Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROCK CREEK PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 16-89B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESu PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 1, 1993 Garry Horak, Council Liaison Ton Paterson, Staff Support Liaison The November 1, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Vice Chair Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Chair Rene Clements and Jim Klataske were absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Carolyn Worden and Kayla Ballard. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 25 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY - #67-93. Mr. Peterson said this was the most significant item to come before the Board from the Land Development Guidance System audit in 1990. He stated that the audit dealt with issues of how determination of compatibility and PUDs in neighborhoods are evaluated. He said over the past 18 months, a team of citizens, staff and consultants have been working very hard to look at this issue. He concluded that this is a significant milestone accomplished for the LDGS and the results are good. Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark said this has been a joint effort between staff, the consultants, and advisory committee. The consultant team of Linda Ripley of Ripley Associates and Bob Komives of Fort Collins and Marty Zeller of Design Workshop out of Denver have been working with us since December of 1991 on this project. She stated early on a volunteer advisory committee was formed of approximately 14 members, some are present at this meeting, as well as the consultants involved, and will be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. She said compatibility criteria were evaluated; and two specific areas of recommendation evolved: (1) changes to the "All Development Criteria" and (2) a set of recommendations that deal with "Process". She said this was arrived at by having a significant amount of citizen involvement [interviews with focus groups-- roundtable discussion (bringing focus members together) --the advisory committee was then formed]. Planner Clark said there were two community workshops held early on, to get a sense from the citizen standpoint, where this project Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 1, 1993 Page 16 ITEM 27. ROCK CREEK PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planner Shepard gave the staff report. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design - He submitted several development proposals to be presented at the same time to give a larger picture of overall development in the area. His slide presentation to the Board included defining the character of the neighborhood at the entrances, street-scape treatment, collector street options, parking courts, school site, drainage, utilities, open space with greenbelts, Wildwood single-family area, Union Pacific railroad tracks, 3-units to the acre, solar requirements, inclusion of multi -family units, etc. He presented a map designating the ODP plan. He said that Stan Everitt, applicant, was available for questions. Vice Chair Cottier asked Mr. Ward to explain the different colors on the map. Mr. Ward explained they represented lot sizes and types of density (light yellow--65-75 feet in width; cream 75-80 feet width; red -- multi -family; dark yellow --patio homes, future phases). There will be a variety of different single family areas. PUBLIC INPUT. Gary Putnam - property owner of 3-acres south of the project site - He was concerned about the integrity of the area, rural character, irrigation water runoff, existing trees 10-15 years maturity, wildlife on the property. He asked the Board to consider a buffer area in the form of an alley, stone fence, buffer, ditch, etc. A map was referred to locating his property. He stated no one has talked to him about the development. Bill Slimak- 2522 East County Road 36 - His property joins the ODP area in the extreme southeast corner. His concerns were of traffic, specifically Timberline and Harmony Road intersection (90% of the traffic comes south on Timberline with no left turn, history of accidents); storm retention areas and drainage needs detailed plans; supported development of bicycle path systems, has over 600 trees with wildlife (offered a ditch be located on the south border as a buffer). Shawn Hoff - Lot One on the Blehm Subdivision - He has been resident since 1975 and uses the irrigation ditch to water properties. He proposed the realignment of the ditch along the south border to act as a buffer. He mentioned his concern of legal questions regarding water. He said no one has contacted him for neighborhood planning. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 1, 1993 Page 17 Joe Minkey - 2312 East County Road 36, Lot 3 - He was in favor of the suggested realignment of the ditch on the south border of the development or double fencing, vegetation to be non -toxic to livestock and unable to propagate either by seed or root. His concern is for the agricultural use directly meeting the urban uses proposed. Helen Bomm - 2424 East County Road 36 - Blenm Subdivision - She agreed with what her neighbors have said. Her concern was the preservation of the existing agriculture rights, separation from the subdivision, and asked the Board to reconsider how this subdivision is being developed. Dean Olsen - a neighbor to Mr. Putnam in the Sheller Subdivision - He stated he had never been contacted in regard to these issues and had a desire to meet with the developers to discuss the plans in more detail. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Vice Chair Cottier asked Planner Shepard several questions regarding: (1) proper notification, (2) drainage situation, (3) appropriate buffers on the south location of the property, and (4) planning policies concerning UGA rural developments. Planner Shepard stated (1) two letters were sent regarding this meeting to the residents, (2) he referred the Board to Mike Herzig on traffic and drainage detention issues, and (3) and (4) he stated that for development along the fringe of the city; staff has tried to maintain 3-dwelling units per acre. Blehm Subdivision has 6.5- acre lots and the proposed development plan needs more finalizing since it is in the preliminary stage. Mike Herzig, engineer, stated there have been planning meetings regarding the Timberline Road improvements, consultants have been working on preliminary plans, and the Poudre Valley Hospital has been involved. Development agreements for Timberline will be made after the final plans are created. He mentioned