Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL ..... SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 9/19/2002) - 31-95E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 9 Attorney Eckman asked who would decide if it was warranted and under what criteria. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if he could amend the motion to include that staff decides when it is warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson accepted the amendment. Attorney Eckman iterated that the City Engineer would be the likely person to decide when the improvements are warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson added that the barricades would be removed at staff's discretion. Member Colton stated that he agreed with the motion and added that he thought there should be some change in condition that would warrant the street going through. Member Craig thanked Lucia Liley for her presentation and it's detail and timeline. She also thanked the developer for its amenability to working with the neighbors. Chairman Gavaldon stated that had all the information been presented at the first meeting, the project would not have needed to be continued. He added that the developer has gone above and beyond his responsibilities for street improvements. He stated that he would support the motion but does not necessarily agree with it. Attorney Eckman stated that the motion needs to include the lengthy staff condition that was in the staff report. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson added the amendment to his motion. Member Craig seconded the motion with this amendment. Member Colton stated that he wanted to make sure the developer marketed the lots passing on the knowledge that the street will eventually go through. The motion was approved 4-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 8 Vice -Chairman Torgerson moved for approval of Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final, #31-95E with the condition that Bateleur right-of-way be part of the project but that the road only be stubbed out at this time. Engineer Wamhoff stated that Bateleur Lane may need to have an emergency access connection because it is on the very edge of the maximum length. The barricades they want typically do not keep people from driving on them. Vice -Chairman Torgerson changed his motion to have the condition that Bateleur Lane be barricaded to the satisfaction of Poudre Fire Authority. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig asked about the preliminary approval for making the road an access road and not a through road. Ms. Liley replied with the text of the preliminary approval. Member Craig asked if that text meets the PFA requirements. Ms. Liley replied that at the time of preliminary, there was to be an emergency access on CR 13. Engineer Wamhoff replied that with the first filing, there is an emergency access out to CR 13. With the second filing, there would be one from the northern cul- de-sac as designed and there may need to be one with Bateleur Lane as well. That would be up to PFA's discretion. A public turn -around would also be required. Member Craig asked if we made the street the same as the northern cul-de-sac, would it meet the requirements. Engineer Wamhoff replied that she was unsure if people would not drive over the sidewalk. Member Craig stated concern over some of the roadway connections. She asked to amend the motion to require the applicant to put the required funding for the CR 13 improvements into contribution and aid until it is warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson accepted the amendment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 7 mitigation measures and if no one is there to help pave the road, these are a couple of possibilities. Chairman Gavaldon asked how the County interacts with the City with regard to that situation. Mr. Stanford replied that his guess would be that the governing jurisdiction would ultimately make the final decision. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked what conditions would make the connection to CR 13 necessary. Mr. Stanford replied that access from Hearthfire onto Douglas or other issues could make that necessary. Vice -Chairman Torgerson replied that those issues are as bad as they will ever get at this point because we have essentially approved as many units as could possibly go in this area which is why we are requiring that now. Chairman Gavaldon asked what the original developer's costs of off -site road improvements would have been. This is opposed to the current, previously - mentioned $1.66 million. Ms. Liley replied that it was about $1.2 million. The original Doulgas Road heading west to Highway 1 was about $1.5 million and the current costs are about $1.6 million because of the ad-ons. Chairman Gavaldon asked about a gap in the roadway improvements on Douglas Road between CR 13 and Hearthfire Way on the site plan. Ms. Liley replied that the requirement that was identified with the first filing final and in the development agreement, is that to meet the City's arterial access requirement, we had to come out from the project's access and head east to CR 11. CR 13 is a different requirement because of the Code section that states that improvements have to be made to all adjacent public streets. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked what the name of the street in question is. Mr. Stanford replied that it is Bateleur Lane. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 6 Member Colton referenced a letter from Mark Peterson, County Engineer, which talked about concerns in the Abbotsford, Inverness, Gregory Road area with regard to safety. More development there would make this area "inadequate" according to County standards. He asked how the Board should take these comments. Attorney Eckman replied that the fundamental thing to remember is that the Board is reviewing the project under the City standards, not the County. The letter states that the County has a more formal definition of adequate public facilities now than it did then. Under the state vested rights, the applicant gets to apply the law in effect at the time of application. The county laws may have changed since then but we are only applying the City laws anyway. Cam McNair, Engineering Department, replied that he spoke with Mark Engomoen, County Public Works Director, about their adequate public facilities standards pre-1999. They had been operating under the assumption that if there was average daily traffic of more than 200 cars per day on a gravel, unimproved road, then the road needs to be paved. The City's adequate public facilities standards are completely different. The original design of the Douglas Road improvements west from Hearthfire Way to State Highway 1 did not include any improvements at the Highway 1 intersection. Had that project gone forward, we would have been no better off at that intersection. The current Land Use Code does require that the improvements to the arterial street system go in the direction where most of the traffic will go, the LDGS did not make that distinction. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the City would participate in barricading a roadway such as was suggested by citizen Brigitte Schmidt. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that Ms. Schmidt was possibly referring to doing a cul-de-sac and/or making the street one-way. This would in essence barricade through movement. The City generally does not do that. Chairman Gavaldon asked Ms. Schmidt to respond as to the reasons for requesting a barricaded street. Ms. Schmidt replied that the street could be designed in such a way as it is obvious that it is a through street but until it becomes necessary, put up some barricades or cement planters like they have on Morning Star Way now. The other issue is that Inverness and Abbotsford are County roads and traffic can be stopped on those roads if dust becomes an issue. That is not necessarily a very desirable thing for our neighborhood either. They are already doing dust Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 5 Morning Star Way to CR 11, that meets that section of the Code. Why are they also required to connect Douglas Road to CR 11? Planner Olt replied that the requirement to connect Morning Star Way to CR 11 is dependent on the 91s' building permit. The improvements to Douglas Road are predicated on Hearthf ire second filing approval, not dependent on the 91st building permit. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked if it was a function of the development agreement and not necessarily a Code requirement. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Engineer Wamhoff replied that the improvement of Morning Star Way to CR 11 would provide the improvement to an arterial. At the time the project was approved, CR 11 was not considered an improved arterial so that connection would not have met that standard. The traffic studies showed that connection would be needed and warranted for diversity in where traffic was going. Now, that connection would technically provide the connection in accordance with the Code requirement. The connection has not been made yet as Richard's Lake has not completed it. Planner Olt stated that the predominant traffic goes to Douglas Road. The Morning Star connection would not be considered to hold predominant traffic. Member Craig asked what the timeline for the CR 11 and Douglas Road improvements would be, in terms of build out of the project. Matt Baker, City Engineering Department, replied that he had put a coalition of developments together to pay for the connection from CR 9E through Vine to the Mountain Vista area, east on Mountain Vista to CR 11, and up CR 11 to Douglas Road. The CR 11 improvements were scheduled for this year but Richard's Lake did not develop as quickly as thought so those improvements were delayed until 2003. The North side area improvements have all been designed and budgeted for the 2003 construction season. Member Craig asked if this roadway project would move forward regardless of development in the area. Mr. Baker replied that it would. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 4 required with the first filing final and it was not embodied in the development agreement for first filing final, or any amendments. It may not be a case of reneging but of a change in direction that the Board will have to decide on. Chairman Gavaldon asked about agreements between a developer and a neighborhood and if the City was party to those. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman replied that he was unaware of any agreement between the City and the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition. Even the City's development agreements have no third party participants. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the Board would therefore not consider any agreement between the neighborhood and the developer. Member Colton asked why the City was now requiring a connection to CR 13 when it didn't at preliminary. Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer, replied that the connection was not deemed necessary six years ago and that changes in connectivity standards have affected this requirement. The ability for the connection had been required as part of the preliminary. Since it was a requirement that the connection should be provided at some point in time, it was determined that it seemed like the right time to do it. Member Craig asked why this issue was not brought up when signing the first filing amendment agreement in April of 2002. Engineer Wamhoff replied that the first filing was not any part of this western portion of the project. The legal description of the first filing development agreement covers only the first filing. The second filing is an entirely separate piece of property. Member Craig asked if the first filing did warrant the Douglas Road improvement and that is when the amendment changed it to CR 11. Engineer Wamhoff replied that was correct. It was a condition of approval for the first filing. The Douglas Road plans were not completed at the time the first filing final was completed. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that the Code requires that they make an improved connection to an improved arterial. Now that they are connecting Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 3 has expressed a concern that if it is not done now, future residents of Bateleur Lane (the road that would be connected), will complain when it is time to put the street through. Our neighbors are willing to have the street designed as if it would be there and have it barricaded until necessary. Design of this could be worked out later. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition would like to see this project be able to carry out its goals of incorporating urban densities in a manner compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The developer has worked diligently with all parties involved. Ms. Schmidt stated that she would like the Board to recognize this as a unique endeavor in a unique spot of Fort Collins and provide the direction that is needed to complete this project successfully. She asked the Board to approve this project with the condition that the connectivity be completed when necessary. Nord Ziedner, 801 Inverness Road, stated that he was a member of the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition but was not speaking for them tonight. He stated that he was very much against this project when it was first proposed; however, after hearing the developer at neighborhood meetings, he was pleased to see that the developer truly wanted to integrate the development into the rural style of the neighborhood. He was pleased to see that the first filing was developed with only emergency access onto CR 13. The City has asked for general access as part of the second filing and they are now not following their own language in the conditions of this agreement. He would like to see the City abide by the original agreement to not have an access from Hearthf ire to CR 13. Mr. Ziedner asked that the City reconsider the notion that the collector street Inverness Road be paved. The traffic officials at the September meeting stated that collector streets should have a traffic "calming effect." According to Larimer County street criteria, traffic calming is the implementation of both physical and perceptual techniques intended to slow or divert traffic on to existing or planned roadways. It is a reactive approach to minimize speeds. Paving Inverness Road would increase speeds and lessen neighborhood safety and would have the opposite effect of calming traffic. Red Hewitt, 1200 East Douglas Road, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about the width of the roads for pedestrians and bicycles. Public Input Closed Ms. Liley stated that there was a separate memorandum of understanding between the developer and the neighborhood as part of determining what this development should look like. The City was not a party to that. She stated that she was unaware of any agreement the City had reneged on. It is true that the CR 13 connection was not required by the City at preliminary and was not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairman Gavaldon asked Planner Olt to limit his presentation to the reasons for the item being continued to this meeting and to any new information. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval with a condition. He stated that the final plan is in substantial compliance with the Hearthfire PUD, preliminary approved in September 1996 and does meet the development criteria of the LDGS with the exception of criterion A 1.12 which is residential density. This development would have an overall residential density of 1.42 dwelling units per acre. There were three conditions of preliminary approval dealing with off -site street improvements, storm drainage improvements, and wetland mitigation. This item was continued from September 19, 2002 and was continued for further discussion primarily on off -site street improvement issues. This deals with Douglas Road, County Road 13, County Road 11, and a second collector street which will run through Richard's Lake PUD. Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, gave the applicant's presentation. She gave a history of the project going back to it's inception in 1995. She highlighted differences in the project which resulted in different traffic patterns and road access. The current off -site street costs for this developer total $1.66 million. A traffic study was completed again this year illustrating that each intersection still meets the Level of Service standards for the City of Fort Collins. Since the first filing final approval, there have been no changes to the density or to the total daily trips. The only changes have been a change in the direction of Douglas Road, based on the traffic study. The plans have been approved by the County and City and have been embodied in a signed development agreement between the City and the developer and the developer has paid in full his costs. The developer has also agreed to help fund the Highway 1 intersection improvements and the County Roads 9 and 11 improvements. Public Input Brigitte Schmidt, representing Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she would like the Board to give staff clear direction on the connectivity issue. The approval language clearly states that this should be done when necessary. There is no evidence that this connection is needed at this time. There are measures that can be used to determine when it is necessary. For example, a drop in the LOS at Douglas and CR 13, an increase accident report at Douglas and CR 13 or at the Hearthfire connection to Douglas, or when Abbottsford and Inverness get improved. Staff Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7431 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Torgerson, Craig, and Gavaldon. Members Bernth, Meyer, and Carpenter were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer, McNair, Mapes, Baker, McWilliams, Barnes, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the September 5, and September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Discussion Agenda: 3. #31-95E Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final Recommendations to City Council: 4. Fall 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. 5. Smith Investments Land Use Code Text Amendment Request. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final, #31-95E. Project Description: Request for final approval for 56 single family residential lots on 39.31 gross acres. The property is located north of Richards Lake at the southeast corner of Douglas Road and County Road 13. The property is zoned UE, Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval with a condition