HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL - 44-89E - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 20
MEETING DATE 3/ 2 3/ 9 2
STAFF Sherry Albertson -Clan
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Laurie Subdivision PUD 2nd Filing, Final - #44-89E
APPLICANT: Dr. William M. Musslewhite
c/o Jack Johnson Company
1910 Prospector Ave., Suite 200
Park City, UT 84060
OWNER: Same
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for eight single family
lots on 6.44 acres, located on the west side of Shields Street,
approximately 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road, zoned R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes eight single family
homes on this site. Preliminary approval was given in August of
1991, with seven conditions of approval. The applicant has
addressed all of the conditions of approval and the proposed final
plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary
plan. Conditions regarding executing the plat and the Development
Agreement are recommended.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Coffins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
•
•
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; vacant
S: RLP; existing single family residence
E: RLP; vacant (Laurie Subdivision PUD lst Filing) existing
single family residences (Clarendon Hills)
W: RLP; existing single family homes (The Ridge)
This site is part of the area annexed in 1989 as The Ridge
Annexation and was zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential.
There is no PUD condition attached to the zoning of this area;
therefore, single family homes are considered a "use -by -right" in
this zoning designation. The applicant chose to pursue a planned
unit development rather than a subdivision, due to the non-
residential use (veterinary clinic) that was originally proposed on
Lot 9 of the 1st Filing and due to the unique characteristics of
the site.
The site is a portion of the South Shields Veterinary PUD Master
Plan (Overall Development Plan), which was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board in November of 1989. This plan consisted of a
veterinary clinic, nine single family lots on the western portion
of the site and the existing residence in the 1st Filing.
The preliminary site plan was approved August 26, 1991 by the
Board, with seven conditions of approval, as follows:
1. The language of the proposed conservation easement, including
maintenance, be reviewed by City staff during final review.
2. Tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for approval for
Lots 8 and 9 (now Lots 2 and 3 ) prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. Individual erosion control and revegetation plans be required
for Lots 3, 6, 8 and 9 (now Lots 2, 3, 5 and 8) prior to the
issuance of a building permit, to ensure adequate treatment
during construction and revegetation with compatible plant
materials. On -site inspection, by City staff, throughout the
construction process will be required, to ensure these plans
are adhered to.
4. Rip rap areas be deigned to allow revegetation and that
detailed plans for these site be submitted for approval at the
•
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
time of final review.
5. Details plans and specifications regarding rip -rip materials,
placement, size, etc. and other erosion control methods be
submitted for final review.
6. A detailed analysis, along with plans and specifications for
rip -rap materials, placement, size, etc. and other erosion
control methods proposed to stabilize the ravine be submitted
for final review.
7. The applicant redesign the east side of the ravine to no more
than 4 lots.
After the August 1991 preliminary approval, an appeal to this
approval decision was filed. The appeal was essentially based on
concerns that alternative ways of accessing the western portion of
this site had not been fully explored. City Council upheld the
Board's approval decision. Prior to the appeal hearing, staff met
with both the applicant and representatives of The Ridge HOA to
discuss access alternatives, including a potential access through
The Ridge open space; however, a viable alternative was never
achieved, so the applicant is pursuing the final plan with access
through the ravine, as approved on the preliminary plan.
2. Land Use•
The proposed land use consists of eight single family lots on 6.46
acres. The preliminary plan, approved in August of 1991, included
a variance to the minimum required density of 3 DU/acre. A
condition of approval on the preliminary included deleting one of
the lots located along the east side of the ravine. There are now
four lots in this vicinity, while the preliminary plan had five
lots. Deletion of this lot results in a new gross density of 1.24
DU/acre, compared with the original density of 1.4 DU/acre.
The proposed single family lots are compatible with surrounding
land uses, which consist primarily of large, single family lots
ranging in size from .5 acre to 1.2 acres. The gross density
(including open space areas) of The Ridge PUD is 1.6 DU/acre, with
net density at 1.1 DU/acre (excluding open space areas).
3. Design
During the review and approval of the preliminary plan for this
site, much emphasis was put on the unique environmental
•
•
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
characteristics of the site. Of particular concern, was the
proposed crossing of the existing ravine with an access drive to
serve the western portion of the site. Since the preliminary
approval, various access alternatives were explored, including an
alternative using a portion of The Ridge's open space for access.
None of the alternatives explored appear viable, for a number of
reasons. Thus, the applicant is pursuing the final plan with the
driveway crossing the ravine, as approved at the preliminary plan
stage.
Approximately 1.28 acres of the existing ravine is proposed to be
retained as open space, with a conservation easement attached to
it. The easement is dedicated to the City and maintenance of the
easement area is the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association.
A condition of preliminary approval was that the language of the
proposed easement, including maintenance, be reviewed and approved
by City staff during final review. Staff (including legal staff)
has reviewed the proposed conservation easement language, as shown
on the plat and finds it sufficient.
