HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRINGBROOK PUD PRELIMINARY - 7 90 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
• March 26, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:32 p.m, in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern,
Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd
Walker, and Alternate Joe Carroll.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman,
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Georgiana
Taylor.
Board Members present at the March 23, 1990 worksession included: Chairman
Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns and
Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda,
The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 26, 1990
meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow, 4th Filing - Final Subdivision, #46-89B; Item 3
- Orchard at Clarendon Hills - Final Subdivision, 047-89C; Item 4 - Collinshaus
PUD - Preliminary & Final, #6-90; Item 5 - Gateway at Harmony Road PUD,
3rd Filing - Amended Preliminary, 01-88E; Item 6 - PZ90-4 Access Easement
Vacation, #14-90; Item 7 - Silverplume Estates, 3rd Filing, PUD - Final,
#62-89B; Item#8 - PZ90-5 Access Easement Vacation, #15-90; Item 9 - Front
Range Baptist Church Annexation and Zoning, #11-90A; Item 10 - Silverplume
Estates Rezoning, #62-89C.
Staff asked to place item #3, Orchard at Clarendon Hills on the discussion
agenda.
Member Burns stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item. #2, and would
not be voting on it.
Chairman Kern pulled item #4, Collinshaus PUD from the consent agenda.
Member Klataske moved to approve consent agenda, items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Walker moved to approve consent agenda item 2. Member Klataske
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0, with Alternate Joe Carroll
voting.
ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS - Final Subdivision. u47-89C
Ted Shepard stated that the staff recommended approval of this project with a
condition that was not originally included in the board's packet.
Mr. Shepard read the condition as follows: "The final utility plans shall
demonstrate sufficient easement widths for the conveyance of storm drainage
• flows so that there is no detrimental alteration to, or encroachment upon the
existing bridlepath easements that are on record and platted along the
Applewood Estates subdivision.
surrounding area. He cited the fencing setback and the fact of having an auto
salvage yard on two sides of the street and that does not address the
compatibility and sensitivity of the surrounding area.
Member Shepard supported the motion for denial but commented that it was
not an inappropriate use because auto salvage operations have to go somewhere.
She stated that giving the surrounding environment, that it is an inappropriate
use. She stated that she did not think it had been properly screened and
mitigated and thought there were a lot of outstanding questions with respect to
environmental issues. She said she would reconsider it as a preliminary at a
future point and would not like to see the fence along Magnolia but would
rather sec a fence along the north and south property lines, so at such time if
the neighborhood might change, future neighbors would be screened from the
auto salvage operation.
Chairman Kern stated questions he asked himself were was this an appropriate
use for this area and following that, was this intensity of use appropriate for
that area. He stated that there being other similar uses in the area made him
lean toward it; however, he thought both the intensity of use and approval of
the item might preclude other kinds of development appropriate to our current
zoning and what City plans are, would that allow this kind of development to
occur. He stated approval here might be inhibitory to that process. He said
considering the use what guarantees do we have to guarantee the safety of the
public, namely floodplain, environmental standards. Those have been partially
met to his satisfaction but the preponderance of concern would lead him to
support the motion for denial.
The motion for denial was approved 5-2.
SPRINGBROOK PUD - Preliminary - 07-
Sherry Alberston-Clark gave the staff report on the project recommended
approval with several conditions.
Dick Rutherford, Engineer with Stewart and Associates, gave a presentation
on
the project, agreeing to all the conditions staff had put on the project.
Member Walker asked Mr. Rutherford if he was proposing to change
the
existing 100-year floodplain line on lots 21-24.
Mr. Rutheford replied no that was not correct and he pointed out
the
floodplain and floodway lines.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Rutherford about the three lots that were in
the
floodplain and that plantings would be restricted in that area of any type
of
vegetation that would impede water flow. Would there be any notification
of
homeowners in the future of that restriction.
Mr. Rutherford replied that one of the conditions placed upon them was
the
deed restriction or notes on a subdivision plat, but stated that this was
no
different than any other property restrictions put on by ordinance
or
conditions of approval.
