Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAMPSHIRE POND PUD PRELIMINARY - 44 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 14 Mr. Olt said the point of confusion may be why the condition is required in the northeast corner and not in the southwest corner. That is because the property is dedicated to the easement on Marshwood in the southwest corner down to the property line. The situation in the northeast still needs to be resolved as Ms. Ashbeck said. When the developer first submitted the proposal, the City said they saw a need but it was too late in the process to change the plans so the condition was placed so the Board would know that this issue would be resolved. Chair Walker said it is correct to point out the buffering is on Dr. Kieft's property and not on the development and he therefore considers it irrelevant to buffering. As staff stated, the more intense use is obligated for mitigation and he questions if a privacy fence is sufficient and maybe more transition would be needed, such as two larger lots instead of the four smaller. Member Clements -Cooney made a motion for approval of Hampshire Pond PUD Preliminary with the condition that the developer of Hampshire Pond is required to provide adequate street right-of-way and a publicly dedicated temporary turnaround on this property and/or the City -owned property to the north and east (and south of West Drake Road) of Hampshire Pond prior to a final development request going before the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision and an additional condition that more buffering be provided to the west because this development is a more intense use. Options include reconfiguring the road so it's not so linear and a more creative plan to address the buffering to the west. Member Strom seconded the motion and noted that although he's usually reticent to get into too much buffering between single-family uses of varying densities, in this particular case, they are starting with a flat piece of ground with very few limitations on it and they have several ways to go about it either with heavier landscaping or redesigning the road on the west side to pick up some greater depth or other options. Member Fontane suggested that part of the consideration for making the buffering to the west would be the larger lots on that side. Chair Walker said consolidating the lots would be one simple solution and should be considered. Member Cottier mentioned the depth of the lots on the western side could be adjusted and that this project should be providing more buffering on the western side. Member Winfree said she also thinks that adequate buffering has not been provided so far and it would be an important feature to consider at the final. The motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 13 Member Strom then asked why the access point limits the developer to a 100 foot depth on the lots on the western property. Mr. Kieft said there has to be 300 feet between Hampshire and Featherstar, which leaves only 100 feet for those lots. Mr. Olt said it is at a minimum length and shifting Featherstar to the east to create larger depth lots would not meet the minimum separation requirements. Member Strom asked if this is dictated by the existing Hampshire Road to the north. Mr. Olt agreed. Member Fontane asked what is the minimum distance that Hampshire Road can be to the Drake and Taft intersection and does it need to line up with the existing Hampshire. Ms. Ashbeck said that it would have to be shifted far enough to the east so that both left turn lanes would be adequate so lining it up makes it function as a full intersection. Mr. Olt then pointed out that there is the access into the Drake shopping center and by shifting Hampshire Road to the east, you would have offset requirements and another intersection into the shopping center to contend with. Mr. Storck commented that when they were working with Rick Ensdorff, the traffic study showed that the main collector street coming south from Brown Farm would be an alternative way for people to avoid going all the way west since they could come down Featherstar. Member Strom noted that traffic is not typically routed through a residential neighborhood. Chair Walker asked if there were any structures on the property located to the south of the Kieft's. Dr. Kieft said there is one dwelling which is at least 50 feet west of his home and the horse sheds on that property approximately line up with his home. Member Winfree asked about the condition that would be needed at final for the two southwest lots. Ms. Ashbeck said there is a code requirement about requiring a turnaround at the end of any dead-end street for any lots with access off the street so it doesn't seem necessary. Mr. Peterson commented that if the Board wishes to, they may and it is occasionally done. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 12 Member Clements -Cooney asked if it was up to the developer to provide the buffer whereas they are here using the fence as a buffer and saying the trees already on the adjacent property will provide additional buffering. Mr. Olt agreed that the more intense use is responsible for creating the buffer between two adjacent uses. Member Strom asked for clarification of the intent of the recommended condition. Mr. Olt noted that the recommendation is that the developer provide an access point into this development from the east. Staff is suggesting that the first street on the plan be continued to create a future access point into the property to the north and east of Hampshire Pond since this is City -owned property for sale and do not know what sort of development may occur here. If it were to develop as residential property, it would be important that a street from that development loop in so there isn't an isolated Drake access. If the property were combine with other properties to allow some sort of commercial development, then a right-of-way would be indicated, although they wouldn't see a need for street development. In order for the developer to be able to develop the lots adjacent to the proposed turnaround, the developer would like it to be on City -owned property. He believes the developer is in negotiations with the City for that temporary turnaround easement. Member Strom asked about the southwest corner of the property where there is a stubbed street off Marshwood Drive headed to the property line and why no temporary turnaround is needed there. Mr. Olt said they do need one or several lots could not be built initially. Member Strom asked if a condition would be needed now or at final. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineer, said that at the time of final they would need to make a decision about whether they can obtain an off -site easement for the turnaround, if they are willing to not get building permits on those lots that take access of the stub street, or design some sort of turnaround on those lots which would then not be buildable until such time as the street is extended. She said this decision would be in the final design phase when they write the development agreement. Member Strom asked if there was a code requirement here so no condition is needed and Ms. Ashbeck concurred. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Storck said he counted four lots on the western boundary and discussed the pros and cons of different densities within a development. Member Fontane asked about the possibility of building up speed on the long streets going south and east -west. Mr. Storck replied that he didn't think they were overly lengthy compared to other streets in the City and said they would have liked more curvilinear but the street dictated this configuration because coming down Featherstar, a curve can't be made quickly enough per criteria and then come back to the southwest. Dr. Larry Kieft, 2333 West Drake, said he was concerned with three particular points mentioned in his letter. First, he said he didn't know if the traffic study was done when school was in session but that with school buses and traffic, getting out of his driveway was difficult. Two more streets on the south side of Drake would seem to have some impact. He didn't know what the allowable space between a driveway and a public drive is. He said that he is one of only two neighbors who are directly adjacent to the property. The neighbors to the east have the Light and Power and drainage to buffer their property and the owners to the south have a bike trail and the easement. He said that the developer misstated the number of homes along their property, which is actually seven lots. The lots are 60 feet wide. He stated that he has planted 300 trees on his property in anticipation of future development to create some green buffer. They have 3 acres and an irrigation ditch has put their home adjacent to the property line of the development. The homes will be predominantly two story homes, and he feels the 6 foot fence does not present much of a barrier. Dr. Kieft continued by stating that although the developer is constrained about the 100 foot depth of the lots, he is not limited to 60 foot wide lots. There is a potential for a larger buffer between acreage property and 6,000 square foot lots and they could be wider. Lastly, he was concerned about the landscaping along the property line and would like the developer to do what he can. Member Winfree asked what was the potential setback for the 7 lots that would be adjacent to the Kieft's. Mr. Storck said there were 4 lots next to his house and then 3 to the back of the property. The setback would be a 20 foot driveway and a home about 40 feet deep, leaving 40 feet at the back. She then asked if those homes could not have a second story deck or balcony and he said none were planned. There would be a window on the second story. She asked if there were any plans for landscaping or trees to be planted along the property line and he said it would just be the fence. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Storck distributed a letter to the Board from Matt Delich, the traffic engineer, in response to the letter from Dr. Larry Kieft (see attached) summarizing neighborhood concerns. He believed this addresses the two issues raised in Dr. Kieft's letter. He stated that another issue that caused concern at the neighborhood meeting was lot size. That lot size is allowed per the current zoning on the property. At the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Storck agreed to put up a 6 foot fence along the edge of Dr. Kieft's property to act as additional buffering along with the planting that Dr. Kieft has already done. They would do this as part of the land development rather than wait for the homeowners to do so. He said that the only window facing the development is an upstairs window over