Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPEIGHTS PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 17 92 A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD • MEETING MINUTES May 18, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Ftorak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Members absent included Lloyd Walker and Jim Klataske. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Peter Barnes, and Kayla Ballard. i Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the April 27, 1992 P&Z meeting; Item 2 - Prospect/Overland PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #5- 841); Item 3 - Brice PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #19-92; Item 4 - Speights PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #17-92A was pulled for discussion by Staff; Item 5 - Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, Preliminary, Case #18-92; Item 6 - Resolution PZP2-7 Easement Vacation, Fort Ram Village, PUD 2nd Filing; Item 7 - Trappers Point Subdivision, County Referral, Case #23-92 was pulled for discussion by Staff; Item 8 - "rimer County 40 Intermediate Processing Center, County Referral, Case #24-92; Item 9 Burns Second Annexation and Zoning, Case #27-92,A; and Item 10 - Amendments to the Zoning Code, Case #30-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - Brittany Knolls PUD, Phase 2, Final, Case #21-83H; Item 12 - Southside Service center Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #52-82E and Item 13 - Southside Service Center PUD, Phase III, Preliminary and Final, Case #52-82D have been continued to the June P&Z meeting; and Item 14 - Pinecone Apartments PUD, Preliminary, Case #60-91C. Jay Arrasmith, 3012 W. Prospect, asked that Item 2, Prospect/Overland PUD, be pulled for discussion. Member Carroll moved to approve Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Consent Agenda. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. PROSPECT/OVERLAND PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, - Case #5-84D Mr. Peterson gave a description of the proposed project with a staff recommend of approval. Jim Brannan, represented the developer Rex Miller. He ,stated that they had requested an amendment to Lot 1 which consisted of converting this lot to a low -impact rental storage t May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 5 Member Cottier suggested the amendment to the motion that if the applicant could move the building they could maintain the same size, such as further back from the street. Member O'Dell accepted this as an amendment to the motion. The motion to approve carried 5-0. Member Carroll moved to table the Prospect/Overland PUD Final to the June 22 regular P&Z meeting. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to table the item carried 5-0. - - - - SPEIGHTS PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - Case #17-92A Mr. Peterson stated that staff requested this item be pulled for two reasons. First, because a solar orientation variance was required and second, Staff had rcommended a condition on a pedestrian path which that the applicant objected to. Kirsten Whetstone gave a brief description of the proposed project. She stated that two of the five new residential lots, or40%, have a solar orientation. The ordinance requires 65%. She added that the applicant has submitted a variance request to this ordinance requirement and that staff finds that the variance request is justified under the second requirement specified by the Solar Orientation ordinance which states that: "By reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by strict application of any provision of this article." Ms. Whetstone stated that staff believed a hardship would be placed on the applicant to provide limited opportunities for alternative designs to meet the solar requirements by the existing drainage channel to the north, an existing early 1900s farmhouse, which will remain standing, and numerous mature trees located on the site which the applicant would like to preserve, as well as the site's frontage on Timberline Road. She added that granting the variance would not result in the detriment to the public good. Ms. Whetstone stated that staff was also recommending a pedestrian walkway along a private access drive that will serve lots 1 and 2. The pedestrian walkway should extend to the parking lot for lots 6 and 7 from Stoney Creek Drive to provide pedestrian connections between the residential and business uses of this PUD. She stated that the PUD does not meet All Development Criteria #26, #27, and #40 without providing a connection between the various uses and between this PUD and the neighborhood. Dana Lockwood, Project Planner and representative for the applicants, stated that the site is restricted in a number of ways, such as its size and the streets bounding on the west and east May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 6 have north/south access which limit the possibilities of fronting on the north/south access street while maintaining a north/south orientation. He stated that this plan has resolved several issues and problems. He stated that the neighborhood had concerns that the residential portion of the project be consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood. He continued that the purpose of the private drive at the end of Stoney Creek Drive and Sunstone Drive was to get a 30 foot utility easement over to the commercial lots on the west and to provide access to the second lot. He stated that staff was recommending that a pedestrian walkway be provided along the private drive, however, the applicant disagrees with the recommendation because this is a small project and there-ig"an existing pedestrian access walk a few lots to the east in Sunstone Village. He stated that this pedestriartway. connects to a bike path that is planned to connect into a convenience store north of this proposed project. He stated that there are sidewalks in place on Stoney Creek Drive and a new 7 foot walk planned along Timberline Road. This site is or will be surrounded by pedestrian paths. He believed that criteria #26, 27 and 40, in the bigger picture of the total neighborhood, have been met with the existing and planned pedestrian paths. He added that the applicant would not object to providing for individual gate accesses from the back and side yards of the appropriate residential lots, so access can be gained to the commercial uses to the west. He stated that the applicant was opposed to providing a public pedestrian walk adjacent to this private drive for security reasons. As proposed by staff, it would be very different from a typical public sidewalk adjacent to a public street where Police can easily patrol and observe activities. He stated that the visibility is not good at this point. He stated