Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOVENTRY SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY ..... JANUARY 31 1994 P & Z BOARD HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 24 - 80 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESr Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page-11 a fine presentation with solutions, and complimented the applicant who had a good attitude in the process. The Board will continue to see issues like this where the City meets the County. She said hopefully the process will go as smoothly as this. She will support the motion. Mr. Phillips stated that we have made a commitment to Council for "Findings of Fact" and requested to make reference to the recommendation to page 8. That would be helpful to be included in the minutes. Member Strom read the recommendation on page 8 and moved that it was acceptable to add this to the motion. Mr. Phillips suggested if there were some that the Board did not agree to, that they be eliminated. Member Strom said that the only question he had was the suggestion of the "criterion of compatibility". Because it is a straight subdivision under the code, and the zoning provisions in the code, that the Board is not addressing the compatibility issue. Mr. Phillips agreed. Member Strom moved to eliminate No. 2. Member Cottier said she agreed. Motion passed 5-0. Item 18 - Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning - #50-92E. Ms. Whetstone, Planner, read the staff report and recommended approval. Ms. Lucia Liley, representing the petitioner, Fossil Creek Partners. commented on the petition. She said it was unusual to have been placed in, and then have to petition out of, the T-transition zone, as the petitioner had previously petitioned for an RLP zone. It is important to point out that the Council has not made a decision on the ultimate zone for this property. It is not rezoning in the traditional sense, since the T-transition zone is, as Ms. Whetstone indicated, a holding zone for properties in the transitional stage and have no real development plans. (She explained the how and why she was present.) Ms. Liley stated in August a petition was submitted to annex and zone the property RLP, and went to Council in October. It was, in fact, annexed and proposed to be zoned RLP, with a reading, was zoned T-transition, which it is for properties that have not identified a use. That clearly was not, the case here where a PUD was pending. In fact, under review, we asked Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 10 4. The Board recommends and encourages the developer and staff to look at alternatives on the cross-section development of Crest Road. There is an opportunity to do something creative given a fairly limited surface area of the street, perhaps to reduce the width of the road. Member Strom said his reasoning is from the neighbors suggestions for more creative plans with respect to the street so make it is more compatible with the larger lots, though densities may not change. Member Cottier seconded the motion. She indicated she would like to add to the last condition that a sidewalk not be required on the east side. Member Strom said he would like to leave that as a negotiation for the street cross-section and development and base it as the Board's view that sidewalks are not necessary on both sides. Member Cottier agreed. It is a clear case where a 28-foot street is more appropriate than a 36- foot wide street. She hoped that if the negotiations were successful, the developer would consider the cost savings and reduce one or two lots along Crest Road. Member Klataske commented that possibly reduction of 12 lots to 7 would be appropriate, the reduction in the street width will reduce parking, and he would be supporting the motion. Member Strom stated he appreciated the approach that the neighborhood came in with suggestions, not just objections. All too often there is just a "no" and he appreciated they wanted to make the project better. Member Winfree said she also commended the neighbors for offering a variety of suggestions and she was somewhat disappointed that the developer wasn't really agreeable to some of the ideas, even just minimal changes. She would be supporting the motion hoping the developer would be more agreeable to work in some compatibility for Crest Road neighbors. Member Cottier said this is not a PUD and there is limitation to what the Board can decide, which is frustrating. The neighbor's suggestions would make this a more compatible project and fit in better with the neighborhood. She also commented she thought it a lack of foresight that City policies tend to discourage parks from fronting on streets. Because parks are locked in between homes, this cuts down on the benefit of the open space to a broader range of people. She thought the Parks Department bookkeeping procedure values seemed to override citizen benefit. Chair Clements agreed with Member Cottier's comments and she recalled that there was suggestion that the development process at MiraMont could be done here. The differences is that MiraMont is a PUD and Coventry this is a straight subdivision. The Board has regulations that must be to, precluding compatibility and density. She appreciated the neighbors who