During preliminary review, staff had recommended that Lot 7 (now
portions of Lots 3 and 4) be deleted, due to what appeared to be
severe topographic constraints for development of this lot. The
Board's condition of approval regarding this lot was that the
applicant redesign the east side of the ravine to no more than four
lots. The applicant has accomplished this, with Lots 1-4 now
occupying the area that was previously five lots. As a result of
this redesign, an additional .26 acre has been added to the
conservation easement area and what appears to be a more buildable
lot, with less impact on existing vegetation and terrain has been
designed on what is now known as Lot 3. The southernmost building
envelope elevation is approximately 5080.
Concerns about the extent of building envelopes and potential
disturbance on Lots 8 and 9 (now Lots 2 and 3) resulted in a
condition that tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for
approval for these lots prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A note regarding this requirement has been placed on the site and
landscape plan and is also reflected in the proposed covenants. A
general note, referencing that there are special development
conditions on the site and landscape plan, has also been added to
the plat.
Due to the proximity of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 to the ravine, a
condition of preliminary approval required that individual erosion
control and revegetation plans be required for these lots prior to
issuance of building permits. This language has also been placed
on the site and landscape plan.
0 •
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
The remaining three conditions of preliminary approval ( Rip rap
areas be deigned to allow revegetation and that detailed plans for
these site be submitted for approval at the time of final review.
Details plans and specifications regarding rip -rip materials,
placement, size, etc. and other erosion control methods be
submitted for final review. A detailed analysis, along with plans
and specifications for rip -rap materials, placement, size, etc. and
other erosion control methods proposed to stabilize the ravine be
submitted for final review.), related to erosion control and
stabilization of the ravine, have been addressed on the grading and
erosion control plans to staff's satisfaction. A plant relocation
and deadfall placement detail has also been added to the landscape
plan.
The Applewood Irrigation Association is an owner/proprietor of this
development because the Association has a prescriptive easement for
the existing irrigation channel. The remaining details regarding
the irrigation pipeline route have not been finalized, so the
Association has not signed the final plat. Therefore, staff is
recommending the following condition:
The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the plat for the
planned unit development be executed by the developer and all other
owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado Statute) prior to
the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board; or, if
not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting,
apply to the Board for an extension of time.
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or
as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this
planned unit development shall become null and void and of no
effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit
development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is
met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights.
As of this time, the development agreement has not been signed.
Therefore, staff is recommending the following condition, which
essentially requires that the agreement be signed with 30 days from
the date of Board approval:
The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the development
agreement for the planned unit development be negotiated between
the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to
the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board; or, if
not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting,
apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the
0 i
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
developer disagree over the provides to be included in the
development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to
the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next
succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any
such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had
reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to
enable it to make its decision.
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or
as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this
planned unit development shall become nulla nd void and of no
effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit
development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is
met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Neighborhood meetings have been held on this project during the
early planning stages, in January and June of 1990. Since that
time, staff has remained in contact with area residents and
representatives of The Ridge Homeowner's Association.
The proposed final plan is in substantial conformance with the
approved preliminary plan and staff believes that the proposed lots
are compatible with surrounding land uses.
5. Transportation:
The proposed lots (along with the two lots proposed in Lauric
Subdivision, lst Filing) will access the site via a local street
(Wooded Creek Court) from Shields Street and will generate minimal
traffic. Access across the ravine will be by a 20' wide private
driveway, with three foot shoulders. This driveway will be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association for this development. A
note has been added to the plat and is in the covenants, informing
potential lot purchasers that in the case of utility line repairs
or maintenance, access to the western portio of the site may be
closed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the Laurie Subdivision PUD, 2nd Filing, Final
addresses the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS and
is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan.
The conditions of preliminary approval have been met. Therefore,
0 •
Laurie Subdivision PUD Second Filing, Final - #44-89E
March 23, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
staff recommends approval of Laurie Subdivision PUD, 2nd Filing,
Final, #44-e with the following conditions:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the plat for
the planned unit development be executed by the developer and
all other owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado
Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at
said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension
of time.
If this condition is not met within the time established
herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final
approval of this planned unit development shall become null
and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for
this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date
that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the
vesting of rights.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the development
agreement for the planned unit development be negotiated
between the developer and City staff and executed by the
developer prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer,
at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an
extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree
over the provides to be included in the development agreement,
the developer may present such dispute to the Board for
resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding
monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such
decision, until both the staff and the developer have had
reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board
to enable it to make its decision.
If this condition is not met within the time established
herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final
approval of this planned unit development shall become nulla
nd void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that
the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting
of rights.
