Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRANADA HEIGHTS PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 7 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak 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, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the March 23, 1992 meeting; Item 2 - Blevins Court PUD, Lot 9 - Final, Case #42-91B; Item 3 - New Creations Interiors PUD - Amended Final, Case #10-92; Item 4 - Warren Farms Subdivision, Filing 2 - Preliminary and Final, Case #53-84H was pulled for discussion; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73- 82M; Item 6 - Oakridge PUD, 10th Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82AZ; Item • 7 - Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #11-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 8 - Kingston Woods PUD - Final, Case #58-91A; Item 9 - Quail Hollow Subdivision, 6th Fling - Final, Case #46-89G; Item 10 - Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One - Final, Case #3-90F; Item 11 - Potts PUD - Preliminary, Case #6-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 12 - Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #7-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 13 - Laurie Subdivision PUD, 1st and 2nd Flings - Modification of Conditions of Approval, Case #44-89 E,F; Item 14 - Resolution PZ92-5 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 15 - Resolution PZ92-6 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 16 - Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision Plat - Final, Case #28-89B was pulled for discussion; Item 17 - Prospect Land Company Annexation and Zoning, Case #16-92; Item 18 - Webster Second Annexation and Zoning, Case #21-92; Item 19 - LaPorte Plaza Rezoning and PUD - County Referral, Case #22-92 was continued to the May meeting. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of. Item 20 - Pinecone PUD - Overall Development Plan, Case #60-91A and Pinecone PUD - Fort Collins High School - Advisory Review, Case #60-91B; Item 21 - Colorado State University Sign; Item 22 - Riverside Junction PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-92. Member Cottier pulled Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73-82M. 40 r P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 12 Member Cottier stated that she would support the motion and felt the project is the best use for that area; it is unfortunately a little tight but workable. She hoped the ownership would strictly enforce.no parking on the side streets. _ Chairman Strom shared the concerns about the traffic, however, he does not see that it would be a problem for the surrounding neighborhoods. He recalled raising concerns at the time Taco Bell and Diamond Shamrock were constructed that the site was awkward, but there wasn't really anything that could be done about that piece of land. He -felt this was a better proposal for this site than he expected. He felt that with the additional landscape screening it should mesh reasonably well with the single family homes. _ The motion for approval passed 6-1. GRANADA HEIGHTS PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. Ease #7-92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with a variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance for this project. The ordinance required that 65 percent of single family or duplex lots, less than 15,000 square feet, be oriented to meet the definition of a solar oriented lot. In this particular instance the project does not meet the 65 percent requirement. Staff does support that variance. There also was a condition of approval recommended that the development agreement, final utility plans, and the final site plans must be signed before the May 18th meeting. Member Walker asked for a clarification of the standard 6,000 square foot lot size, and since the standard is in place what is the rationale for going below it? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that 6,000 square feet was the minimum size in many of the City's single family districts, but recently some of the zoning districts were amended in the older parts of town. The reason for the reduction was due to existing homes on lots that did not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum. In some cases, the applicant could come in and develop single family lots at 6,000 square foot minimums without going through the PUD process. If that instance was to occur, one must also adhere to all of the strict requirements of the zoning district which includes setbacks. In going through the PUD process it often provides the flexibility in terms of lot size requirements, and lot setbacks. Chairman Strom stated that in relaxing straight zoning standards through a PUD, a developer usually trades something back for reduced standards. Is that occurring in this case? P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 13 Ms. Albertson -Clark believed that the City was receiving two things, one being the ability to have a modest owner occupied single family home and the other being a reduction in density. As a use by right, the applicant could come in and build fourplexes on lots 6-29 on the existing Granada Heights Subdivision which would account for higher density than what the applicant is proposing at this time. Chairman Strom asked if there were any existing fourplexes? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the units to the southwest are a combination of duplex's and fourplexes. Mr. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, felt that the decrease in density seems justified. He stated the construction of larger homes is not likely for that area, but starter homes seemed to be the logical choice. Mr. Klaus Gunther, developer for the applicant, stated that he specializes in affordable homes. The size of the homes that are being proposed will be 908-1174 square feet, which represent 2 to four -bedroom units. To keep the price range between $45,000-$55,000/per unit, the necessity is to keep the lot size down. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. John Mann, 600 Hanna Street, wanted to know how the drainage problem was going to be resolved? He would also like to see the lot size larger. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Mann if there was a problem with the recent drainage in that area? Mr. Mann stated the amount of standing water in the area is a problem. He has heard in the past that there have been problems with building homes at the site due to the drainage problem. Mr. Allen Miller, 1136 Elm, felt that the lots were too small and for a lot that size, townhouses should be built there instead of the proposed project. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Mr. Rutherford addressed the drainage question by stating that there was an existing detention pond that was built with the rest of Granada Heights. The Natural Resources Department for the City requested that all of the existing detention pond, and the vegetation in the area not be destroyed. Originally the Arthur Ditch came through the subdivision, which was an irrigation ditch and now has been routed in another direction. Mr. Rutherford felt there was no existing drainage problem. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 14 Member O'Dell asked if any thought was given to building duplexes, patio homes or something along those lines? She also wanted to know if there was anyway to make the proposed project look more interesting? Mr. Rutherford stated that the setback had been varied from the front so that there was not a straight line on the front of the project. All of the units are not going to look alike in respect to the sizes of the buildings, and different exterior looks on the single family housing. Member O'Dell asked if single family homes with regular size lots, were the type of structures for which the developer considered building? Mr. Rutherford stated the developer also considered fourplexes, but that type of development is very expensive. The developer also looked at paired housing and various other types of developments and it seemed that single family homes are the most logical use for the land. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Granada Heights PUD, Preliminary and Final with a condition regarding the execution of the development agreement plans and the variance of solar orientation. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBDIVISION PLAT, FINAL. Case #28-89B Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. John Messineo, 137 North Bryan, expressed that he wanted to be assured the wording in regards to not allowing any expansion of existing buildings, nor does it give approval for future or redevelopment of the site was put into effect. He felt that his concern was met. Mr. Paul Morris, 1720 West Mountain, stated that this property is also unique, like the Potts PUD, and felt that subdividing this lot on its current defacto use would not fit into the long term use of park land. This particular property was released into a sweetheart deal 15 or 20 years ago for a Quasi -Government Agency to get started. The Housing Authority is a part of such an entity and if it were to leave that site what would happen to the Westside Plan? Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time.