, they would be at about 3.08 units per acre. The other things that they had to take into account were some of the other landscaped areas and some of the other features to the project. They had medians at these locations. They had an 8 foot bike/pedestrian trail which runs through the project. They have an extensive landscaped area in the patio home area which was 1.33 acres and the landscape area including the widening and right-of-way of Horsetooth Road was a little over 5 acres. Also if they would notice, all of their streets were 36 feet wide, they have no 28 ft wide streets and Fieldstone Drive was single loaded, not double loaded as you would more commonly see in projects. Those were basically their justifications for the variance. It had to do with factors that they had to contend with and also other design features which they were incorporating into the plan which they felt were amenities to the plan and also public amenities as well. Regarding the Solar Orientation Ordinance, they did in fact, have some peculiar circumstances which faced this project. The major one being the fact that a condition was created by looking at the relationship between the major entrance into the project at Caribou Drive and the property line. That creates linear pieces of property. They could get more east/west orientation to their lots, but at what price. In order to do that they would have to run streets in across, maybe four or three of them. What would that do? The first thing that it would do was that it would significantly interrupt the open space area which was now broken only once. It would also introduce interruptions and reduce the safety of the 8 foot bike trail. So what they had opted to do in this case was to protect the trail, was to introduce the landscape amenity and not really to fight the linear configuration of this. This was an example of the anatomy's destiny, in terms of what you really can do with this land use. They have right now in this project, 36 lots out of 68 lots that meet the letter of the law, which was about 53%. That probably really under estimates the extent of solar sensitivity that the lot orientations that they have in this project actually have. Seven lots, patio lots that he would call solar sympathetic. The main side of the house was going to be oriented to the south. There would be seven of them. In fact, there would be more part of the mass of the house that would be faced to the south than if these lots were to have a true east/south orientation. Also the patio home units were going to be one story and two story units. He could not say definitively at this point where they were going to be placed, but there was going to be some staggering between one and two story units at this location so that would also help in terms of solar ability that these lots have. If they were going to take into account those seven lots they would be over 63%. Additionally, in the single family area there were seven lots which were between 30 and 40% of a true east/west orientation. Those lots were lots 6, 11, 12, 30, 32, 36 and 37. In fact 37 and 30 were within 5 degrees. He just wanted to point that out that they had made a great effort to comply with the ordinance. They could have complied a lot more with the ordinance if it could have been a tail wag and a dog Situation they could have had these streets, these curved linear cul-de-sacs that they have just running straight across and they could have complied with the ordinance but he did not necessarily think that they would have wound up with a better project. First of all, it would have substantially undermined the open space that they were introducing along Horsetooth Road and this very attractive street scape. The lots would have lost a lot of interest by being straight. He thought in balance they were attempting to address the intent. He thought they had a project that he thought could be categorized as equal to or better than. The hardship that they have at this point was not self imposed, it was something which was June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 27 unavoidable. Taken into account these seven lots, and the seven lots that they have over here they were at about 74.5% solar in this project. He wanted to point that out in part of their variance request. Vice Chairman Walker asked what was the solar percentage on just the single family lots exclusive of the patio homes? Mr. Kaplan replied it was about 57`Y. Member O'Dell stated he was asking what it was just on the single family and did not include the patio Mr. Kaplan replied he understood the question. Member O'Dell replied it was 57% , it looked like a lot more than that Mr. Kaplan replied on the single family area it was 59.5%. It was 42 lots out of, they have 25 lots out of 42 lots that technically meet the ordinance. If they were to count the 2 lots that they have which were within 5 degrees, he thought they would be pretty close to the 65%, He did agree, it did look to be a more solar oriented project. He thought as a practical matter, given the size of these lots, there was an awful lot of flexibility that a homeowner would have in terms of how they orient their house, if they, in fact wanted to make a non -solar lot into a solar lot just based upon building placement. Mr. Kaplan added there was one other aspect to the project that architect Frank Vaught would like to address and this might be the only aspect of the project which kept it short of being a perfectly non- controversial project. It had to do with the street they had designed in the patio home area_ I was being shown as a private street. It was being shown as a 28 foot wide street which meets the City street width criteria for such a street. They only had residences on one side of it which was mostly consistent with a 28 foot wide street. In those areas where they did have units across from each other they were going to juxtapose the curb cuts so they were not lined up with each other. They had received Staff comments on this street which seemed to be pushing it more towards a public street, although, there did not seem to be any issue with them calling it a private street. The requirements that they received in their Staff comments would pretty much make it into a public street in terms of all the requirements, curb cut and sidewalk, etc., although it would still be called a private street and it would take away many of the design and justifications for the way in which they designed the street. Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated he thought the desire to build private street was for several reasons, probably for most was the design flexibility that you have in dealing with features like the width of the street although the Fire Department tended to regulate that, depending on the land use. The edge treatment of the street and the materials used, whether you want to introduce a textured concrete or a colored concrete to identify entry feature, those types of things. As well as amenities that a private street has to offer, such as private snow removal. The type of market that you are shooting for in a patio home development desires those types of amenities that a city cannot provide so that snow could be removed and access could be gained as well as private maintenance. The Homeowner's Association could decide when and how the maintenance occurred that they were on schedule. Thirdly was the cost. The cost features could be substantial in certain areas depending upon some of these design details. They had experienced over some of the last years that although the Engineering department did not disallow private streets they continue to layer more and more design criteria that made them begin to look like public streets. At that point, they had lost the desire, both from an aesthetic standpoint and a cost standpoint, to even pursue a private design. Basically, the street curbing that Engineering requires, they were asking June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 28 for a crowned street which was what a normal residential public street would have was a crown draining to both sides of the street. They were asking for curb and gutter, and they were asking for sidewalk on one side. Generally, this curbing served three purposes. It provided a lateral support for the pavement edge and you could certainly get that in more ways than one. It prevented water seepage under the pavement and it contained the pavement base material. Their design was for a street that had a concrete header on one side it sloped across the street to a gutter pan on the opposite side and the drainage was carried away in that manner. They did not feel that a crown street with curb and gutter on both sides gave the feel that they would like to accomplish in this private area. As Les mentioned in his previous presentation, the feel of having one point of access into this patio home area gave it some sense of security. It penetrated the bike trail only once. With the hammer -head cul-de-sac there was some luxury associated with having that island entrance and one point of access. They would like to maintain those types of features. The sidewalk being requested, in along the left side, tying back into the bike trail. They felt that this was a bit of an overkill given that there was an eight foot bike trail running along Caribou and these were private and narrow streets that people who desire access to the bike trail could certainly walk out their front door and get on to the bike trail or on to the other sidewalk system in the neighborhood. It was just not necessary from that standpoint. They would really prefer the extra four to five feet be in green space or landscaping rather than additional concrete. He guessed all they were really asking for was that reasonableness, fairness and need be the measurers by which they determine the regulations on whether or not private streets indeed had to be designed to public street standards. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she did not have any information about this street controversy in her packet of information and she was at somewhat of a loss as how to respond to Mr. Vaught's concerns. Mr. Shepard replied that the street controversy, they thought, was an appropriate issue to be dealt with at the time of final. It was not untypical to have this disagreement at the time of preliminary. There were always issues that carried over from preliminary to final and they were in the middle of addressing this issue. They did not have any information in their packet. Mike Herzig was available from the Engineering Department to address the Board on this, but this was just one of those preliminary issues that Staff thought would best be dealt with at the time of final. Mr. Vaught replied stated the project was being fast tracked so that the final was already submitted and being reviewed by Staff at this time. Design was underway, changes were happening, they wanted to take the opportunity to present it to the Board and try to get some direction from them so that they could address theses issues at the final which would be before them next month. If they were under a normal two month time frame, they probably wouldn't have imposed this upon them without your knowledge of it. Member Cottier asked if that was a significant difference, and if we were to approve the preliminary tonight would the final be in conformance with this preliminary. Mr. Shepard replied that the requirement of the LDGS was that it be in substantial conformance and the fact that it was a 28 foot street or a 36 foot street, or if was crowned or if it had a sidewalk on one side, he did not think merited the description of being substantial. These were issues, he knew they were working on them. If the preliminary and the final had a different street width that would not jeopardize the final. June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 29 Mr. Peterson added that if we did not have an agreement on this issue by final, between staff and the applicant by final, then the Board was going to have to step in and make that decision. He thought Mr. Shepard was correct that this was not something that we would think not to be in substantial conformance. It was either going to be a 28 foot street that was going to be privately owned or it was a 28 foot street that was going to meet certain city standards. Member Carroll too was not included to give an advisory opinion without being more informed. He probably did not have any objection to a private drive as it was being shown with the necessary and reasonable requirements, but beyond that he would just as soon address it at final knowing they would be reasonable at that time. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Herzig about the rationale. Had it happened that these private drives which had been built in the past had been turned over to the city to maintain and that was why the City had these concerns about it meeting certain standards. Mr. Herzig replied that was a good part of it. Currently, they were dealing with four neighborhoods that wanted their private streets taken over by the City. Some look like streets, some don't look like streets. In the past they have approved or gone ahead and recommended approval of developments that had gone into multi- family areas that had, had streets built for multi -family use as a variance to the type of street that served those developments. One was the last one in Southridge Greens. They still had difficulty with those types of approvals. In looking at this one in greater detail, they were not really prepared to argue a case tonight because they did not think it was going to come up, they were still researching information on what the City's position should be and what right they had to ask for what they were asking for. They had a policy in the past, that they had operated by, that they would recommend approval of a private street as long as it was built to city standards. People in a single family neighborhood, particularly because in the past too, single family was spread out more and you had a greater burden for people to bear the burden of maintaining their streets. In multi -family they have allowed private drives and private streets because there were more people who could afford it and pay for it and that type of thing. These were just some of the issues that they had to consider in formulating what Staff needed to address on this project. PUBLIC INPUT None. Vice Chairman Walker stated that the issues that came back to him was the solar business and he could certainly understand the rationale of the patio homes, the constraints of the lot lines and the street alignment. Their solution seemed to be reasonable to him. He was a little concerned about the single family area. On the one hand there were some attributes to it, and again he knew he could not separate these things, he was just raising the point in an effort to address that issue sufficiently. Still he did not have a firm opinion on that yet. It was a question on his mind, could there be more done to raise that percentage. Member Carroll stated he and Member O'Dell took a look at the map drawn by the architects and it indicated that in this single family area that 30 out of 42 lots were in compliance with the solar orientation which was 71 %, so he was a little confused as to what was the truth. June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 30 Mr. Vaught replied that included the five marginal lots that were 5 degrees off, they thought that through the process they could, through conditions or some other methods, make those lots work as well. Member Carroll replied he saw an architectural drawing and it said `Ye of solar lots 62% and a little dot so he assumed that was what they were. Mr. Vaught replied it was a complicated issue, especially with a pie shaped lot. The way the ordinance was written, it said you were to take the average between the front lot line and the rear lot line and draw a line there and that was the line that had to meet the 30 degrees. That could get pretty vague. He thought as you can see in looking at some of these lots along here, if you drew the line here it did not make it, if you drew the line here, it did, so it would seem that perhaps some guidelines in those marginal lots they could begin to pick those lots up. He thought those lots met the intent of the ordinance. It gave the buyer, and the builder the ability to build a house so that it could take advantage of the solar access. It did not meet the exact verbiage. Mr. Kaplan added that if you took the patio home lots where the broad side of the unit was facing south, which had the highest potential of being able to benefit from solar orientation, you had seven of those lots which they could not count. Then, if you were to take 7 of those lots that they had which were very close to meeting the ordinance but did not because of other design features that they were trying to incorporate into the plan, which they thought would have public benefit to them, such as landscaping, they had 75% solar. He thought everything considered, this clearly met the criteria of being equal to or better. They had 75% as opposed to 65%, although, about 14 of those lots did not meet the exact letter of the ordinance. Hopefully, when the ordinance was looked at again, some of the idiosyncracies that they had on some of these lots, which provided a solar benefit, but which count zero were taken into account. Vice Chairman Walker responded he mentioned with the previous consideration of this, while the patio homes could be configured in a certain way on seven lots, again we were getting into design issues which he questioned how far could they stretch that with the ordinance. He looked at this more of a land use. They had this sort of geometric scheme. Both Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Vaught had both suggested that there could be some sort of design elements that could be introduced into this and again he questioned how far they wanted to go with that. Perhaps, that should be discussed in some review of this, but he was not inclined to give that any weight. His interpretation was they were looking at how the lots were laid out. Whether this was a good lay out or not, there were certain attributes. he was not suggesting that the plan did not have its merits and that there was some reason to provide a variance, but he thought that some of the arguments about design got back to what they just sort of, as a Board, rejected in terms of a concept on the last round. Vice Chairman Walker asked Staff if they were satisfied with the street issue. Mr. Peterson stated that in dealing with the street issue, he thought they needed a specific reference and if the Board was going to take a favorable wording he thought Mr. Eckman had some wording for the Board. Mr. Eckman stated he did not know if he had some wording, but he had some comments because the LDGS says that street cross sections schematics