the garage. Member Winfree asked if the 6 foot privacy fence would go the entire length of their western property line. Mr. Storck said it would. Member Winfree asked staff if they had any concerns about the closeness of the private drive to the westerly drive into the project. Mr. Olt said that was looked into as part of the traffic study. There is a minimum distance requirement on an arterial street such as West Drake Road between a private driveway and a local street and this distance here is acceptable. Member Clements -Cooney said that in the staff report it was noted that there is a 30 foot wide public utilities access easement being dedicated where there is currently under construction a bicycle and pedestrian trail. She asked if there was currently a buffer, not including the fence, between the trail and the homes that exist? She also asked about the southern boundary. Mr. Storck said the trail is about 8 feet wide and meanders through the 30 foot wide space and green space. Mr. Walker noted that there appeared to be a three rail fence according to the diagram. Mr. Storck said that this was correct and they would be putting it in. Member Fontane thought the development looked very plain with the straight streets and high number of solar -oriented homes and asked if providing that large number of solar homes was the reason for this particular density. Also, she asked if some of the larger lots should be on the west because of the large size of the neighbor's lots on that side and thereby give more of a buffer. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 9 Member Winfree asked staff about when this area redevelops if Evenstar Court would then need to be granted a variance because of the development on both sides or would it need to be widened. Ms. Whetstone said it depends on what happens with the half acre on Shields and if it were to develop, it would depend on the intensity. If it needed to be widened, it would be done on the property. Mr. Peterson said that if the generated traffic warranted, Evenstar would then become 36 feet wide rather than 28 feet. Member Clements -Cooney moved approval of Raintree Townhomes PUD Preliminary with the following conditions: 1) That additional shrubs and trees be provided between the masonry wall and Lot 1, to enhance the sound barrier; 2) That the design of the pork chop at the intersection with Shields Street be approved by the City Engineering and Transporta- tion departments prior to final, and; 3) That off -site drainage easements be obtained and approved by the City Parks and Recreation Department and the City Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. Member Strom seconded the motion. Chair Walker commented that he would like to see City property used only if it is an enhancement and encourage staff to look closely that is an attribute. The motion passed 6-0. Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval with one condition. Richard Storck, Storck Development and the applicant, said that they fit within the existing zoning on the parcel. They are proposing 74 units, would be allowed up to 108 units, on minimum 6,000 square foot lots. They are working within the following constraints: landlocked by the Light and Power parcel; the detention area; the open space with a trail on the south side; on the west side is private ownership and; Drake. They are looking at Hampshire Road being their main entrance and the only secondary access would be west off Drake and it just meets the minimum City requirements for spacing. The City is looking for a possible future connection down south so that would dictate the connections. The trail connections and solar ordinance seemed to work best with the design. He doesn't think that any of the streets are overly lengthy as far as traffic concerns. They are providing a minimum of one tree per lot. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MU[NUTES August 30, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The August 30, 1993 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree, Jennifer Fontane, Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Jim Klataske was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman, Chief City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Diane Slater. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 15 - Rocky Ridge Sporting and Conservation Club - County Referral. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 16 - Summerhill PUD - Preliminary; Item 17 - Raintree Townhome PUD, and Item 18 -Hampshire Pond PUD - Preliminary. Mr. Peterson reviewed a Recommendation Item: Manor Ridge Estates PUD, 5th Filing - County Referral - Case #52-93. Member Fontane requested that Item 15, Rocky Ridge Sporting and Conservation Club County Referral be pulled for discussion. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the Staff Report for the request to rezone a portion of this site to the O-Open Zone in the county and also for special review, recommending approval. She stated that this was a request for expansion of an existing hunting club, including additional hunting areas, dog kennels and a sporting clay shooting area. County staff has gone out and evaluated the noise potential and feel it will not pose a problem. Mike Moreng, applicant, stated that this was an upland game bird hunting club established 8 years ago. He added that this club has not disturbed the outlying areas.