gave Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Herzig said is partly the City and County codes, inter- governmental agreement standards. The City of Fort Collins requires the street be built complete with curb and gutter on both sides and he was unsure of the negotiations. In some situations there is allowance to leave off the other side's sidewalk. This is still in preliminary stages and the County is reviewing the plans. Member Winfree asked the developer if he would be agreeable to a minimum side setback of 15 feet? Mr. Sell said for good reason he does not want to do that. He wants to maintain some flexibility. Perhaps a more appropriate question would be a building to building setback. Some of the homes that would build out on the lots will be of varying designs. The lots are 72-foot to 82-foot lots. They do not want to amend the agreement. Member Klataske asked staff regarding page 3 of the staff report, paragraph A regarding lot size and width. Mr. Shepard said 8 of the 12 lots are 82-foot lot widths and 2 are at 72-feet and 1 at 77-feet and 1 at 105-feet. Member Klataske summarized that at a minimum, the 2 at 72-foot lot widths are 12 feet over the minimum 60 foot width. Mr. Shepard said that was correct. Member Strom said that to a large extent the path is laid out by the code, and moved to approve the Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary with the condition of staff for street connection 1. Staff is interested in keeping the option open of connecting Crest Road to east Bentley Place. It is recognized, however, that final plans for stormwater detention, erosion control, wetland protection, and a raw water irrigation pond have not been designed. If the need for adequate stormwater detention, wetland buffer, and irrigation preclude connecting Crest Road to East Bentley Place, then such connection will not be pursued. 2. The Board recommends the developer to explore wider sideyard setbacks in terms of building to building relationships. 3. The Board recommends and encourages the developer to engage in the process of negotiating with the Parks Department and other City departments regarding the 3.2 acre parcel. That the developer consider the possibility of modifying the rear yard property line between the existing park site and this development site to allow more creative use of the frontage. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 8 Member Klataske referred to the issue of traffic connections in this section, and asked what connections to the south would be planned. If it were to develop, how would the traffic be handled? Mr. Shepard said there hasn't been a real serious look at local street connections into what would have to be the north part of Applewood Estates or a subdivision filing which is called Orchard which is part of Clarendon. It is probably boxed in. It would probably be very difficult for there to be a second point of access to the southerly area of Brookwood Estates. Hinsdale functions as a circular street in a good network of streets. Crest will probably be a dead-end for some time. Mr. Klataske indicated that he felt it was important for there to be a link in the street network further south. It is incumbent upon us to look at other streets and their linkage as far as future developments. The overall density on 28 acres and the neighborhood is asking to reduce the 12-units to 7-units, which would still be at a density of greater than 3-units per acre. He wondered if this was considered. Mr. Shepard said the developer has been aware that the Brookwood residents have requested fewer lots on Crest. Perhaps he could respond to the Board, but it has been communicated to the Planning Department, he is not interested in reducing the number of lots on Crest. Mr. Shepard has researched the code and found nothing that can legally require reduction of the density of units. That is why there are street trees and front setbacks and another suggestion from Mr. Underhill regarding 15-foot minimum yard setbacks, so you get 30-feet between structures. Mr. Klataske asked the developer to respond. Mr. Sell replied as part of the economics of donating to the City, at no cost, 3.2 acres, with a survey, paying for the widening of Harmony, the widening of Crest, paying for the paving of Crest which is larger than is a typical road, curb and gutter on both sides is a mathematical problem. It is a matter of economics. Member Cottier asked if there was power to make conditions regarding that? Mr. Shepard said he thought that would require the cooperation of the developer. In some areas we have gotten the cooperation and in others we have not. Where the developer would refuse, he would defer to Deputy City Attorney. He felt it appropriate to ask the developer to cooperate to widening the side setback. If he agrees, those restrictions can be attached to the plat and accompanying documents. Member Cottier asked why the developer is required to put curb and gutter on the east side of the street? Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 7 would park along Crest, Crest would become a primary access point to the park. The Parks Department did not want to build a fence to protect Brookwood open space from the park. The best solution the Parks Department came up with, to administer over the long term, would be to have the park surrounded by the houses and the school. Member Cottier asked if there were any options with respect to Crest being 36 feet or less? Mr. Shepard believed that options have not been discussed. It is considered to be RLP zoning a city subdivision, and appropriate a 36-foot street from flow line to now line. Member Cottier said that the City allows 28-foot wide streets frequently. Who has to request that? Mr. Shepard said it is a variance request from a developer's consulting engineer that is reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Transportation Department and that it has to meet the criteria that it not be double loaded, not take primary access off an arterial, that it not have a certain amount of average daily trips. The Board reviewed one last week. In this particular case, the developer did not submit a variance request for 28-foot street. Mr. Eckman said that the code says that a local street has to have a right-of-way of 54 feet is that correct. Mr. Herzig said that is correct, that is the right-of-way, not the street. Member Winfree said that Crest will be developed at 36-feet width only to the end of the 12th lot, is that correct? Mr. Shepard replied it was correct. Member Winfree asked for clarification on the maintenance the length of the of the Crest Road? Mr. Shepard said from the southerly lot to the north to Harmony that is dedicated as public and his guess would be the City of Fort Collins would be responsible for the pavement sections and long-term maintenance. There is no snow plowing on local street. Mr. Herzig offered that it is his understanding Crest is a county road. The City requires the developer to approve it because of the agreement of the county when a city development impacts a county road. As I understand it may still end up being that the homeowners maintain it, but it is still possible that the County would maintain that portion since it is being brought up to standards that fulfill the intergovernmental agreement. He said he couldn't speak for the County. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Shepard said that it was not a park site yet. It is still owned by the developer under contract to the developer; the proposal is he would give the land to the city. Member Cottier asked who would pay for the improvements on Harmony along that stretch? Mr. Shepard said the developer has agreed by his donation to the City that he still retains the obligation to do Harmony and Crest Road improvements. Member Cottier asked if the Parks Department pay for improvements along Hinsdale along the west side? Mr. Shepard said they do have some frontage on Hinsdale and they may have to pay back the school district for their portion of the frontage, but that needs to be checked. Member Cottier said she was interested in what the Parks Department has done to date and what their obligations are. Is there any room for further negotiations on this? Mr. Herzig said as far as Hinsdale, he was not sure they paid any fund there. The School District has entered into a re -pay agreement with the City to receive repayment. The Parks Department has done nothing at this time because it is an undeveloped park. A sidewalk will need to be constructed on Hinsdale, the obligation would be to pay back the School District. Member Cottier asked if there has been any input from the Parks Department as to their preference for park sites? Is this the way they like parks hidden? Mr. Shepard said yes, they like to have as little frontage on streets as possible. What they really like about this park is there is no need to build a parking lot, the access is there, it is shared by the School District. The joint playground that the school district has put in can also complement the tot lot that normally would go into a neighborhood park. The challenge was finding a park site period. Because it is next to a school is an advantage. A proposal has been made by the Brookwood Homeowners Association to take the land along Crest Road back, but Parks and Rec has not expressed an interest to do that. Member Cottier said that Mr. Heath's letter mentioned that if Crest were left it is today, that Brookwood would be responsible for maintaining it. Was that considered as an option to the Parks Department so that they wouldn't have an obligation for improving Crest? Mr. Shepard said the Parks Department has indicated that if there were a buffer strip of 150 feet along Crest that didn't belong to the Parks Department, but remained undeveloped and belonged to Brookwood that it would be difficult for the lay person, the citizen, the average park user to see that separation in the field. That open space would become "defacto" park space, people Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 5 Road to be seen as the primary access to the park. They don't want to build a parking lot nor do they want Crest Road to be come a parking area for the park, rather they are encouraged to park near the elementary school. They don't want to deplete funds available for parkland development. Chair Clements asked what the lot sizes on the 12 houses on Crest Road? Mr. Shepard responded that the proposed lots are 12,500 feet. Member Winfree asked what the anticipated setbacks for the houses