that the Vet Clinic will also serve as a home for the veterinarian's family. This would traffic the public, in essence, through their backyard. Member Cottier asked which side of the fence was the landscape buffer proposed to be on. Mr. Lockwood stated that the landscaping was planned to be on the commercial side of the six foot fence which will be on the residential side. Member Cottier asked if there is currently or are they planning on, installing a fence along the 40 foot drainage tract. Mr. Lockwood replied that currently there is no fence but it would be up to the individual lot owner to install one. He added that there is no fence planned for the veterinary clinic. Member Cottier asked that if a sidewalk were to be put in and the people from Sunstone Village walked along the private drive and through a gate in the fence by the vet clinic, would they be able to cross the 40 foot easement drainage to get to the convenience store. Mr. Lockwood replied that the Sunstone residents would cross the 8-10 lots, walk along a bike path to the convenience store. He added that the primary concern of the applicant was the security issue. r May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 7 Member Carroll asked if the concern between staff and the applicant was just the installation of the pedestrian walkway or about allowing pedestrian access through the fence into lots 6 and 7. Mr. Lockwood replied that the concern of the applicant was keep people from walking through the fence and into lots 6 and 7. Member O'Dell asked if Stonegate Drive would eventually connect through to Timberline Road. Ms. Whetstone replied that at this time, the ODP for that property shows no- access on - - Timberline Road. The only access to that property is from Caribou or Stoney Creek Drive. Member O'Dell commented that it appeared logical to her to have some kind of access from Sunstone to Timberline in addition to the roads but she was not convinced that this was the right location for the access. She suggested that a logical place for a pedestrianway would be to the south past Stonegate. Ms. Whetstone replied that staff has seen a conceptual plan for that property and there was possibly an opportunity to have a pedestrian connection somewhere between Sunstone and Caribou. She stated that staff believed that the volume of trips by bicycle or pedestrian to a convenient store was probably very few. There was no public input for this project. Member Carroll commented that he was not particularly persuaded to put the walkway in because the access that would be coming through would not be to utilize the uses on lots 6 and 7. He did not agree that criteria 26, 27 and 40 were not being met by not putting this in because the people coming through there would primarily be "through" traffic. He added that he did not believe the solar orientation variance wasn't warranted. Member Cottier moved to approve Speights PUD Preliminary and Final without the condition that the pedestrian walkway be installed and that the solar variance be granted. She stated that she was agreeing with Member Carroll's comments and Mr. Lockwood's presentation and believed that criteria 26, 27 and 40 are being met when one considers that this development is a small project and that this sidewalk should not be required to meet the needs of Sunstone accessing the uses on this proposed site. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that he understood the need to have a pedestrian access but, given the layout of this parcel, it would be awkward to put public/pedestrian traffic through in this fashion. He suggested that the Board direct staff to look at a pedestrian connection further south when another parcel is reviewed. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 8 The motion to approve passed 5-0. TRAPPERS POINT SUBDIVISION. COUNTY REFERRAL - Case #23-92 Mr. Peterson stated that this particular subdivision was not consistant with the County Land Use Plan. He stated that the County has been involved in a court case that County Zoning does not have to conform to the County Land Use Plan which would allow for 100,000 square foot lots in this area instead of -35 -acre lots that would be rural. He added that there are a number of existing wetlands on this site and, based on Natural Resources analysis, these areas should be mapped and not developed. He -stated that there was some concern as to whether the'septic systems proposed will meet the County's criteria for approval. Staff was suggesting that a fifth recommendation be added that states the applicant must meet all applicable local, county and state criteria for septic system development before this application can proceed. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates and representative for the owners, stated that this project has been to conceptual review and Mr. Jerry Blehm, of the County Health Department, was present at that meeting. He stated that there has been soils testing for septic systems in entire proposed preliminary plat where three out of 16 test holes done would not support a regular septic system, which meets the county and state's requirements. He stated that the lots that could not be served by regular septic systems would still meet the state and county requirements. Chairman Strom commented that the County, not having adjusted thier zoning to their Land Use Plan, does not have the authority to reject a plan of this nature which makes it awkward for the City to evaluate a proposal for development within their area of interest. He stated that when the City was involved in providing input on the Land Use Plan and to not have the implementing measures in effect to suuport it, makes the efforts superfulous. He encouraged the County to mesh their planning nd the implementation practices. Member O'Dell commented that she concurred with Chairman Strom regarding the County changing their zoning ordinance to fit with the plan that they have developed. Member O'Dell moved recommendation of approval of Trappers Point Subdivision County Referral with the following four staff conditions: 1) The potential for extending the cul-de-sacs int he northwest and northeast corners of the site to the property to the north be noted on the final plat, as a "future road extension;" 2) Pedestrian access to the south shore of the lake be provided in a convenient location between lots on the south shore; 3) All existing wetlands on the site be identified on the final plat and be included in open space tracts to be maintained by the HOA, and; 4) A shore stabilization plan, addressing the landscape and maintenance treatment of the lake shore be provided with the final plat. Member O'Dell added a condition that the applicant meet all applicable local, county and state criteria for septic tanks systems before the development begins.