CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL"

Aubrey Day
5 years ago
Views:

1 CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page 37 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: PARKWOOD AT WOLF RANCH NASS DESIGN ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a PUD development plan for Parkwood at Wolf Ranch consisting of 148 single family residential lots on acres northeast of Research Pkwy. and Grand Cordera Pkwy. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: ITEM: C CPC PUD PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Approve the Parkwood at Wolf Ranch PUD Development Plan, based upon the findings that it meets the review criteria for PUD development plans as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 607 of the City Zoning Code. This recommendation for approval is subject to compliance with the Technical and Informational Modifications to the plat as set forth in the Development Plan Review Criteria portion (page 40) of the CPC agenda. SUMMARY: All criteria are met to approve this development plan subject to minor technical revisions. BACKGROUND: Existing Zoning/Land Use - PUD/ vacant Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PUD/ vacant South - PUD/ single family East - PUD/ single family West - PUD/ vacant Annexation September 1982, Briargate Addition No. 2 Zoning A with annexation. Rezoned PUD in January 2005 (CPC PUD 04-47). Physical Characteristics - Vacant field with no significant features. Master Plan - Wolf Ranch master plan C Residential DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: City Engineering: The revised development plan is acceptable to Engineering. Landscape: Note: As the approved Development Standards for Wolf Ranch do not address landscape, the City of Colorado Springs criteria as outlined in the Landscape Code and Policy Manual were applied. In addition, the guidelines for Small Lot PUD developments specific to landscape recommendations were also considered. 1. Prepare and title the re-submittal as a Final Landscape Plan.

2 CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page Soil Analysis, Preparation and Amendments reflecting Soil Analysis recommendations, is required prior to the approval of a Final Landscape Plan (Section 315.B. & C.). If deferral or waiver is requested, Alternative Compliance for this request is required. 3. The landscape setbacks along Research Parkway and Grand Cordera Boulevard are to apply the Small Lot PUD landscape guidelines to these frontages. 4. The percentage of Signature Plants noted does not correspond to the quantity of trees and shrubs indicated in the Plant Schedules. 5. The street trees shown on internal streets must be consistent with General Note #18, Sheet Note the street names and classifications on the streetscape landscape plans. 7. The landscape shown within the medians and roundabouts will be subject to review and approval by traffic engineering. 8. Clarify the maintenance of tracts A & B (General Note #10, sheet 1), referencing the Old Ranch 9. Note the zoning of all adjacent properties. 10. Locations of any proposed fencing are to be clearly shown on the Landscape Plan and noted by type and height. 11. Shown corner visibility triangles on streetscape typical designs. Landscape shown at street intersections within corner visibility triangles need to correspond to visibility requirements with respect to the height of plant material. 12. Provide a typical lot layout to demonstrate how the trees shown in alleys will be incorporated within drives, alleys, garages, utility easements, fences, etc. 13. Evergreen trees shown in the parkways must be able to achieve minimum clearances without requiring radical pruning. 14. The Irrigation Plan is to include an irrigation schedule that notes application rates based on turf type, note rates for newly planted materials vs. established (established as a percent of initial) and general recommendations regarding seasonal adjustments (spring and fall). Ron Bevans Water/Wastewater: A Wastewater Master Facility Report is required with the Development Plan submittal. Fire: The plans have been re-submitted, and the disapproved issues have been addressed as follows: 1- Road designs have been modified. 2- Physical barriers have been provided for referenced lots. 3- Per note 25, at least some of the lots facing Tutt will be addressed from Tutt. Enumerator: The revised drawing has addressed all my concerns, and can now sign off on the development plan. Please be aware that those lots where the residence faces Tutt Bd. will receive Tutt addresses, whether or not there is vehicular access allowed. The Pikes Peak Regional Building Code states that addressing is done from the commonly known front door. All Other Reporting Departments: Standard or no comment. PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURE 1 STAKEHOLDER PROCESS: The public process involved with the review of these applications included posting of the site, and sending of letters on two separate occasions to all property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the property. There have been no objections. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES: : REVIEW CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A development plan for land within a PUD zone shall be approved if it substantially conforms to the approved PUD plan and the development plan review criteria listed below. The standards and other requirements set forth in a development agreement may be used to demonstrate compliance with development plan review criteria. An application for a development plan shall be submitted in accord with requirements outlined in Article 5, Part 2

