HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/26/1996`J
0
C1
•
Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 2213415
Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Chairperson Gwen Bell
Roll Call: Weitkunat, Byrne, Colton, Gavaldon, Bell. Member Davidson was
absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Duvall, Ludwig, Shepard, Olt, Ashbeck, Wamhoff,
Herzig, Haas, Schlueter, Deines.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the consent and
discussion agenda's:
1. Minutes of the April 8, April 22, 1996 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings. (Continued)
2. #5-94F Symbols Logic PUD, Phase I - Final
3. #16-96A Ramada Limited Suites PUD - Preliminary
4. #73-82S Eagle Tree Condominiums PUD - Final
5. #8-96 The Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary
6. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval
7. Resolution PZ96-12 Easement Vacation
8. Resolution PZ96-11 PUD Abandonment
Discussion Agenda:
9. #73-82R
Provincetowne PUD - Overall Development Plan
10. #46-88F
Park South PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan
11.
Appeal of an Administrative Change For Timberline Storage
PUD
12. #20-82C
Harbor Walk Estates PUD - Referral of an Administrative
Change
13.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Parking Plan
for CSU, and the Downtown and CSU Neighborhoods.
14.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Parks &
Recreation Policy Plan.
J
The Following items will be heard at the September 9, 1996 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing:
15.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding Zoning and Siting
Standards for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
16. #21-96
Recommendation to City Council Regarding Rezoning
Downtown Properties from IG, General Industrial to RC, River
Corridor.
17. #20-96
Sinclair Redevelopment PUD - Preliminary and Final
18. #6-96
Harmony Towne Center PUD - Preliminary (Continued)
19. #31-95C
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary (Continued)
20. #49-95
Harmony Ridge - Overall Development Plan
21. #49-95A
Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary
Director Blanchard asked the Board to move Item 12, Referral of Administrative Change
for Harbor Walk Estates to the first discussion item tonight. That would be followed by
Item 9, Provincetowne PUD. That would be followed by Park South Amended Overall
Development Plan and then Timberline Storage PUD continued from the last two
meetings.
Member Byrne pulled the Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Item 3, for discussion.
Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 2, 4, 5 (with variance), 6, 7
and 8.
Member Weitkunat seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
RAMADA LIMITED SUITES PUD. PRELIMINARY. #16-96A.
Member Byrne asked for a brief update on the transportation aspects of this proposed
development. Particularly, transit and pedestrian elements.
Planner Ludwig reviewed the transit in the area stating there were northbound and
southbound bus routes on South College Avenue. There is a southbound route bus
stop at the southwest corner of Boardwalk Drive and College Avenue, and a
northbound bus route bus stop at the northeast corner of Boardwalk and College as
well as stops along Coalboard and Creger Drives. From the site it is about 650 feet to
public transit. There is no public transit running along south Mason Street.
Planner Ludwig reviewed the slide of the site plan and reviewed the sidewalk and
pedestrian connections in the area.
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 26, 1997
Page 3
Member Byrne asked about the street standards that would apply and would the new
street standards with detached sidewalks apply.
Planner Ludwig replied that they would not apply, however they are providing a
detached sidewalk along south Mason Street.
Member Weitkunat asked about the 4 foot sidewalk on the plan.
Planner Ludwig replied that was an error and it would be 5 foot.
Member Colton asked for someone to speak to the traffic situation in the general area.
Fred Jones, Transportation Department replied that when the traffic impact analysis
was looked at for this project, the intersections of Horsetooth and Mason and Mason
and Harmony were not evaluated. There was an estimated 577 vehicle trips per day
generated by the Ramada Limited Suites with 46 trips coming out at PM peak. That
was not a significant impact and the intersection that was at Mason and Boardwalk
• would operate at a level of service that would be acceptable.
Mr. Jones stated there was currently a problem at Mason and Horsetooth and whether
this one project would be responsible for mitigating those impacts — that decision was
not made.
Member Colton asked about the level of service at Mason and Horsetooth.
Mr. Jones replied he had not done the evaluation at that intersection, however, there is
some stacking at College and Horsetooth and also at Mason and Horsetooth at PM
peak, and on Saturdays. Without an evaluation, he would not be able to speak to what
the service level is currently.
Member Byrne asked about the development being next to the railroad tracks and what
would be the impact of the noise from the railroad.
Planner Ludwig replied that we rely on the market to propose the use on the property,
and if they feel that a hotel next to railroad tracks is marketable, then that would be their
marketing decision. There is residential development next to railroad tracks throughout
Fort Collins.
• Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant stated they could
answer any further questions the Board may have.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 26, 1997
Page 4
He stated that this development would be a very low traffic generator. With regards to
the sound situation, the hotel is very well sound proofed and the hotel operators felt it
would not be a problem.
Member Byrne asked about Mason Street becoming more of a bike/pedestrian area in
the future.
Planner Ludwig replied that these commercial corridors were being looked at in City
Plan, but he did not know about the specific designations or plans for this street has
been determined at this time.
Director Blanchard added that City Plan is anticipating that Mason will become what
they are terming a transportation corridor, where there will not only be automobile traffic
but the ability to use alternative modes as well. There might also be potential for light
rail or a commuter train system.
Chairperson Bell asked if it was typical on a project like this not to evaluate a major
intersection.
Mr. Jones replied that if the impacts are minimal, like in this case, then staff would only
evaluate the intersections that were in close proximity to mitigate the impacts.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Byrne moved for approval of the Ramada Limited Suites PUD,
Preliminary.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Member Gavaldon moved to grant the variance to this project.
Member Byrne seconded the motion.
the motion was approved 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 26, 1997
Page 5
HARBOR WALK ESTATES P U D REFERRAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE
#20-82C.
This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 26, 1997
Page 6
PROVINCETOWNE AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #73-82R
This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
The remainder of the items will be continued until the September 9, 1996 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
There was no other business.
The meeting adjourned at 12:23 a.m.
•
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday,*14HIMIr-216a), 1I9(y
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Harbor Walk Estates PUD
Members present:
. Gwen Bell, Chairman
Mike Byrne
Glen Colton
Jerry Gavaldon
Karen Weitkunat
For the City:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Ted Shepard, City Planning Office
Mike Ludwig, City Planning Office
. Court reporting services provided by:
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199
2
1 MS. BELL: Okay. We're ready to move on to our
2 first item of discussion tonight, which is the Harbor Walk
3 Estates PUD.
4 I do always like to let the members of the
5 audience know that our meetings do tend to run rather late.
6 However, we have been trying to stop things around 11:00
7 o'clock, if it's reasonable to do so, and I do try to like
8 to alert people in the audience if we think we're not going
9 to get to items that you're sitting here for so that you
10 don't have to sit here all evening.
11 There's -- could be a rather high likelihood we
12 do not get through all of these first four main items; and I
13 would guess that around 9:00 o'clock, the Board will have a
14 little bit better feeling on that. And when we take our
15 break, we'll certainly let everybody know so that you can go
16 home, if we're not going to get to the item you're here for.
17 So let's begin with a presentation here by Staff
18 on item number 12, Harbor Walk Estates.
19 MR. SHEPARD: Madam Chair, for clarification,
20 I'm taking what you just said as indication that if anyone's
21 here for the two recommendation items to City Council,
22 either the parking plan or the remarks and recreation plan,
23 that those will not be heard tonight.
24 MS. BELL: I think there's a very strong
25 likelihood they will not be heard tonight. As I understand,
* 3
1 we have quite a few people here to talk to us about a number
2 of these items tonight. So that usually takes a little bit
3 more time.
4 MR. SHEPARD: Thank You, Madame Chair. This
5 item is a referral of an administrative change for Harbor
6 Walk Estates PUD. This is a request to add a sound
7 abatement wall along the west side of Lemay Avenue, along
8 the fronts of lots 7 through 15. The parcel is located on
9 the east shore of Warren Lake, south of the dam, and west of
10 Lemay Avenue. The property is zoned RIM, low density,
11 planned residential.
12
I'd like to point out that we received, this
.
13
afternoon, a letter that I want to add to your packet -- I
14
handed it to you earlier tonight -- from Fred and Susan
15
Cozak. We were not able to give it to you on Friday because
16
we just received it today, but we did make copies for you
17
tonight. So you have that as part of your consideration for
18
this evening.
19
And we've got a lot of slides that you are --
20
are available to take a look at, if you'd like, slides of
21
the actual embankment, the superimposition of a sound
22
abatement wall up on the bank. At that point, though, I'm
23
turning it over to the applicant to walk you through the
24
proposal.
25
MS. BELL: Thank you. Does that seem agreeable
0
1 with the Board, to just move right on to the applicant?
2 Okay.
3 MR. SOLLENBERGER: Good evening. I'm Mike
4 Sollenberger. I live at 1112 Cobblestone Court, and I am
5 the developer of Harbor Walk Estates, phase 2. I'm also
6 a -- going to be a resident of this new area, so I'm wearing
7 two hats tonight.
8 I want to build a sound abatement wall to help
9 protect us from the noise from Lemay. It's a consistent
10 idea, I think, with what's been going up and down Lemay.
11 Our neighbors to the south, Harbor Walk Estates phase 1,
12 have a six -foot -high privacy slash sound wall or fence. our
13 neighbors to the east and a little bit to the south, Golden
14 Meadows, have a privacy slash sound wall against those lots
15 that abut Lemay, and so forth, all the way down the south
16 part of Lemay and quite a ways up to the north of us on
17 Lemay.
18 We have had several meetings with the
19 neighborhood and have responded, I think, to most of their
20 input; have compromised a great deal, and we think we have a
21 solution which satisfies our need for sound abatement and
22 also addresses the concerns that we've heard.
23 Tonight, I have with me Linda Ripley, who will
24 address you now, and also Dr. Armando Balloffett, who will
25 address you regarding the sound issues. And then I would be
5
1
available for questions later. Thank you.
2
MS. BELL: I would like to remind everyone that
3
we're on standard rules of 30 minutes for your presentation.
4
MS. RIPLEY: Bring this down a bit here. Madame
5
Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Linda Ripley with VF
6
Ripley Associates, and I'm here as Mike Sollenberger's
7
landscape architect and planner.
8
I'd like to go over, first of all, the purpose of
9
the fence; talk about that a little bit, and then go into
10
issues that we learned from the neighborhood, objections
11
they have, concerns that they have that range from views of
12
the foothill to issues about sound and sound reflection, and
i13
then,
obviously, concern for aesthetics and maintenance of
14
the proposed fence. So as I go through those neighborhood
15
issues, I'll also be talking about the developer's response
16
to each of those issues.
17
First of all, I'd like to orient you to where
18
we're proposing the fence and what the situation is along
19
Harbor Walk Drive. This drawing shows lots 7 through 16,
20
along Harbor Walk Drive. This is the area where we're
21
proposing the fence, from lot 7 -- the fence would go along
22
lot 7 to -- and stop at lot 15.
23
What we have here is Lemay Avenue, approximately
24
a 35-foot setback to Harbor Walk Lane. Harbor Walk Lane is
25
approximately -- is 28 feet wide, and then homes to be built
0
1 on these lots would be set back an additional 20 feet from
2 there. So that kind of gives you an idea of where -- where
3 the fence is located.
4 This is a slide taking -- taken from one of the
5 front yards. I apologize; it's a little bit dark. But I
6 think you can see from the front yard along Harbor Walk
7 Lane, you get a very clear and direct view of traffic along
8 Lemay Avenue.
9 And I took this slide myself, and I'm just a bit
10 over five feet tall, and I was standing -- I wasn't as tall
11 as a person's front porch would be. So the view of the cars
12 and trucks going by along Lemay are in constant view of
13 these people's front yards. It's visually distracting, and
14 I wouldn't say the sound -- the sound is not deafening in
15 this case. It's not a roar of noise. But it's a constant
16 traffic noise that certainly detracts from the pleasant
17 environment that my client is trying to create for this
18 neighborhood.
19 This is the fence just south of the property,
20 for the first phase of Harbor Walk Lane, where a fence was
21 used to block off the noise and traffic along this
22 residential area. My client is simply trying to do the same
23 thing, to -- it's something that's very commonly done; in
24 fact, staff often requires that a fence be built when
25 residential is planned along an arterial street.
! 7
1
Now I'd like to go into the neighborhood issues,
2
which are basically why we're -- why we're here tonight,
3
because there are a few members of the Golden Meadows
4
neighborhood which is situated east of this project, across
5
Lemay Avenue. These residents do object to the fence.
6
So I'd like to go over -- City staff has done a
7
good job of, I think, getting these people together with the
8
developer, going over different ideas, seeing if there are
9
compromises that can be made, and indeed, there have been.
10
Originally, we proposed a six-foot fence along their entire
11
property from lot 7 all the way along 16 -- all the way
12
through lot 16.
13
As I go through, I'll explain how that has
14
changed through the interaction with neighborhood and
15
learning about their concerns.
16
The first concern that was talked about was,
17
"Gee, we're going to lose our view of the foothills if you
18
build this fence." I would mention that views of the
19
foothills really isn't a criteria that the Board uses to
20
evaluate projects. It's not a criteria in the guidance
21
system, simply because you can't legislate views of the
22
mountains from everywhere in the city, or else nothing would
23
ever be built west of anything else. But I think it's still
24
important to look at what the fence does do to the view of
•
25
the people in Golden Meadows and what it doesn't do.
e
1 This site or this slide is a vicinity map that
2 shows Harbor Walk Estates, right through here, these lots,
3 and these numbers indicate where I was when I took the
4 following slide. So I'm right at the edge of condo golf
5 course, basically just off the back yards of some of these
6 people that currently have a fairly decent view of some
7 foothills across Warren Lake.
8 As you get closer to Warren Lake, that view goes
9 away, but as you do stretch back here, you have a view of
10 the foothills. And then the fourth shot will be a shot as
11 if you were a car or pedestrian going down Lemay Avenue.
12 Okay. This first shot is actually the closest.
13 It's right -- I'm standing right behind the fence line that
14 separates the golf course from the property along Lemay,
15 which will be developed. So the first thing you'll notice
16 is that when you build homes on this property, those -- that
17 project will take out any view of the foothill. And even if
18 it weren't, right in here, I've drawn in the fence right on
19 top of the embankment. I've drawn in trees and homes that
20 will be built on top of the embankment.
21 The dark gray in the background is the view of
22 the foothills. So in terms of obliterated the view, the
23 fence is really insignificant in comparison to what the
24 homes will do. And you're not evaluating the homes
25 tonight. That's been approved years ago. We're simply
• 9
1
evaluating the addition of a fence.
2
So as you go further back, what happens is that
3
fence just becomes smaller and more insignificant.
4
And there, I'm across the ditch. And this next
5
slide is from Lemay. That is -- that fence is shown
6
approximately six feet high. It was done earlier in the
7
project when we were proposing it be approximately six feet
8
high. Since then, we have lowered the fence.
9
One thing the fence would do in terms of their
10
view, is since Harbor Walk Lane is a one-sided street,
11
visitors will tend to park on the opposite side because
12
there are no driveways. A fence would screen parked cars
•
13
along Harbor Walk Lane,
so you'd see a fence and then see
14
the houses beyond. We think that would be an advantage of
15
the view from Golden Meadows.
16
The second issue that the neighborhood raised
17
was sound issues, and basically, I'm going to let Dr.
18
Balloffett address sound and the facts about what sound does
19
and what it doesn't do. But there are a couple of things
20
that I heard the neighborhood say, and I have difficulty
21
reconciling this in my own mind, is I heard, one, that the
22
sound is not a problem for these potential homeowners along
23
Harbor Walk Lane because it's simply not noisy up there.
24
And then at the same time, I heard them say that if a
25
fraction of the sound were to bounce back to their
10
1 neighborhood, that would be very much of a problem.
2 So that's all I would like to point out in terms
3 of sound, is I think that there are two things we're trying
4 to accomplish. One is buffer these folks from both the
5 actual sound as well as the visual aspects of that sound.
6 Psychologically, if you don't see the sources of sound, the
7 sound simply isn't as bad. So the visual aspect is
8 something we're stressing with the fence.
9 This is where we got into working with the
10 neighborhood to a very technical degree. We went out and
11 took shots all along Lemay Avenue at the curb line and at
12 the top of the bank to find out, what's the differential?
13 And we found some interesting information.
14 We found out that it is not consistent all the
15 way along, but that there's quite a bit of difference. The
16 lots 1 through 5 which are already built on homes that
17 exist. The houses sit between 10 and 12 feet above Lemay.
18 Then the bank is lower for lots 7 through -- I believe 7
19 through 10. We only have a bank that is approximately eight
20 and a half feet high. And then the bank rose again from
21 eight and a half to the neighborhood of 11 and 12 feet tall.
22 And what that information allowed us to do was
23 figure out exactly how tall this fence needs to be to
24 accomplish our objective, which is to block out the visual
25 aspect of the traffic on Lemay and thereby block some of the
0 11
1 sound as well.
2
So at lot 7, where our bank here is only five
3
feet -- or eight and a half feet high, we need five feet in
4
order for a person's line of sight to cut out the traffic on
5
the opposite end of Lemay. However, at lot 15, same person
6
in his house, we only need a three-foot fence to accomplish
7
the same objective.
8
This section just shows that a little more
9
clearly. This is where we need five feet of fence in order
10
to accomplish that objective.
11
The concerns we heard about a fence at all were,
12
"Well, what's it going to look like?" So I'd like to walk
13
through
you that a little bit.
14
If you can see, this is a drawing of the fence
15
as it would be five feet high. For approximately 400 feet,
16
it would be five feet high. Then it would drop to four.
17
And then for approximately 165 feet, and then drop to three
18
feet and then end right here at lot 15.
19
In addition to stepping the fence down, we're
20
also proposing quite a few landscape changes to the existing
21
conditions out there, to not only make this development more
22
attractive, but we feel would make the whole area along
23
Lemay there look more attractive.
24
These street trees along Lemay exist. We're
•
25
proposing to add a second layer of street trees. So we've
12
1 got four groups of three trees each that will create this
2 kind of pedestrian environment along the sidewalk along
3 Lemay there.
4 Where we're not adding the couple rows of trees,
5 we'll go in and add shrubbery and vines against that fence
6 that provides some contrasting fall color, and generally
7 make it more attractive. The vines will grow up on the
8 fence and make it a very integral part of that bank.
