Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 16-89E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES! 0 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 15, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The November 15, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene` Clements, ]an Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Members Jim Klataske and Bernie Strom were absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark in Planning Director Tom Peterson's absence, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Kate Malers, Ken Waido and Carolyn Worden. 'AGENDAREVIEW Planner Clark reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of September 27, October 25 and November 1, 1993; Item 2 Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD - Overall Development Plan, #66-93A; Item 3 - Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #66-93; Item 4 - Miramont PUD, Tennis & Fitness Center - Preliminary, #54-87K; Item 5 - Save-Mor Self Storage PLTD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final; Item 6 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A; Item 8 - 601-603 Mathews Street PUD., Preliminary and Final, #68-93; Item 9 - A Big A Storage PUD, Final, #57-93A; Item 10 - Resolution PZ93-14 Access Easement Vacation; Item 11 - Resolution PZ93-15 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 12 - Resolution PZ93-16 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 13 - Modification of Conditions of Approval. Planner CIark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 15 - Summerhill PUD - Final, #41-93A; Item 17 - Brookside Village at Rock Creek PUD - Preliminary, #16-89E; Item 19 - Spring Creek Farms Third (English Ranch ODP) - Amended Overall Development Plan, #75-86K; Item 20 - English Ranch Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary, #75-86L; Item 21 - Harmony Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #65-93; Item 22 - Harmony Crossing PUD - Preliminary, #65-93A; Recommendation to Council Item 23 - Amendment to the N-C-M Zone, #37-90. Planner Clark stated there were requests for the N-C-M Zone to be moved up earlier in the Discussion Agenda by several residents. Chair Clements asked Attorney Eckman if it would be appropriate for the Board to change the agenda. Attorney Eckman replied if it was the pleasure of the Board, however, it would take a vote of the Board. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 15 Member Winfree commented that because the Board moves for approval of this project does not mean that citizen input is not heard or there is no care about the concerns. As a member of the Board, each development is judged by the LDGS. As a guide, LDGS states that this is a project appropriate for the area, therefore, she supported the motion. Chair Clements asked for point of clarification if the motion included the condition. Member Cottier stated that it did. Chair Clements also restated that city policies are given through the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) that requires the Board to measure these proposals. No where in the LDGS does it (a) say we can look at populations, such as students, and (b) say that the Board can arbitrarily determine that there is enough density in the area and that this project cannot go through, that power is not the Board's. The LDGS approved by City Council is used to help the Board members guide decisions. She supported the motion. Motion carried 5-0. BROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK PUD - PRELEW NARY - #16-89E Planner Shepard read the staff report and recommended approval. He stated that a neighborhood planning information meeting had been held and the minutes of that meeting were in the Board's packets. As a result of that meeting, the staff has added two more conditions to the plan, the first that the rezoning be passed by Council. The other two conditions are in regard to fencing and discharge of flows to a detention area. There will be a slide presentation. Mr. Eldon Ward gave a presentation of the plans and changes since the neighborhood meeting. He mentioned that the T-transition zoning will be considered by Council in December. Within the ODP, the only issue needing further discussion is the relationship along the south property line. He described in detail the characteristic of the adjoining border to the south of the development and showed related slides, stated that most existing homes are over 1,000 feet away from the proposed new development. Some revisions to the plan have been made: (1) a redesign of a cul-de-sac, (2) one less home, to realign to Timberline, (3) there is no conflict with staff s conditions stated in their report to the Board. He described the creation of a swale along the rear lot line to collect the new development drainage and overflow to convey it the east. The proposal is to offset it to the fence. To put the concern of drainage overflow to rest, the developer agrees to convey the flows and a fence that will allow that to happen and to allow access from the south to the swale. He demonstrated other successful plans for drainage in other s Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 16 developments in the community. The question of moving the drainage was not an acceptable alternative because of costs and the loss of density to the plan. The use and density, three units to the acre, is in compliance with LDGS and felt the neighbors concerns were addressed. Bill Slimak - 2522 E. County Road 36 - His property backs up to the south side of the development. He thanked the staff and developer for the meeting to have neighborhood input. He used slides to convey his concerns for drainage and adequacy of the detention. He spoke for Gary Putnam