Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHILL POND EAST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY AUGUST 10 1992 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 35 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 10, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The third session of the July 27, 1992 P&Z meeting began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Board member Laurie O'Dell was absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. Hillpond East Subdivision, Preliminary. Case #35-92 Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. He stated that the applicant was requesting a variance from the strict requirement that 65 % of the lots be oriented from within 30 degrees of the true east/west line. He stated that the applicant was within 51 % compliance and was 5 lots short. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the variance based on the criterion that the plan submitted was equal to or better than a plan that would normally have been more rigid in design and would have met the 65 % requirement. Chairman Strom asked for a brief rundown on what was the range of authority of a preliminary subdivision plat. Mr. Eckman stated that Sections 29-656 and 657(8) of the City Code stated that the Board's review would be much more limited than with a Planned Unit Development. John Guiliano, President of Guiliano and Father Construction and applicant, presented plats to the Board to show how the project had progressed to the current stage. He stated that neighborhood concerns were how the subdivision took in the natural characteristics around the site, provision of additional ways in and out of the project, trail connections, consideration of wetlands areas, how close the lots were that backed up to the creek, how big the lots were, price range of housing, fencing along the natural trail, and how the back of the houses would appear from the Wallenberg area. These concerns were addressed in the current plan and allow the project to meet the solar ordinance but yet blend with the natural amenities in the project. One concept that was worked out with the City was opening the subdivision to the trail and the creek and will remain as natural as it currently is. He added that one tree per lot every 65 feet would be planted to allow for parkway strip buffering, of which the City would maintain after the trees are established. He stated that they have attempted to address the traffic concerns of the neighborhood to the best of their ability and have had a traffic study done. He stated that they have designed an Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 2 additional link to Centre Avenue that could be installed if Centre Avenue was extended. Another concern of the neighborhood that they have attempted to address was the access in and out of the project. They have entered into a contract with CSURF development to try to acquire the additional 30 acres to the south of the project to give them the ability to make another link in with Shields. Unfortunately, those negotiations were not realized. They then attempted to contact CSURF to allow them to install a construction access but they have had no response. Member Walker asked if there was a feasibility of extending Centre Avenue? Mr. Guiliano replied that Centre Avenue would eventually be extended but they have not had any response from CSURF. Member Walker asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Guiliano replied that the first phase had not been estimated at this time. If there were to be development this year, the sewer would start at the north then would need to be brought down through the project. If this were determined that this could be done, Phase One would tie into the sewer. He estimated that the project would be about 30 lots a year or completed over a 3 year period. Member Cottier inquired about the maintenance requirements of the wetlands area in the southwest corner. Mr. Guiliano stated that there would be no maintenance required. He stated that the wetlands would act as a buffer to the CSURF property. He added that they had determined fence guidelines along the north and northeast areas which would have deed restrictions on those lots but would not be mandatory that they have fences. Chairman Strom asked who would own the wetland to the south. Mr. Guiliano stated that it would be deeded to the City. Member Carroll asked that since this was before the Board as a straight subdivision and not a PUD, would there be issues in a PUD that would not be applicable with this project. Mr. Shepard stated that this was correct. Recent projects that have come before the Board, such as Clarendon Hills and English Ranch, were similar. Member Carroll asked if the transportation issues, such as traffic exit on to Shields, had anything to do with the Board's deliberation. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Eckman stated that the subdivider was required to provide the Planning Director with comments of agencies and offices, such as the Fire Department, electric/utilities, and various different city departments, and other non -city offices. He stated that the Board should consider these comments from these agencies/offices and that this could be where the transportation issue came from. Mr. Shepard stated that comments they received from the Transportation Department were the same comments that have been elaborated in the Staff Report. Public Input Rick Steadman, 1901-C Winterberry Way, stated that he was the Vice -President of Hillpond Homeowners' Association Board of Directors and was representing this group. He commented that Mr. Guiliano had done a favorable job in listening to the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that, however, a concern the neighborhood had was the access to the project from Shields Street. He added that the only left hand striping that there would be an opportunity for would be on Shire Court onto Spring Creek, which is narrower than most streets. He stated that trees obstruct the view of traffic entering Shields Street looking north of Sundering Townhomes and on Shire Court. The traffic on Shields does exceed the speed limit. He stated that the traffic report stated that with this build -out, the project would still be within the criteria for a normal or average street. He stated that having another 112 homes in this area would make the traffic situation unbearable for the citizens that currently reside in this area. He suggested that some sort of limitation be placed until the alternate access streets are in place. Stuart Citrin, 912 Shire Court, stated that fill dirt had been moved and dumped into the northeast corner which caused significant noise, diesel fumes and disturbance to the area. He believed that the present residents should not have to take the brunt of the construction traffic and that the construction should not be allowed unless an alternative access is obtained. He stated that any construction in this area must consider maintaining the open space character of the Spring Creek corridor. He