should be submitted for each general category of street including the proposed width, treatment of curbs, gutters, sidewalk systems and bikeway systems where deviations were proposed from the design criteria and standards of the City. From what he has heard June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 31 tonight, it appeared that City's Staff and the Developer were not in agreement of the cross section of this one particular street and that they were not likely to come into agreement tonight. His fear was that by approving this preliminary plan without any conditions, that then when it came to the Board on final, assuming that this Developer had complied with this provision of the LDGS and had given them a street cross section you would have approved this plan the way that the Developer had submitted it and to the concern of the Staff. At least from the standpoint of the Staff it would be beneficial for the City, if the Board would approve this preliminary plan with that as an exception, that this private street not be by express approval or by implication be approved as a part of the preliminary approval but rather be looked at final and addressed at that time. Vice Chairman Walker stated what he saw on the diagram just indicated that it was a private drive. The whole issue of the configuration, he did not see on this plan that is was outlined so it would occur to me that they were not just approving the concept of a private drive here, not really the cross section of it. Mr. Eckman replied he did not know what had been submitted here, he only knew what the code required to be submitted and he assumed that was what was submitted. What was required to be submitted was a street cross section showing deviations from the City's standard plan. Vice Chairman Walker asked if this was on preliminary or final. Mr. Eckman replied that was a preliminary requirement. Vice Chairman Walker stated he did not see that here. All that he saw was that it was 28 feet and a private drive. As far as he was concerned it met city standards. Mr. Peterson added the cross section itself was part of the final submission package. What was shown in this submission was very general and did not quite cover the ground that Mr. Eckman was covering. What they thought they needed was to condition, if the Board again was so inclined, the preliminary action so that, that issue was brought up at the final and was part of the action at that time. Mr. Eckman stated he would still recommend that the Board approve this with the condition based upon, if in fact the written submittal did not comply with what was stated on page 51 of the LDGS certainly the oral submittal that they heard tonight was that the Developer wanted to develop this as a private street and described to them in some extent, at least the way that street was to be constructed. He thought that was a part of the development submittal was what they heard tonight and if the Board was disinclined to approve that, he would not want you to slip into an approval simply by a blanket approval of the preliminary PUD. Vice Chairman Walker stated that cleared up some of the things for him. Where did they go next? He thought they had the issue of the density, the solar orientation and the private drive seemed to be the issues that were evolving around here. Member O'Dell moved approval of Stoneridge PUD, first riling, preliminary, with the variance requested by the applicant, number one pertaining to the absolute criteria regarding minimum density, the second one to the requirements for solar orientation. One, because of exceptional and practical difficulties with regard to access that predetermine alignment to Caribou Drive in its spatial relationship to the west property line, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict application of the Solar Ordinance. Two because of the incorporation of the design features June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 32 that meet other city policies or objectives the plan is equal to or better than a plan that would have met the 65% requirement. She would also like to add a condition that their approval tonight did not necessarily approve the design proposed by the developer for the private drive in the patio home area and that would look at that further in final and would recommend that the staff and the applicant come to some agreement prior to us looking at it at final in July. Mr. Peterson assumed that the motion also included the conditions set forth in the June 25th memorandum. Member O'Dell replied yes, final approval of Stoneridge first riling PUD was conditioned on passage of the second reading of City Council for Webster Farm Second Annexation. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented on the second justification for the variance from solar orientation which was the incorporation of design features. He was very pleased with the treatment of the streetscape along Horsetooth. He thought this seemed as if residential development after residential development comes to them with a wall fence and sidewalks, very seldom did developments with landscapes proposed along a major arterial that this one showed. Vice Chairman Walker agreed with that. He thought that the constraints that were put on the patio homes was a definite hardship and he thought that the design solution to enhance the streetscape was certainly a reasonable one for a variance to the Solar Ordinance. The motion passed 5-0. DAKOTA RIDGE PUD, FIRST FILING. PRELIMINARY. #60-91D Mr. Shepard gave the Staff report recommending approval with the following condition: At the time of Final, for only seven 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 sitting 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. Shepard stated the Board received a correspondence from the Consulting Engineer representing the applicant in their package this evening regarding the three justifications for the variance request for the 65 % solar orientation requirement. Their were seven lots short and Staff was recommending the variance be approved. Their memo contained the condition of the approval that the other two previous items also contained and again that's offered for your consideration this evening. Jeff Couch, Parsons and Associates, represented CDL Partnership who were the developers of this project.