with regard to relocation of the ditch, the grade and the relocation angle the ditch would require. He stated his stand was that it could be relocated, would be better for the City storm drainage and felt it should be explored as a viable option for relocation. Shawn Hoff - 2224 E. County Road 36, Lot 1 of County Subdivision of Blehm - He stated he was neighbor to Gary Putnam. He showed slides of the property and drainage ditch. The irrigation pattern has been established for over 100 years. He mentioned the Blehm Water Association is aware of all the water uses and process of recycling water within the subdivision. He expressed his desire not to lose the water rights on this subdivision for agricultural irrigation uses. Also he was concerned for possible liability of flooding new resident's basements from irrigation runoff. He illustrated a sample of a swale where urban and agricultural uses interfaced. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements restated concern about road improvements and what the time line would be. Mike Herzig, City Engineer, stated there are group designs by developers being made who are working with the City and one consultant producing the design. The development will proceed ahead of the design for the road. The City's concerned with what can be built within the developments without having Timberline Road completed: (1) make sure the impact will not tear up the existing road which is less than standard and (2) make sure the developer's obligation is taken care of making the improvements that they are obligated along Timberline. As the development plans are completed, there will be a lag of the Timberline plans, they will be separate. Chair Clements asked about storm drainage issues. Are they addressed in the development agreement. Mr. Herzig said yes, but he couldn't be specific. Before the development can proceed, the design for the storm drainage has to be complete, any off -side easements that are necessary to be secured must be secured by the developer and turn into the City. C� Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 17 Chair Clements wanted further discussion about the possibility of moving the ditch south. Kate Malers, Storm Water Utility Department - She stated she was at the neighborhood meeting and felt that the present location of the McClelland's Channel at Timberline Road was constrained and difficult to move it to the south at that point. This is largely because of the development west of Timberline Road also uses the channel and needs to carry 630 cfs through this stretch. It needs to be deepened to have a wider bottom section and plans are to make it a trapezoidal channel with 4:1 side slope. In the master plan there is a conceptual idea for this channel not to take any serious turns in direction, because the 630 cfs would create a maintenance erosion, stability problem. The alignment of the channel west of Timberline as it is proposed, lies along the property line which is further to the north of the property line separating the Brookside from the Blehm and Sheller Subdivisions. She speculated the property owners would probably not be desiring to have it relocated onto their property. The alignment should remain as it exists. She said anything is possible, but the cost would be prohibitive and the mass of the structure required (concrete) may not be desirable, stability and maintenance are major criteria. She was not certain what the Natural Resources opinion would be on the idea. Chair Clements brought up the issue of liability of irrigation and possible runoff into basements. Who is responsible and how might that be addressed? Deputy City Attorney Eckman mentioned that comment had been made to place a notation on the plat to potential urban purchasers of this subdivision that there could be a water table problem. Mr. Hoff, he noted, was concerned about liability from the standpoint of irrigation. He asked if staff could address a possible water table problem from the irrigation of the land. Because the irrigation has existed for many years, the irrigation could continue and felt the liability issue may not be as severe as feared. Chair Clements restated that a note could be put on the plat as condition #4 regarding potential for high water table. Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought that would be helpful. Member Fontane asked if this situation would be categorized as coming into "nuisance." She asked if the statement would put responsibility to the new owners for any adverse outcomes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it was not thought in terms of "nuisance" but it is true that a note on the plat would be helpful to give notice in writing that this condition of historic irrigation to adjacent property is something they should be made aware of and drain their homes accordingly. In his judgment it is not a typical nuisance but is something that is a pre-existing condition, unless there is negligence. In the absence of negligence he didn't see there was liability. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 18 Stan Myers - RBD Engineering - Mr. Myers made the statement that he was the engineer of the project and their firm is designing a sub -drain system, runs in tandem with the sanitary sewer system and draws down the ground water with the intent to keep it away from the basements and foundations. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that in the Lindimer Subdivision, this was done with success. Member Walker cited the two issues of fencing and discharge of irrigation flows. He wanted more clarity of the interface of the two land uses and what that would look like on the southern border. Mr. Gary Hoover - Geneva Homes - He stated that there is a meeting scheduled at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow with the neighbors and Stan Myers of RBD with the purpose of looking at the fence design alternatives and the ditch, with a mutually agreeable alignment for it. Determination of the details of a design that works for everyone is intended. Member Walker asked if this meant reshaping the ditch. Mr. Hoover said yes. Member Fontane asked for the destination of the swale and any water right issue for a downstream user. Mr. Ward stated it goes into the detention pond by the existing storm drainage system. The irrigation overflow will continue to do what it has done historically with the proposed solution. Member Fontane asked if the downstream residents would be affected by runoff from streets and yards. Kate Malers, Storm Water Utility Department, said as far as she knew there are no adjudicated water rights for the water that flows into the McClelland's Drainage Way, they are essentially irrigation return flows, which is also what is being talked about from these properties. The irrigation water is delivered from the laterals and the irrigation ditches from the actual stream. This has not been thoroughly researched but it isn't an ephemeral stream and doesn't carry water continually. Member Walker asked Planner Shepard a question about fencing and asked if this issue has yet to be resolved. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 19 Planner Shepard said that is correct, subject to the resolution of the irrigation ditch for accepting the return flows. Member Walker made a motion for approval of Brookside village at Rock Creek PUD - Preliminary with the three conditions in the staff report, the rezoning, the fencing but leaving the sentence off dealing with specifics regarding fencing (there needs to be some appropriate fencing between the urban and agricultural uses), discharge of irrigation flows, liability. Chair Clements asked if there was a way to state a note on the plat regarding irrigation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it could be included as a part of the third condition, a note be included on the plat giving warning to the homeowners of potential problems with underground water, or something to that effect. Member Walker agreed with that specific as part of his motion. Member Fontane asked about uses of agriculture (fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides) being a nuisance to urban users. Should there be a record of some of the uses stated on the plat. Deputy City Attorney Eckman recalled this was done with the Lindimer Subdivision, a unique situation, it is up to the Board to decide if there are differences in land uses. If it gets to be a health hazard, the County Health Department regulates health hazards both in the City and county. The Board needs to decide how much detail you need to go into on these plats. Member Fontane stated her concern was not whether it is hazardous but a record which would show what is taking place for their awareness. This notation would serve to protect the agricultural residents of the area. Member Walker said because this land has an agricultural zone, he believed that would allow certain activities, should answer questions of future residents. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that concerns of the existing residents in the agricultural zone have been addressed concerning drainage and fencing and being dealt with in a compromised fashion. She stated her disappointment that the storm water channel could not be moved, which would seem to be the ideal solution with everyone. She stated the land use for this development is within the City limits and meets City projects of this nature and has the minimum level of density approved. She would be supporting the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 20 Member Walker further commented that the differences in the land uses are mitigated in regard to drainage and fencing, the continued communication between the developer and the property owners to the south was encouraged. Motion carried 5-0. SPRING CREEK FARMS THIRD (ENGLISH RANCH ODP) - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - #75-86K. Planner Whetstone read the staff report and recommends approval. Member Cottier asked for clarification if there was any commercial use in the amended ODP. Planner Whetstone said that was correct. Mr. Bill Bartran, developer, reported that this plan follows the plan originally submitted in 1986 with a decrease in density and elimination of the small commercial site. The neighborhood expressed these desires to the east and the neighborhood they are building for. He reported that contours of the ground and the detention pond dictate the configuration of the street layouts. CITIZEN INPUT Dick Chin - 3131 E. Horsetooth - He stated he supported the changes Mr. Bartran is proposing to comply with homeowners' desires. He indicated the proposed density is preferable and the commercial changes acceptable considering surrounding commercial uses. Bob Noller - 3712 Bromley Drive - He stated his property abuts the 4th filing of the English Ranch, he said he concurred with the last comments made. He agreed with the proposal made and said it was a nice transition for uses. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Member Walker stated that the land uses meet our City policies and mix of housing types and densities. He said this lowering of density and changing uses are not meeting the original policies. He questioned if this is congruent with city policy in changing the ODP. Member Fontane said that she had less of a problem with losing the commercial in this particular case because of the surrounding commercial uses. She felt the lowering of density was not as desirable.