9 The bank itself will continue to be grass.
10 However, right now, it has a lot of broadleaf weeds in it.
11 There are proceeds to clean it up, add irrigation, and have
12 a consistent texture of green grass along that bank. So I
13 think the bank and the green grass together will be an
14 improvement over what the community has right now.
15 We heard a lot of concerns about graffiti and
16 how we would handle that. The neighborhood has a problem
17 with graffiti out there on the Warren Lake dam. People,
18 kids, whoever, continually make graffiti on the dam. It's
19 painted over, but it always comes back. Sometimes it's not
20 taken care of very quickly, and it's been an eyesore and a
21 problem for the folks that live out there. So they're
22 obviously concerned about, "If you put another target up
23 here, how are you going to deal with that?"
24 The way we answered that was to say, "Well,
25 first of all, it's likely to not be as big a problem on this
n
u
•
13
1
fence as it is on the dam." The dam's set further back,
2
it's dark, it's out of the way, whereas this fence is along
3
Lemay, it's very visible to traffic, well -lit at night, so
4
it would be less comfortable for kids to be doing it in that
5
kind of highly visible environment.
6
Secondly, people that are paying approximately
7
$150,000 for these lots are not likely to put up with
8
graffiti on their fence that has a direct impact on their
9
image and the image of their neighborhood and their home.
10
As far as what could be done, the fence will
11
have a stain on it. It's likely that we would simply be
12
able to paint over the graffiti. We're looking into
•
13
pretreatments that make it easier to clean graffiti. And as
14
a worst -case scenario, since the fence is made of wood
15
components, pickets could simply be replaced in order to
16
make sure that the problem is solvable.
17
In summary, I just want to reiterate that the
18
purpose of the fence is really two -fold. It's simply to
19
buffer, to provide a buffer between the Lemay traffic, which
20
is constant and steady, and the homes to be built upon --
21
along Warren -- Harbor Walk Lane, excuse me.
22
We've listened to the neighborhood. We feel
23
like we've really changed our fence design to address their
24
concerns. And we think we've hit on a very reasonable
25
compromise.
14
1 We look forward to hearing your comments, and I'm
2 available to answer questions. Dr. Balloffett is here. I'm
3 going to let him talk about sound a little bit, both the
4 nature of sound and his evaluation of this particular site.
5 DR. BALLOFFETT: Good evening. It's a pleasure
6 to address the Board on this issue. What I'll not do this
7 evening in the three or four minutes I have is make everyone
8 here a sound expert. I'm not expecting that. But in doing
9 this for a long time, I find that it's important to set some
10 basic ideas down about noise and sound and how we measure
11 those items and what they mean so that we can be comparing
12 apples and apples.
13 I have here a -- not sure how visible, but it's
14 a scale that shows common noise levels. First of all, we
15 need to distinguish between sound and noise. Sound is a
16 physical phenomenon that has to do with air pressure changes
17 in the atmosphere around us. Noise is how we perceive that
18 sound. And we perceive sounds different ways.
19 A rock band at 120 decibels can be considered
20 noise by some. By others, it may not be noise in different
21 circumstances. So there's a lot of subjectivity having to
22 do with noise and sound.
23 I've put this scale up to show a number of
24 things. First of all, subjective evaluations. And I'm not
25 sure it's completely in focus here, but noise is up in the
15
1
jet engine or at the motorcycle level is considered
2
deafening. I think we understand that. Auto horns very
3
loud. Urban street or noisy factory can be in this very
4
loud.
5
And if you notice, this red indicates one set of
6
standards that is often used from HUD, Housing and Urban
7
Development agency, where they consider noises in these
8
ranges to be unacceptable. The yellow gives us a range of
9
normally unacceptable, so we should do something about it.
10
And the green is normally acceptable.
11
But I bet I could come and measure a dog barking
12
down the street at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, and it'll be
13
around 40, strictly in the green. Do we perceive it as
14
noise? Sure. So we need to understand the subjective
15
nature of noise.
16
I put on here also, last Thursday morning,
17
during the peak hour, I went out and measured the noise on
18
Lemay, right across from lot 7 at Harbor Walk. And I got
19
LEQ of six decibels. That is at a position right on the
20
right-of-way line. This is Lemay, looking south. And
21
that's the position of the sound level meter last week.
22
68 decibels, if we go back for a moment, is in
23
this yellow band for purposes of a standard from HUD. And
24
it would be normally not acceptable as a noise level.
25
That's right on the edge of the right-of-way. The houses on
16
1 Harbor Walk will be farther back, probably twice as far back
2 from the center line of Lemay.
3 There is something that we need to know about
4 sound and how we measure it, and that is that decibels are a
5 logarithmic scale, and that when we add and subtract energy
6 levels, we do so in a different sort of way than
7 arithmetically. And we'll get to that in a few minutes.
8 But fundamentally, when we have a problem noise,
9 and at 68 decibels, which is reduced to about 65 at the
10 houses themselves, because of the distance -- we double the
11 distance, we lower by three decibels -- we can do something
12 about it, and what we do is take a look at one of the major
13 three items involved in noise, and that is, the source of
14 the noise. We can do something about that, possibly, like
15 lower the speeds on Lemay, perhaps, or something like that,
16 or make quieter cars. We can put something between the
17 noise and the receiver, or we can do something about the
18 receiver.
19 And what is done most often with traffic noise,
20 where it's possible, is that something is put to cut the
21 path between the source.and the receiver. To cut this
22 straight line, line of view path, between the two, these two
23 aspects, of the noise equation.
24 When we do that, any reasonably solid noisy
25 wall, even if it's not very tall, as long as the line of
L
17
1
sight is cut, and Linda talked about that, will get you
2
about five decibels or six decibels reduction. Since we are
3
at about 65 now, as I said, at the houses, if we go back to
4
the scale again, we were at 68 right at the street, 65 at
5
the houses. If we put a barrier there, we get down to 60,
6
which puts us in the green or moderate area of noise
7
acceptability.
8
The bottom line, then, is that the noise levels
9
will be reduced to what the HUD acceptable noise levels are,
10
using this wall. And there is lot more that we can talk
11
about. We can talk about decibel addition and so forth, but
12
in the interests of time, I'll be happy to answer questions
•
13
later on. I hope this explains the need for the wall and
14
what we are hoping to accomplish. Thank you.
15
MS. BELL: Is there anything else that the
16
applicant would like to say to us at this point?
17
Are there any questions of the Board by the
18
applicant at this point?
19
MR. BYRNE: Dr. Balloffett, a quick question for
20
you. I am looking at a document called the Land Use
21
Policies Plan, which is one of the guiding principles of how
22
we do development in our community. And item 44 states very
23
clearly, and this was -- this was created back in 1977, I
24
believe. "The City shall adopt and implement Federal and
.
25
State noise regulations and established noise impact zones
m
1 surrounding airports, railroad lines, and major arterials,
2 only allowing development to occur which effectively
3 mitigates the negative noise impact in the noise impact
4 zone." Are you familiar with that statement in the --
5
DR.
BALLOFFETT: I'm not familiar with that
6
statement. I'm familiar with the regulations you're talking
7
about, yes.
8
MR.
BYRNE: Okay. Now, you mentioned the HUD
9
standards.
10
DR.
BALLOFFETT: Right.
11
MR.
BYRNE: If a community is in violation of
12
those, they're
not enforceable. I mean --
13
DR.
BALLOFFETT: That's correct.
14
MR.
BYRNE: They're basically --
15
DR.
BALLOFFETT: They're guidelines.
16
MR.
BYRNE: Right. And in your estimation, are
17
we -- we're over the 60 whatever it is, 65 --
18
DR.
BALLOFFETT: 65 day -night noise average
19
level, yes. We're slightly over that or just on the verge
20
of that at the
homes on Harbor Walk.
21
MR.
BYRNE: And Lemay is -- I might be wrong on
22
this, but as an arterial street, is probably not one of the
23
more heavily traveled arterial streets. I know that Shields
24
Street and College
Avenue are certainly --
25
DR.
BALLOFFETT: Much higher level. So is
11
0
0
19
1
Harmony.
2
MR.
BYRNE: So they're a much higher
level.
3
DR.
BALLOFFETT: Right.
4
MR.
BYRNE: So this is a condition that
as we
5
grow, we can expect more of that kind of thing,
because
6
people are -- you know, as you say, it's noise.
It's
7
unwanted sound.
8
DR.
BALLOFFETT: Right.
9
MR.
BYRNE: That's it. Thanks.
10
MR.
GAVALDON: The question I have is
regarding
11
the other side
of the fence, as a person would,
say, go from
12
Golden Meadows,
have you done any studies there
to measure
13
decibel levels
and what those numbers would be?
14
DR.
BALLOFFETT: On the other side of
which
15 fence?
16 MR. GAVALDON: Looking on the other side of the
17 street. You spoke mainly about Harbor Walk, but I want to
18 look at Golden Meadows and analyze their data a little bit
19 to see what the fence would do without -- what it would do
20 without the fence and with the fence.
21 DR. BALLOFFETT: Okay. In my opinion, there
22 will be little or no impact on Golden Meadows from the
23 fence, if you're meaning reflections from Lemay. There's a
24 number of reasons for that.
25 The first reason is that the maximum increase
20
1 that you can have in decibels, if you had a perfectly
2 reflecting wall, perfectly reflecting back to the receivers,
3 would be three decibels. The wall itself is not creating
4 any additional energy, and the energy indicated, when you
5 double the energy level, you're increasing by three
6 decibels.
7 However, you will not have a perfectly reflecting
8 situation, and you will also have additional distance
9 working in your favor. The distance to the closest Golden
10 Meadows property line from where the southern end of that
11 wall, it's about 250 feet. If we assume that the wall was
12 reflecting perfectly and that point of the wall, we had 65
13 decibels, approximately, that's a five-foot distance. If
14 you take that distance and multiply it by five, you're going
15 to lose between six and eight decibels.
16 When you -- I hate to get into this jargon, but
17 when you get into decibel addition, you realize that -- let
18 me see if I have a slide here. When you add or subtract two
19 numbers using decibels, if the difference between the
20 numbers is in the order of zero to one decibels, you would
21 modify, you would add, say, to the larger number, three
22 decibels.
23 If you are in this range, you would deal with one
24 or zero decibels, and what I mean by that, being in this
25 range, is, that the folks on Golden Meadows that are closest
•
•
0
21
1 to Lemay, they're getting 65 to 68 decibels directly from
2 Lemay with no reflection at all. The maximum reflection,
3 because of the distance from the fence to the closest
4 property line, would be six to eight decibels less than the
5 direct Lemay contribution.
6 If you're in this range, that's one decibel
7 difference; if you have perfect reflection; if you don't
8 have an embankment that is going to absorb and reflect in a
9 different direction a lot of the noise.
10 So, again, from my personal opinion, that's not
11 going to happen. And at the most, you would find about a
12 one decibel difference, and that is considerably -- that's
13 not normally noticeable by human beings. I mean, we start
14 noticing differences between noise level at a two -to
15 three -decibel difference between two noises.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
17 MS. BELL: Sir, perhaps you've already answered
18 this, but we currently have a fence, privacy fence, now an
19 abatement fence, whatever we want to call it along Golden
20 Meadows. Is that correct?
21 DR. BALLOFFETT: There is a cedar privacy fence,
22 I believe.
23
MS.
BELL: And
we have another example of fencing
24
south of this
project. Is
that also right?
25
DR.
BALLOFFETT:
I believe so, yes.
22
1 MS. BELL: So were decibel levels taken in those
2 areas where we -- I mean, that's right in the field there,
3 and would be a really good example of what a fence would do
4 for sound abatement, so were levels taken in those areas,
5 too?
6 DR. BALLOFFETT: You mean, across from those
7 fences. No, I didn't take any measurements across from
8 those fences.
9 MS. BELL: Thank you.
10 MR. COLTON: Yeah, one other question on the
11 noise level to the actual lots themselves. You say that
12 there's 68 across the street from lot 7, and that you
13 calculated it would be three less because the distance is
14 doubled. I'm wondering if you took some actual measurements
15 up in those lots, because I'm not sure what the impact of
16 that bank is. My thought is that some of it would be
17 deflected for the bank the way it currently is. So do you
18 have some actual --
19 DR. BALLOFFETT: I don't have any measurements up
20 there. Some of it would be deflected, but essentially, if
21 you have a direct line of sight between where you're
22 standing and your ear is, the source of the noise, that
23 embankment is not going to have any embankment. It's only
24 if the embankment were to cut that direct line of sight.
25 That embankment.
23
•
1
MR. COLTON: Okay. I may want to see the
2
line -of -sight slide again just to see kind of where the
3
angle is from the street up to the front of those houses.
4
MS. BELL: Yeah, I'm following up on that. If I
5
were in my bedroom in my two-story house, which is going to
6
be way up there and back, you know, what is the sound going
7
-- I mean, what kind of -- I don't see any drawings that
8
show that line of sight. That's right.
9
MS. RIPLEY: That wouldn't help on the second
10
level. We're only talking about the fence helping,
11
basically, the entry, you know, as you enter your house,
12
when you're in your front yard.
13
MS. BELL: Like the bottom level of the first
14
story?
15
MS. RIPLEY: Uh-huh.
16
MR. GAVALDON: I want to get back and look at
17
the fence along that three -feet -high. I notice that you
18
went from five to three, going to the northern part, to lot
19
15. So by going to three feet, are we compromising anything
20
on the decibel levels?
21
MS. RIPLEY: No, we're not. Basically, we have
22
a higher -- we're up higher -- we have a higher wall at the
23
three-foot wall than we do at the five-foot wall, because
24
the bank itself is just a little over 12 feet high at that
25
end. Therefore, we only need a three-foot high wall to
24
1 accomplish basically the same objectives.
2 MR. GAVALDON: If you add vegetation to all
3 that, how would that affect the data of decibel measures?
4 MS. RIPLEY: If we added what?
5 DR. BALLOFFETT: That's often done, and that
6 goes back to the subjective aspect of noise. Vegetation, at
7 the thicknesses which we're talking about, which would only
8 be a few feet of shrubbery there, really wouldn't change the
9 noise measurements at all. However, it would change
10 people's perceptions. If you couldn't see the source of the
11 noise, you would somehow feel it was less noisy. You would
12 need something on the order of a hundred feet of vegetation
13 to get the effect of a single noise wall.
14 MR. GAVALDON: Does that include trees? You
15 were just talking shrubbery there for a minute.
16 DR. BALLOFFETT: Trees, shrubbery, again.
17 Anything. But you need a long depth of vegetation of
18 roughly 30 meters or so to start getting the effect you
19 would get from this kind of noise wall.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
21 DR. BALLOFFETT: Just from the physical
22 perspective.
23 MR. GAVALDON: But, however, aesthetics?
24 DR. BALLOFFETT: Aesthetics and then perceptions
25 of how people perceive noise. Like we mentioned, a rock
25
1
band or a dog barking at the wrong time. There's a lot of
2
subjectivity in noise, as you know.
3
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
4
MS. BELL: I'd like to suggest, if it's okay
5
with the Board, that maybe we move on at this point, and we
6
can direct our questions.
7
So let's move on to the public input portion of
8
it. And just to review for the public how we do this. If
9
you are a group, an organized group, who would like to
10
present to us tonight, you do have 30 minutes, and those
11
people who just want to speak as individuals have five
12
minutes. Could you show me right now how many people are
13
here to talk to us on this -- just by a raise of hands
14 tonight?
15 Okay. Are you all from the same group? Are you
16 individuals? Who's from the group that -- is there a
17 group? Just so I can judge the amount of time here.
18 MS. NEWLIN: We have a hard time judging the
19 amount of time, too, and we're not an organized group.
20 We're very amateur about this. And I don't know who all
21 wants to speak. I know what some people wanted to say, and
22 we'll try our best not to repeat ourselves and not to take
23 up any more of your time than necessary. But if you will
24 forgive us for our amateur status, we'd appreciate it very
25 much.
•
I MS. BELL: And there was somebody in the back?
2 (Inaudible.)
3 MS. BELL: Okay. Why don't we just -- what?
4 (Inaudible.)
5 MS. BELL: Why don't we go -- it sounds like
6 mostly we're just here as individuals, so let's go with our
7 five minutes per person.
8 If you could try to use both mikes so people --
9 so we can help roll things along, and give us your name and
10 sign in, and go ahead.
11 MS. NEWLIN: Okay. My name is Sandy Newlin, and
12 I live at 4112 Mount Vernon Court in Golden Meadows. I
13 don't represent the Golden Meadows Homeowners Association,
14 but I will try to speak for those who don't want a fence or
15 a wall at the top of the embankment between South Lemay and
16 Harbor Walk Drive.
17 I have an additional ten signatures to the
18 statement that we sent you on the 2nd of August to enter
19 into the record. Can I just . . . .
20 Part 2 of that statement we gave you is a
21 chronology which illustrates what a hard job we have had
22 bringing this issue before your Board.
23 Now we're really glad that the members of this
24 Board can hear all sides of the issue before making a
25 decision. This differs from the many meetings we were asked
•
27
1
to attend, and I must tell you, we were not all asked to
2
attend, and many people who were concerned were never
3
notified, but we went to these meetings if we heard about
4
them.
5
And we were presented with what were called
6
compromises. But they all involved a five- or a six-foot
7
solid fence or slab of some sort between Lemay and Harbor
8
Walk Drive at the top of the embankment.
9
Other compromises which avoid any man-made
10
structure at the top of the dam are possible, and I will
11
suggest several, but first our objectives, or our
12
objections.
•
13
Homeowners have certain reasonable expectations.
14
If they buy a home next to a vacant lot, they can expect to
15
have a development there. A dam is not a place where most
16
people expect houses will be built. That was allowed by the
17
City some years ago, and all we're asking now is that you
18
minimize the impact of that decision on us as much as
19
possible.
20
Also, homeowners who buy a home on a busy street
21
or next to an airport can expect there to be noise. If the
22
street is already there and if you don't want to see it or
23
hear it, then don't build or buy there.
24
We feel that the wall will be unpleasant to
25
drive by. It will be unneighborly and excluding. It is
NN
1 unique because it is not a boundary fence. Every other
2 fence you have been asked to look at represents the back
3 yard of somebody as it abuts the sidewalk or whatever. That
4 is not what this is. This is a slab between two streets and
5 represents no property boundary at all.
6 It's ugly, and the reason that I can say for
7 sure that it is, because if you will look at page 17, figure
8 1.3 of the visual preference survey for the City, you will
9 see that a structure very much like this has the second
10 lowest rating of all 240 views offered to the citizens.