believed that this project does not just affect the area but affects the entire city. Beth Helrig-Olson, 1937 Wallenberg, stated that there is a variety of wildlife in this area. She commented that the developer had worked with the neighborhood. She believed that the current bikepath should be wider with the addition of 112 homes and the increase of population in this area. She urged Mr. Guiliano to consider a homeowners' association if this project were approved. Gene Wooldridge, 1908 Wallenberg, stated there were special air quality problems in storm drainage areas of Fort Collins with regards to pollution and sound. He stated that Spring Creek has very strong air drainage which creates strong temperature inversions. He stated that he Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 4 would like to see a pro -active stance taken by the project planner and the Board to be discriminant about where there would be high density infill in Fort Collins. He asked that it not be applied in areas where there are problems with pollution and sound. Emily Smith, 1000 W. Prospect, stated that Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association had worked with the applicant and the project planner since the May 28 neighborhood meeting. She stated that the plan proposed at this meeting had been improved and that the neighborhood concerns had been mitigated to make the proposal compatible with the existing homes on Wallenberg Drive and Hillpond and Sundering townhomes. However, there were still concerns about traffic to and from the development, absence of a homeowners' association, and that there were no clear cut responsibilities for the common areas. She stated that this project would be compatible subject to the following conditions: 1) Only homes along the developer's proposed extension of Gilgalad Way should be developed until street connections are completed through the CSURF property to the intersection of Shields and Rolland Moore Park; 2) Hillpond East must have either a homeowners association or some legally binding means of enforcing the covenants on the development; 3) The developer and the City must have clear resolution as to which party will be responsible for the future upkeep and maintenance of the common areas on the site. The public input was closed at this time. Member Carroll asked if there was any reason why traffic signals could not be installed at Hillpond or Shire Court. Rita Davis, City Transportation Department, stated that generally, a local street is not signalized with an arterial street. She stated that there are 11 different combinations of warrants for a traffic signal. She stated that, at this location, there are site obstruction issues such as the large cottonwood trees and the factor of the speed of traffic. She stated that those existing issues will be reviewed by the Transportation Department. Member Carroll asked if this could be done, in this close proximity to an existing traffic signal, if the warrants were justified. Ms. Davis replied that the Transportation Department does prefer to have more distance between traffic signals but this could be done. She added that a traffic signal is planned for the intersection of Shields and Raintree which would create additional gapping that would make access onto Shields Street a little easier. Member Clements -Cooney asked if a median with a right-in/right-out only had been reviewed for this area. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Davis stated that this had not been reviewed at this location but could be considered. Mr. Shepard identified comments from various agencies which included: 1) Storm Water/Utilities comment that the FEMA map be revised that deletes a portion of the floodplain area; 2) Parks and Recreation Department comment on how this project relates to the trail which have been revised by the applicant, and the maintenance of the area north of the right-of-way; 3) City Forestry Department commented that the mature willows and cottonwoods be preserved and the consideration that some of the mature cottonwoods be moved elsewhere on the site and closer to the trail; 4) that adequate easement area be present so Public Service, US West, and Columbine Cablevision can install their facilities; 5) Natural Resources comments that the 2/10 acre wetland area be removed; 6) City Engineering comments that will be addressed at final in terms of utility plans, final platting and issues that relate to the development agreement, and; 7) Poudre Fire Authority comments that proper water supply be present, hydrants within 400 feet, and proper access to all single family homes that are to be built, no cul-de-sac exceeds 660 feet in length and that there be a second point of access to the subdivision. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was any open space acquisition plans for this area and if this area was on the City's priority list for purchase. Rob Wilkinson, City Natural Resources Department, stated that the City had decided not to pursue purchase because this site did not have as high a priority as other sites in the community. Mr. Wooldridge asked why the small eastern area is not included with the other two wetland areas since it all drains together. Mr. Wilkinson stated that more discussion needs to take place with the developer on what happens with the eastern area since it is an upland vegetation area that separates the other two wetland areas. Alan Lamborne, 1929 Sheely Drive, had a concern that there was a traffic problem but there is no legal mechanism for dealing with this problem. He believed that the Board should deal with the traffic impact in a straight forward and thoughtful manner. Member Walker asked if there was a right-of-way for an extension of Centre Avenue and would it be possible for construction traffic. Mike Herzig, City Engineering Department, replied that Centre Avenue is master planned with the Centre for Advanced Technology and master planned to connect with Shields Street to the east and northeast then connecting with Prospect Road at the Holiday Inn. It has not been dedicated beyond the location where it is constructed to the south or to the north. It is the City's Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 6 intent to make sure there are connections into the adjoining properties to provide alternative access and that Shire Court is a temporary access. Member Cottier asked if Rolland Moore Way is a planned street and does the location in this proposed subdivision connect with what might be planned. Mr. Herzig replied that an access will be connected at the CSURF property. The location for this street within this proposed subdivision would be appropriate and is within a reasonable vicinity where they could connect with another street. The City has been discussing with the developer their connection with the CSURF property and that he would not bring the street in perpendicular to CSURF property line and that CSURF is aware of this. Member Walker asked if the City considered the intersection of Hillpond and Shields Street as functioning well