Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARAGON POINT PUD PHASE THREE PRELIMINARY - 48 91E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 25, 1993 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, City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairperson Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier and Renee Clements -Cooney. Board member Lloyd Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard_ AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 - Election of Officers - pulled off the Consent Agenda for consideration and placed at the end of the Discussion Agenda; Item 2 - Minutes of the December 17, 1992 meeting; Item 3 - Pinecone Apartments PUD - Final, Case #60-91E, was pulled for Discussion by Staff; Item 4 - Gilsdorf Garage Expansion - Non -Conforming Use, Case #60-92; Item 5 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 15th Filing - Preliminary (New Mercer Commons PUD), Case #53-85AB; Item 6 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 8th Filing - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #53-85AC; Item 7 - Siegmund Medical Office PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #62-92A; Item 8 - Paragon Point PUD, Phase III - Preliminary, Case #48-91E, was pulled by the Board for discussion; Item 9 - Oakridge Village PUD, 9th Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82BA, was pulled by an audience member; Item 10 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - Shadowbrook PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #61-92; Item and 12 - Overland Hills West - RF Site Plan Review, Case #38-90D. Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Member Clements - Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. PINECONE APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL - CASE #60-91 E Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave a brief Staff Report of the proposed project. She stated that this project was pulled for discussion because the illuminated stripe on the gasoline canopy at the convenience store would not be considered a sign element subject to the Sign Code but rather an element of the PUD which would be required to be reviewed by the Planning and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 4 of 14 PARAGON POINT PUD, PHASE III - PRELIMINARY - CASE N48-91E Chairperson Strom stated that he pulled this item because he had concerns about the variance for the solar ordinance. Ted Shepard, City Planner, gave the Staff Report on the proposed project recommending approval subject to the condition that the request for the 28 foot wide cul-de-sacs be submitted by a professional engineer considered at the time of final. Chairperson Strom asked how the justification of the variance relates to the site plan. Member Carroll asked how many lots in the first filing meet the solar orientation. Jim Sell, representative for the developer, stated that the First Filing did not fall within the solar ordinance which created some difficulty with Filing Three. He reviewed slides of the proposed area. He stated that Paragon Place in the First Filing was designed because it was a secondary access to complete the loop for fire protection and Pheasant Court was stubbed out. He stated that with the orientation, it would allow the developer to install walk -out basements on the homes, there is virtually no grading on Pheasant Court, and the drainage is easily handled on the properties that are on a steep hillside. He stated that the layout allowed them to place a greenbelt along most of the backs of the homes and into the main park. He described for the Board the drainage system and stated that it would be an 8% slope_ Member Cottier asked how many lots in the First Filing were solar -oriented. Mr. Shepard stated that he does not have that information. Member O'Dell stated that it appeared that, for the entire lots, there was perhaps 42-46 lots that were solar -oriented in the First Filing which would place this filing in the 60 percentile range and would meet the criteria. Member Klataske asked how many lots would be oriented to meet the solar requirements. Mr. Sell replied 31 lots out of 49 lots. Member O'Dell had a concern how the City would deal witjt the rationale of changing from patio homes to single family homes and changing the density. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Shepard stated that the intention is to have Filing Four carry the burden of meeting the overall development plan with the number of units per acre that meets or exceeds 3 DU/acre. This is based on the performance of Phase IV. Mr. Sell stated that there will be enough density available in Filing Four that would still make the 3 DU/acre. Member O'Dell asked what the rationale was for having greenbelts, walkways, etc., as well as large lots. Mr. Sell stated that people who buy large lots like to have those amenities. He stated that there is a large demand for large lots. Member O'Dell commented that this was true but also there needs to be a balance of the bigger policy of the City to efficiently use the services that are in place by having at least 3 DU/acre against the amenities of open space, etc. Mr. Sell stated that he did not disagree with this. Byron Collins, applicant, stated that one of the issues they faced was getting as many units dealing with slopes and there was a lot of area that they chose not to develop. There were larger lots that could be developed on if one wished to develop on steep slopes. This made it difficult to work with these constraints. He stated that in this particular phase, 16.89 acres, would require 51 units where they are falling at 50 units. He stated that from a developer's standpoint, he tends to stay to a lower density. There was no public input. Mr. Eckman stated that there were three options given with the granting of the variance. He stated that there was a sentence in the City Code that was missing in the summary of Code 2 which reads: "Such variance shall not be granted if the same would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intended purposes of this article." Mr. Eckman stated that there would be a two-part finding that would need to be met if this variance was granted. The first part would be the hardship part and the second would be the no detriment part. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 6 of 14 Chairperson Strom commented that this was a reasonable variance request and that there were particular exceptional conditions of difficulty that create a hardship because of a combination of factors. He did not believe that there would be a detriment to the public. Member O'Dell moved to approve Paragon Point PUD, Phase III Preliminary with the variance to solar orientation for the reasons that Chairperson Strom described and the variance to the minimum density. She believed that the plan includes significant benefits which make this plan equal to or better than a plan that would have strictly met the requirement but not include these benefits. She added that the condition that the request for the four cul-de-sacs to be 28 feet from curb to curb on a 46 foot right-of-way is not part of Paragon Point PUD Phase III Preliminary PUD. The determination of this variance request will be made as part of the Final PUD. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. OAKRIDGE VILLAGE PUD, 9TH FILING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CASE #13- 82BA Ms. Whetstone gave the Staff Report for the proposed project. She stated that staff recommended approval with a variance being granted to the density which is 2.81 DU/acre. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., representing the Everitt Companies, stated that this was a continuation of the 8th filing. PUBLIC INPUT Mike Moog, 1228 Red Oak Court and a member of the Oakridge 8th Filing Architectural Review Committee, stated he had concerns about the 9th filing greenbelt abutting with the 8th filing greenbelt, proposed landscaping in those greenbelt areas, and pedestrian sidewalks. He stated that currently there are no sidewalks in the greenbelt areas and would like these to be considered. Other concerns were how blending would be handled with the Comlinear site to the north, traffic circulations within the 9th filing and how it would tie into the 8th filing, drainage problems in the 8th filing and the assurance that these drainage problems do not continue or compound with the existing drainage problems, the covenants and the proposed building materials, and fence design and criteria in the 8th filing. He urged the Board to consider this project only as a preliminary so the committee can work with Staff to resolve these concerns. John Lenner, area resident, had concerns about the drainage situation and standing water on this site.