11 We do think, however, it will be attractive in
12 one way. It will be an attractive billboard for teens with
13 spray paint. It is high up and it is visible. It will make
14 a marvelous sign board for all of them. It is not like any
15 other fence along Lemay. It,will be an absolute billboard.
16 It will make our homes noisier, and it is not
17 necessary. It is against the City's long-range plan;
18 Planning and Zoning should be even-handed with everyone.
19 Nine privileged homeowners should not be protected from what
20 the rest of us have to live with every day.
21 I think he quoted the 65 decibels for us and 68
22 for them. I also would like to point out that he did his
23 measurements, the photo that you saw where his microphone
24 was set up, was not from those lots. It was across the
25 street, closer to us. In fact, it sat on the edge of Mr.
29
1
Little's lot, the Greens at Collindale. He's the one who
2
will have that level, not the people that are 12 foot up and
3
35 or 40 feet back from Lemay.
4
MS. BELL: You've got about 30 more seconds.
5
MS. NEWLIN: Okay. Well, at any rate, I would
6
like to tell you about some possible compromises. They can
7
be landscaped. The homes can be moved back. They can be
8
turned sideways. They can be insulated. There can be fewer
9
windows. There can be a fence on the other side of that
10
street. Or you can wait two or three years and see if it's
11
really even necessary. Thank you.
12
MS. BELL: Thank you. I think what we'll do
13
is -- how did you have that set, that time, for four
14
minutes? Okay. You'll hear the little sound at four
15
minutes and know that you'll have one minute to go, then.
16
Sorry if I made that one a little too short.
17
Please let us know who you are and --
18
MR. THELEN: Certainly. My name's Bob Thelen. I
19
live at 1307 Ticonderoga. I'm an electrical engineer in
20
town. I don't have a Ph.D. in sound or sound measurements,'
21
but I do have an extensive physics background, which leads
22
me to believe that I'm capable to speak on the subject of
23
decibels and sound measurements and so forth.
24
I have taken a few measurements in and around
25
town to give -- to put the sound in perspective for you, and
30
1 I'd like to do that.
2 First of all, I'm not going to bore you with the
3 slide that the doctor went over, but I just want to point
4 out one thing, and that is that sound is measured on a log
5 scale, and normal conversation is in the range of 30 to 70
6 db. So if you were to take a decibel meter and measure my
7 voice without this microphone, it would probably measure
8 about 65 db. And the key factor that I want to point out is
9 that if I were to increase my voice by a factor of 10, it
10 would go up to 75 db. So that gives you an idea of the log
11 scale nature of sound.
12 I did take some measurements using a decibel
13 meter on the site, and I took some measurements in front of
14 my home, too, because I wanted to put it into perspective to
15 see what kind of traffic noise that I was subjected to on a
16 daily basis.
17 And I found some interesting things. First of
18 all, I went on the east -- or, excuse me, the west side of
19 Lemay, using the decibel meter right in front of lot Number
20 7. So I'm on the Lemay sidewalk in front of lot number 7,
21 and I measure noise, peak noise, in the range of 74 to 78
22 db.
23 And then -- and then I walked back onto the
24 sidewalk in front of lot number 7, because, you know, what
25 we're all interested in is the noise that those people are
31
1
going to experience, and that noise isn't the noise on
2
Lemay.
3
And what I noticed was that the peak noise
4
decreased by a factor of 10. And this is where I thought
5
the doctor's presentation was grossly inadequate, in that
6
the opportunity to make the measurement was there and he
7
never presented the data.
8
I did, and what you see is a'10 db reduction,
9
which I think is significant. 10 db, when you make these
10
noise measurements, it's relative. It's a relative
11
measurement. So when I stepped back onto the sidewalk of
12
Harbor Walk Lane, the noise decreased by a factor of 10.
.
13
Now, to put these measurements into perspective,
14
I said, well, what does this mean to me? So I put the
15
decibel meter up in front of my house on Ticonderoga, and I
16
measured noise in the range of 66 to 70 db, which I thought
17
was significantly similar to those -- to that noise that the
18
people in this new development will experience.
19
And so I was left with one thought, and that
20
was, is a fence really necessary to decrease a noise when,
21
in fact, people on normal residential streets are
22
experiencing similar types of levels, and what we'll have is
23
a fence -- what we'll have is a fence on top of a large
24
embankment that is not -- is not attractive at all and --
25
there you have it. So thank you.
•
32
1 MS. BELL: Thank you.
2 MR. LITTLE: Madame Chair, members of the Board,
3 my name is Gene Little, and I'm the developer of the Greens
4 at Collindale, which is directly across the street from
5 Harbor Walk.
6 And the question I wanted to ask you is, if you
7 had received in your packet of material a letter that I had
8 prepared to P and Z Board on August lst of 1996. Okay.
9 Thank you.
10 And also, had you received a copy of a letter
11 that I had written to Mr. Sollenberger on August 14th?
12 Okay. Thank you.
13 With that in mind, then, I simply want to make
14 some highlights on both those letters. My concern is, in
15 fact, for the patio homeowners who are going to reside on
16 our property and who will live directly across the street
17 from this proposed wall. I think it's unfortunate that my
18 homeowners are going to have their view of the foothills
19 taken away by the homes, but that is a reality. We knew
20 when we bought that property that we would not have that
21 view.
22 But at the same point, we understand that these
23 property owners would -- these property owners would have
24 their views further diminished by a solid wall that would
25 reach the skyline from the edge of our property, and we
33
1
walked our property today, just to make sure that the
2
statements I make to you tonight are correct; and the
3
reality is that a five-foot fence along Harbor Walk Drive
4
will, in fact, eliminate all view of any mountain range or
5
scenery from our property.
6
And I have suggested to Mr. Sollenberger and
7
also to the media that the City had hired, Mr. McHughes,
8
that there are some things that they can do that would both
9
benefit them from a sound barrier standpoint, if, in fact,
10
that is an issue, if sound truly is an issue. That would be
11
that they consider placing these fences directly in front of
12
the units on Harbor Walk.
13
Also, if they chose to put these fences or this
14
wall directly on the berm itself, the east side of Harbor
15
Walk Drive, in plain view of Lemay traffic, that they do so
16
in a way that would allow a break in the fence, so that you
17
would have a solid wall structure directly in front of those
18
units, but then a break between those units so there would
19
be an opening or gap. And then that would allow some view
20
to break through so that you wouldn't just be looking at a
21
solid mass of structure.
22
And of course, the third alternative is that
23
they simply enter a planting scape where they put shrubbery
24
or hedges or something, or even trees, spaced every so often
25
along that walkway, that would allow them the ability to
34
1 have some sound absorption.
2 And then finally, this just isn't an issue of
3 whether we want a wall or not. It's an issue of trying to
4 provide balance in a living environment, not only for the
5 Harbor Walk homeowners but also the homeowners that will
6 reside in the Greens at Collindale. Thank you.
7 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next, please? Thank you
8 to everyone. We're moving along really 'nicely:
9 MR. TOBIN: Good Evening. My name is Paul
10 Tobin. I live at 4212 Kingsbury Drive.
11 There are many reasons for which I question the
12 necessity of a sound abatement wall along Lemay Avenue at
13 Warren Lake. Briefly, I'd like to specifically, though,
14 address the visual impact of such a wall.
15 In the packet you received from Golden Meadows
16 residents a couple of weeks ago, I included a set of
17 photographs showing the area as it exists today. Among them
18 is a depiction of an existing wall placed where the proposed
19 wall would be. You can clearly see how a five-foot wall,
20 set on top of the existing sharp slope, serves to isolate
21 views of the foothills and create a concrete canyon along
22 that stretch of Lemay.
23 Other photographs show existing graffiti both on
24 Warren Lake dam and in the newly -laid curb. The proximity
25 of this wall to a site already prone to defacement is simply
35
1
an invitation for vandals to ply their trade on another
2
highly visible surface.
3
For these reasons and others, I see no need for
4
this sound abatement wall. Thank you.
5
MS. BELL: Thank you.
6
MR. BARNARD: I have a statement that I'd like
7
to put in the record and copy to the Board members, please.
8
My name is Bill Barnard. I live at 4100 Mount
9
Vernon Court in Golden Meadows. My home is one of a number
10
in Golden Meadows from which the occupants can see the top
11
of the dam where the development is taking place, and the
12
occupants will be able to see that from their windows, from
•
13
their patios, from their decks, from their back yards.
14
Our position is that we feel the need for a wall
15
or a fence has not been demonstrated, and our preference is
16
no wall at all.'
17
I'd like to address the apparent City's position
18
on this issue, taken from two City documents. One is the
19
results of the Visual Preference Study. And the other is
20
the Community Vision and Goals.
21
On the Visual Preference Study, Sandy has
22
already talked about the photograph. This was a photograph
23
of an embankment similar in size and slope to the one that
24
exists with a wall or some sort of fences on top of it. And
25
1500 residents who participated in this study thought that
36
1 it was ugly. We do, too.
2 In the Community Vision and Goals document,
3 several references appear relevant. For starters, on page
4 55, it says, "The City will involve citizens in planning and
5 decision -making processes of government." This, of course,
6 is why we're here.
7 On page 27, it says, "Our community streets and
8 walkways wi•11 be planned, built, and maintained as
9 attractive public spaces." The wall on the embankment is
10 not attractive in our eyes, nor in the eyes of the public,
11 as shown in the Visual Preference Study.
12 On page 29, it says, "The design of streets will
13 complement the distinctive character of their respective
14 districts or neighborhoods, and will serve to connect rather
15 than separate adjoining neighborhoods." It also says,
16 "Residential neighborhoods will develop as interconnected
17 parts of a broader community, extensively linked to a
18 generous range of settings and activity."
19 Our position is that the wall will tend to
20 isolate and separate the, quote, California high equity
21 people. That's a -- a statement from Mr. Sollenberger in
22 the newspaper a few weeks ago. These people from California
23 who buy these lots and build homes. It'll separate them
24 from the rest of the community. Maybe that's what they
25 want.
37
1
On page 49. "Important natural areas will be
2
preserved and protected." The City abrogated its
3
responsibility in this area when it allowed the lake to be
4
filled in. However, that's a closed issue, and really not
5
relevant tonight.
6
On page 31, it says, "Community design will
7
include views of the foothills and mountains as a physical
8
feature, to be given basic consideration in the arrangement
9
of streets and other public outdoor spaces." Our primary
10
view of the foothills and mountains was destroyed when
11
houses were built on the dam, but the wall will further
12
interfere with our enjoyment of view to the west.
13
I should point out that these two documents have
14
been adopted as elements of the Fort Collins Comprehensive
15
Plan and, as such, are City policy.
16
One other point. There are four -- or three
17
houses that have been on top of the dam for about four
18
years. Mr. Sollenberger told us at one of your meetings
19
that offered to provide the wall or fence in front of these
20
houses with no -- no mention of cost, and all three of the
21
occupants declined. This would seem to indicate that noise
22
abatement is not an issue, and there is really no need at
23
all for a wall. Thank you.
24
MR. OBSSUTH: My name George Obssuth. I live at
25
Cape Cod Circle in Golden Meadows, and I'm president of the
M
1 Golden Meadows Homeowners Association. May I ask a
2 question, quick question, of Dr. Balloffett?
3 MS. BELL: I think we'd just prefer that you
4 give a presentation, and if you have a question, present it
5 to us, and we'll make sure he gets --
6 MR. OBSSUTH: All right. My question was this:
7 I believe that most of us don't think in decibels, and my
8 impression, although somewhat amateur, is that sound
9 diminishes by square of the distance, which means if you
10 doubled a distance, it sounds one-fourth as loud.
11 I think that's a different impression than
12 decibels. And if that's true, then subjectively, sound at
13 the distance he measured and the sound where homes would be,
14 which is approximately twice as far back, I believe, would
15 sound one-fourth as loud, unless I'm wrong. That was my
16 question. I'd like to get that out of decibels where we
17 can.
18 Also, most of my objections have already been
19 very nicely stated. I just have one or two things I'd like
20 to reiterate.
21 One is the uniqueness of this wall. As Sandy
22 said, this wall is wall between two parallel roads and is
23 not at property wall or a boundary wall.
24 Number two, we're talking aesthetics before
25 sound abatement. If you have driven south on Lemay where
39
•
1
this dam is, you realize how steep and high that is, and the
2
angle from the road there to the top is already quite steep,
3
30 or 40 degrees high, and the addition of the wall
4
increases it tremendously.
5
I'm glad this picture was left here, because this
6
gives us somewhat -- it's truthful but still exaggerated.
7
The sound comes from the engine and the tires of the car,
8
not from some space above the top of the roof. Therefore,
9
that angle is actually a much steeper angle. Steep enough
10
that, in fact, in most cases, the wall -- or the dam itself
11
would probably block the sound.
12
Also just to address few things. Number one,
13
I'm somewhat surprised that nobody's taken decibel readings
14
at the position where the homes will be. I find that
15
interesting. And somewhat curious.
16
All the other issues have been addressed, so I'm
17
going to keep it very brief. Again, I do feel this wall is
18
unique. I think that when looked at from southbound on
19
Lemay, not from the golf course, not from the other side of
20
the street, southbound on Lemay, and then drive by that and
21
try to appreciate what a wall on top of that would be.
22
I would like to thank the efforts that were made
23
to mediate this issue and to get us into hearings, which at
24
first, were not included. We're thankful for that. Thank
25
you.
40
1 MS. BELL: Thank you. Are there any other folks
2 who would like to address us tonight?
3 MS. ROSIGA: Hi. My name is Lynn Rosiga. I
4 live at 607 Warren Landing and also own the lot at 639, 19
5 Harbor Walk Lane.
6 Thanks for giving me the opportunity to voice my
7 opinion. I've lived in Colorado for 27 years. I did not
8 come from California. And we've raised family here and had
9 a chance to see Fort Collins grow and prosper.
10 And I realize there are some people who don't
11 like to see growth, although we feel like it's inevitable.
12 And part of that growth would be something similar to the
13 sound barrier wall.
14 When the wall is built and landscaped, I feel it
15 will provide the needed protection that we expect. We'd all
16 like to continue to see those horses roam across the street
17 on the east side of Lemay, but that's just something that's
18 not going to happen. That's going to change. And we need
19 to accept that.
20 Also, when those duplexes are built there, we're
21 going to be looking at the roof tops. We understood that,
22 and we're willing to accept it.
23 And I hope that Planning and Zoning will approve
24 the wall, in keeping with the master PUD. Thanks.
25 MS. BELL: Thank you.
41
1
MR. WESTFALL: Good evening. I'm Dwayne
2
Westfall. I live at 1312 Ticonderoga Drive, Fort Collins.
3
And thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my
4
opinion regarding what we, the citizens of Golden Meadows,
5
have termed "the wall."
6
The previous citizens that have spoke against
7
this have very well outlined the reasons why we do not feel
8
this is good for our environment or good for the community.
9
So therefore, for that reason, I will not go into a lengthy
10
reiteration of this.
11
Therefore, I would like to just reinforce the
12
previous comments and to maybe emphasize a comment that was
13
made by the landscape architecture -- landscape architect.
14
She made a mistake by saying, well, we have a 15-foot wall,
15
essentially, when she said there was a 10-foot embankment
16
and a 5-foot wall, and that's essentially what they're
17
talking about. There's already a 10-foot embankment there.
18
At a minimum, 15 foot at one end, so therefore, essentially,
19
what they're requesting, is the wall on top of embankment,
20
which amounts to effectively a 15-foot barrier of some kind,
21
whether it's a natural barrier, because of the dam, or else
22
with the addition of the wall on top of it.
23
Myself, I look directly out -- the picture was
24
taken at approximately -- position number 2 is approximately
25
my location. I look directly out, and from my kitchen, and
42
1 from my patio and garden in the back, I have had the
2 opportunity to look over the dam for many years. I
3 recognize that as going away. Myself, I'd just as soon look
4 at a 300 to a 500 thousand dollar home on the dam than a
5 five-foot wall, and that is my stance there.
6 And so therefore, I hope that you will deny the
7 developer's request for construction from a three- to a
8 five-foot wall on an embankment that is already from ten to
9 fifteen feet high, and, in my opinion, there's little
10 purpose in this, and it only serves as an exclusionary
11 mechanism for the residents in this area. Thank you.
12 MS. BELL: Thank you. Is there anybody else who
13 would like to come down and speak to us tonight?
14 MR. KEANE: Madame Chairman, members of the
15 Board, my name is Kevin Keane. I reside at 4106 Attleboro
16 Court in Golden Meadows.
17 Without going over the arguments, I wanted to
18 suggest a possible option for the development which might
19 take care of all the needs regarding line of sight and sound
20 abatement. Although I'm dubious about that. A group of us
21 did go up during one of the mediation meetings, before it,
22 and walked back from the road into each lot, and the
23 diminution in sound as you go step by step is remarkable, so
24 by the time as you are at the -- at least as we counted it
25 off, where the front of a home would be, there is almost no
43
1
audible sound from Lemay. It's quite low.
2
But what occurred to me is that a low fence, low
3
wall, say, two and a half, three feet, would provide
4
precisely, if I understand the geometrics of this right,
5
precisely the same protection or abatement of line -- of
6
objectionable line of sight used, pardon me, and sound, if
7
the homes were moved back ten feet.
8
What occurred to me as a possible solution would
9
be to build a low wall, nicely covered with greenery, say,
10
ivy, and for the developer to provide each homeowner, as he
11
or she purchases his lot and his home, the option of
12
choosing ten more feet of back yard or ten feet fewer, the
13
trade-off being more or less sound at the front door.
14
This would have the advantage, to me, of
15
preserving the integrity of what is now one of the most
16
beautiful streets in our area of Fort Collins. It's not
17
quite as good as it was. The landscaping on the median used
18
to be magnificent. It's now a little bit less. But still,
19
it's a well -planned, well -designed example of a beautiful
20
street.
21
And it will also allow the homeowners purchasing
22
to make a trade-off. More land in the back, where, I
23
presume -- and the landscape architect said this herself --
24
most of the homeowners will want to.spend most of their
25
time; or move the lot back, sacrifice that a little bit, and
44
1 as I understand it, get precisely the same, perhaps even an
2 enhanced abatement of both objectionable sight and sound.
3 That would provide, I think, some screening to the cars
4 parking and also preserving what is a rather pleasing
5 prospect at the moment.