enough and if they had any plans on improving it. Ms. Davis replied that the issues of this intersection are speed and site obstruction which are currently happening which brings forward the fact that this needs to be reviewed and mitigated. Member Cottier asked how anything could be developed east with a 660 foot restriction. Mr. Herzig stated that Hillpond and Shire Court provide a second access. To be able to develop this property, the developer would have to continue to use both accesses to provide two points of access. The developer would have to phase the development to where he wouldn't leave any part of that subdivision greater than 660 feet. However, there is a qualifier in the City code to where 660 feet can be exceeded if there were residential fire sprinklers or some other form of protection. Member Walker asked if there were any covenants other than the fence covenants. Mr. Guiliano stated that it is common that they require a set of protective covenants which relate back to City ordinances. They do have additional items that would help insure their project and are enforced through their firm until the development is built out. They are not proposing a homeowners' association at this time. Member Walker asked if there were negotiations between the City and the applicant as to the resolution of the maintenance of the wetlands. Mr. Shepard stated that this should be resolved at the time of final plat. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was any current alternative plan for construction traffic. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 7 Mr. Shepard stated that there was no plan. Member Cottier asked if the additional area between the cul-de-sac and the wetlands would be designated. Mr. Wilkinson stated that this area needs to be re-evaluated. Member Walker asked if Rolland Moore Way would be a collector street that would connect with Centre Avenue and serve to collect all the traffic in the area to the south. Mr. Herzig stated that the Rolland Moore connection would depend in part on what gets developed in that area. The most important part would be the intersection design. The number of cars that it would carry into the site or internal to the site would depend upon a traffic study when it gets built. Ms. Davis stated that this would depend upon the volume of traffic at Rolland Moore Park to determine whether or not a traffic signal would be present. Currently, it does meet one of the warrants during the summer months in the evening hours. However, this is not enough to warrant a traffic signal. If Rolland Moore Way to the east were to develop and would carry a heavier load of traffic, it would be something to consider. Member Walker commented that there were some obvious constraints on this property that are bordered by the hill to the north. He believed that any connection with Rolland Moore Park would have to be a significant intersection. He had concerns as to when the traffic warrants would improve the traffic. He believed that at the moment, this was not a good situation and that there was not a good way to get construction traffic into the site. He commented that the wetlands area issue was too hypothetical. Member Carroll commented that he would support the preliminary plan because three of the four site considerations were irrelevant and the fourth was possible. He stated that the wetlands issue would be addressed at final. He commented that he was not persuaded that the subdivision could not be approved due to the transportation problems at Shields and Hillpond and Shire. Member Carroll moved to approve Hillpond East Subdivision Preliminary and to grant a variance to the requirement of solar orientation in that the applicant has demonstrated the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is required. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 8 Member Cottier commented that since this is a subdivision and not a PUD, this is being reviewed with different restrictions and regulations. She stated that the traffic is an unfortunate situation and this proposal is appropriate for this parcel of land. She stated that given the subdivision requirements and regulations, this project meets those and deserves approval. Member Clements -Cooney suggested that the developer keep pursuing options for alternative access for construction traffic. Member Klataske suggested that if this is approved, the City Engineering Department review the street width as being adequate. He suggested that any natural drainage channels be reviewed as far as the lots being platted so there would not be any wet basements or crawl spaces. Member Carroll commented that in the past, the Board has required that construction traffic enter or exit a development without impacting local neighborhoods. In this particular situation, he did not see any alternative given CSURF's position of not discussing the issue. He believed that this project could not be denied because construction traffic would enter or exit an existing neighborhood. Chairman Strom suggested the condition that by the time of final, the Transportation Department work with the proponent to arrive at a mitigation program to deal with the traffic issue. Member Carroll stated that this would put Mr. Guiliano in an untenable position because he does not own the land at the intersection of Hillpond of Shields. Chairman Strom stated that there needs to be something more concrete to deal with when homes are developed and there is more traffic. Mr. Shepard stated that there is already an improvement that is required in the impact analysis for this project which requires that Hillpond and Shire Court be improved by striping exclusive left turn exit lanes to head south on Shields. He stated that some of the site distance problems that have been created could be reviewed and try to improve this. Member Carroll amended his motion by adding the condition that if the Transportation Department updates their report of Hillpond and Shire intersection and recommend additional mitigation to be done by the developer, then the developer should do as recommended or the developer address the Board at final as to why the developer should not comply. Member Cottier seconded the amended motion. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 9 Member Walker commented that this is a good project that will add to the surrounding area and add another element to this area which has a lot of open space and potential for infill. He had a concern with the traffic and believed that it should not be ignored. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Other Business Ms. Albertson -Clark informed the Board that there was a scheduling problem with the December P&Z meeting scheduled for December 14. Council Chambers will be remodeled during that time period. Staff proposed that the meeting date be moved to Thursday, December 17, at which time Council Chambers would be available. Ms. Albertson -Clark informed the Board that there is a special worksession scheduled for August 19, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.