3 CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page 39 and Part 5 of this Chapter. Unless otherwise specified by a development agreement, the project shall be vested by the development plan in accord with Section and Subsection C2 of this Chapter. A. Consistency With City Plans: Is the proposed development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any City approved master plan that applies to the site? B. Consistency With Zoning Code: Is the proposed development consistent with the intent and purposes of this Zoning Code? C. Compatibility Of The Site Design With The Surrounding Area: 1. Does the circulation plan minimize traffic impact on the adjacent neighborhood? 2. Do the design elements reduce the impact of the project's density/intensity? 3. Is placement of buildings compatible with the surrounding area? 4. Are landscaping and fences/walls provided to buffer adjoining properties from undesirable negative influences that may be created by the proposed development? 5. Are residential units buffered from arterial traffic by the provision of adequate setbacks, grade separation, walls, landscaping and building orientation? D. Traffic Circulation: 1. Is the circulation system designed to be safe and functional and encourage both on and off site connectivity? 2. Will the streets and drives provide logical, safe and convenient vehicular access to the facilities within the project? 3. Will adequately sized parking areas be located to provide safe and convenient access, avoid excessive parking ratios and avoid expanses of pavement? 4. Are access and movement of handicapped persons and parking of vehicles for the handicapped appropriately accommodated in the project design? 5. As appropriate are provisions for transit incorporated? E. Overburdening Of Public Facilities: Will the proposed development overburden the capacities of existing and planned streets, utilities, parks, and other public facilities? F. Privacy: Is privacy provided, where appropriate, for residential units by means of staggered setbacks, courtyards, private patios, grade separation, landscaping, building orientation or other means? G. Pedestrian Circulation: 1. Are pedestrian facilities provided, particularly those giving access to open space and recreation facilities? 2. Will pedestrian walkways be functionally separated from vehicular ways and located in areas that are not used by motor vehicles? H. Landscaping: 1. Does the landscape design comply with the City's landscape code and the City's landscape policy manual? 2. The use of native vegetation or drought resistant species including grasses is encouraged. The City's landscape policy manual or City Planning's landscape architect can be consulted for assistance. I. Open Space: 1. Residential Area: a. Open Space: The provision of adequate open space shall be required to provide light, air and privacy; to buffer adjacent properties; and to provide active and passive recreation opportunities. All residential units shall include well designed private outdoor living space featuring adequate light, air and privacy where appropriate. Common open space may be used to reduce the park dedication requirements if the open space provides enough area and recreational facilities to reduce the residents' need for neighborhood parks. Recreational facilities shall reflect the needs of the type of residents and proximity to public facilities. b. Natural Features: Significant and unique natural features, such as trees, drainage channels, slopes, and rock outcroppings, should be preserved and incorporated into the design of the open space. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall have the discretion to grant park land credit for open space within a PUD development that preserves significant natural features and meets all other criteria for granting park land credit.

4 CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page 40 The development plan for Parkwood at Wolf Ranch (FIGURE 2) shows 148 single family residential lots on acres northeast of Research Parkway and Grand Cordera Parkway. The lots are designed for alleyloaded garages and have an average lot size of 4,367 sq. ft. Houses are oriented toward the standard 50' streets, but the garages take their access from the alleys behind each lot. The site is already zoned PUD and is shown in the Residential C category of the Wolf Ranch master plan. All development standards are in accordance with the PUD standards established for the Wolf Ranch PUD zone. Primary access to the subdivision is at a roundabout intersection on Grand Cordera to the east of the site. The secondary access is from Tutt Blvd. to the west. Parkwood follows the commendable Wolf Ranch practice of placing large, bermed landscape tracts along major streets to buffer nearby homes and present an attractive appearance from the streets. In this case, the landscape tracts are provided along Research Pkwy. and Grand Cordera Pkwy. A 49,697 sq. ft. private pocket park is shown in the center of the subdivision with a playground and gazebo. Other trail tracts are provided throughout the site to facilitate pedestrian circulation. It is the finding of the Planning Staff that the proposed Parkwood at Wolf Ranch PUD Development Plan will be in substantial compliance with Criteria A through I above if the subject PUD Development Plan is modified as follows: Technical and Informational Modifications to the PUD Development Plan: 1. Address remaining Landscape comments. 2. Address remaining Water/Wastewater action comments.

5 CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page 41

6 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 42

7 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 43

8 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 44

9 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 45

10 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 46

11 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 47

12 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 48

13 CPC AGENDA - June 8, Page 49

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: 8 STAFF: ANDREW FIRESTINE FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL

Page 97 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: 8 STAFF: ANDREW FIRESTINE FILE NO: CPC PUD 05-00232 QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: CORNERSTONE BAPTIST CHURCH BILL BROWN AIA P.C. CORNERSTONE