6 There's some other concerns that haven't been
7 mentioned connected to a higher fence. One that concerns me
8 is a micro -climate issue. Warren Lake dam does provide a
9 spillover of fog during the winter, during extreme cold, and
10 this contributes to an icing in that area of the street.
11 I'm concerned that a high fence, five feet or so, would tend
12 to block solar radiation and worsen that situation to some
13 degree.
14 But in any case, I do hope you will consider, at
15 a very high level of priority, the present aesthetics of
16 that street and what we might do to preserve it. Thank you.
17 MS. BELL: Thank you. Is there anyone else.
18 Okay. That seems to be it, so I'm going to close
19 the public input portion of this Harbor Walk discussion, and
20 bring it back to the applicant, who can give us maybe five
21 minutes for a rebuttal.
22 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm
23 going to go real quickly because my client would also like a
24 few words.
25 Some of the notes I took, one, that perhaps this
45
•
1
is a fence that's intended to make this an exclusive
2
neighborhood. That was never our objective. It's -- in my
3
mind, it's not that relevant whether the fence is a back
4
yard or a front yard.
5
The fact is these people live along an arterial
6
street which, to me, is very different than living on a
7
local, regardless of how much sound there is. If I lived in
8
an arterial street and had the sheer numbers of cars that
9
are on Lemay now and the increase that we expect in the
10
future, I wouldn't want to look at it every time I came to
11
my house. So the purpose is to block out the view as well
12
as the sound.
•
13
Kevin was correct when he said a lower fence
14
would block out the source of the sound. That's -- I think
15
that's basically true. That only a lower fence would block
16
out the tires. But it would not block out seeing the tops
17
of the trucks whizzing by on those outside lanes. So for
18
that reason, we felt we wanted to stick with the five-foot
19
fence on the portion of the dam that is not as tall.
20
I wanted to clarify, there seemed to be some
21
confusion about how high the bank is. Probably should go
22
back to the plan.
23
Okay. This section here goes from lot 7 through
24
lot 11. Along that stretch, the bank is approximately eight
25
and a half feet high. The addition of a five-foot fence
46
1 will give us approximately thirteen and a half foot of
2 height.
3 On lot 11, our differential goes to nine and a
4 half feet. At lot 13, the differential goes to eleven and a
5 half feet. So that's the 165 feet that we're proposing of
6 four -foot fence. Then when the bank itself gets towards
7 twelve feet high, we drop down to a three-foot fence, for an
8 overall height fence plus bank of approximately 15 feet.
9 Someone mentioned concrete canyon. I definitely
10 want to say that we're building a wood fence, a very
11 attractive double -sided wood fence, with very stout wood
12 columns, approximately 10 to 12 inches wide, with a copper
13 flashing cap along the whole thing. So the fence is not
14 really an ugly wall that we conjure up sometimes when we
15 think sound abatement wall, but it's a very attractive
16 residential -style fence.
17 I agree with someone who said the view -- and
18 I'm sorry I didn't prepare a slide of it. It was a mistake
19 on my part. The fence would appear taller going down Lemay,
20 headed south. However, remember, that we're not doing the
21 fence at all for this first portion for that very lone
22 reason, because this is where that is that very tall bank
23 where you're coming around and you have a view of that.
24 We decided to not put a fence at all from here to
25 here. It's only three feet high. From here to here, it's
47
1
four. And for the remainder, it goes up to five. So we
2
felt by eliminating the fence at the north end and dropping
3
it down substantially, we've corrected any chance of having
4
a canyon -like feel there, which is not something we'd want
5
for our community.
6
I'm going to let Mike address the issues that he
7
wanted to. Thank you.
8
MR. SOLLENBERGER: Just a couple of quick ones,
9
and I want Dr. Balloffett, then, to be able to answer
10
questions that were raised.
11
Everyone knows about being misquoted in the
12
paper. The six buyers we have right now, all of whom --
13
five of whom are Fort Collins residents and one is from
14
Boulder. So there is not an invasion of Californians, no
15
matter what the Coloradoan seemed to indicate that I said.
16
We looked at walls with breaks. When I got
17
Gene's letter, I talked to Dr. Balloffett. He said that any
18
wall with no more than ten percent penetration does not
19
work at all, zero, for sound attenuation. It can't have
20
breaks and do what we want to for sound. We think we've
21
compromised a great deal in bringing the wall down to its
22
minimum height and still do some good for us on sound.
23
The setback idea was brought up in the various
24
neighborhood meetings. We studied that. It's not very
25
feasible. We get an inconsistency then of setbacks, which
•
1 has its own problems from the documents that have been
2 recorded. It also is not aesthetically very
good to have
3 varying setbacks. And
with -- again, with some
response to
4 Kevin's idea, we think
we've done a good job
of mitigating
5 by dropping the height
of the fence.
6 Thank you.
And if you'd like to
address Dr.
7 Balloffett.
8 MS. BELL: Thank you. I think at this point,
9 we'll just close the rebuttal portion, and I'm sure the
10 Board will have some questions for Mr. Balloffett.
11 So let's go ahead and open it up to the Board.
12 MR. COLTON: Ted, I think in our packet, the
13 recommendation from staff was approval. Can you go into
14 your rationale for that, please.
15 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, our recommendation is that
16 this is a compromise. It's not the ideal solution for
17 either party. Such is the nature of a compromise, that each
18 party leaves the table with some of their needs met but not
19 all; and clearly, you've heard that both parties have spent
20 some time in looking at this issue.
21 We looked at the perimeter of subdivisions
22 throughout the city. There are perimeter walls and fences
23 throughout subdivisions throughout the older part of the
24 city, the not -so -old part of the city, the new part of the
25 city. Huntington Hills is an example of a new wall that was
•
•
•
49
1
built.
2
We
looked at the views. Unless you're doing a
3
cluster plan in
the RF zone, there is no City ordinance that
4
protects views.
5
We
looked at the canyon effect, the privacy
6
issues, and the
fact that lot 16 will not have a fence and
7
the first five
lots will not have a fence. Therefore, the
8
canyon effect
is minimized.
9
We
looked at the varying heights, and that will
10
also mitigate
some of the impact.
11
We
looked at the fact that there will be
12
landscaping mitigation.
There will be shrub beds in front
13
of this fence.
There will be 12 additional street trees
14
planted at the
minimum of two inches in caliber. That will
15
add nicely to
the streetscape.
16
We
looked at the relative length of the fence.
17
414 feet will
be five feet. 166 feet will be four feet.
18
167 feet will
be three feet. There are longer fences in the
19
City.
20
We looked
at the fact that the sidewalks on
21
Lemay Avenue will be
enhanced by the streetscaping. In
22
addition,
Harbor Walk
Lane will remain a public street, for
23
those who
would like
to walk up on Harbor Walk Lane.
24
There are
fences in the area. There are sound
25
abatement
walls just
to the north at the Nelson Farm that
50
1 have not had graffiti. They've been in existence and they
2 were built before sound abatement.
3 We think that the context of the general
4 environment is that the homes that will be built up on the
5 embankment will be the most imposition, the view, or the
6 character, or the perception of the general area, in that
7 the fence is relatively small vis-a-vis those homes. Those
8 homes could be anywhere from 28 to 35 feet in height. The
9 fence will be five feet, maximum. We think the fence is, in
10 relative context, minor compared to the homes that could be
11 built.
12 The size and the scale are consistent with new
13 development in the City of Fort Collins. It's not the most
14 desirable thing from the neighbors' perspective, because
15 they treasure what's there now, and we heard that loud and
16 clear, and we're very sympathetic to that. We know that
17 it's a change, and as one of the neighbors put very
18 succinctly, the construction of the homes is, to them, the
19 biggest insult. The fence is adding to that. But we think
20 it adds to that in a very minor way in terms of the context
21 of what could be built up there.
22 We know this is a very emotional issue. Fences
23 are emotional. Change in the landscape is emotional. And
24 our recommendation is based on the fact that this is a
25 compromise that allows both parties to walk away with a
51
1
little bit of something.
2
MS. BELL: Ted, could you also comment, any
3
number of folks mentioned this is not a boundary fence, you
4
know, there seemed to be a distinction in people's minds
5
between fences that we might see, oh, along the back of
6
Shields that are the back yard property line type fences
7
versus this one that's up against the road, and there's a
8
street and sidewalk and everything in between. Is that
9
typical sort --
10
MR. SHEPARD: The sound abatement wall for Nelson
11
Farm Estates is not on a property line, either. It is a
12
pure, out-and-out sound abatement wall that was constructed
13
to block the noise on Lemay.
14
Generally speaking, fences have a variety of
15
purposes. Some fences break at the cul-de-sac. Some
16
don't. Paragon Point does a nice job of that. But by and
17
large, the fences do separate a rear yard or a side yard
18
situation from what then would become a common tract or open
19
space that is maintained by the homeowners association, but
20
rarely also do we have a situation where you have a local
21
street that parallels an arterial street.
22
MS. BELL: Other Board questions? Mike?
23
MR. BYRNE: One of the kind of the nagging
24
questions I have is how this item is before us. If I'm
25
going to build a privacy fence and I live on Shields Street,
52
1 then I believe all I have to do is comply with what is
2
currently the standard. Isn't that true?
3
MR.
SHEPARD: There is no fencing permit that
4
you would have
to pull. Your zoning code requirement that
5
you would have
to observe is that the fence not exceed six
6
feet in height.
7
MR.
BYRNE: So help me understand why -- is it
8
simply because
when there was a condition placed back in --
9
help me out here --
10
MR.
SHEPARD: Oh, back during --
11
MR.
BYRNE: 1990.
12
MR.
SHEPARD: There was a replat of the first
13
six lots.
14
MR.
BYRNE: I mean, throughout town, we've got
15
privacy fences
all over the place, right?
16
MR.
SHEPARD: Yes, they do.
17
MR.
BYRNE: They never come before us.
18
MR.
SHEPARD: Well, you see them on a PUD, a
19
planned unit development.
The fencing is part of the
20
landscape plan
that the Board looks at, and the Board
21
evaluates the
landscape plan as part of the PUD documents;
22
and that's one
of the things that staff reviews, and it's
23
one of the things
that we present to the Board as part of a
24
package, such
as Paragon Point, Miramont, Huntington Hills.
25
All
of those PUDs included a fencing schematic
.
53
1
or a fencing diagram that was part of the PUD that the Board
2
reviews.
3
MR. BYRNE: Okay, good. And then in -- help me
4
out again here. In general terms, we do have -- we do have
5
some standards or some guidelines in terms of fencing. Or
6
is everyone a fresh -- we take a fresh look at everything
7
that comes along?
8
MR. SHEPARD: Well, we do, and for one reason is
9
we don't want every fence in the City to look alike. We
10
want the developers along arterial streets to be creative.
11
We want them to look at different masonry products. We want
12
them to look at different heights and different columns and
13
different materials. That way, we don't have the same look
14
down all of our arterial streets that you find in other
15
communities.
16
We work, as you know, in the PUD negotiations.
17
We work to upgrade a lot of our materials that go into
18
entry features, open space elements, enhancing storm water
19
retention ponds, and perimeter fencing. So we negotiate,
20
usually successfully, with developers to upgrade their
21
fences in PUDs so they're not just a straight dog-eared,
22
six-foot, untreated cedar picket fence.
23
MR. BYRNE: Okay. Thanks.
24
MR. GAVALDON: This is probably a question to
25
the applicant or anyone you designate. Is this more of a
•
54
1 visual or a sound? I heard the start of the presentation
2 talk about sound, decibels, all this analysis, and then I've
3 seen a shift from sound to visual. So I need to help
4 understand, is this more of a visual or is this an equal
5 weight for sound and visual?
6 MR. LUDWIG: The primary reason was sound, but
7 they're one and the same, as I've learned from Dr.
8 Balloffett. If you can see it, you can hear it. So they
9 became integrated. But the original request was for sound
10 abatement.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And maybe Dr. Balloffett
12 can answer this one. The gentleman that provided data to us
13 about the readings and -- on lot 7, going down by 10
14 decibel, and then taking some readings from his house, I'd
15 like to understand more about his readings to your data and
16 why we have slight discrepancy in analysis.
17 DR. BALLOFFETT: Well, there could be a large
18 number of reasons. The first is that noise, particularly
19 traffic noise, varies all the time. So if I go out tomorrow
20 morning and do the same measurements, I may -- I probably
21 will not get exactly the same readings. They'll be similar.
22 Secondly, the numbers that I saw -- and I don't
23 have any other knowledge of this than what you saw this
24 evening, are -- we saw some maximum. The maximum readings
25 that I -- that I got when I did my measurements are very
55
1
similar, in the mid-70s, to the high 70s, at that point.
2
One of the things, when doing noise
3
measurements, it's very important to specify several
4
things. How the sound level meter is set. Is it set to a
5
weighting. Is it slow or fast response. For how long are
6
we measuring. Are we using the equivalent sound level,
7
which means that we average the energy over a period of
8
time. How long is that period of time. You know, what is
9
the traffic conditions going on.
10
So I think as far as looking at some of the
11
peaks, I would say that those numbers that we saw earlier
12
are reasonable, but when we're dealing with trying to design
•
13
something, we have to look at an averaged, an energy
14
averaged number, over a period of time, that is
15
representative of reasonable worst -case, such as the peak
16
hour, and I don't really know when those measurements was
17
made.
18
MR. GAVALDON: Was yours a time sequence
19
measurement?
20
DR. BALLOFFETT: I used an integrating sound
21
level meter. I left it running for half an hour, and during
22
that time, it gave me the maximum level, the minimum level,
23
and the so-called LEQ, which is the energy average over that
24
half hour. That 68 is the energy average.
.
25
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
W
1 MS. BELL: I've got some other questions for
2 you, while you're still there. The Board has heard some
3 issues similar to this in the past on sound abatement, and
4 some of the things I thought we learned were that dirt, you
5 know, embankments, berms, create maybe one of the best sound
6 abatements.
7 So could you just.maybe reeducate us on, like
8 what is the very best sound abatement material, and then on
9 the continuum to, you know, what's not that great of
10 material. And I'm kind of curious about trees versus -- you
11 know, plants materials versus a fence.
12 DR. BALLOFFETT: Right. There probably isn't
13 any single best. There are a lot of economic and aesthetic
14 reasons for selecting one thing or another. The height of
15 the wall will have a large say in how much you get out of
16 the wall.
17 Berms are very good, and they should be used
18 whenever possible. And "whenever possible" usually means
19 that you have to have the space, the horizontal space, to
20 put a berm in.
21 There is really not enough of a horizontal space
22 between the Harbor Walk Lane and the existing berm. It goes
23 right up to the road there. So in terms of a berm, or
24 continuing that berm effect, I don't think you can do that
25 without moving Harbor Lane or Lemay or making a big mountain
.
57
1
there.
2
There are other types of materials that are
3
used. There are all kinds of materials. Anyone who has
4
driven down to Denver will see that there's huge -- now
5
they're trying to get a little more creative and put a
6
little fluting and little things to make them look less
7
awful.
8
But those are 8-, 10-, 12-, 14-, 20-foot walls.
9
These are not what we're talking about here. And all we're
10
trying to achieve here -- and we're not going to achieve the
11
same sound reductions, either, that we would with those
12
kinds of walls.
.
13
What we're going to achieve, probably, is
14
something in the order of five or six decibels at the ground
15
level.
16
MS. BELL: And the difference between -- is
17
there much difference between using a fence like you're
18
describing versus putting evergreens and junipers, anything
19
like that?
20
DR. BALLOFFETT: The evergreens and the junipers
21
is the same thing as the berm. You need to have quite a
22
depth of plantings in order to have that same effect. To
23
get those five or six, you'd probably need to plant at least
24
40, 50 feet deep of vegetation, now, again, to get the
25
energy levels down.
m
1 MS. BELL: So you'd need 40 or 50 feet of trees
2 to get the same effect that you're going to have --
3 DR. BALLOFFETT: From here, that way. Right.
4 MS. BELL: And the gentleman had asked a
5 question, and I probably can't frame it quite right, but it
6 was the one about, if it's twice as far back to the
7 houses --
8 DR. BALLOFFETT: Yeah --
9 MS. BELL: Would it be a quarter of -- you know
10 which question.
11 DR. BALLOFFETT: Right. It's actually probably
12 half. There's an analogy between light and sound, and in
13 fact, sound does decay as the square of the distance, but
14 that's assuming a point source of sound.
15 Generally, in traffic analysis, we look at a
16 line source. We assume that there is a line, which is a
17 street, and so instead of getting the six decibels per
18 doubling of distance that we would get from a point source,
19 we get only three decibels for doubling of distance
20 reduction.
21 And that -- I had another quick slide here. The
22 relative loudness, and the gentleman was correct on the
23 energy levels. There is a tremendous amount of energy lost
24 or gained relative to what we get on this logarithmic test
25 bell scale.
0
59
1
But the relative loudness is that if you lower a
2
sound level by ten decibels, you're -- this is from a line
3
source, now. You would -- or from any other source,
4
actually -- you would feel that it is half as loud. And --
5
but you would be taking out 90 percent of the energy. It
6
would be a ten -time reduction in energy, but only a half
7
reduction in the perception of how loud that noise is.
8
MS. BELL: Thank you. Are there any other
9
questions of the Board for Mr. Balloffett, while he's before
10
us?
11
MR. COLTON: I guess just the obvious one for me
12
is, I just was wondering why you didn't take the
13
measurements from the lots, when, to me, that would have
14
been the obvious place to start as opposed to down at the
15
street level.
16
DR. BALLOFFETT: Primarily, because I was
17
curious as to -- I needed a reference point, and I wanted to
18
have one that was on a direct shot from Lemay, and that gave
19
me that reference point. And then using the standard
20
reduction with distance that we have, we can come up with a
21
noise level given that reference point at any other point.
22
MR. COLTON: But would not the fact that that
23
bank currently existed there have reduced the decibel levels
24
somewhat, by itself?
25
DR. BALLOFFETT: I think there's probably -
1 MR. COLTON: Even more than distance.
2 DR. BALLOFFETT: And as some gentleman said, as
3 you move farther and farther back towards the lake, yes,
4 there would be, because you're cutting that line of sight
5 between the source and the receiver, or the sound level
6 meter in this case. Yes, as we move back further towards
7 the lake, that would happen.