Member Carroll asked whether there would be a homeowners' association.
In
• Mr. Rutherford replied yes there would be, and they would be responsible for
maintaining some open space areas and the area in the public right-of-way.
Member Shepard asked about the 4' fence that was allowed on lots 17-20 on
the floodway.
Mr. Rutherford replied that none of those lots were in the floodway, there is
no difference in the house and that a fence was allowed in the floodplain on
the property line to the north but not on the south.
Member Shepard asked that if a fence was allowed on the floodway boundary,
certainly that would impede the flow of water so why was there any
restrictions as to planting a bush or a tree.
Mr. Rutherford replied there needed to be a line drawn somewhere as to the
Iloodway and the floodplain and by definition, floodplain allowed buildings
and trees and structures in it. He pointed out the floodplain and the floodway
and what was allowed in them.
Member Burns asked where the northern boundary of the floodplain was and
would the street be flooded.
Mr. Rutherford explained the northern boundary and what homes were
affected.
Member Burns asked at this stage of design if they knew how deep the flood
would be at the entrance to the court. Would the access be unpassable at the
cul-de-sac in the event of a flood.
Mr. Rutherford replied he thought it would be low enough for emergency
vehicles to pass.
Member Burns asked about the three to four lots in the floodway, and how
deep would the fill have to be so the first floor level would be 18" above
water surface.
Mr. Rutherford replied that the first floor was 3' above the 100-year flood
elevation, which was 3' higher that the existing ground. He stated the
elevation of the floodplain was very slight and because of the design of
Springbrook Lane and grades getting off of Drake Road, raises the house
higher than the floodplain or the floodway did.
Member Walker asked about Springbrook Lane and that if it continued to the
south, was there some future plan for it to cross Springcreek and access
properties on the south side of Springcreek.
Ms. Clark replied that was correct.
Member Walker asked about the 4' fence that was proposed along the floodway
line and was it a City required fence and what was the purpose.
• Ms. Clark replied that it was not a requirement.
17-
Member Walker asked what was the City's view on essentially providing a
deeded lot that 1/2 of which nothing can be done with and why don't we just
incorporate that whole area into Tract B.
Chairman Kern stated that it was also a concern of his on lots 23 and 24
where the southern half of those lots are in the floodplain. Did the lots meet
the essential minimum size required for this kind of development.
Ms. Clark replied there was no specific minimum lot size required. She stated
that staff had opted to delete lots 22.24 and incorporate them into the open
space. She stated that from a technical stand point, the lots were developable
as designed and shown on the site plan.
Member Walker asked if they were to take the floodway parts of the
properties, and incorporate them into tract B, would she be suggesting that the
PUD could have the lots existing at just the part of the lot that is out of the
floodway.
Ms. Clark replied that was correct.
Member Strom asked if there were no PUD, what would the minimum lot size
be for a duplex.
Ms. Clark replied that in most low density residential that it would still be
6,000 s.f.
Chairman Kern asked about combining lots 22, 23, 24 into one or two lots, and
how would it be handled.
Ms. Clark replied by administrative change or a replat.
Dr. Wit Aancs, owner of adjacent property, stated he ran livestock and at the
neighborhood meeting he asked what would be done with the fence line
between his property and the Burchfield property at the time the development
occurs. He stated his concern of children and problems with Springcreck. He
stated that he would like the board to add a provision of a suitable fence such
as the one on the trail on the Poudre be placed on his property line to reduce
the egress to the area of the creek.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Aancs if there was already a fence located there.
Mr. manes replied yes, but it is not a very good fence. He stated that they
control their livestock by electric fence, which is a potential hazard.
Mr. Walt Beckley, property owner to the south of the proposed project asked if
the area south is developed across Springcreek, what would be the City's
specifications to cross the creek.
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator with the Engineering Department, stated
that it had not been determined and it could be any kind of structure that
works, one that would be a series of culverts or could be a large culvert.
