Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAKOTA RIDGE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 60 91J - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 26, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The July 26, 1993 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 Chair Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree, Jim Klataske, Jennifer Fontane, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Bernie Strom was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, City Attorney Steve Roy, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt,. Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the June 28, 1993 Minutes, Item 2 - Southside Service Center, Amended Site Plan Advisory Review, Case #52-82E; Item 3 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing, Final, Case #60-91J; Item 4 - Greenstone PUD, Phase Three, Final, Case #54-92F; Item 5 - Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #54-87J; Item 6 - Centre for Advance Technology 15th; Tract 3, New Mercer Office PUD, Final, Case #53-85E; Item 7 - Sunstone Village PUD, 8th Filing, Preliminary, Case #57-86L; Item 8 - Fox Creek PUD, Final, Case #5-93C and; Item 9 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 10 - Topanga at EMpond PUD, Preliminary, Case #2-87H; Item 11 - Cobblestone Corners PUD, Preliminary, Case #55-87E; Item 12 - Paragon Point PUD, Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #48-91H and; Item 13 - Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing, Preliminary and Final, Case #48-91L Mr. Peterson added, that the Board proceed with the election of a Vice -Chair to the P&Z Board. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Walker introduced and welcomed Sharon Winfree and Jennifer Fontane as the new P&Z Board members. ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR Member Cottier nominated Member Clements -Cooney as Vice -Chair. Member Klataske seconded the nomination. .Upon a vote of 6-0, Member Clements -Cooney was elected as Vice -Chair. Member Cottier asked that Item 5, Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD Preliminary and Final be pulled from Consent for discussion. t Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 2 Member Klataske moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. CASTLE RIDGE AT MERAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - CASE #54-871 Member Cottier asked why the density requested variance for less than 3DU/AC was not included in the packet and why it was justified. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated that the density variance request was submitted by the applicant but was inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report. He stated that the lower density request by the applicant was justified because the overall density of the residential portions of the Oak/Cottonwood Farms ODP was over 4DU/AC. The ODP was approved in June 1992 which established at that time a maximum of 848 dwelling units on 184 acres for an overall density of 4.6DU/AC. The ODP indicated densities less than 3DU/AC in the area that has since been platted as Upper Meadow at Castle Ridge and at other appropriate locations. They are currently conceptualizing the site plan. He added that in the final analysis, it was conceivable that the ODP would contain a 728 dwelling units on 173 acres for an overall density of 4.2DU/AC. He stated that this site includes some of the steepest slopes at Oak/Cottonwood Farms, a wooded area of approximately 1/3 acre, the inclusion of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north, and the Werner Elementary School to the south, which in all, would create the need for this. Sensitivity to all of these elements is best achieved with the plan and the density between 1 and 1-1/2 DU/AC is what is proposed for this project, which is 1.3DU/AC. The direction of the slopes at Castle Ridge would provide lots of over 15,000 square feet which would allow homeowners the option to respect_ the natural topography and still maintain the solar access to these lots. Chairman Walker asked why topography was an issue to lower the density. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. and consultant for the applicant, replied that the topography was given on the ODP. This had been reviewed by the applicant and established a maximum number of units on the ODP for the various residential parcels. The applicant did not want to represent an ODP with 20 units and then . go -before the Board with 30 units. The estimates in the ODP were based on the thought that the piece could be divided with two parallel cul-de-sacs through it and smaller lots than what are currently being proposed. The applicant then reviewed the details of the topography and the City's Engineering requirements. He added that by taking this approach, they were able to design downhill lots with walk -outs to preserve the views, etc. He stated that to force another row of lots would have made a less livable situation and more of a scarred hillside for view from the surrounding areas.