8 MR. COLTON: But also, the wall itself would
9 take care -- or the existing embankment would cut out some
10 of that sound, because from a line of sight --
11 DR. BALLOFFETT: As long as you --
12 MR. COLTON: For shielding up there.
13 DR. BALLOFFETT: Yeah. And there's other minor
14 reductions as well that you get just from the roughness in
15 of the ground and the occasional bush and so forth. But
16 basically, as long as you have a direct line of sight,
17 you're going to get the full blast of the street there.
18 MR. COLTON: Okay, thank you.
19 MR. BYRNE: I've got another question for Ted.
20 I understand now why we're reviewing this, because of the
21 change to the Planned Unit Development.
22 Now, if we move forward without a noise
23 abatement wall and people move into these residences, would
24 they be free at that point to build something, or would they
25 still be restricted from constructing a sound abatement
.
61
1
wall?
2
MR. SHEPARD: They're restricted by the PUD.
3
MR. BYRNE: Okay. So whatever is decided here
4
this evening would be in place for years to come.
5
MR. SHEPARD: Unless it's brought back to this
6
Board for an amendment.
7
MS. BELL: However, to clarify that, personal
8
property owners can build their own'privacy fences on their
9
property, on their property line.
10
MR. SHEPARD: That's correct. We see that
11
around patios. We see that around arbors. Things of that
12
nature. Playgrounds for children.
i13
MS. BELL: So we're making a distinction between
14
what is -- well, I don't know how to --
15
MR. SHEPARD: It's common area things, versus on
16
the private property, personal fence around a patio
17
situation.
18
MS. BELL: Also, Ted, while I've got you, do I
19
understand, then, to approve this, staff feels that
20
there -- the criteria -- which criteria are being met in the
21
LDGS that supports this fence?
22
MR. SHEPARD: We're looking at A2.2, all
23
document criteria, A2.2.
24
MS. BELL: That's really the only criteria that
25
pertains to this issue today, isn't it?
62
1 MR. SHEPARD: That's my interpretation, yes.
2 MS. BELL: Thank you.
3 MR. COLTON: Ted, one other question on the
4 fences. I realize there's fences all over town, along
5 arterials, and you mentioned that there's a six-foot
6 limitation. That is basically the only limitation. There's
7 lots of different structures, types, whatever.
8 What is the intent of the fixed six-foot
9 restriction, in your estimation?
10 MR. SHEPARD: Well, thatimibatmomm tffihesehsng
11 code for a long time. My guess is that a seven -foot fence
12 is so onerous and so much taller that the human scale is
13 dwarfed by a seven -foot fence. The six-foot being the fence
14 that most people can't see over, so it's traditionally been
15 a back yard privacy fence of choice for those folks who
16 choose to build a privacy fence, that the six-foot fence
17 guarantees privacy unless everyone in your family is over
18 six feet. I think it just evolved that way, to be honest.
19 MR. COLTON: Okay. Could you relate the human
20 scale of this embankment with the fence on top of it,
21 compared with to just the embankment? I mean, are there
22 other places in town that have big embankments plus fences
23 on top of them, or is it generally just -- generally, it's
24 fairly flat, maybe one or two feet of lawn or berm or
25 whatever, and then a fence? Basically, are there any others
0 63
1 like this, I guess?
2
MR. SHEPARD: Not really. The Warren Lake area,
3
of course, is an irrigation reservoir that's surrounded by a
4
dam. And that's what we have here.
5
MR. COLTON: Okay. So it's -- no others. Okay.
6
MS. BELL: How are we doing? Are we getting
7
most of our questions taken care of so we can get to a
8
motion?
9
MR. BYRNE: One other question. If individual
10
property owners which would build their own privacy fence,
11
where would that go relative to this common fence? Would it
12
be set back from the existing -- from Lemay Street, and if
.
13
so, by how much?
14
MR. SHEPARD: A fence on private property for
15
Harbor Walk Estates would have to be the west side of Harbor
16
Walk Lane.
17
MR. BYRNE: Okay.
18
MS. BELL: Okay. Do Board members have any
19
other questions, or can we move forward with a motion at
20
this point?
21
MR. SHEPARD: Mike, Bob reminded me that there
22
is another section in the zoning code that the six-foot
23
fence shall not exceed the front building line of a front
24
yard home; that's why, when you see fences from the front
25
yards of a lot of houses, they're tapered down to four
64
1 feet. The six-foot fence is to be terminated at the front
2 building line, so they're appropriate under the zoning code
3 for side yards and rear yard, but they're not to be brought
4 out to the front of the street, and that's in the zoning
5 code, unless they're tapered down to four feet.
6 MR. GAVALDON: Ted, let me ask a question to
7 follow up on your comment. So four feet in the front --
8 what about this five-foot one? It's a common area. Would
9 this apply to this particular project?
10 MR. SHEPARD: No. It's in a common tract. It's
11 not in a yard. It's not on a lot.
12 MR. GAVALDON: But since we have a unique
13 situation, two streets paralleling, and we have the six-foot
14 fence, and it doesn't serve any purpose into the yard itself
15 in the proper -- my question is, should we be treating this
16 similar to that?
17 MR. SHEPARD: Well, I would go back to what we
18 permitted for Nelson Farm Estates, where the homes behind
19 the wall actually face Lemay, and the wall is in a common
20 tract, out beyond the front yard property line. It's an
21 analogous situation, and say, there's the precedence there.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you.
23 MS. BELL: I really get a sense we should have a
24 motion.
25
MS. WEITKUNAT: I'll move that we approve the
65
1 Harbor Walk Estates PUD sound abatement wall along lots 7
2 through 15 as modified by the applicant through the citizen
3 participation process.
4 MS. BELL: Do we have a second?
5 Seeing no second, I guess that motion dies.
6 Or? I guess it does, unless somebody wants to do that, and
7 we are open now for another motion.
8 Was that too fast? Did somebody want to do a
9 second?
10
MR. GAVALDON: I will do a second to bring this
11
issue to discussion and to make a move on it or not.
12
MS. BELL: Okay. We do have a motion, then, and
• 13
it has been seconded. What kind of -- would you like to
14
make comments, Jerry?
15
MR. GAVALDON: Based on all the data presented
16
and the discussion, I still get a sensation that this is
17
more visual versus sound. There seems to be conflicting
18
data that the applicant and the residents have put forth,
19
and I'm struggling with it. However, I see that staff has
20
done an excellent job in bringing the parties together and
21
bringing them here, but I'm still kind of on the fence to go
22
with it or not. Literally, on the fence.
23
MS. BELL: Does anybody else want to make a
24
comment, or can we proceed with the vote? Karen?
25
MS. WEITKUNAT: I'll comment. In thinking about
W
1 this, I guess I take a more philosophical approach to
2 fences. You know, primarily, we build fences to keep things
3 in or to keep things out, and regardless of our reason, I
4 think both are applicable here. Whether or not we're
5 building a privacy -type fence to keep within is one thing.
6 If we're going to build to keep noise out, it's another
7 thing. But it's still the purpose of why we build fences.
8 I believe that the applicant has made a
9 reasonable effort to try and accommodate the concerns of the
10 neighborhood through meetings and through a variety of
11 changes in his construction. This fence wall started out as
12 a masonry unit. He has accommodated them by moving into a
13 wood unit. There have been attempts to be less intrusive by
14 adding foliage and trees and with copper along the top, so
15 it's aesthetically appealing.
16 I think it's difficult. I understand the
17 concerns of neighbors. However, I cannot believe that we
18 will have an ugly eyesore. I think attempts will be made to
19 make it less obtrusive into the neighborhood. And the
20 attempt to build it from five feet, lessen it to three feet,
21 is an attempt to accommodate the neighborhood.
22 I think it's a legitimate addition to what is
23 going on there. I guess I look at South College and the
24 embankment that goes along the area from the Total Petroleum
25 up to Montgomery Wards. If you want to look at something
67
1
ugly, I think that's a prime example, where noise bounces
2
off a concrete wall. There is no foliage. There are no
3
trees or anything. Would a fence on top obstruct someone's
4
view? I doubt it. Would it be any less of a human scale?
5
I doubt it.
6
I think there will be, at least from the
7
material that we've read, a great attempt to try and make
8
this aesthetically appealing to an area that is already full
9
of fences, and I personally don't have a problem with it.
10
MS. BELL: Any other comments?
11
MR. BYRNE: I have a comment. As some of you
12
may have picked up from my comments earlier, this is one
.
13
that I would prefer we had not had to listen to.
14
I look at this from kind of historical
15
perspective, and that is one of, if we look at the older
16
part of our community where we have street designs that
17
allow for greater connections, we don't have as much
18
concentration of traffic along arterial streets. I mean,
19
you can imagine the old part of Fort Collins, had it been
20
built within this decade, it would just be enclaves. And
21
that's what we've had in the area that we're looking at, is
22
we've got enclave next to enclave.
23
And as a consequence, we've created conditions
24
where automobiles -- and that's what we're talking about
25
here, automobile noise -- is something we think we can
1 engineer our way out of. And I don't think that's going to
2 be the case. I think regardless of the kind of wall or the
3 kind of material that people choose to use, the result will
4 be less than satisfying. I think there probably are some
5 false expectations in terms of how much noise mitigation
6 will occur.
7 And for those of you who have perhaps traveled
8 to other parts of the country where they drive as much as we
9 do in this part of the world, there's a constant background
10 sound of -- it's like the ocean. It's just, you can never
11 get away from it.
12 So, you know, I think it's interesting to see a
13 lot of, I think, informed citizens, and I think of Mr.
14 Barnard here who did a very nice job of summarizing the
15 Community Vision and Goals, and in a large measure, that's
16 why we're going through the City Plan, is because we're
17 having to deal with conditions like this, that had we done
18 things differently, when the City was growing 15 or 20 years
19 ago, we wouldn't have neighbors, you know, starting out
20 where -- I was pleased to see at least the proposed wall
21 didn't have gunports. You get that kind of -- that kind of
22 disagreement.
23 And I've been through this, because I live on an
24 arterial street, and it's been frightening to me to see just
25 how quickly noise in our community has gone from where it
69
1 wasn't a problem to where it's a very major problem today,
2 and as I -- as I indicated earlier, I don't think that walls
3 are the solution. I really think that, you know, doing
4 things differently, where we had a more balanced street plan
5 or a street network as opposed to a very hierarchial one
6 that forces everybody to drive on just a couple of arterial
7 streets.
8 So what it does, it creates for the Board a
9 dilemma, because we are created, to this community, to try
10 the best that we can, given the tools that we are given to
11 try to retain the sense of community that I think most of us
12 who have been here for a while don't want to see go away.
• 13 And yet, on the other hand, we're also charged with being
14 fair.
15 You know, I happen to live on Shields Street,
16 and I can build a five-foot wall if I want to, or no one can
17 really say much about it. And you know, our -- we've got a
18 new development here and the rules are a little bit
19 stricter, and there's a question that I struggle with in
20 terms of what's really the right answer in terms of dealing
21 with the reality. What's fair.
22 And so this is a very difficult issue for me,
23 personally.
24 MS. BELL: Any other comments, or are we ready
25 for a vote yet?
70
1 MR. COLTON: Put a couple cents in. I think,
2 you know, the developer's done a lot here to really make
3 this as amenable a fence as possible and as attractive as
4 possible. But, boy, I just still have concerns that this is
5 not your usual six-foot fence along an arterial and where
6 you have this large embankment, and that it is going to be
7 towering above and, I think, not really consistent with the
8 established neighborhood character.
9 I think a six-foot fence is not a nine -foot to
10 thirteen -foot wall -- embankment, with another five- to
11 three-foot fence on top. I don't think those are the same.
12 And I guess I haven't really been convinced that the noise
13 is an issue, since there was not even a measurement taken
14 back where the people are going to be sitting or using it.
15 And, I don't know, as much as I'm trying to like this, I'm
16 not liking it.
17 MS. BELL: Let's take a vote, please.
18 THE CLERK: Gaveldon?
19 MR. GAVALDON: No.
20 THE CLERK: Weitkunat?
21 MS. WEITKUNAT: Yes.
22 THE CLERK: Byrne?
23 MR. BYRNE: No.
24 THE CLERK: Colton?
25 MR. COLTON: No.
71
1
THE CLERK: Bell?
2
MS. BELL: No.
3
The motion is defeated, so therefore, there will
4
be no fence.
5
MR. COLTON: Again, he was citing 2.2. I did
6
not --
7
MR. SHEPARD: I think you should -- I think there
8
should be a motion made denying the application and citing
9
the specific criteria --
10
MS. BELL: Could we have another motion, then,
11
please.
12
MR. COLTON: I move we deny the application for
13
the Harbor Walk Estates referral and administrative change
14
based on the fact it does not meet criteria A.2.2, building
15
placement and orientation, and it is inconsistent with the
16
established neighborhood character.
17
MR. GAVALDON: Second.
18
MS. BELL: Could we have another vote, please.
19
THE CLERK: Weitkunat.
20
MS. WEITKUNAT: No.
21
THE CLERK: Byrne.
22
MR. BYRNE: Yes.
23
THE CLERK: Colton.
24
MR. COLTON: Yes.
•
25
THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fence.
MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
THE CLERK: Bell.
MS. BELL: Yes.
That motion passes.
(Matter concluded.)
72
Therefore, there will be no
•
73
1
STATE OF COLORADO )
2
) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4
I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5
and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6
the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Harbor Walk
7
Estates PUD, was held on Monday, December 11, 1995, at 300
8
West Laporte Avenue, Colorado; that said proceedings were
9
transcribed by me from videotape to the foregoing 72 pages;
10
that said transcript is, to the best of my ability to
11
transcribe same, an accurate and complete record of the
12
proceedings so taken.
13
I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16
Attested to by me this 24th day of October, 1996.
17
18
19
Jason T. Meadors
20 315 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
21 (303) 482-1506
22 My commission expires January 6, 1997.
23
24
• 25
No Text
0
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, August 26, 1996
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Provincetowne Overall Development Plan
0 Members present:
Gwen Bell, Chairman
Mike Byrne
Glen Colton
Jerry, Gavaldon
Karen Weitkunat
For the City:
John Duval, City Attorney's Office
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
Ted Shepard, City Planning Office
Mike Ludwig, City Planning Office
• Court reporting services provided by.
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199
2
1 MS. BELL: I'd like to welcome everybody back to
2 this evening's meeting. We're ready to take up item number
3 9, Provincetowne PUD Overall Development Plan.
4 And just as a quick, friendly reminder, before
5 our break, I did suggest that we probably will not get to
6 any other items than this one tonight. So if you are here
7 for anything after item number 9, unless you want to be
8 talking to us at midnight, in which case we'll probably be
9 going home, we won't be getting to the topic.
10 So let's go ahead, Mike, and give your
11 presentation.
12 MR. LUDWIG: I'd like to begin by introducing
13 other staff members that are present for this item. We have
14 Tom Shoemaker, the Director of Natural Resources. Tom
15 Vosburg is the. Community Planning and Environmental Services
16 Policy Analyst. Sherry Wamhoff, from our Engineering
17 Department. Fred Jones, from the Transportation
18 Department. And Glenn Schluter, from the Stormwater
19 Utility.
20 This is a request for an Amended Overall
21 Development Plan Approval for approximately 73 acres of
22 detached single-family residential, 43 acres of patio homes,
23 townhomes, condominiums, cottage homes, and co -housing. 10
24 acres of multifamily apartments. 6 acres of neighborhood
25 commercial component, which includes a 1-acre fire station,
11
• 3
1 32 acres of parks and open space, 160 acres of public
2 natural open area, and approximately six areas of collector
3 road right-of-way, totaling 330 acres.
4 The property is located at the southwest corner
5 of Trilby Road and South Lemay Avenue and is zoned RLP,
6 low -density planned residential, with a PUD condition, and
7 also zoned planned business, with a PUD condition.
8 A total of 804 to 1,079 residential dwelling
9 units are proposed on approximately 170 acres, for an
10 overall gross density ranging from 5.51 to 6.79 dwelling
11 units per acre.
12
Approval of this Overall Development Plan
13
request would allow a net increase of approximately 128
14
dwelling units and 160 acres of public open space over the
15
existing Provincetowne Overall Development Plan and
16
reduction of nearly 1.5 million square feet of neighborhood
17
regional shopping centers and business park uses.
18
As noted in the staff memo, this request is
19
consistent with numerous elements of the City's
20
comprehensive plan, including the 1997 goals and objectives
21
document and the land use policies plan. These documents
22
encourage mixed use, mixed density development within the
23
city limits.
24 Approximately 30 percent of the total dwelling
25 units are proposed to be provided within the City's
4
1 established guidelines for affordable housing via an
2 integrated approach, incorporating a variety of residential
3 types and densities. This effort is consistent with the
4 affordable housing policy adopted by the City Council in
5 October of 1992, which defines the City's roles and
6 responsibilities and strengthens the City's commitment to
7 affordable housing in the community.
8 While the Community Vision and Goals 2015
9 document has not been adopted by the City Council as a
10 regulatory document, it's appropriate to review those
11 portions that might apply to this request as an indication
12 of the direction of the developing City Plan. And this
13 document has numerous statements which supports the proposed
14 land use designations for the Provincetowne Amended Overall
15 Development Plan.
16 By clustering development on the northern 170
17 acres of the development and preserving the -- southern 160
18 acres as public open space, the ODP is consistent with the
19 preferred land use scenario of the advisory document
20 entitled "Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and
21 Loveland."
22 The traffic study indicates that at total
23 build -out, the site will generate approximately 11,852
24 average weekday vehicle trips. A traffic signal will be
25 required in the future at the Trilby Road/Lemay Avenue
E
. 5
1 intersection, and with this traffic signal, the intersection
2 will operate at levels, acceptable levels, of service.
3 The proposed street layout and projected traffic
4 volumes are in compliance with the City's transportation
5 policies.
6
Other than neighborhood concerns related to the
7
proposed density, buffering, and compatibility, the
8
disposition of Benson Reservoir is a major issue facing the
9
Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan. The
10
existing dam is in poor condition, and the City of Fort
it
Collins has been ordered by the State to either repair or
12
replace the existing dam and/or modify the existing
13
reservoir to eliminate the dam.
14
The applicant has submitted a feasibility study
15
for the reservoir to the City which considers alternative
16
solutions; and Tom Shoemaker of our Natural Resources
17
Department is here to provide an update of what the Natural
18
Resources Advisory Board has discussed to this point.
