Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINDIMER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY - 26 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 33 Member Strom stated that in making the motion to support the project, he was not insensitive to the compatibility issues. He expressed his frustration about some of the limitations of the j Subdivision and Zoning Codes. Member Strom encouraged the applicants and the Tidds to continue to work together. Member Cottier also voiced her frustration about the Board's review limitations. The motion passed 6-1, with Member Clements -Cooney voting in the negative. GREENBRIAR VILLAGE PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, #19-93 GREENBRIAR VILLAGE PUD FIRST FILING - PRELIMINARY & FINAL, #19-93A Chair Walker clarified that the two items would be discussed together, but voted on separately. Member Carroll asked, as a point of order, if Chair Walker would consider asking if anyone wanted a presentation on the items, or wanted to speak to the items, or had any questions concerning them. He said if that were so, then the items would have to be continued, due to the lateness of the hour. Member Carroll added that if that were not the case, then he wanted to make a motion to handle the items as Consent Items. Mr. Peterson clarified Member Carroll's request for those present. Chair Walker asked Mr. Eckman what the legal protocol was on the request. Mr. Eckman replied that if there were no members of the public present who wanted to speak to the Board about these items, then it was the same as if they were Consent Items in the first place. He added that the criteria for staff placing items on the Consent Agenda, was that there was no known controversy or need for public input. Chair Walker asked staff if they wanted the items addressed in full, or if they were satisfied that it could be a Consent Item. Mr. Olt said that staff was satisfied at that point that the items could be considered as Consent Items. Chair Walker asked if there was anyone on the Board who wanted a fuller discussion of this issue. There was no response. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 32 of the particular issues which might form the basis for complaints, and that notification was to be perpetual for all future homeowners. He added that he had some concerns about the covenant language being so encompassing, believing that it would, in fact, act to have homeowners waive rights to legitimate complaints in advance. Mr. Linder continued by saying that in trying to consider a setback buffer, he realized that he had a difficult site to work with. He said that as it was, the proposal was just meeting the minimum density requirements of three dwelling units per [gross] acre. Mr. Linder noted that had the proposal come in as a PUD under the Land Development Guidance System, that the project would have supported 5 to 6 dwelling units per acre, creating a greater impact. He stated that it was the developer's preference to make the lots compatible with those in the Wagonwheel and Rossborough subdivisions. Mr. Linder said that he had offered the Project Planner and the Tidds full review of the covenants. He emphasized that the applicant was committed to resolving the compatibility issue. Mr. Eckman asked Mr. Linder if he was willing to include that language in a development agreement, so that the City would have a mechanism to ensure that the covenants would be written as promised. Mr. Linder replied in the affirmative. Mr. Eckman shared some of the legal basis for such a request, saying it would help with any possible future complaints about odor. Chair Walker asked if that provision should be included in the motion. Mr. Eckman replied yes. Member Strom amended the motion to include the condition that the covenant language be included in the development agreement. Ms. Bassinger stated that the additional condition would be helpful. Member Carroll said he would support the motion, because he was compelled to do so. He added that the situation at hand pointed out an existing gap in the City's development system. Member Carroll provided a discourse on aspects of the development process, and said he thought that the same criteria might be applied to straight subdivisions as to PUDs. / Member Carroll complimented the applicant on making concessions that were not required. He stated that his concerns surrounded not being able to review the project more closely from a legal basis. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 31 Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Cottier asked if the disclaimer note was part of the site plan. Mr. Shepard answered that it was not. He stated that a straight subdivision does not require a site plan, but rather a subdivision plat document. Mr. Shepard clarified that the disclosure note would be in the covenants that would be forwarded to the potential home buyers. Member Cottier surmised that therefore the disclaimer was something over which the Board had no control. Mr. Shepard replied that technically, such a deduction was correct. He said, however, that as a result of negotiations, it had been indicated by the applicant that the covenants would be made available to all parties prior to the lots being sold. Mr. Shepard added that they would be filed along with the subdivision plat. Member Cottier asked what recourse homeowners would have if they were having a problem with noise, lights, odors, etc. Mr. Shepard stated that those items had been discussed. He said that complaints about odor would be handled by the County Health Department. Mr. Shepard said he didn't know who would handle complaints about lights, since the lights