along Crest Road would be? Mr. Sell said they increased the minimum setback of 20 feet to 25-30 feet. The side setback is 5 feet. Member Strom asked for the explanation of the connection between Crest Road and Hinsdale and if it is necessary and appropriate at this time. Mr. Shepard indicated that the proposal to connect Crest Road to East Bentlet Place is designed to help alleviate the situation at the Crest/Harmony intersection with the hope that the Hinsdale/Harmony intersection would be signalized and provide a better outlet. There has to be more extensive planning in terms of capacity and shape of the storm water detention pond. Before this proposal can be seriously considered, the Parks and Recreation Department want to construct a raw water irrigation pond in a nearby area, to use as irrigation water and it has not yet been designed, the wetlands need to be preserved. Also, there is a need to plan side slopes and maintain erosion control. When more information is obtained regarding these design issues, the status of this connection will be detained. Member Strom asked if this would be resolved prior to finalization of the subdivision? Mr. Shepard said yes, this was their intention. Member Strom asked about the RLP zoning on the land. As he understood it, this zoning doesn't mandate a PUD development, so this is a straight subdivision. If he understood correctly, we do not have jurisdiction over the density of this property as long as district code requirements are met? Mr. Eckman said that is correct. Member Cottier asked about the status of dedicating the Wetlands in the northeast area as part of the site? Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 4 development of living units and probably a greater increase in traffic due to the life style differences for these homes. The total square footage of the proposed homes will restrict the use of the land for storage and/or parking. They requested not more than 7 homes sites (12 homes sites proposed), with a City planning condition of 33-foot setback and a 15-foot side yard setback, with a minimum of 30 feet between houses. He referred to the MiraMont development as a good example for development, which was approved by the Board with a lower density, and it matches more closely to the needs for neighborhood compatibility for this area. They requested that a visit to the area during peak hours as well as other quieter hours of the day to visualize the neighborhood as they know it today, only then will the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council will appreciate their appeal to preserve what is Fort Collins and admired for quality. Jim Brewer - 742 Rochelle Circle - He was appreciative of the efforts in planning and was in support of the project. He is a neighbor adjacent to the development. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked if their would be neighborhood covenants for parking restrictions? Mr. Sell said yes there would be covenants. They will be greater or more severe than Clarendon Hills. There will not be RVs parked on the streets or in the driveways. Chair Clements referred to the traffic study that stated there would be no more traffic on Crest Road, yet the neighborhood believes because of the increase in houses, this cannot be true. Mr. Delich stated that the short range projection, there would be no increase in traffic at the Crest/Harmony intersection. The traffic does, however, change on Harmony Road and it is indicated in the study. Chair Clements asked about pedestrian park access? Mr. Sell pointed out the access and is available to all citizens of Fort Collins from Crest Road. There will be a 36-foot wide street, parking on both sides. Chair Clements also question why the Parks Department did not purchase the land where these 12 lots are proposed. Mr. Shepard stated that the history of acquiring a park site in this area goes back to 1986. The Parks Department is concerned that this park is not located more interior to the Clarendon Hills Subdivision. Park locations are preferable away from arterial streets, because of the traffic. Parks and Rec chose not to buy the sliver of land along Crest because, they didn't want Crest Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 3 family units). He thanked the efforts of Ted Shepard and also of Glen Schlueter of Stormwater Utility. He opened his comments understanding the need for the City tax base and density calculations. Overall, they are concerned about 3 dwelling units per acre density compatibility. He addressed road, school, and park access. Mr. Heath stated that Brookwood Estates, although small in number, represents 82 acres and all of the residents use Crest Road. There is an architectural control committee. He was concerned about the narrow side yard setbacks along Crest Road which would preclude the use of the backyards for storage. Many traffic problems of great concern. He is aware that Harmony is planned for 6-lanes outerbelt corridor, is choked to two lanes. There is no safe left turns presently and right turns are very tight. He termed the corner of Crest and Harmony dangerous. Mr. Heath said that the park is only accessible in the proposed development by the new homes or school parking lot. There is no room in the plans for expansion of the