Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89D - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGOGHBORHOOD MEETING SUM* On Tuesday, January 23, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. in the Media Center of Johnson Elementary, a neighborhood meeting was held on the proposed South Shields Vet Clinic PUD, Phase 2. In attendance at this meeting was Don Richmond, Project Architect; Dr. Bill Musselwhite and Laurie Walker, property owners of the proposed development; and Sherry Albertson -Clark of the Planning Depart- ment. Ten area property owners attended the meeting. The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the purpose of the meeting. Don Richmond provided a presentation on the pro- posed project. After this presentation, questions and comments were addressed. The following summarizes the questions asked by area property owners and responses given by the applicants, as well as comments made by the property owners. uestion: What is really proposed for the site? Concerned that the number of lots is changing. Project started as a vet clinic, then the existing residence was remaining and then the number of lots is changing. Response: The adjacent property to the south was going to be included in the residential portion, which would have been 12 lots on 8 acres. Since this property is no longer included, project is 9 lots on 6 acres. uestion: What is the road width? Response: City local street, which is 54' r-o-w and 36' pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk. uestion: Are there building envelopes for the lots? Response: Applicant indicated where homes might be constructed. Staff added that the PUD requires that envelopes be designated on the site plan. Question: What setbacks would be used? PUD doesn't have any specific setbacks. Response: Would probably use the standard 20' rear and 7' sideyard (standard in RL Zone). Question : What would lots sell for? Response: Not sure at this time, may be similar to Clarendon Hills. Question : Would there be covenants? Response: Yes, may be similar to Clarendon Hills covenants. Would have an architectural review control committee. uestion: The plan shows lot sizes on the larger lots. What is the lot size of Lots 1, 2 and 9 (smallest lots)? Response: Don't have scale to measure, but believe they are in 15,000-17,000 square foot range. Question : Is there any separation planned between this area and The Ridge? Response: No buffer area, but may fence for privacy. Comment: Don't like fencing, would rather see open space on back of lots. The Ridge has specific fencing restrictions/requirements in the covenants. Comment: Concerned that this project may set precedent for density for the area to the north. Comment: Concerned that City information is not consistent (9 lots or 12 lots?). Comment: Concerned about the density transition between The Ridge and this site. uestion: Who would develop/build the homes? Response: Developer would sell lots and covenants would control housing built on lots. uestion: Would the developer consider using The Ridge covenants? What about becoming part of The Ridge? Using The Ridge for architectural review control? Response: Haven't looked at The Ridge covenants. Used Clarendon Hills since the architect is familiar with those covenants. Would like to review The Ridge covenants. Doesn't want to become part of The Ridge. Wants to retain the natural character of the area. uestion: What is the slope on Lots 5 and 6? Response: 5% slope. Comment: Concerned about the amount of fill proposed. The gully is a sensitive area and there are erosion problems associated with the gully. Concerned about the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and debris at headgate of canal. Keeps debris out of canal, which helps avoid flooding problems when storms occur. Comment: Concerned that filling of gully does not fit in with Land Develop- ment Guidance System policies and requirements. Also concerned about preser- vation of existing vegetation and erosion control. Should be building away from natural water bodies. Stated various criteria of the LDGS that this proposal does not appear to meet. Comment: Concerned that the project isn't compatible with The Ridge. Development of lots would create an eyesore. Terrain shouldn't be changed. Proposal is in conflict with City policies. uestion: Is there adequate space on Lot 3 to accomplish the amount of fill and still have a buildable lot? Response: Yes. Comment: Area is a wildlife corridor and shouldn't be destroyed. uestion: Where would construction access come from? M 0 a Response: From Shields Street. uestion: Have utility locations been established? the south secured? Is the utility easement to Response: Yes. Have a 20' easement from the lot owner to the south, on Hepplewhite Court. uestion: What would be selling price of lots or homes? Response: Not sure, but would expect a $150,000 minimum for homes on lots. uestion: Will a 404 Permit be obtained (filling streams)? Response: Not sure if it is required. uestion: Are there any wetlands on the site? Response: Not sure. Staff added that the City's Natural Resources Division would have to determine. uestion: Are there any ditches to be relocated? Response: Relocating one irrigation lateral. Comment: Project conflicts with City policies if open drainage channels are not used. Comment: Concerned that the natural terrain is not being used. Comment: Concerned about building height on Lots 1, 2 and 3. uestion: When would covenants be available for review? Response: End of February. Comment: Concerned about the potential for the developer to begin the project and not complete. City should have financial commitments, at a minimum, to address natural resource areas. Sherry Albertson -Clark provided a summary of the major issues and concerns that were identified by area property owners. These are as follows: 1. Density transition between this site and The Ridge. 2. Fencing, setbacks, covenants. 3. Storm drainage/erosion concerns. 4. Filling the gully. 5. Environmental concerns. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. -3- NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY On Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. at the Fort Collins Christian Center, a neighborhood meeting was held on the residential portion of South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD. In attendance at this meeting was Dr. Bill Mussel - white, owner/developer; Don Richmond of Richmond Associates (project architect/planner) and Sherry Albertson -Clark, Project Planner for the City Planning Department. Three property owners attended the meeting. The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the purpose of the meeting. Don Richmond then provided an overview of the pro- posed project, after which, questions and comments on the proposed project were addressed. The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the architect and/or staff, as well as comments made by the residents. Question: Would house on Lot 3 obstruct views from the Thayer property? Response: No, this building envelope would be approximately 200' from the Thayer property. Question : Does the city require that drainage be handled? Response: Yes. Drainage must be handled with all development projects. Can only release at the historic runoff rate. Question: How many lots are proposed - 8 or 9? _ �r > Response: Plan is back to 9 lots, as per the approved master plan. uestion: Would a bridge or culvert be used to cross the ravine? 1 Response: A culvert is planned. There would be less cut and fill with the culvert, than would be needed for a bridge. uestion: What type of lighting would be used? Response: Street lighting would be city standard, which is a decorative 18' pole with 100-watt bulb. Spacing of these lights is 375' per pole, with lights staggered. Also place a light at every intersection and on curves. Question: Why aren't there street lights in The Ridge? Response: Area was annexed in 1989 requested) at property owner's expense. cover cost of minor street repairs and bility of property owners. City would install street ,lights (if At time of annexation, city agreed to major improvements would be �csponsi- uestion: Would grading be required with the building envelope? 4 0 0 Response: Building envelope would identify where building sites would be on each lot. Will preserve trees, natural features. Building envelopes would be designed to fit house on each lot, with minimal disturbance. uestion: Would there be covenants? Response: Yes. Will be drafting. Would like to incorporate The Ridge covenants, to extent possible. Would like to blend The Ridge and Clarendon Hills covenants. Comment: The Ridge covenants restrict fencing, set minimum main floor area of 1,700 square feet, address setbacks, require shake shingles. uestion: Would building height be restricted? Response: May be a maximum height of 36'. Not over two stories. Would project building height with model. Would look at building height restrictions on some lots. uestion: What about wetlands area/environmentally sensitive area? Response: Staff responded that this is of concern to city. Would be evaluating impacts on sensitive area and how developer proposes to mitigate impacts. City is currently studying issue of sensitive areas in the environmen- tal management plan process. uestion: Will development of the site affect drainage off -site? Response: No. Must do storm drainage report to address. Comment: There is an existing drainage problem on Fromme property. Response: Drainage from this site can not impact off -site. Existing problem may not be caused by this property and therefore, may not be solved by this developer. uestion: Any water rights with this property? Do not want increasing drainage problems. Response: Yes, Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal water. uestion: Will sensitive area be in open space or on lots? Response: Would be on private lots. Nine lots not enough to support a HOA. Would require use of native plant materials for landscaping. Question : What impact would there be on wildlife? Response: Keeping trees, which is where most of habitat is. Minimal impact. Developer stated that Division of Wildlife says there are no nesting eagles on this site or in the area. Roaming neighborhood dogs keep wildlife away. Question : If there is no HOA, who would enforce covenants? -2- 1:1 Response: Would have architectural review control committee. No HOA for open space area. Membership of committee would consist of developer and one future homeowner. uestion: How would building on the site be controlled? Response: Staff responded that the city can enforce the site plan restrictions, such as building envelope violations. Requires an administrative change review and approval by city to build outside building envelope. uestion: When would covenants be ready for neighborhood to see? Response: In several weeks. uestion: Would the easement to Hepplewhite be used for utilities? Response: Yes, to serve sewer for the 4 western -most lots. Question: What is the waiver for a 28' wide street? Response: Staff responded that the developer could request a variance to allow a 28' wide street, rather than a 36' wide street. Request must be submitted by a licensed engineer and needs to address safety and design issues. City would evaluate. Variances have been approved for use in large lot developments in past. Of concern is safety and ability to have adequate fire equipment access. uestion: What is the length of the culvert? Response: Twenty-two feet from the inverts. uestion: Would there be any Corps of Engineers study required? Response: Only required if there are wetlands more than one acre in size. This area has not been identified as a wetlands. uestion: What measures does city take to identify/protect wildlife habitat? Response: City has identified wildlife habitat areas for mapping purposes. Is undertaking an environmental management plan to address such issues. Staff encourages the retention/enhancement of wildlife habitat areas. uestion: Who would install the sewer main in the easement to Hepplewhite? Response: Developer would install, with inspections on line done by Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. City construction inspectors inspect work done in the right-of-way (ie. right-of-way of Hepplewhite Court). The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. -3-