01VA .`�to] 1001919
Planning and Zoning Board
Review Requirements Certification Owner Certification
I. TpEE NiJ sslRip+�..r0/K s3IlI Olb3ilm- 4p^Y.aNWrl.v+gNlminYlxeabd/afan Cai..
n+rEo fU.t ncznep'a-Iq. .olb 2..bi FWCF3T-w tat
itii.WeKZ �A ¢tM.OIIYL 4??+^!* rm-�ymw. etYd .s e..erl.um.tisiat ie.ea
Z. n'1 YrYIfTW- E "'j1Z1.IW5 .su pn...er�rttn wat a a`sria
aC 74WAl� 4fLw0 a V=L Ir4fsTw+ s>f A?f
ZfPc' isWNCHWf liE 2t�J^�N.'Ia+ P=a-=4 wiw 20 s
PEW-
3 %iFI',r tl�ullFp-FW ft—rm1A1
NN�N�j�C �B(TC Fl�M11fA- Ems, '14M'I"
Y-3rttlt raR 7HFMWPRiw*RmlOerce HM�p9jNM OF CK°PE rMi d4DIN6 R.M1M
!
E ,p WII. CE �1
I
Statement of Planning Objectives
•. � :it. t. tmrlltts cetexn t,m n:<[,re celM ,..ieed [r nsi� [i.i,er
q wmi.taimigt le _ aenslti,s az U �Eirzim to tM Hest. 3atMr it �ts tMt rr
yr : ew.r. .iu fi ilc.rpvr,�eesin itM� rie SVMl.litm ,re d la cve-
Ilcts r s�Adiri[tm (erxan[s. Reter b
�zm.�i.r rvrmentslrm W�Eiig s@eciftutlxs etc.
�pp.nwit> tun wse ar. rmn et nyrmsutur
6Ltivd 3mlvq 1. •s^.
Rrtly Ouilaivq �.3yEt to M ,v
lxt.
3. ew.trlx e1:<nl.cim� to
-lov r1�M a`rptaa.�lu�alwgax<E
eN.isg o �x.lvp.evt to rnn. t.t v!
x pMx
e1 ..riax gzaae at prlv.t. arlveray.
.nd b era tv
�peipp.d r1N x a�prw.d zxla.nlfsi
7. tli .printlrtv
vim cityl.tavaera.. n-=lw
to mntvm
I.
lilt—, ne ,ri.,ee erroe ,m
tee Ira re to
erlverN MatMare`Des15111 ty al tM
t l3w fibs
1 ,4x fi14s
t 3
OBY IYNSIMa a& i1 fAcfe
15.475., W
3,446 a1 5w
wl. a 3me'
I
C IL
Ly�.ir f�
tallle Stb. PUD
Mended Fret
FNg F.W
Larw Sub. %A
SBCorld F" Frlel
Sde Plan
3 3osePc,ss,
3
Planting Specifications
p,� �iot a eepwi' •Smmme ai,turbtl •r a , , ....c
9► �"�® riiiwm 1•� ampu e . SmE...� Iry�11,J i•p.eii�t'
�,�, ro w mie •1� r ,r mc. 1111. ,•a t. ,t.
i ... - - f—..m.,o "' • ntnitwwicrire.tc,crrme.euf•., .S•S.m u oft:.
OP11WSp•Seer�m ma .a f•:�e..r.fi., e—.n— �•fff
T • .aim aee finef
�' o nt uuieauM nm nfes .M.z ,etra[m m anovn�inat•e
88 B or Container Treeg)Contailer Shrub - Sboe Container Shrub - Dryland 'tll•; •h•SVD4,�'•, i ;pf ; m„a' o• �;°�, P�';,, Plant R location & Deadiat Place ent Detat
Dryer a <ae<. .. e. a
0
•
H T!!<<' w'NO S t'Ud �ilY✓,tj_ �lA4l .CIGJ/eN /y✓ •
�ci"<r�• a <ed iw i
7 � � P a , ao.nw Ave �n BY`
i °"w. u. .< oe n.ume: s .«�'�e`°t4(rsi.H r •s
�Nw
A.— P
�af",......w.:. e.,...� a`:...
nm.rw�c+wac r+o Tr: �+uc<t
�. wYfa, x rout u� M'uula 7V! wa. wrdm- '.
"`siti'm
/J.lr•6§••r / v�P�RINS aqe Ta. T5> s.
.>.. wu:w .t mtta+q
•^• ne .dt. wa:.ee
�{w'•ne.�bRa<inA 144.Wm 10 l>1E IYaYh<2
/K.IMrMrµ. �rkH aHn]•, k'iWsgiPTw+RhS
k�Ws�m•�nr'c�u��im" r,tiu 'Y J r
4.E IaCG>'.�RR Wfii 2,3,4.5t9 FWaa �t 1H� a
Ib%✓.w! m P vaAu�Hb :B+" iT. aFfSns I�t
�;�:i .'�
m ..,-, a...:-r_ w.•. 9 - nc rr-��
Vf cil( STMr Nnw:M THE roHiiaCil.a+ W.