are a part of the operation, which has legal status under zoning. Mr. Shepard continued that the City did have a noise ordinance which put limits on the level of noise, as measured from the property line. He said that it depended on the nature of the complaint, as to what department or agency would handle it. Member Cottier asked if there was any opportunity for agencies or departments to be aware of the situation and the Horsetooth Stables owners' concerns. Mr. Shepard said several City Departments were already aware of the situation as a result of proceedings to -date, but that he could not speak for other agencies. Member Cottier asked if it would allowable to strongly advise Mr. Linder and Mr. Larimer of the possibility of future complaints and to re -think the idea of a setback. Mr. Shepard answered that if the Board would like to so advise the applicants, that it was the Board's prerogative. Member Collier stated that she would like the Board to so advise, believing it would be in the developer's best interest to heed that advice. Mr. Linder answered that the language of the covenants was very specific in addressing some Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 30 Mr. Peterson added that it was the Planning Department's understanding that there would only be one charge. Member Strom asked for further clarification. Dick Rutherford from Stewart and Associates, Engineers for the project, explained the sewer system in more detail. He stated that there would be no need to dig up trenches in order to switch over to the larger sewer main. Mr. Rutherford said there would be no future concern and no additional maintenance cost to the City. Chair Walker stated that he still had one question on the safety issue. He believed that the / visual impact of the new development was being addressed via the fence, but had concerns about the noise impact. Chair Walker asked if the fence was considered enough to address the safety issue. Mr. Shepard replied that that was correct, based on past experience with the Kingston Woods development. Mr. Peterson reminded the Board that the request for the solar orientation variance needed to be considered as part of any motion. Chair Walker asked if there needed to be a separate vote on the variance, or if it could be rolled into one motion. Mr. Peterson answered that it could be part of the motion. Member Cottier asked if subdivision decisions were passed by Council and appealable. Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative, and noted that any action by the Planning and Zoning Board was appealable. Member Strom moved to approve the Lindimer Subdivision, Preliminary, with the solar orientation variance, based on the fact that it would result in a hardship and would result in a very difficult situation to come up with 65% solar -oriented lots, given the fact that it is a small infill parcel with limiting shape and access limitations. Member Strom asked if that was the only condition being recommended. i Mr. Shepard and Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative. --- Chair Walker asked if there was a second on the motion. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 29 finished for the Birmingham extension. He said it was his understanding that the privacy fence was to be in place before any foundations were dug. Member Cooney asked for clarification on the buffer zone between residential and agricultural % uses cited by Ms. Bassinger. Mr. Shepard stated that there was a section regarding buffer zones for the RF Zone (Foothills i Residential Zone), but no such passage for the RLP Zone district, the category for the land areas in question. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she continued to have safety issue concerns. She suggested that under the Other Business Agenda section, that the Board consider drafting a letter to City Council, suggesting that Council revise the Subdivision Regulations. Member Strom asked for further clarification on the dual sewage system and related cost issues. Mr. Shepard answered that the long term plan of the Water & Sewer Department is to extend a large diameter sewer main extending out in a southeast direction from the Rossborough subdivision. He stated that there was a problem with the sequencing of that main, however, since it needed to cross the Horsetooth Stables property. Mr. Shepard explained that the owners of that property were not prepared to accept the large diameter sewer line through their property. Mr. Shepard said that therefore, in working with the proposed Lindimer Subdivision, that not only did a large diameter sewer main need to be installed (to comply with the Sewer Master Plan), but that a temporary, smaller sewer line needed to be installed to make a connection with the current system to the northwest. Mr. Shepard said that there would be no cost to the public in installing the two lines in the same trench. He stated that there would be costs to homeowners in installing taps into the new sewer line. Mr. Shepard added that he believed that there was no real cost to the public, and that the cost was being almost entirely borne by the developer at this time. Member Strom asked about additional tap fees in the future. Mr. Shepard answered that he believed the tap fees would only be paid once -- at the time of building permit issuance. Mr. Shepard added that the future action would involve shifting the taps to the larger main. Member Strom inquired if it was a hidden cost to future purchasers. Mr. Shepard replied that it was a cost, but whether it was hidden or not was between the developer and the home buyer. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 28 Mr. Shepard stated that the neighborhood compatibility section of the staff report was based on input received at a neighborhood meeting. He continued by explaining that negotiations had been held with the developer and the Horsetooth Stables owners, and that "good faith" concessions had been made. Mr. Shepard said that he was not able to use the LDGS and the neighborhood compatibility criteria to "enforce" any changes negotiated. Mr. Shepard went on to say that his basis for reviewing the proposal was the bulk and area requirements for the RLP Zone district of the Subdivision Code. He stated the Lindimer� subdivision was a use -by -right in that zone and that all the criteria were met. Mr. Carroll expressed that it was important for the Board to follow legal guidelines in reviewing proposals, no matter what personal opinions might be regarding neighborhood compatibility, etc. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there were no compatibility requirements in the standard Subdivision Code. Attorney Eckman addressed the Board by stating that in addition to the bulk and area requirements, there were some preliminary hearing requirements which could be addressed. He cited the example of review input solicited from various City Departments and other entities. He shared that any negative comments received would have to be part of the staff report (There were none.). Mr. Eckman said that site considerations were a part of the Code's Section 29.656, but none seemed germane to this proposal. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she had some real concerns regarding safety issues, and requested some legal guidance in addressing those. Mr. Eckman shared that the Subdivision Code, like all other codes, was adopted by City Council for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. He explained that the Board's decision, however, could not be based on that related introductory paragraph of the Development Manual, but was limited to the items presented in the Code. Member Clements -Cooney then asked about construction traffic. Mr. Shepard replied that construction traffic would be coming in off of Birmingham Drive, the sole vehicular access into the subdivision. Member Clements -Cooney stated that one of Mr. Tidd's concerns was the safety issue presented by construction traffic. Mr. Shepard answered that the Development Agreement would include a provision that the construction sequence would require a privacy fence to be built as soon as the initial grading was Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 27 Mr. Shepard replied that the road was extended to the south property line to provide potential future access to the property now occupied by Horsetooth Stables. He added that the City did not want Birmingham to extend all the way to Horsetooth Road, where it might serve as a defacto collector; Dunbar is to remain the collector street through that area. Mr. Shepard spoke about not walling off neighborhoods, and preserving the ability to go South for any possible future redevelopment of the Horsetooth Stables property. Mr. Shepard said that it was also important to preserve the ability for possible future development to go North to access such collector streets as Dunbar and Swallow; that access capability would minimize impacts on the perimeter arterials such as Horsetooth and Shields. He went to say that the proposed street extension could always be vacated at some point in time. Chair Walker asked for elaboration on the sewer system question. Mr. Shepard replied that the Water & Sewer Department had looked at the proposed system, had deemed it workable and had approved it on a preliminary basis. Member Cottier asked what the Fire Department had to say about access to the subdivision. Mr. Shepard answered that the Lindimer Subdivision met all the fire access requirements. Member Cottier asked if it was a cul-de-sac or dead end more than 500 feet. Mr. Shepard replied that it was not a dead end, since the "eyebrow" would serve as the Fire Department turnaround. Member Cottier stated that the subdivision currently had only one point of access. Mr. Shepard said that it only had one point of access, but that it did not exceed the 660-foot limitation. Member Cottier asked if the measurement for the 500 feet was all the way out to Dunbar. Mr. Shepard answered that the nearest intersection was another local street [Pembroke] just west of the west property line, inside Rossborough subdivision. Member Carroll stated that it was his understanding that this item was being submitted as a subdivision rather than a PUD, and as such, that the items the Board was allowed to look at were more limited than that of a PUD. He continued by saying that in looking at the staff report, however, many of the comments were similar to those that would be made in reviewing a PUD. Member Carroll asked for clarification. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 26 requirements and allowed for sound engineering design on the water and sewer needs. Ms. Bassinger reiterated the request for the 100-foot setback in helping Horsetooth Stables to remain good neighbors. Ms. Bassinger stated that she also did not see the logic or need for dead -ending the street extension at their property line. She went on to say that it was poor planning and communicated a message that Horsetooth Stables would not be there for the long term. Member Strom asked what the setback was from the Horsetooth Stables property to the Rossborough subdivision. Ms. Bassinger replied that they had fenced off the corner lot, and that it was 75 to 80 feet to the house itself. She added that the Kingston Woods properties on the other side were separated by a 60-foot canal and trail easement. Ms. Bassinger stated that with the addition of backyard measurements, in many cases the 100-foot setback was being achieved. Chair Walker asked about use of the property immediately next to the boundary. Ms. Bassinger stated that it was used for pens, pasture and manure spreading. Chair Walker asked for clarification of some of the locations previously shown that were indicated as being "buffer" zones. Ms. Bassinger replied that those areas had no livestock living in them and were not horseback activity areas. Charlie Tidd, owner of Horsetooth Stables, addressed the Board. He stated that half his income was derived from boarding horses and that half was derived from training and buying/selling horses. Mr. Tidd spoke about working to maintain a very safe operation. Mr. Tidd expressed concerns not having an appropriate setback for two reasons in particular: 1) his safety while training horses at the back part of the property; and 2) clients' safety while riding, due to differing degrees of ability. Mr. Tidd shared that he had recently increased his liability insurance, due to greater non -horse -related activity around his back pasture. Mr. Tidd stated that he had not yet had to file a liability claim and had worked to keep his operation safe and functional for his clients. He said that he believed that the submitted plan jeopardized those things. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Chair Walker asked for clarification on the street design and cul-de-sac items. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 25 Chair Walker asked the Board if there were any questions at that time of the applicant. There were none. Mr. Walker opened the floor for public input. Suzanne Bassinger, 1506 Horsetooth Road (also known as Horsetooth Stables), stated that her husband, Charlie Tidd, has owned and operated Horsetooth Stable for five years. Ms. Bassinger said that she and her husband were present to ask the Board to: 1) deny approval of the proposed Lindimer subdivision as submitted; and 2) to require modifications that, at a minimum, maintain the existing neighborhood compatibility and continued viability of their livelihood. Ms. Bassinger shared that the City Zoning Code specifically identified the need for a buffer between residential and livestock use. She added that while proposals submitted as PUDs considered neighborhood compatibility and impact, proposals submitted as subdivisions were only subject to review for bulk and area. Ms. Bassinger spoke from the City's Development Manual regarding subdivisions (Section 5). She quoted from the passage which outlines how the subdivision regulations are meant for the public's health, safety and welfare, and for promoting sound, economical development and stable neighborhoods. Ms. Bassinger said she believed that the incompatibility of two uses (noise, etc.) was an endangerment to her husband, clients, and potential subdivision residents. Ms. Bassinger added that putting future residents at the end of a 550-foot dead end water line and a dual sewer system did not seem to be sound and economical construction and maintenance. She went on to say that the extension of the roadway to the end of the property line was potentially confusing and did not contribute to the stable neighborhood concept. Ms. Bassinger showed slides which she believed demonstrated how other parties had handled buffering between land uses in similar situations; she also showed slides of the Horsetooth Stables property from various angles. She pointed out the use of night-time lighting for the facility's arena and noted liability issues for both horses and clients. Ms. Bassinger presented a slide showing how various requested setbacks would impact the proposed development. She said that the originally -requested, 150-foot setback would impact five lots and appeared not to be workable. Ms. Bassinger added that a 100-foot setback be the minimum required; she asserted that it would only affect four lots. Ms. Bassinger shared an alternative layout plan which she believed met minimum density Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 24 and that it would be built two feet inside the property line. He went on to say that the covenants would include language that required the fence to remain in place as long as the stable was in operation. Mr. Linder stated that a neighborhood meeting was held. He said Rossborough residents had expressed concern over increased traffic, and that the applicant offered to place signage in the subdivision and advise truck traffic to proceed slowly. He added that there would be greater control over construction traffic, since the applicants themselves were planning on building all of the homes. Mr. Linder shared that most of the opposition to the project had come from the owners of Horsetooth Stables. He went on to say that the applicants had met with the owners many times in attempting to work through the issues. He added that at the last meeting, which included City staff person Ted Shepard, two major issues were raised by the stable owners: 1) objection to the road extension all the way to their property line; and 2) a request for a 150-foot buffer between the properties. Mr. Linder stated that the full road extension was required by the Fire Marshal and the Planning Department. In regard to the buffer, he explained that the subtraction of the 1.57 acres which that would require, as well as additional requirements (.86 acres - street right-of-way; .66 acres - Pleasant Lake and Canal and land dedication to City of Fort Collins), would only leave 1.21 acres for developable lots. That lower acreage would result in not meeting the City's minimum