Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAKOTA RIDGE PUD FIRST FILING PRELIMINARY - 60 91D - 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 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 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 filing 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. June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 33 Mr. Couch stated that what they were proposing was the first phase of residential development that had been previously known as the Pinecone PUD. This first phase represented 66 single family lots and was the first of the 200 lots that were proposed in this area. There were a number of items that were unique in this development. He would like to step back a little bit to the Pinecone PUD that was before the Board couple of months ago. They have since completed or were in the process of completing an administrative change to that ODP which would allow for a connection to Stoneridge to the south. That was very important to some of the things that they were proposing in the first phase. They also have had a problem with the orientation of or meeting the solar orientation criteria. With the modification to the Pinecone ODP they had been able to downsize the street to a 36 foot section. They have treated it a little bit differently. They have provided for vertical curbs in that section and they had separated the sidewalks away from the curb and gutter so they could have a landscaped area. When they laid this out, one of the primary considerations that they followed was the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Four cul-de-sacs were east/west cul-de-sacs and the primary purpose of that was to provide the lots with the solar orientation. Even with that, the shape of this piece did limit the amount of lots that they had available to them. He thought they were 7 lots short and that amounted to a 53 % solar orientation. They had provided a strip of landscaping along Horsetooth and they also had a tract A which was 4.81 acres and would be completed with a little higher density of development in the future in the order of 6 to 7 units per acre. The 66 lots average 9300 square feet. They were fairly good sized lots and they felt met the intent of the solar orientation. Vice Chairman Walker asked about the other little piece of the lot line. It occurred to him that why did they not continue to run the cul-de-sacs in an east/west fashion to accommodate more of the solar lots in this parcel. This was obviously the part that knocked them down. It looked to him like virtually none of those lots were solar oriented. Mr. Couch replied that there were two considerations because of that. One of them was because of the shape of this parcel. As it gets narrower to the east it was almost impossible to run a cul-de-sac in here and keep the width that was necessary to have a good sized lot. The second one was just past tract A, was the campus for the School District. There were ponds in here, detention ponds. This would be landscaped and a fairly nice area. In discussions with Staff and working with Staff, they felt it was important to open these lots onto that green campus on to that open space and the future park, city park over here. They felt that, that was a more important consideration in this area than the solar orientation. Member Cottier raised the question about density because again this time the submittal seemed to indicate it was less than 3 units, but you haven't said a variance was being requested. Mr. Couch replied as far as densities, the net density was 3.5 units per acre the gross was 4.5 units per acre so they did not need a variance for that as he understand it. Member Cottier asked Mr. Shepard to explain this. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct, they didn't perceive this project as requiring a variance to 3 dwelling units per acre, they meet the minimum. Member Cottier stated the information here says it was 2.6. Jura 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 34 Mr. Shepard asked what she was referring to. Member Cottier replied the school projections provided by the applicant. It said a density of 2.58. Mr. Shepard replied that was incorrect. The correct information was the 3.36 swelling units per acre. Member Cottier asked if they were talking about 66 acres on 24.56 acres. Mr. Shepard replied what they had done was they took out tract A from the consideration so their initial overall density would be less than 3 D.U./acre, but with Tract A being 4.81 acres and the drainage tract being .13 acre if you took that away from the gross acreage, then you would get 3.36. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Carroll stated in looking at the Staff comments, it indicated that another series of east/west cul- de-sacs would turn its back on the 30 acres of high school athletic field and then it talked about the desire to have some lots front on what would necessarily be a nice area. He wondered if they could comment on both of those comments. He was a little bit confused about turning it's back on the 30 acres. Mr. Shepard replied one of the interesting features about the Pinecone Farm, of course, was the High School campus and how did they deal with the transition from single family to High School. One of the ways of doing that was by putting the athletic fields between the residential and the High School as they discussed back in April. That plus the adjacent neighborhood park created approximately 40 to 45 acres of open space. That would be maintained, irrigated, mowed, manicured open space. This Developer came in for conceptual review and the traditional layout would be to run the cul-de-sacs straight in without fronting those 14 homes on the local street. Staff suggested, and the applicant agreed, that fronting to the open space would be an amenity and it would bring value to the neighborhood. It would also create a sense of entry to the neighborhood. When you drive in you did not see side yards and rear yards, you saw front yards. To enhance that, the applicant elected to detach the sidewalk and create a parkway strip for street trees again creating the character that you were entering a residential neighborhood and taking advantage and orienting your lots to the 45 acres of open space. That was something that they thought would be a positive. The Board saw on a previous item this evening, he believed it was the Miramont project, where for various reasons they had elected to bring the cul-de-sacs off their local streets. They discussed the parking at the drop off zone for the Werner school, how there would be available parking on that street because there would be side yards and rear yards. So a different approach, a different solution to a problem, a unique site with an attribute that the Developer wanted to take advantage of. Mr. Peterson added that the street classification had changed here from what was originally discussed and he thought they kind of glossed over that tonight. That was going to a much more local street with another local street parallel to it in the previously acted upon subdivision. So, the character that they were going to have there was a lot different from what they first discussed this last April. What they were trying to do in this square mile and as they got into planning of subdivisions and schools was to try to enhance the neighborhood feeling. As Ted alluded to, there were a lot of wooden walls in this community which, personally as a planner were not good ways to deal with neighborhoods. We have an opportunity in this square mile to have a lot of pedestrian and a lot of very nice connections with a June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes Page 35 major recreational facility in a neighborhood park and the design considerations that had gone into that had attempted to meet those planing objectives that we had long had and in the past had not been able to be that successful with. We think that this proposal was a real opportunity to meet those objectives. Vice Chairman Walker commented that he agreed with this design solution. Fronting those lots on this street did provide some interest and variation. Leading into that you did have side yards and cul-de-sacs which he was okay with that, but then you get that transition from those lots fronting on the street. This could be an example of a rigid example to the ordinance where you would get perhaps a monotonous streetscape along Dakota Drive which he did not think would be attractive, he thought the way the solution was proposed here broke that up enough here to provide what he thought was a more attractive alternative. The total project they were looking at here did seem to make a reasonable attempt at the solar ordinance goal and he thought that there was a reason to give this variance because of what they were just talking about. Member Carroll moved approval of Dakota Ridge, First Filing, Preliminary PUD with a variance to the requirements for solar orientation because of an exceptional topographical condition peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by strict application of the Solar Orientation Ordinance and because of an exceptional difficulty hardship would be caused to the subdivider by strict application of the ordinance and C or third because the applicant has demonstrated their unique site and design features incorporated into the plan and because granting the variance would not cause a detriment to the public good and I think I would like to stress the third one for the comment that Lloyd just made. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.