19
The City's Finance Department, Natural
20
Resources Department, and Stormwater Utility are currently
21
reviewing each of the five alternatives which were submitted
22
for the reservoir, and the development of parcels B and C on
23
the Overall Development Plan may be prohibited depending on
24
which alternative the City selects.
.
25
Therefore, the staff has recommended a
0
1 condition, with the recommendation of approval, that should
2 the City select an alternative which results in the dam
3 remaining on the property, that the Overall Development Plan
4 would need to be amended to adequately reflect any
5 additional undevelopable parcels.
6 Additional letters which were received after the
7 printing of the staff memo were distributed to the Board
8 members at the work session. I have slides prepared for
9 reviewing, and I'm available to answer any questions you may
10 have.
11 Just once again, on this map, this is Trilby
12 Road, South Lemay Avenue. And originally, the Overall
13 Development Plan for this entire area included Eagletree and
14 these parcels which are currently being developed. So the
15 only area that's being modified is designated in the red.
16 This is the Overall Development Plan request
17 which the applicant will be explaining their process in
18 going about and developing this plan. If you want it go
19 through the site charts or if you would like the applicant
20 to give their presentation. I don't know which you would
21 prefer.
22 MS. BELL: Does the Board have a need to
23 continue at this point, or would you like to go to the
24 applicant?
25 Let's go ahead and go to the applicant's
• 7
1 presentation. Mike?
2 MR. BYRNE: Well, I would just like -- I would
3 like a little background on the existing approved Overall
4 Development Plan. And in particular, what I'm interested in
5 is what the street configuration is that's been approved.
6 And, Mike, I guess, if the street configuration is
7 unchanged, then that's fine. But if we're making changes to
8 the overall street configuration, I'd like to know what
9
those are.
10
MR. LUDWIG: I don't know if I have a slide of
11
the approved existing Overall Development Plan. It was
12
provided as an attachment in the staff memo for comparison.
13
I don't believe there is a slide in the carousel of that.
14
The existing Overall Development Plan follows
15
the elevation prototypes in the staff packet. And
16
technically, what an Overall Development Plan typically
17
indicates is just the major collector street connections
18
through the development. And on that Overall Development
19
Plan, Brittany Drive, Province Way, or Province Avenue, were
20
shown, as they currently exist on the existing development.
21
MR. BYRNE: And those won't change; is that
22
right?
23
MR. LUDWIG: That's correct. Brittany Drive and
24
Province will not change.
25
MR. BYRNE: And those are the two collector
e
I streets.
2 MR. LUDWIG: This is Brittany Drive as it exists
3 today, and Province Avenue comes in and it currently
4 dead -ends about right here on the property. So the real
5 change in this plan is just the -- the addition of a
6 collector, which connects, such as that, and then another
7 collector that comes through the development, such as that.
8 It has changed what -- somewhat, because they
9 have reconfigured their parcels and housing types. So the
10 existing ODP, there is one collector street that's shown
11 going south from about at this point -- actually, it's about
12 right here, and it is actually shown going all the way down
13 to County Road 32, but that is not shown on this plan,
14 primarily because of the 160 acres of natural open space
15 which is proposed as part of the plan, not having a
16 vehicular connection through that property.
17 MS. BELL: Does that address what you were
18 interested, Mike?
19 Let's go ahead and move on, then, to the
20 applicant's presentation. And the applicant has 30
21 minutes. And Georgiana, if you could let them know maybe
22 about five minutes before.
23 MR. HARMON: Good evening, Good evening, members
24 of the Board. I'm Jim Harmon, representing Pridemark
25 Development, 10701 Melody Drive, Northglenn.
9
1
With me this evening are Rick Mendelson, who's
2
our vice-president of sales and sales and marketing at
3
Pridemark; Rick Volpe, our principal planner from Downy,
4
Thorpe, and James; and Gary Owen all from Parsons &
5
Associates, who prepared the reservoir study.
6
I'm briefly just going to talk to you about how
7
this project came to be or how we became to be involved in
8
this, and Rick Volpe will make the principal presentation
9
with regard to the land plan and how we came to many of the
10
uses and the concepts in the land plan.
it
Last fall, the City of Fort Collins issued a
12
request for proposals to try to come up with a novel concept
13
and a novel use of this property, which integrated
14
affordable housing in a market development without
15
constricting it to a single area. They wanted to see
16
innovative site design, integrated affordable housing, and
17
the preservation of a major portion of the property as a
18
natural area, including the Benson Reservoir, which
19
previously was going to be surrounded by development in the
20
original ODP.
21
Most folks in the development community looked
22
at that RFP and round -filed it, because most people thought
23
it was just impossible. You couldn't achieve it. We looked
24
at it and thought it was kind of the innovative opportunity
.
25
that we, as an affordable home building firm, would like to
10
1 make a run at it; and we worked with Downy, Thorpe and James
2 from the very beginning, spent significant time and money
3 preparing a proposal that became this land plan, and we
4 thankfully were chosen by the City Council to proceed with
5 this plan, and that brought us here tonight.
6 We feel that we integrated all the questions and
7 all the requests and requirements the City wanted in their
8 request for proposal, and in many areas, we exceeded their
9 expectations, including the affordable housing component.
10 With that, I'm going to ask Rick Volpe to
11 present the major points of the plan, and then Rick
12 Mendelson will talk briefly about who Pridemark is and some
13 of our goals in the project.
14 MR. VOLPE: Good evening. My name, again, is
15 Rick Volpe, and I'm with Downy, Thorpe and James and
16 represent Pridemark Homes in the development of the concept
17 plan for Provincetowne.
18 The -- we've got a -- what I think, is a very
19 innovative concept to share with you tonight for the
20 Provincetowne project. And it's innovative in a lot of
21 respects in that it begins to look at some of the goals and
22 objectives that are being contemplated by the City's new
23 structures plan, the City Plan. It also meets many of the
24 comprehensive goals and objectives of the current
25 comprehensive plan.
11
1
What I'd like to do is walk you through some of
2
the design concepts, the overall concept, and some of the
3
key features or components of the Master Plan. I'd like to
4
make some comparisons, generally, of how this plan relates
5
to the current approved ODP that -- that was approved back
6
in 1987 for the site.
7
I'd like to kind of finish up with some of the
8
changes that have taken place over the last several months
9
in the plan relative to staff and neighborhood comments, and
10
then pass it back to Jim Harmon.
11
I'll start with this plan here. I'd just like
.
12
to say that we've done a significant amount of analysis for
13
the site in getting to this point, site analysis, which I
14
think, was included in your packet. There are some details
15
of this plan that we might touch on also, but the plan that
16
you see here is an overall plan for the site.
17
In general, the concept for the project was to
18
really concentrate development on a specific portion of the
19
property, and that area is represented here at about 170
20
acres of the 330-acre site, in which we've included a
21
variety of residential product types, quite a mixture of
22
residential products and densities within the project. It's
23
also supported by these residential areas, by kind of a
24
central focus area, including public and recreational
25
facilities, as well as a neighborhood commercial services
12
1 site up on the north part of the project that includes a
2 one -acre fire station.
3 The uses in here in different colors represent
4 different land use densities within the project. In
5 general, the areas to the south along this open space area
6 are lower density residential, including single-family
7 detached and cottage homes in the range of four to about six
8 dwelling units per acre. The northern half of the site
9 includes some higher -density uses, such as multifamily
10 residential, in close proximity to the commercial site. And
11 in the core of the area is kind of a moderate density,
12 including townhomes and a co -housing project that I'll talk
13 in a little more detail about in a few minutes.
14 The core area of the project is a very important
15 part of the project, and it really focuses neighborhood
16 activities, creates a public focus and a sense of place for
17 the project, which is a key goal of this project as well as
18 some of the direction that the City is going with the new
19 City Plan. It includes a central neighborhood park within
20 the project.
21 overall, the area to the south is maintained as
22 a natural, public natural open space of 160 acres. It was
23 considered an important element to the City in terms of its
24 natural habitat, its wildlife, current wildlife habitat in
25 the area, and this is generally the area that was defined by
13
1
the City. We went ahead and looked at our project's
2
relationship to that open space.
3
The 160-acre area -- it also provides an
4
important buffer to the area to the south which is the
5
current boundary, the city limits of the City, and relates
6
to the plan, as Mike had indicated, to the plan for the area
7
between the County and the Loveland and Fort Collins, in
8
terms of providing an open space buffer, concentrating
9
development on the site, and providing a transition of
10
development to the County.
11
The objective here was to create a more
•
12
concentrated development in order to preserve a large,
13
natural open area. So the overall density of the site is
14
within the range of five and a half to about 6.8 dwelling
15
units an acre. 800 to about a high of 1,080 units on the
16
site.
17
The total area here, when you look at it, the
18
330 acres, represents a density that is similar to what's
19
happening in the surrounding area of about two and a half to
20
three and a half dwelling units an acre. However, the
21
obvious difference between the two plans is that while we're
22
providing smaller lots and a denser community, we've also
23
been able to provide a large natural amenity for the overall
24
project, which has not been provided in some of the areas
•
25
adjacent to us with the larger lots.
14
1
And that's
the key difference between the plans,
2 that the
adjacent lots
in the quarter acre to one -acre lot
3 range in
the existing
Eagletree development doesn't have a
4 public amenity within
it of this magnitude. And again, the
5 overall
densities are
similar. However, the lots are
6 higher --
higher density, and smaller lots within the
7 project.
8 The differences between this plan and the
9 current plan, there's a very similar relationship in the
10 original ODP in terms of units. I think we're at about a
11 plus 128 units on this project. However, the original plan
12 also included about a million and a half square feet of
13 office, commercial, and industrial development, primarily in
14 this area here, up in here. There was also a commercial
15 site for 150,000 square feet of commercial development here
16 and about 250,000 square feet on this end of the property.
17 So there's a significant difference in terms of
18 preserving this natural open space and reducing or
19 eliminating the light industrial and office uses within the
20 site.
21 Our site has about 150,000 square feet of
22 commercial development on that purple area on the very north
23 in relation to the multifamily site.
24 A couple of the key features of this plan
25 include the residential communities. As I said, there's a
E
15
1 variety of residential property -- densities and units
2 product types within the project, including single-family
3 detached housing, primarily on the south; the townhomes in
4 the center core area, with the co -housing project. The
5 multifamily on the north. And some more townhomes, cottage
6 homes.
7
The multifamily site is related to this
8
intersection up here at Trilby and Lemay. And that was
9
chosen as a good location, primarily because of its
10
traffic -related access to that key intersection of two
11
arterials, its relation to the commercial site as support,
.
12
and reduced walking distances for the higher -density housing
13
there. There's also a church site in relation to that.
14
Another multifamily site that was approved at the corner
15
for, I believe, a little over a hundred units. There's also
16
a potential civic use on the north that hasn't been
17
developed yet in the Brittany Knolls Estates.
18
And there's also a transit facility at the
19
corner, which is not a bus -- pickup or bus stop at this
20
point in time. Traffic -- bus access, and doesn't come down
21
this far into the City yet, but we've looked at the
22
potential with the City staff of that, in the future,
23
becoming a potential location for bus access, which provides
24
an opportunity for that multifamily, along with all the
25
other mixed -use activity happening at this intersection, to
itl
1 become a very viable location for a multifamily. The
2 multifamily includes a permanently affordable component
3 within it, for all of those units. We're proposing between
4 170 and about 200 units on about 10 acres in this area right
5 here.
6 Another component, an important piece of the
7 plans, this village center or neighborhood center. That
8 includes a combination of townhomes and a co -housing project
9 which is a little bit unique, but it's happening in the
10 Metro Denver area; and I'm not sure if you're very familiar
11 with co -housing projects, but there's two very familiar and
12 very successful ones in the Denver area, one called The
13 Islands in Lafayette, which has recently been discussed and
14 publicized on television and the news. And then there's one
15 down in Littleton called the Highlands.
16 And both of those are projects that we're talking
17 currently with the developer of those, Wonderland Homes,
18 about this potential site. It includes a central open space
19 and a common house or facility that allows opportunities to
20 share types of functions that are typically associated with
21 outside individual homes. There's some opportunities there
22 for day-care. Again, common open space, recreation
23 facilities, a gathering space, and so forth, within the
24 project. It includes a variety of housing types also,
25 including some duplex attached townhomes and single-family
• 17
1 homes. The townhomes adjacent to this are in the range of
2 about 8 to 10 dwelling units an acre, and the centerpiece of
3 the project is a neighborhood park, and that is a focal
4 point of the project.
5 We see this area right in here as an important
6 part of the project, where all residents can get to it
7 easily and accessible. We want to design that to provide a
8 sense of place for the community, to provide an identity for
9 the project, so it could include -- and we're hoping that,
10 outside the park site, that there would be other public
11
facilities
and recreation facilities,
such as a recreation
• 12
center for
the neighborhood that all,
within the community
13
or in this
neighborhood, could come to. And again, the site
14
is located
in close proximity to the
open space and provides
15
views and
access to the natural open
space.
16 Another important component of the plan is the
17 way streets would be designed in the project. Some of the
i8 goals and objectives of the City are to create more
19 pedestrian -friendly, more pedestrian -oriented streets, and
20 we've been talking to the City a lot about how to do that.
21Before we got involved, or before we were
22 initially involved in the project, we were talking with the
23
City about creating some street design standards that may be
24
a little bit different
than the City's current standards in
25
terms of creating more
pedestrian -oriented streets with
18
1 tree -lined streetscapes and some detached walks on some of
2 the streets and other streets that are low -volume streets,
3 maybe not having sidewalks on both sides of the street,
4 minimizing the street widths in certain cases to really look
5 at the traffic volume on those particular streets, including
6 possibly some alley access to minimize the garage dominance
7 along the street of having streets with garages lined up
8 along key streets within the project.
9 It turns out that the City has now approved some
10 new street standards that we've reviewed, and we're happy to
11 say that those standards are very close to what we'd like to
12 see happen, and probably would like to go with a lot of
13 those street standards as part of this project. To use a
14 variety of streets, I think, is important. To minimize the
15 domination of garages along the streets is also important to
16 this project.
17 To avoid unloaded streets, typical collectors
18 within many sudivisions are not loaded because of the
19 traffic volume created on them, and we'd like to see if we
20 can't change that in this particular project and front
21 architecture to the streets to provide a more
22 pedestrian -friendly environment, avoid six-foot stockade
23 fences and opaque fences along those roadways.
24 We would look at how to do that using different
25 garage orientations. Maybe the use of alleys along those
.
19
1
streets. A little -- private or driveway lanes, if you
2
will. In order to front architecture to the street,
3
minimize the number of curb cuts, but still not back homes
4
to those -- to those key roadways. We feel that they're
5
very important to the identity of this project.
6
Another element is the commercial site on the
7
north. I'd like to talk a little bit about that. That's a
8
six -acre site with -- also includes a one -acre fire station
9
which was requested by the City. Which the original plan
10
included 150,000 square feet of commercial at this corner of
it
Lemay and Province Avenue.
12
We felt that it was more appropriate to place
13
that on the north in relationship to two major arterials,
14
Lemay and Trilby, and also put it in context as almost a
15
mixed -use center with other multifamily that's occurring
16
off -site, a proposed church site, our multifamily in this
17
area, again the transit facility on the north, and a
18
potential civic use in the Brittany Knolls site.
19
The -- there's good traffic access at that
20
location. It still provides good pedestrian connections to
21
our site. We'd like to orient that and integrate that
22
commercial site as part of this project and not isolate it
23
from the development.
24
Those are a lot of reasons why that particular
25
site was selected. We also felt it was less impactful to
20
1 adjacent low -density residential and estate residential
2 happening just east of Lemay.
3 A final component of the plan was the open space
4 component. Again, I mentioned, I touched on the five -acre
5 neighborhood park site in the core of the project. There
6 are other kinds of open space proposed. There would be
7 neighborhood pocket parks or village greens within small --
8 small parks within some of the larger residential
9 neighborhoods to provide a focus for a gathering and
10 activities within each of the smaller neighborhood areas.
11 The -- there's a significant open space buffer
12 that buffers this project from the adjacent development
13 within the project. That would serve a drainage function as
14 well as pedestrian access and trails throughout the project,
15 connecting the individual neighborhoods with themselves as
16 well as the -- the larger park in the center of the
17 project. Some of it's public facilities and the commercial
18 site and other off -site uses.
19 Finally, the final component is this large,
20 natural open space. That would be proposed to be left
21 primarily as it is. There's some discussions as to the
22 design or redesign of the reservoir. And our client has
23 made some proposals through our engineering consultant on
24 how that area might look in the future. But our goal is to
25 keep this primarily a natural area, preserving the wildlife
•
21
1
and existing vegetation for that area. It provides a buffer
2
to the county land to the south, and is a key component to
3
this project.
4
Back when we initially met with staff to go over
5
the plan in the concept review meeting, there were, as a
6
result of that meeting, there were very few major components
7
to the plan relative to the ODP. There were a lot of good
8
ideas that came out that we've taken note of and that have
9
come out in comments relative to how to proceed with this
10
plan in more detail as we move forward to the preliminary
11
planning process.
12
The -- there was a neighborhood meeting that was
the
13
held after the concept plan review, but as part of
14
review process, that developed a couple of key issues within
15
the project that we've taken into consideration and tried to
16
make some modifications to the plan.
17
One of those is the density of the site and its
18
relationship or transition for the surrounding area. We've
19
added some additional buffers to the project between
20
Eagletree and the cottage homes here in Parcel C, along this
21
edge. What we're proposing to do is keep a minimum 150-foot
22
setback of homes in the cottage home area from the Eagletree
23
homes on the east, which is very similar to what's happening
24
in the proposed setbacks in the multifamily site. The --
•
25
between the existing single-family homes here and the
22
1 proposed multifamily homes to the north.
2 The density of this area overall is about twice
3 what this is, but in terms of this being about twelve units
4 per acre, this is about six or seven units per acre, but we
5 would propose to create a landscaped open space area along
6 the street. We would also -- are proposing to front
7 architecture to the street with alleys behind, so you won't
8 be looking at the backs of homes with a six-foot fence along
9 that streetscape. That's important to the image of this
10 project, to provide a good appearance from that collector
11 street as you drive that roadway.
12 Another element of this was the relocation of
13 some of the single-family densities. We had originally
14 proposed some moderate density in this area here, and we
15 have shifted to a low density of four to five dwelling units
16 per acre, adjacent to these one -acre lots in Eagletree, and
17 moved the density to a moderate category into the superior
18 of the site, where it's less impactful to the surrounding
19 neighborhood.
