Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKINGSTON WOODS PUD SECOND FILING PRELIMINARY - 58 91B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 31, 1992 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 Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chair Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Corder and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Joe Carroll was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Southridge Greens PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case l/9-82AG; Item 2 - Fox Ridge PUD -Preliminary, Case #9-82AH. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 3 - Horsetooth Commons PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #58-91C; Item 4 - Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing, PUD - Preliminary, Case #58-91B; Item 5 - Wildwood Farm PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #90- 85F, and; Item 6 - Wildwood Farm PUD 1994 Junior High - Advisory Review, Case #90-85G. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Ms. Whetstone gave a brief description of the two proposed projects. She stated that the Kingston Woods proposal was requesting a solar orientation variance with 12 of the 22 lots being solar -oriented. Staff recommended approval of both projects. Don Frederick represented the applicant, Progressive Living Structures. He briefly discussed landscaping, buffering, entrance amenities, and the provision of depth in the lots and landscaping along Richmond Drive. Member Walker had concerns about the transition between the residential and commercial to the east. He asked what would be the possibility of creating a better transition to the commercial site as far as landscaping, similar treatment to the streetscape, and height of buildings on the immediate adjacent side. Mr. Frederick replied that the applicant shared Member Walker's concerns because of the proposed single family residential and they wanted the commercial development to be as high quality as possible, as far as the aesthetics were concerned. He stated that the situation with the commercial ground was that they had no ownership or interest in that property at this time so they were not able to plan for a better transition on the commercial property. He did not know if the present owners were approachable for placing any restrictions on this property. He stated that the potential was there. He added that they designed the lots to be as deep as possible with buffering. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 31, 1992 Page 2 Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was currently a sign stating that this property was commercial development. Mr. Peterson replied that there was currently a sign that says "Horsetooth Commons" but did not believe that it stated that it was for commercial development. PUBLIC INPUT Don Wilkerson, adjacent property owner, asked if this was 2-1/2 acres or 5 acres and if this property will abut the Kingston Woods property. Ms. Whetstone stated that the amended master plan is an amendment to Tract C, which is Phase 2, which is the southern part of this development. She stated that Kingston Woods 2nd Filing is 5 acres in size and is directly east of Kingston Woods 1st Filing. Mr. Wilkerson had concerns that there would be a holding pond to the west of the property and would drain through the Progressive Living property, then to the east boundary of his property and then to the sewer system in the street. Mr. Herzig stated that this was the plan but was not certain if this was fully established. Mr. Frederick replied that this system was through the design process and had been approved by the Storm Drainage Department. He stated that there was an existing design detention area immediately adjacent to the north corner of the Progressive Living property but on the Kingston Woods One property. Most of the drainage from this project would go to that pond and then through a pipe along the north side, to the east, and then north to an existing easement until it would intersect into an existing storm drainage pipe in Laredo. Mr. Wilkerson asked if there was any fencing planned with the PUD. Ms. Whetstone replied that on the Second Filing, the fencing would be left up to the property owners and would not be put in by the developer. She stated that on the First Filing, there was a concern because of the detention area and fencing was to be provided, but whether it would be the six foot high fence was not certain. Mr. Wilkerson asked if there was a buffer zone or easements between the Casa Grande property and these two proposed properties. Ms. Whetstone replied that there may be an easement along the rear property line of lots in the Second Filing. Mr. Frederick stated that there currently exists a 10 foot utility easement along the south side of Casa Grande and there will be a 15 foot total easement on the north side of this development, which makes a 25 foot easement. The Public Input portion was closed at this time. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 31, 1992 Page 3 Ms. Whetstone replied that the Board was being asked to review an amendment to Tract C, which is part of the Overall Development Plan. Member Walker asked if this was a review for just Tract C or was the whole parcel up for review. Ms. Whetstone replied that this was an amendment to Tract C. Mr. Peterson clarified that this application was for Tract C only, which was the only thing the Board would be considering in terms of the Overall Development Plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the future commercial transition and that they would be reviewing the intensity of development and the physical impact that the residential would have via the commercial property. Member Cottier asked if lots 3 and 8 were solar -oriented. Ms. Whetstone replied that lots 10 and 8 on Block 1 were between 32 and 36 degrees from the true east/west, therefore they were deleted. She stated that Lot 1 was added because it has the south boundary with the street and the definition of a solar -oriented lot. She stated that there were 12 lots that were solar -oriented. Member O'Dell moved approval of Horsetooth Commons Tract C Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that the Overall Development Plan was approved which had a concept that they considered to be acceptable planning. Now this tract, and only this tract, was being modified which he found to be difficult to accept. He had a concern that if an Overall Development Plan was being changed, then the concept was being changed at the total site. He suggested that this be mentioned to the owners of the commercial property. Member Corder concurred with Member Walker and believed that the responsibility for buffering to make the single family area workable was inappropriately being shifted to the commercial property. She did believe that it was appropriate to place the single family properties there but also believed that this project should not depend upon the commercial owners to put in the buffering. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Walker in the negative. Member Cottier moved to approve Kingston Woods 2nd Fling PUD Preliminary with a variance to the solar ordinance on the basis that the plan submitted be equal to or better than what could have been done if the requisite number of lots were solar -oriented and with the condition that the Kingston Woods project place a sign that there will be commercial across the street. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked that, if this plan had expired, would this property still be commercial. Mr. Peterson replied that the odds that this corner property would be commercial are very good although they may not be as intense because of the nature of the market. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 31, 1992 Pagc 4 Mr. Peterson replied that the odds that this comer property would be commercial are very good although they may not be as intense because of the nature of the market. He suggested that the owner be contacted to see if a sign could be posted on it because it has been successful and potential home buyers need to be aware as to what will happen across the street. He stated that this should be a suggestion and not a condition. Member Cottier stated that she did not mean to require that the commercial property owner place a sign on his property but there should be some sort of provision that goes with the sale of the residential lots notifying the home buyers that there is planned to be commercial across the street. Mr. Peterson stated that these terms would be worked out for the final plan. The motion to approve passed 6-0. WILDWOOD FARM PUD - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CASE #90-85E WILDWOOD FARM PUD 1994 JUNIOR HIGH - ADVISORY REVIEW - CASE N90-85G Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of both proposed projects. She stated that there were several elements of the school that exceeded the City's 40 foot height limitation. Staff had evaluated the various elements that exceed that height and have evaluated that height against the City's criteria that were adopted to evaluate building height. Staff found that this was appropriate and would not significantly or negatively impact either existing development or future development in that area. Member Walker asked if the future elementary school planned for this area was included as part of the amended plan for educational facilities. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this was correct, however, before any future development would be expected or anticipated for that school, it would be brought back before the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration. She noted that with the anticipated layout and design of the park site, access to the eastern portion would come from the school entrance and from the bus loop that is proposed on the junior high school site. Future access to the western part of that park site would need to be accommodated as future developments are reviewed. Carr Bieker, The Architects Studio, stated that the proposed school would be for 900 students and would be a two-story building. The educational facilities would be integrated with the park site. Member Clements -Cooney asked for more detail about the 57 foot tower. Mr. Bieker replied that this tower would be a symbolic element for the neighborhood and for the school and would be a functional element in terms of natural light. This would also be a future communication tower to house communication devices. Member O'Dell asked if the bus driveway would accommodate private vehicles dropping off and picking up children.