park. Mr. Heath proposed a possible neighborhood connector street between Crest and Hinsdale that would allow for future planning and access to the school, and fire ingress and egress. Member Cottier asked if the association has a proposed preferable location connection between Crest and Hinsdale? Mr. Heath said no specifically, there is a possibly several. Member Cottier asked if they were more interested in a connection at the south side of the school. Mr. Heath said that was acceptable. Mr. Bob Underhill - He acknowledged the fine job the developer and the planning staff have done as it relates to Clarendon. He believed the transition, however, was too abrupt between developments. He backed up his point by presentation of slides. He had objections to the density, 12 houses on 3.3 acres is unacceptable. This would increase the traffic patterns. The 82 acres adjacent to the development needs to be considered, the big picture, unique area, one service access, compatibility, transition, safety, drainage and access. He suggested a park boundary to Crest Road for access, homeowners should have been involved in the planning, make wider lots to accommodate on -street parking. Ron Erbes - 4825 Crest Road - At some point in the future Brookwood Estates will become part of the City. But presently it is not, and the 82 acres needs to be addressed by the Board for neighborhood compatibility. It is a walk-in pedestrian community; adding 133 % increase in Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 2 meetings were held with residents of Brookwood. As a result, lots are twice the minimum requirement to make them more compatible with existing acreage. Crest road will be widened to City standards with a left turn, curb gutter and sidewalk. There is a drainage channel that comes through the wetland area, under the road and property at Harmony and Crest. He discussed landscaping, setbacks, berming, masonry wall, evergreens, street trees and ornamental trees with scrubs. The plan reflects one to two dwelling units per acre with a RLP zoning. He requested approval of the Board for this proposal. He referred to Policy 12 and 13 in the LDGS which encourages this development in the urban growth area. Chair Clements stated that density seems to be an issue with the neighborhood, there also is a concern for traffic in the area. How is signalization to be handled? Mr. Matt Delich, transportation engineer, responded stating the current traffic flows onto Harmony Road are at Level E, but with delay criteria imposed, it is probably more at Level C or D. A typical delay during peak hours are typically 15-30 seconds per approach vehicle. A signal would not be warranted at Hinsdale although a signal would work and not impede the traffic flow. The development will have little or no impact at the Crest/Harmony intersection. Member Winfree asked further clarification from the rating from Level E to C. Mr. Delich explained technically this question is based on 1985 Highway Capacity Manual uses a technique developed in Germany. Therefore, at a stop sign controlled intersection it would be greater, without consideration of "delay criteria". The State of Colorado recognizes acceptability at Level D or better. The Transportation Research Board is re -writing this year the Highway Capacity Manual and are changing the technique and taking into consideration delay, as was used in this study. Chair Clements asked further what "delay criteria" meant. Mr. Delich said the "delay criteria" is per approach vehicle, or how long the vehicle has to wait to enter the traffic stream to make a given movement. The morning peak hour at Hinsdale is reported to be 19-29 seconds, in the manual is Level service E, which means level C or D; the work in Germany is not translatable in the United States. Member Winfree asked if we are applying these changes to all of the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Delich said yes. CITIZEN INPUT. Bruce Heath - 4920 Crest Road, President of the Brookwood Homeowners Association (10 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 31, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 31, 1994, 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 Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rob Wilkinson, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of December 16, 1993, minutes. Member Cottier moved the December 16, 1993 minutes be approved. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA: Item 16. Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93; Recommendation to City Council: Item 19. Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning, #50-92E; Item 20. Annexation and Development Review Scheduling. Item 16 Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93. Planner Ted Shepard read the staff report and recommendations to the Board. Mr. Jim Sell, of Jim Sell Design, representing Jim McCory of Colorado Land Source and also J. R. Engineering, Dick Kellog, Steve Jenkins and Matt Delich, traffic engineer. He made his presentation with the recommendation to approve the proposal. He showed with slides the boundaries and setting of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to pay what would be the City's share of improvements to Harmony Road and Crest Road. Numerous