20 There was concern for some additional traffic on
21 the existing collector. As Mike had indicated, there was
22 the original -- the original plan came through with a
23 collector down to the County Road 32. Because of the nature
24 of the design and the open space, it was proposed and, I
25 think, agreed to with the staff, that having an access out
23
1
to County Road 32 would cut the open space in half.
2
What we chose to do, in order to minimize some of
3
the future traffic on this existing collector, was to
4
provide some neighborhood integration with future access,
5
potential access, to the north, out of parcel A, and to the
6
west. However, we're not sure at this point in time whether
7
we'll get access out to Highway 287. But there are
8
opportunities to provide connections up to Trilby in the
9
future from this development.
10
And then finally, there was a question about a
11
possible private school for the church site. And we've
12
added to the plan the possibility that parcel G as opposed
13
to this 13 acres being cottage homes, that it could
14
potentially be a private school site, which would support
15
and be adjacent to the Lutheran church on the opposite side
16
of the collector street. And those were the key changes
17
that were added, revised on the plan.
18
In closing, I'd just like to say that we feel
19
that the plan meets and conforms with a lot of the City
20
Planning objectives for the future; that we're providing a
21
mix of housing opportunities, including some multifamily and
22
affordable housing that's integrated within the project as
23
opposed to dispersed or segregated to the edge of the
24
project. We've looked at a more dense, more compact
25
development in order to preserve a large public open space
24
1 for the project and for the entire Fort Collins community.
2 We've also tried to integrate neighborhood commercial
3 services and public facilities within the project.
4 With that, I'll turn it over to Jim. Thank you.
5 MR. HARMON: Madam Chair, Jim Harmon,
6 representing Pridemark. Before I turn it over to Rick
7 Mendelson, I want to touch briefly on what I think is going
8 to be an issue that many people don't understand, and that
9 is the issue of the affordable housing and how will it work
10 in this development.
11 We see the affordable housing work in many ways,
12 but there are really two critical components to it. And the
13 first is that we're going to structure some or all of the
14 multifamily rental housing as a permanently affordable
15 facility, which will be built to the same standards or
16 greater standards that any other typical rental
17 apartment -type facility will be built, however, utilizing
18 government program such as the tax credits, 221-D-4, Housing
19 and Urban Development financing. We'll be able to provide
20 this as a permanently affordable housing source that will
21 not change over time.
22 And then the second and what we think is really
23 the most innovative portion is going to be the distribution
24 of an additional 10 percent or approximately hundred homes
25 throughout the development that will be set up in various
. 25
1 methods to be permanently affordable. This can be through
2 restrictive covenants and deeds, through land trust type
3 accounts, and through contractual agreements between the
4 individual builders or developers within Provincetowne.
5 These homes are going to be exactly the same as
6 any other home you'd seen in the development. If we had a
7 six-plex townhome and one of those units was permanently
8 affordable, you wouldn't know the difference looking at it,
9 and you wouldn't know, unless your neighbor who owned that
10 unit chose to tell you, that they were in a permanently
11 affordable home; and while your home would reap the benefits
12 of the market increases that happened over time, that
13 homeowner would be restricted in the resale of their home
14 based on income qualifications and consumer price index and
15 inflation indexes.
16 Our proposal is to work with folks like TRAC,
17 and maybe Habitat for Humanity, and other types of
18 organizations that provide affordable housing -- five
19 minutes? Okay. And provide to them lots, building plans,
20 specifications, the whole package, for them to work with
21 their clients to build homes so that the home that you would
22 see that would be in our development that's permanently
23 affordable is the same as any other home that a market buyer
24
is going to buy. So there
will be a complete integration
25
within the development of
the housing.
26
1 Rick Mendelson, who's going to speak briefly
2 after me -- very briefly, I guess -- has some slides of some
3 of the homes we've built, if it's appropriate, if anyone
4 would like to see them tonight. I don't think we'll have
5 him show those, but if the question comes up, someone would
6 like to see them, we have those available. With that, I'll
7 introduce Rick Mendelson.
g MR. MENDELSON: I'm Rick Mendelson, vice
9 president of sales and marketing for Pridemark Homes,
10 Pridemark Development Company, 10701 Melody Drive in
11 Northglenn, Colorado. Good evening. And I will be brief.
12 I have to be.
13 There's been a lot of comments with regard to
14 densities and land uses and affordability, but I really
15 think the important element to be spoken here this evening
16 is about people. People within the community, the larger
17 community, people within this development.
18 A little bit about who we are and what we do.
19 Pridemark Homes is currently involved in approximately 15
20 active subdivisions in the Denver metropolitan area. Our
21 principal, Mike Messina, has been in the affordable home
22 building and land development business for almost 30 years.
23 And his history along the Front Range is fairly well
24 documented in preceding master planned communities
25 throughout the metropolitan area of Denver.
0
0 27
1 Currently within the subdivisions that we have
2 active, five of those subdivisions are large master planned
3 communities, and we feel as though that allows us to bring
4 some unique talents to the Fort Collins community and the
5 Provincetowne development.
6 We are a Colorado company, and I think that
7 that's a really important element to understand. We're not
8 a Wall Street driven company. We can react to market
9 conditions and market changes because we're within this
10 marketplace.
11 We specialize in affordable home building and
12 affordable land development, and really, the affordability
13 of land development speaks volumes to the affordability of
14 homes.
15 Ours is not a particularly glamorous end of the
16 business. There's a lot of people out there who want to
17 know why we do what we do and where we don't develop 250,
18 300, 400 thousand dollar homes, where it's a little bit more
19 glamorous.
20 We're all committed to the idea that the
21 diversity within a community is enhanced by providing
22 housing for all of the different types of people in all of
23 the socioeconomic groups within that community. And that's
24 really the opportunity that's in front of us with the
25 Provincetowne.
28
1 A very high percentage of the buyers that we
2 work with are first-time home buyers, and I think you're
3 going to hear in the public portion of this session this
4 evening that there's really two kinds of people who are
5 going to stand up and talk. Those who have homes and those
6 who want homes. And I think it's really -- it's really
7 important to those who already have homes to remember how
8 important it was in the development of their life, their
9 first home purchase. And really, that's what this -- this
10 conversation really needs to be all about.
11 There's always a wide range of lifestyles, and
12 it requires a wide range of products to be able to meet
13 those -- those needs. And this is really a perfect
14 opportunity to try to meet those needs. Within the
15 Provincetowne development, you'll see single-family detached
16 homes, single-family attached homes, multifamily homes, and
17 all of them really have to have very innovative floor plans,
18 very innovative elevations. If they don't, we won't be able
19 to sell anything.
20 We like to bring substantial level of quality
21 with regard to the materials, high level of masonry and
22 other elements, which are viewed within the marketplace,
23 within this local marketplace, as elements of quality.
24 And we have the ability, because we're local
25 people, to react to the changes in the marketplace. One of
Cl
0
•
29
1
the other things that's very important for everybody to
2
realize is that this is a very large-scale development, and
3
depending upon the cycles within the marketplace, we're
4
probably talking about a six- to ten-year build -out period.
5
All of this development is not going to happen overnight.
6
The other thing that I think we bring to the
7
table that's very important, if you talk to other civic
8
leaders in all of the communities that we're involved in the
9
metropolitan Denver area, is that we stand ready, willing,
10
and able to engage all of the parties that are concerned on
11
all sides of the issues.
•
12
Neighborhood groups; we choose to meet them as
13
groups, as individuals. It really doesn't matter how they
14
want to be engaged, but we want to work within the process
15
and not apart from the process to be able to bring the best
16
possible development to the City of Fort Collins.
17
Thank you. Perfect timing, huh? I planned it
18
that way.
19
MR. RARMON: Obviously, we'll all be available if
20
have you any questions.
21
MS. BELL: Thank you. Does it seem appropriate
22
to move on to the public participation? Or are there
23
questions that we have?
24
MR. LUDWIG: Real quickly. Tom Shoemaker of the
.
25
Natural Resources Department is here, and I thought Tom
CAP]
1 might want to give just a real brief description of where
2 they are in the evaluation of Benson Reservoir.
3 MS. BELL: Part of the staff presentation.
4 MR. LUDWIG: Yes, correct.
5 MS. BELL: Okay.
6 MR. SHOEMAKER: Good evening. Mike mentioned
7 earlier in his presentation that there is ongoing work with
8 respect to determining the future of the Benson Reservoir
9 area.
10 As Mike alluded to, we are faced with a
11 situation that, as the City took back this property, we
12 cannot have the status quo remain. The City is under orders
13 from the State engineer to either fix, completely rebuild
14 the dam and spillway at Robert Benson Reservoir, or do
15 something else with it.
16 The Natural Resources Department, the natural
17 areas program within the City, has proposed to the City
18 Council that we acquire about 160 acres of this overall
19 project and, essentially, that's a purchase by the natural
20 areas program from the Finance Department.
21 As part of that, we're evaluating what possible
22 alternatives there are for Robert Benson Reservoir. I think
23 the overall description of 160 acres will be the reservoir,
24 surrounding wetland, and what we would hope to restore to
25 native grasslands at some time in the future, the area to
0 31
1 the south.
2 Well, as the Pridemark people were evaluating
3 their possibility of purchasing this land from the City, it
4 became apparent that they were quite interested in the
5 future of the reservoir as it related to parcels A and B.
6 No, B and C. With respect to development potential. We
7 collaborated. They funded an investigation by Parsons
8 Associates, which is just a preliminary feasibility analysis
9 of different reservoir options.
10 What we're looking at ranges from the full
11 jurisdictional reservoir, which would be completely
. 12 rebuilding the reservoir, or the dam and the reservoir, to
13 basically breaching the dam and taking the surface elevation
14 back to its previous or original natural lake elevation. We
15 are also looking at several other alternatives that could
16 include smaller ponds or two smaller ponds and one that
17 looks at opportunities for enhancing the wetland and habitat
18 value of the smaller lake after the breaching scenario.
19 The Natural Resource Advisory Board reviewed
20 several of these -- all of these alternatives last week at
21 their meeting. It's clear that there are a number of
22 unresolved questions with respect to water rights,
23 permitting, and some of these types of things.
24 So I can't tell you for sure exactly which
. 25 direction we're going. Also, clearly, we've had several
32
1 calls from people that live out in that vicinity in Victoria
2 Estates, and I made the commitment that we would meet with
3 them and review the alternatives and get their feedback on
4 this as well.
5 I can tell you that there wasn't a lot of
6 support or any support, really, for the alternative five,
7 which was to completely rebuild the dam and the reservoir.
8 Part of that is that the City no longer has any water rights
9 to fill that reservoir. The other part of that is that
10 that's by far the most expensive option that we would face,
11 and it does eliminate the development potential from a
12 couple of these parcels.
13 So based on what I know right now, I would be
14 saying that we -- staff is not recommending that we would
15 move to the full jurisdictional reservoir but rather that we
16 would look very seriously at some of the other alternatives,
17 and at least my goal, from the natural areas program, would
18 be to build on and enhance the wetland values, the wildlife
19 habitat values, and the natural area values associated with
20 that reservoir as it stands right now.
21 I'd be happy to answer any questions.
22 MS. BELL: Thank you. We may, when we get into
23 the bulk of our meeting, ask you some more questions.
24 Let's go ahead and move on to the public citizen
25 input. And I recall that quite a number of people raised
•
33
1
their hands, wanting to speak to us tonight. Is there an
2
organized neighborhood group, or are you mostly here as
3
individuals to speak to us? If there's a group, somebody
4
representing a group, please raise your hand.
5
Okay. Okay. Are you with the affordable
6
housing? So you wouldn't need 30 minutes. Okay.
7
I think what I'm going to do, because of the
8
numbers of people, is limit public input to three minutes,
9
or else it'll take an interminable amount of time. So let's
10
get started. Come on down, and give us your name and sign
11
in, and inform us about your concerns and interests on this
12
project.
13
Remember, we have two mikes. Don't be shy.
14
MR. LANG: My name's Mark Lang, and I live in
15
Victoria Estates, and I support rebuilding the dam.
16
MS. BELL: Boy, we really like input like that.
17
Brief and to the point. Thank you.
18
Please, it will help us move the meeting, the
19
decision -making part of our meeting along, if those who want
20
to talk to us will come forward and be ready to talk at the
21
mikes.
22
MS. McFAY: My name is Ann McFay. I live on
23
6422 Kyle Avenue. My concern is the traffic on Lemay and
24
Trilby Roads. I was probably at the same P and Z meeting
•
25
when the original plan was approved in 1987 and asked the
34
1 same question, and I still don't have any reasonable
2 answers.
3 I mean, I heard, yes, that staff says that
4 there's going to be a light installed at Lemay and Trilby.
5 That does not, unless I didn't read between the lines
6 correctly, staff -- that does not address the problem with
7 an additional -- I couldn't tell if it was 2,000 cars a day
8 or 12,000 cars a day, going out onto Lemay and Trilby.
9 I've lived at 6422 Kyle Avenue for 24 years now
10 and seen that entire development area grow down there, and
11 have asked the same question at many other P and Z
12 meetings. The answer I keep getting is there's this
13 conflict between the County and the City over Trilby Road.
14 Guys, it's time to fix it.
15 I come down Trilby Road at least twice a day,
16 primarily from College Avenue, because I work at the
17 University and that's the most direct route home. The speed
18 limit was 30 miles an hour. It's now been raised to 40
19 miles an hour. It's an accident waiting to happen out
20 there.
21 You have at least 30 public school buses a day
22 coming out of the Poudre R-1 School District bus garage out
23 there. You have I don't know how many TransFort buses going
24 out there. You have the Humane Society out there. You have
25 the Loveland public school buses coming down there. I heard
35.
1
nothing about schools. I realize this is city of Fort
2
Collins and it's a Loveland school district, but I think
3
someone ought to be at least asking those questions. I am
4
really concerned about the traffic out there.
5
You're turning Trilby, which was a residential
6
street, into a major arterial, and I haven't heard it
7
anything about being four -lane or those of us trying to go
8
on off Trilby or onto Trilby off of Kyle dealing with the
9
knoll or the hill or whatever you want to call it, which
10
that's just on the west side of the City property, and you
11
cannot see cars coming up over there. And those cars, if
12
they're going west in the late evening, cannot see you.
13
You're just going to add to that problem. Everything I'd
14
heard tonight, and I've been sitting here since 6:30, is, we
15
need to deal with traffic problems in this city we should
16
have dealt with long ago. Now's the time to deal with it.
17
Overall, I'm in favor of the project, but let's
18
deal with the traffic, not only west of Lemay on Trilby, but
19
east of Lemay on Trilby. That's a two-lane road. You've
20
got a railroad intersection in there that's going to take
21
major money to turn that into a four -lane road. You know at
22
least some of those cars are going to go that way, plus the
23
rest of the development's going on down there.
24
MS. BELL: Thank you. And the little buzzer
25
will ring when you have one minute to go.
M
1 MR. MORKVED: My name is John Morkved. I live
2 in Brittany Knolls subdivision, and I'm also speaking
3 concerning the impact of this Provincetowne on the traffic
4 on both Trilby and Lemay.
5 And my concern is that the planning for the city
6 streets on the widening of those two arterials be
7 coordinated with the development of this property, because
8 right now, the traffic has significantly increased in the
9 four years that I have lived in this subdivision, and the
10 curve on Lemay by the Southridge golf course, I think I've
11 heard that that's in the planning to be straightened out,
12 but it's a concern to me because of the traffic now, and
13 there are the cyclists and pedestrians there. There's
14 little space for them to safely be at the traffic congestion
15 we have now. So that's a concern.
16 The same as going out onto Trilby, on Trilby out
17 to College. That, the lady that spoke just ahead of me, I
18 can share her concern with traffic by that trailer park as
19 well as up and down, and I can see that with this new
20 development, we'll have a much increase in traffic. Thank
21 you.
22 MS. BELL: Next, please?
23 MR. BROWNING: My name's Bob Browning. Pardon
24 me. And I'm the chairman of the City's Affordable Housing
25 Board. I'm also the president of the Fort Collins Habitat
•
37
1
for Humanity, and I'll be brief.
2
This is an exciting project from the perspective
3
of both groups. From an Affordable Housing Board
4
perspective, it serves to foster the goal of integrating
5
some of the different economic stratas within the City, and
6
it places some of the affordable housing units to the south
7
portion of the city, to end the perspective that all the
8
affordable housing units are in the north.
9
From Habitat's perspective, it's an additional
10
opportunity to provide housing to the working poor of our
11
community, and we are glad to share in a landmark affordable
12
housing demonstration project. We urge approval of this
13
project. Thank you.
14
MS. MALONEY: My name is Betty Maloney, and I
15
live at 1309 City Park Avenue in the city of Fort Collins,
16
and I'm representing the Affordable Housing Task Force of
17
Larimer County this evening.
18
Sometime ago, when the future of this property
19
was kind of up in the air, members of our task force met
20
with City people and urged that the City consider doing
21
something innovative with this property that might involve
22
some affordable housing. So of course, we are delighted
23
that we have gotten to this point with this land. We're
24
pleased that Pridemark has expressed an interest in working
.
25
with the City to provide an integrated, planned community,
38
1 and also to work with TRAC and Habitat, which are two
2 established agencies in our community.
3 We have here before us what I consider to be a
4 real planned community. We have this wonderful mix of
5 housing, from single-family to townhomes to multifamily and
6 cottages and some of this will be permanently affordable.
7 We have just gotten through, or we're still in
8 the midst, I guess, of the City process for the goals and
9 objectives of the City vision; and in that proposal, we have
10 things that I feel are quite similar to this, where they are
11 recommending that we have these developments that include a
12 mix of housing and a mix of recreation and that facilities
13 will be nearby so that you won't have to drive great
14 distances to do your recreation or to do a little bit of
15 shopping or whatever it is that you need to do.
16 And it seems as if this is all going to be a part
17 of this community. Hopefully, there will be some day-care
18 integrated into this. I like -- we like the concept of the
19 cluster development that has left the open space and
20 recreation areas. And we feel that this exemplifies the
21 best planning. We see that it's going to be helpful to many
22 of the people in our community because of the affordable
23 housing component. So we are urging the serious
24 consideration and adoption of this.
25 MS. BELL: You still have one minute.
.
39
1
MS. MALONEY: That's okay.
2
MS. BELL: Okay. Just . . .