that the drainage issue needs more information, also requirements of appropriate agencies and will be addressed in the final stages of the project. Mr. Peterson stated that the drainage relocation as a buffer along the south border of the development is an excellent suggestion and staff will look into this possibility. Mr. Ward commented on detention areas. He reported that preliminary plans have been submitted to the City and his firm has been working with the Storm Drainage Utility and Natural Resources since last April. He reported the plan is for the drainage to Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 1, 1993 Page 18 remain in the existing alignment and undisturbed as little as possible, but realignment may be possible. Standards will control drainage run-off. Mr. Ward also commented on Timberline Road improvements, those improvements would be required with the first phases of development. Mr. Ward discussed issues concerning density of 3 units to the acre. He referred to the amount of open space planned to be kept in its natural state. Member Strom asked about the width of the ditch. Mr. Ward said the minimum standard width to conform to storm drainage was 54-56 feet in the Master Plan. The developers are keeping the allowance 70-100 feet so the grading can be varied. Moving the ditch has not been looked into in any detail. Member Winfree asked about lot depth bordering large lot developments and buffering between existing subdivisions. Mr. Ward replied that 105- to 110- foot lots were proposed for the lots adjacent to the southern border. He commented there is no common area, given space constraints, that fencing it would be less of an impact than a walkway or greenbelt of common maintenance. Member Winfree asked Planner Shepard what date the neighborhood meeting was held. Planner Shepard stated there was no neighborhood meeting held for this project, and the decision was made on the fact that it is residential next to residential, the lowest density that is allowed in the City of Fort Collins and still meets policy, that out on the fringe of the City mixed density use is desirable. Staff believes residential next to residential is compatible at the preliminary stage. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the two letters sent to the neighbors. Planner Shepard stated that this project was originally scheduled for the September P & Z Board meeting and was continued to the October meeting. Member Walker asked for more information on the southern border, specifically the 20-foot sewer variance and options for buffering. Planner Shepard said an option for buffering could be a street. 0 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 1, 1993 Page 19 Member Walker asked staff regarding specific drainage of the existing system through the site. Mr. Peterson said that the drainage is part of a major regional system, McClelland's drainage area and it does move water from the west to the east, plans are for it to handle more water. Vice Chair Cottier asked for comment. Member Walker commented on the ODP. He thought some of the design in the upper portion is well done and said the southern border is a critical issue. He felt that it is not quite accurate to say there is residential meeting residential, when one is being utilized as agricultural. Neighborhood compatibility offers transition, here there remains a stark difference. He felt the drainage needed to be explored in the buffering capacity. He stated he would like the neighbors to be brought into the process. Member Winfree stated that neighbors should be brought into the process as early as possible and ideas discussed with the developer. She felt there were many fine things about the ODP, but the neighborhood input cannot be overlooked as part of the process. Member Strom suggested that the ODP does not dictate the solutions at the south edge. He felt the ODP was acceptable and more detailed exploration can be made at a later date. Member Fontane stated agreement that the ODP, without the mitigation to the south, is well presented and that solutions can be made specifically for details within the plan without delay of the acceptance of the ODP. Member Walker had a concern that the ODP would not necessarily address the finer issues and asked for staff comment. Mr. Peterson believed the entire ODP did not have to be redone to meet specific concerns. He recognized work needs to be accomplished and re -thinking of drainage and density. He advised caution to be careful about decisions on density requirements. There is no significant change in the ODP. Vice Chair Cottier agreed and asked Mr. Ward to comment. Mr. Ward summarized he would recommend that the Board would approve the ODP and require specific buffering interface and design detail along the south border of the development. He was regretful that the two projects were submitted together because it may delay the progress of the northern development of Hillside by the Everitt Companies. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 1, 1993 Page 20 Vice Chair Cottier had some questions concerning the ditch. Mr. Peterson admitted the ditch looked inadequate for function, requested the opportunity to look at Tract D. Vice Chair Cottier appreciated the attempt of the developers to try to offer a density mix, and felt the project acceptable. Member Walker felt the density on the southern interface is adequate but wanted buffering explored and favored the general density of the ODP. Attorney Eckman stated if the motion is to deny the ODP, it would be his recommendation that the person who makes the motion would also include the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, not the LDGS. Member Fontane moved to recommend approval of the Overall Development Plan of the Rock Creek PUD. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. ITEM 28 - HILLSIDE AT ROCK CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY #16-89C Member Strom moved to accept the Hillside at Rock Creek Preliminary PUD. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. ITEM 29 - BROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY #16-89E Member Fontane requested that the staff, developer and neighbors get together before any further plans are developed. She said the storm water and ditch plans need to be explored. Member Walker asked what is the best approach to solving this situation. Vice Chair Cottier felt it was appropriate for the Board to recommend a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Peterson commented that a motion could be made to request this item back onto the agenda on a specific date, November 15 or December 13.