WsD +�fV �TW 1B IgL�I
I��y`�N�NLf�1FE
-7- H7 moHHalYkvn. r'r/�'U-�J6 < K12Y1�� 2>Lt4 I�{'v> .N.'� luE: `l -,- T Zj .El
'rntir. ...r.,.ur.
5 N4FNnWLEPF Ccf•H POPUu/i ALY7I%TI/al-IA 2'c��. r
6 - �ortcE�rrF-Tr Wr.Y4ri
e
I'I H+Y FPutT�i haciwlPn+ g. �. c.r+r
19 : a er1 —W",rr
tb Flo 9TEM+`® rVwlpWti-I GRpT/•E �l=ERfM1fiti faln F f..`.rr
iuni4*7C5 /'r•PC Pn� re:..:�Plu �f •4 w+[».
owns'��`^ p-+..nu,. MY«'fA l tix .Pc._•++-., - _ _ _ to
�� .q•.... ..r1 y __ - ram
^�,� raft: 21 � � u.� C«iu r) ..�-sa..cl-, r «q.., . �r r: »•r_ -s �.:«_ .
Legend - Existing Vegetation
U0
¢Uj
iJ» isw
_ J
Laurie Sub, PLA
Annended Fist
Frog Final
Laurie Sul). PLA
Second Frog Final
Landscape
Plan J111
go 30 Sept 1991J
4
ON
r
vl 3s,lsafia fa
0.Bt ocres
IA�
�I
ais[[s�tcsc�>sst �;�
LAURIE SUBDIVISION
SITUATE IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 NEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
CITY OF FORT GOWNS, COUNTY OF LARIMER. STATE OF COLORADO.
- ueuvs, ewu¢. 2v AA___
30.33E sa st.
\ \ awv
IBZBs �av:c — —
1�OPEN SPACE DRAINA0E1 — a
11 B7'.R...7
I . p�
� \ \ I 1]. 2sq ft
1 aeB eo.
r — —
/ pp N — — s e000 oo- w eu.00
5 3 12233a S
ser,es I $
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
I. ]�1
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
CITY PLANNING
JACK JOHNSON
ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE
1. DOYLE E. PERGANDE, DO REBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR AND THAT I HOLD
HE
APPROVED, AS TO FORM. BY THE
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING R ZONING BOARD
• COMPANY
ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS
CERTHTCATE NO. 13230 AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. I FURTHER CERTIFY
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. CITY OF
OF EMT COLLUNS. COLORADO ON THIS
SURVEY WHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST
THAT A SURVEY HAS BEEN MADE OF THE LAND SHONN ON THIS PLAT AND DESCRIBED HEREON.
THE
FORT COLLUNS. STATE OF COLORADO
DAY OF A.D..
Mr nma Mw nw'
DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. THIS PLAT IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF
LAND SURVEYED AND HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMITY — THE MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REOUIREMENTS
ON TMS—DAY OF
A.D. 19_
BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE
OF THE LAW.
!Ot-e�5-W00 M[ BBt-!Io In3o
DALE Of THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
sle-3aT-555s FAx sm-ses-sssa
10
DOYLE E. PERGANDE DATE:
DREG OR N ING
,F µ. F>VwF i �^•,xY a,.d
11
11
FINAL APPROVAL
OF
r
LAURIE SUBDIVISION a '2L.r"t V;.
Land Use Data
September 30, 1991
Parcel Size, Gross
6.46 acres
281,651 S. F.
Parcel Size, Net
6.14 acres
267,507 S. F.
Total Single Family Lots
8
Residential Density
1.2 units per acre
Driveway Coverage
(shown driveway only)
15,475 S. F.
5%*
Public Street Right -of -Way
13,446 S. F.
5%*
Open Space
56,730 S. F.
20%*
*% of gross parcel size shown
i
4&44-4- Df/U
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
IS the criterion OODhcdble?
Will the criterion
be sonihed?
If no, please explain
Yes No
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatability
2. Neighborhood Character
3. Land Use Conflicts
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Standards
9. Emergency Access
10. Security Lighting
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13. Significant Vegetation
14. Wildlife Habitat
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water Quality
21. Noise
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
24. Exterior Lighting
25. Sewages & Wastes
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
27. Site Organization
28. Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
30.Shadows
31. Solar Access
32. Privacy
33. Coen Space Arrangement
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
36. Vehicular Design
37. Parking
38. Active Recreational Areas
39. Private Outdoor Areas
40. Pedestrian Convenience
41. Pedestrian Conflicts
42. LanascaoinglOpen Areas
43. LandscapmgiBuildings
44. Londscaping/Screening
45. Public Access
I
46. Sions
Solar- 4