density per acre requirements. Mr. Linder said that the buffer also included landscaping (twelve, 2" caliper trees), and that the layout of the subdivision had been modified to eliminate a cul-de-sac and position the largest, deepest lots at the south end of the property. Mr. Linder stated it was not the applicants' intent to threaten the stable owners' livelihood, and that he believed that the two land uses could peacefully co -exist. Mr. Linder shared that the current owners had purchased the stable property in 1987 and 1988 and had experienced a thriving business despite increased area activity and development. Mr. Linder provided some traffic counts for roads and intersections in the area, and added that the Rossborough subdivision had also been built out in the last few years. He said that the Kingston Woods subdivision east of the stables had also been started. Mr. Linder shared that he believed the applicants were trying to be good neighbors and had already made concessions to legitimate concerns. He summarized that he didn't believe that the Lindimer proposal would contribute any significant impacts that weren't already there. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 1993 Page 23 Member Cottier noted the positive features mentioned by Member Strom. She added that she believed that the additional landscaping in the Ross Open Area -- as well as the significant distance between Newport Court and the project -- provided an adequate buffer in terms of protecting the single-family residential area from an area of higher density. The motion passed 5-2, with Members O'Dell and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative. LINDIMER PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. #26-93 Ted Shepard, Project Planner; gave the staff report recommending approval of the Preliminary Subdivision, to include a granting of the Solar Orientation variance request as follows: The request for Lindimer Preliminary Subdivision includes a variance request from the requirement that 65% of the single family lots meet the specifications of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Because of exceptional conditions in terms of parcel configuration, parcel size, and pre -determined street access, it is found that hardship would be caused to the subdivider. It is further found that the granting of such variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Mr. Shepard noted that the project was being submitted for review as a straight subdivision, and not a PUD. Therefore, it was subject to the Zoning Code and not the Land Development Guidance System. Mark Linder, co -applicant with Brett Larimer, spoke regarding the proposal. He began by sharing his own and Mr. Larimer's background and qualifications. Mr. Linder gave an overview of the infill project, stating that it was proposed as 15 lots on 4.3 acres (3.5 DU/acre), and was located at the present dead end of Birmingham Drive. The site is bordered by the Rossborough Subdivision, the Wagonwheel Subdivision, the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, and by Horsetooth Stables. The applicant described the development site as challenging, and said that meetings with City staff had already taken place in working toward resolving any development issues. Mr. Linder shared that the property was irregularly shaped and had one access point; he added that the plan included extending Birmingham Drive down to the southern property line. Mr. Linder stated that the plan incorporated an attempt at buffering between the site and Horsetooth Stables. He said that the applicant was proposing to build a six-foot high cedar fence the entire length of the southern border at the commencement of site work. Mr. Linder explained that the fence would be in place before any earth moving equipment would be present, • 0 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING NIINUTES June 28, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The June 28, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck and Heidi Phelps. PRESENTATION Chairman Walker presented outgoing Board member O'Dell with a plaque recognizing her eight years of service on the Planning & Zoning Board. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 3 and May 24, 1993 P & Z Meetings; Item 2 - Save More Self Storage PUD - Preliminary & Final, #27-93; Item 3 - Orchard Park Apartments PUD - Final, #25-93; Item 4 - Gateway at Harmony road PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary & Final, #1-88F; Item 5 - 424 West Oak PUD - Final, #40-92B; Item 6 - English Ranch Subdivision, 3rd Filing - Final, #75-86J; Item 7 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 8 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval for Best Western Transmission PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 9 - Frame Annexation and Zoning - #11-93; Item 10 - Karl Peterson Annexation and Zoning - #29-93,A; Item 11 - Ricketts First Annexation and Zoning - #33-93,A; and Item 12 - Ricketts Second Annexation and Zoning - #34-93,A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item #13 - The Preserve at Fort Collins Apartments PUD - Final, #146-790; Item 14 - Lindimer Subdivision - Preliminary - #26-93; Item #15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #19-93; and Item #15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - First Filing - Preliminary & Final - #19-93A. Discussion Items #17, Provincetowne PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82P and #18 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary - 973-82N were continued to the July Planning & Zoning Board Meeting at the applicant's request. Staff pulled Item #5, 424 West Oak PUD - Final.