Member Walker stated his concern with the floodway line on properties 21-24
and that he thought it was creating an administrative problem with deeding
the properties in the floodway. He stated too much was trying to be done on
-18-
the development with the constraints of the floodway and would like to see
the number of lots reduced by at least one.
Member Walker stated his concern with the fact that people would buy the lots
and somewhere in the future when they change hands and the buyer would not
know that there was a floodway there or detention or deed restriction or notes
on the subdivision plat.
Member Carrol stated the same concern and that people would not deliberately
violate a deed restriction, but they may not know what they arc or feel they
had served their purpose. He stated the City is not in a position to police the
floodway and that it would be up to the homeowner's association and was not
convinced that the homeowner's association would police these particular deed
restrictions. He stated that replatting the three lots would better utilize the
space and give the owner a workable area to live in and plant their trees and
bushes.
Member Walker moved for approval
of the preliminary plan with
the conditions
1 and 3
as stated by the staff
and change condition 2 to
lots 22-24 be
replatted
into two parcels where no
deeded property would be in
the floodway
and lot
21 would be redefined in
the deed so there would
be no deeded
property
in the floodway.
Member Burns seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell stated additional concerns about the depth of the duplex lots
backing on to Drake Road and what was the recommended depth of the lots
were.
Ms. Clark replied that if this were a single family subdivision, there would be
a requirement in the subdivision code that would stipulate that those lots have
a minimum depth of 150 feet.
Member
O'Dell stated lots 1-14 were
much less than that and there needed to
be some
additional work done as in
changing the
alignment of the street to
eliminate
lots 22-24 and make the lots
along Drake
deeper.
Membcr Strom stated that changing the plan needed to be done and that the
use was appropriate and not at all adverse to the density if the design could
be worked out, but had some concerns about how the design works on the land
with the constraints they had.
Member Klataske asked what the depth of the duplex lots were.
Ms. Clark replied that starting at lot 1 it was a minimum of 95 feet and lot
14 had 155 feet in depth. She stated lot 9's western property line was I10 feet
and that would be at the edge of right-of-way on Springbrook Court.
Mr. Rutherford clarified that was the dimension of the lot lines but also had
the green area tract between the back of those lots, another 15 feet added on
to the dimensions.
-19-
Member Shepard agreed they should not redesign the plan at the meeting and
offered to amend the motion to instead of saying split lots 22, 23, and 24 into
two lots, just say, that all of the floodway area should be incorporated into the
open space area in tract B and none of it included in privately deeded lots.
Member Walker stated he accepted the amendment and accepted it into the
motion.
Member Burns agreed with the amendment.
Chairman Kern stated that he would like to see the whole floodway be
delineated by a low fence and leave the design up to the developer.
Member Walker asked if there should be a condition with a preliminary
approval as to reflect the size of the duplex lots.
Member Strom asked what were they accomplishing by approving a preliminary
with a serious design problem and suggested tabling or what ever was most
efficient to get the job done. He stated that they had to go back to the
drawing board with the conditions already placed upon them.
Member Walker asked for clarification of what would be an appropriate size
for the duplex lots for the developer's information.
Member Strom replied that depth and although they had a 15 foot landscaping
strip, which accomplishes nothing for noise, a solid fence would help the noise.
Member Walker withdrew the motion for approval.
Nlember Burns moved to table until the next meeting.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
Raintree Village Shooaine Center - Administrative Change - 0146-79M
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending denial of the
request.
Tim Stcin, stated they were approached by Todd Lund of Foxfire Property
Management to try to do something to the dark corner and their main
identification sign that was not putting out a whole lot of light. He stated
they wanted to increase the light levels on the corner and wanted to light the
adjacent large group of trees. He stated the lighting is one of the highlights
of the center. He contacted Mr. Jeff Hill of Consolidated Electric and he
helped with the layout and the design of the lighting. He stated they had
offered to and still are ready to address any problems with the lighting and
anything it would take for an approval of the amendment.
Member Walker asked if the reason for the lighting was that the owners felt
they needed more visibility.
Mr. Stcin replied that it was not so much visibility but the highlighting of the
Cottonwood trees.
-20-