3
MR. HAMAR: I'm Dwayne Hamar, and I live at 6824
4
South College. I own a small piece of property that borders
5
this.
6
I basically don't have major comments. I just
7
have some questions that I think maybe the City needs to
8
address. One of them has been touched on concerning mass
9
transit. And transportation to Loveland High School. After
10
all, this is in the Loveland school district. And if we're
11
talking about transporting everybody around by way of Trilby
12
or County Road 32 onto College Avenue, which is the only
•
13
direct way to Loveland High School, we're talking about a
14
lot of traffic, because I've lived there for 32 years, and I
15
saw it go from a small two-lane road to a four -lane road
16
that I can hardly get out on.
17
My other questions concern mostly Benson
18
Reservoir and the water. One, I would like to know and get
19
explained to me what happened to the original Louden water
20
that was on this piece of property. At least 10, 12 years
21
ago, when the original Provincetowne developers owned it,
22
and it was turned back to the City.
23
Secondly, it was mentioned that the City has no
24
water rights, and I'm not sure what they mean by that,
25
because I'm also secretary and treasurer of the Louden Water
40
1 District, and I happen to know the City of Fort Collins does
2 have water rights. At least, they have water shares. And
3 what that means in terms of keeping Benson Reservoir going
4 and functioning, I don't know.
5 The other concern about water is there's a farm
6 on the east side of Lemay that has transportation rights for
7 water through Benson Reservoir. And so in terms of the
8 overall development of this parcel, that is another thing
9 that needs to be considered that was not touched upon.
10 Thank you.
it MS. BELL: Thank you. We'll try to address your
12 questions during the . . .
13 MR. LONG: I'm Bob Long; live at 512 County Road
14 32. And I think there's really, I have a mixture of
15 feelings about this development. There's certainly a lot of
16 good things this developer has done, and I think he's to be
17 commended on a lot of the ideas and the concepts. I see
18 this as a significant improvement over the previous ODP, so
19 that's some of the pluses. The inclusion of the affordable
20 housing, I think, is also a good, positive thing for this.
21 My major concern is probably a more general one
22 for the whole vicinity, that as I see things going on in the
23 city, that the extension of the urban sprawl all the way out
24 to the urban growth boundary, which this is on, is really
25 difficult for me to see and dramatically changes the
. 41
1 character of the neighborhood and that whole environment
2 there. So that's kind of the negative side that I see.
3 And the things that I would think are important
4 is looking at not only what the current City policy and
5 plans include but what the real objective of it is. And I
6 think there's real positive things to be brought about by
7 going to a higher density. Some of those are, keeping the
8 city of Fort Collins more compact. Well, when this site is
9 really five, six, seven miles from downtown Fort Collins,
10 that's hard for me to believe that it's keeping the city
11
more compact. It does not do.
12
•
It's supposedly -- one of the things with
13
increased density is to improve bicycle pedestrian
14
transport. Well, there's not a whole lot of pedestrian
15
access to much of anything around here. The neighborhood
16
concept there, there may be some things, neighborhood park,
17
people going to the park.
18
But I suspect if you look at the traffic
19
analysis, the majority of the trips are people going to
20
work. They're not going to work anywhere in this
21
neighborhood, and that's going to still have the same number
22
of trips, I suspect. There aren't that many people that
23
will be walking or biking to work from there, I don't think.
24
Transit access is another possibility. It's
• 25
increased by having a higher density, and that is also not a
42
1 possibility here. It's at least two miles to the nearest
2 transit point for TransFort. So that, again, is a problem
3 for that.
4 The increase traffic is certainly going to
5 contribute to traffic congestion. More people will want to
6 put up noise barriers to keep the traffic away or whatever,
7 and the pollution will increase, too.
S The solution to traffic problems, in my mind, is
9 not building bigger streets and building up -- putting up
10 noise barriers, but it's keeping the cars away, and I think
11 that means keeping fewer houses at the periphery of the
12 city. Thank you.
13 MR. JOLLY: Good evening. My name's John
14 Jolly. I've lived in Fort Collins for 13 years, and just
15 within this year, bought a home in U.S. Homes subdivision in
16 Brittany Knolls, and I have to agree with the other two
17 people that spoke earlier about the traffic on Trilby.
18 My concern is the intersection of Brittany and
19 Trilby. If you're on that corner and you're looking to your
20 west, and if you look back to the east, and if you don't
21 look back to the west again, there could be a car within a
22 hundred feet of you. Because they're zooming down that
23 road, I'd say, between 40 and 50 miles an hour on their way
24 to work or whatever. That's a concern to me. I've got two
25 young boys, and there are other young children in the
. 43
1 neighborhood. That's a concern that most of the people that
2 I spoke to, anyway, are worried about.
3 Another issue I'd like to talk about real
4 quickly is the density issue is an issue that I'm concerned
5 about. The pattern that I have seen Fort Collins in the
6 last few years, especially in the south end of town, is to
7 go to, you know, larger homes on larger pieces of property;
8 and I mean, we're not objecting to the development, but the
9 density issue is one thing that we're really concerned
10 about.
11
Because if they're projecting a thousand units in
12
that development, you've got to assume that each family has
13
two cars, so we're -- we're looking at a couple thousand
14
cars a day coming out of that intersection. And if there's
15
only going to be entry onto Trilby from that area and one
16
area onto Lemay, we're going to have a lot of traffic at
17
those two intersections. So that's a concern for local
18
people I've talked to.
19
And one other issue is the area (inaudible)
20
MS. BELL: You'll need to take the mike with you,
21
because it's record --
22
MR. JOLLY: I might not be looking at this map
23
properly, but where is the trailer park? Up here?
24
(Inaudible.)
.
25
MR. JOLLY: There's a wetland area, I believe,
44
1 just east of the trailer park. I know that. And the reason
2 I know that, I go up in that area every day. I walk my dog
3 in there, and my two boys. And in that wetland area, I have
4 seen, since I've moved in, are nesting areas for ducks and
5 geese that I have seen. There's red foxes I've seen in
6 there. There's definitely coyotes in there, because I hear
7 them every evening. And there's also been bald eagles down
8 in that area.
9 So it's just concerns of mine about what they're
10 going to do with that wetland area. And that appears to
11 be -- or in that core area of the development. So thank
12 you.
13
MS. BELL: Thank you.
14
MR. ZIER: Madam Chair,
my name is Rick Zier.
15
I'm an
attorney in Fort Collins. I
represent the owners and
16
developers of Eagletree, and though
I don't represent a
17
group per se or neighborhood group,
I would appreciate a
18
little
more than three minutes, if
you would indulge me
19
that.
20
MS. BELL: How long do you think you'll need?
21
MR. ZIER: No more than
ten minutes; hopefully,
22
five.
23
MS. BELL: Why don't we
go for between five and
24
ten.
25
MR. ZIER: Okay. Thank
you. I did write a
45
1 letter to the Board August 2nd. I hope that's been made a
2 part of the packet.
3 I think the thing that is really daunting to my
4 clients are the massive scale of this development. From
5 north to south, it's a mile, I think, and we are not against
6 development per se or multifamily development per se or
7 affordable housing per se. My clients are interested in all
8 of those things themselves. But on a much lesser scale.
9 They were the purchasers of the Eagletree development, which
10
was already approved by this Board when they bought it, and
11
if you'll notice that, it's kind of out of focus on this up
12
here, but from north to south, it's phased from high density
.
13
to low density rather radically.
14
My understanding is that the developers have
15
tried to do a little buffering around the edges, and they've
16
measured, I think, on the plat, what the distances between
17
single-family housing on Eagletree and the multifamily
18
housing on Eagletree was. Well, that's a total of seven
19
acres of multifamily housing, and what they're talking about
20
are hundreds of acres of very dense housing to the west and
21
to the south, some right on the edge of one -acre estate
22
sized lots.
23
We think that a gradual phasing and a rational
24
transitioning of two sister developments who share collector
• 25
streets and were originally part of the same overall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Development Plan makes good sense.
46
It also somewhat breaks
the trust, I think, or reliance of the developers who go
ahead and develop according to a phasing that we were told
at the time of the purchase was in keeping with what the
City wanted to do as it transitioned toward the southern
boundary of the Urban Growth Area, kind of like what the
gentleman who lives on County Road 32 said.
What we have here now is massive density,
partially created, I think, by market requirements, because
of the what the City has required the developer to do.
Number one, they're going to essentially dedicate 160 acres
of open space, which is wonderful, but that's not
13 developable.
14 They are going to -- they are required to have 30
15 percent of their units be affordable. Again, that's a
16 market condition. In order to make this huge purchase
17 affordable or profitable for them, they must pack in very
18 densely the units and that is what is occurring here. And
19 you can't lose sight of what is occurring on the very fringe
20 of the city. This is a huge community unto it It is
21 the enclave to end all enclaves. The traffic, 11,000
22 vehicle trips per day, is not something to sniff at.
23 But from our standpoint, it just makes no sense
24 to transition immediately into absolutely high -density
25 development from the gradual transitioning that we think is
u
. 47
1 coherently proceeding southward toward the open corridor
2 area between the two communities, Loveland and Fort Collins.
3
The possibilities are several. I would think
4
you could increase the buffer areas. You could put more
5
park and drainage space there. Primarily, you could
6
decrease the number of units, and I think one way or
7
another, this is what you must arrive at. This is -- you
8
could reconfigure.
9
The developers were talking about, or the
10
applicants were talking about, the importance to them of
11
views to the south and the southwest, across their open
.
12
space. The same is true of our development, where, again,
13
it's already been approved to transition to a less dense
14
sequencing, the farther south and southwest you get, into
15
the Provincetowne planned area. Now you've got the massive
16
density clustering very close by. The two are just not
17
compatible.
18
And the result, again, of what the City is
19
requiring with open space and affordable housing
20
requirements -- nothing against affordable housing; it's
21
laudable, but the effect of this developer now to make it
22
profitable is to increase the density dramatically. When
23
four to five units per acre is low density, that should tell
24
you something, and this is right on the fringe of the Urban
25
Growth Area.
I The request for proposal on the sale of the
2 Provincetowne property, that the developers or the
3 applicants before you now have under contract with the City,
4 said that one of the City's goals was to make the
5 construction of affordable housing more cost-effective
6 without unduly compromising our community values, and that's
7 all we're asking that you take into consideration. Thank
8 you.
9 MS. BELL: Thank you.
10 MS. URICH: Hi, I'm Carmen Urich, and I'm a
11 property owner in Victoria Estates, and I just have a couple
12 more questions concerning traffic density that I'll just
13 ask. I'm not sure if they're the responsibility of
14 developer or of this PUD or of the Natural Resources
15 Department.
16 And I don't quite understand where the boundary,
17 the exact boundary, of the natural resources area around
18 Benson Lake and where they will end, especially in
19 relationship to -- I think it's J or the community center.
20 There were some wetlands, I believe, that were on that map,
21 and I'm wondering if there will still be a buffering zone
22 that will still be needed and if that will fall on the
23 responsibility the City, the Natural Resources Department,
24 or the developer.
25 I'm also wondering when the dam is supposed to
. 49
1 be removed, because I understand that it's probably going to
2
happen, and I think that there's a three-year time frame
3
that we had to make changes to the dam, and I'm hoping that
4
we do not rush into that without looking at the full impact
5
of what changes would be needed to be done. And also, the
6
financing of any upkeep or any changes to the Benson Lake
7
area.
8
And then the last thing I just wanted to ask is
9
the open space that the City is taking over, besides Benson
10
Lake, what determined how much they would buy, and are they
11
prepared to be able to buy more open space when they were
. 12
unable to handle the upkeep of the -- of the dam in the past
13
years for Benson Reservoir?
14
And also, what happens to the Benson Lake area
15
if this PUD did not get approved? Does it still go on and
16
be changed? So that's all.
17
MS. BELL: Excuse me, ma'am. What part of
18
Benson Lake were you talking about? I thought you said
19
north end --
20
MS. URICH: Oh, I meant the east end, where
21
it's -- let's see. Is that -- up toward the middle, toward
22
the park area, or that whole -- yeah, right there.
23
MS. BELL: Okay. I just wanted to be clear.
24
Thank you.
• 25
MS. WATSON: Good evening. My name is Ann
50
1 Watson. I also live in Victoria Estates, 477. I just
2 wanted the Planning and Zoning Board to be aware that I have
3 worked on the committee that developed the plan for the
4 region between the cities of Fort Collins, and it was a
5 difficult committee to work on. Worked real hard on that
6 committee, and I've been real pleased to see that this plan
7 incorporated the recommendations of that group in
8 maintaining this large area of open space that separates the
9 two communities, Loveland and Fort Collins. And also
10 maintained the natural area around Benson Lake.
11 So I just encourage you to go ahead with that and
12 not allow any more development to encroach on that area if
13 possible, and to maintain that wildlife habitat and that
14 natural resource. We think it's a real jewel in our rapidly
15 urbanizing area. Thank you.
16 MS. BELL: Thank you. Everybody's doing such a
17 good job of coming forward. Thank you.
18 MS. STITZEL: My name is Lou Stitzel. I'm the
19 president of TRAC, The Resource Assistance Center. I also
20 sit as a citizen on the City Plan, CPAC, or the City Plan
21 Advisory Committee. So I'm very interested in this.
22 And I'd like to call your attention, starting
23 first with the City Plan, Structure Plan, that there is,
24 within the whole structure of the whole community, various
25 activity centers or neighborhood -- neighborhood activity
. 51
1 centers on both the north and the south, and then also that
2 there are efforts to redo this on -- on more of an east and
3 west basis.
4 And one of the first things I'd like to respond
5 to, listening to some of the other people, is that we assume
6 too often, as we are looking toward the planning in the
7 future, that transportation is going to solve by continuing
8 to use cars for single people driving them to work and
9 things of this sort.
10 One of the things that I can bring as a blend
11 from my working with affordable housing and particularly
• 12 with land trust neighborhood development, and also because I
13 sit on a city transportation, regional transportation, group
14 called Smart Trips, that one of the things that can happen
15 when you have neighborhood centers and community centers,
16 you can plan for use of something the community already has,
17 and that's their computer -- computerized commuter network,
18 which means van pooling and car pooling for people going to
19 work.
20 Also, this would mean that as you develop your
21 neighborhoods, and the plan that is included in
22 Provincetowne, that you would then be able to get your
23 neighborhood organization to work together on their grocery
24 shopping, to work together on medical appointments that are
• 25 regular medical appointments, and ways that you can help to
52
1 achieve what the City is working toward in better air
2 quality by having more people work together on reducing the
3 number of trips.
4 Another thing is that even though we can't -- it
5 can't be included in this Overall Development Plan, because
6 it has to do with City departments, since they are very
7 close to the City transportation barns and garages, that
8 this can be something that can be established very quickly
9 in developing more mass transportation as particularly as
10 the neighborhood groups develop and work with -- continue to
11 work with the City in working out some of these
12 transportation problems that are total community problems
13 and not just limited to one area. As the neighborhood
14 organizations work within Provincetowne, this also can
15 include surrounding areas.
16 So another things I want to speak to is -- in
17 the Structure Plan and with these neighborhood community
18 activity centers or whatever the label is that they're going
19 to end up with, and I don't think that's been completely
20 decided, but it means that this becomes the nub, such as the
21 one area up at the top, with the commercial development, can
22 very well be a transportation hub or nub where people can
23 gather, while waiting to pick up people from the bus or
24 other -- other arrangements, and it can also be the way that
25 you can have little coffee shops and be a very natural --
u
E
• 53
1 not only a gathering place for taking care of some of the
2 mass transportation things, but for the neighborhoods, the
3 adjoining neighborhoods, to be able to make use of such
4 services so that you have the milieu of coffee shops and
5
other things.
6
I think the other thing I want to speak to, and
7
we deal with this in the C Plan, City Plan, as well, is
8
density is not buildings rammed right up close, one to
9
another. A four-plex or a six-plex or even an eight-plex is
10
surrounded by open lands, and the way that they are
11
situated, you see through them. It's not something that is
12
all massed together. It's well -planned.
13
And in quality housing, you don't plan tenement
14
styles, massing of things. You cluster them. But you don't
15
plan things so you don't have daylight in between. You
16
don't have transportation -- you don't have landscaping.
17
You don't have the kind of space that gives you the feeling
18
of spaciousness and the kind of quality living that you
19
want.
20
One other thing that I want to make sure of,
21
because many times, it's masked in under transportation and
22
density problems, that people have a fear of what kind of
23
people are going to live in affordable housing. Earlier
24
this evening, I had two very charming ladies who live in one
. 25
of our community land trust neighborhoods. And I wanted
54
1 them to be here for you to see that they are people just
2 like anybody else, anybody in any of the estates planned.
3 The problem is, they cannot afford to buy all of the land,
4 and I'm not sure that we need to look at the same thing as
5 uniformity or mixing uniformity with compatibility.
6 In fact, City Plan is that we are to learn as a
7 whole community that we are to be compatible, one with
8 another, with different housing types; and just because this
9 is a project that clusters them and really is a better land
10 use than putting a land out here and land is a nonrenewable
11 resource, and to have bigger and bigger estates, that is a
12 different kind of sprawl that we haven't always looked at.
13 And not maybe as wise a use as we have more and more people
14 to deal with.
15 Who are some of the people besides the people I
16 had here?
17 MS. BELL: Excuse me. Are you -- how much
18 longer do you think --
19 MS. STITZEL: About two minutes.
20 MS. BELL: Okay.
21 MS. STITZEL: The majority of persons and
22 families needing affordable housing are employed as retail
23 clerks, supermarket, store checkers, waitpersons, truckers,
24 secretaries, construction workers, maintenance and cleaning
25 persons, assemblers, bookkeepers, bank tellers, stock
0
•
55
1
clerks, nurses aides, educational instructors, and that
2
means both at college and in high schools and grade schools,
3
teachers, technicians, mechanics, office assistants, cooks,
4
and other service persons, as well as special populations
5
that need handicapped accessible units, because of
6
disability, age, and other kinds of conditions.
7
Some of the major employers of these people are
8
universities, banks, colleges, schools, businesses,
9
industry, hospitals, discount warehouses, contractors,
10
developers, nonprofit organizations, and governments, local,
11
county, and state.
•
12
Gail Rodriguez, who had to go home, because she
13
couldn't afford to pay the baby-sitter any longer, because
14
it took longer, and we thought we were going to be here
15
right at 6:30, is a clerk -- or community representative for
16
the City of Fort Collins Utility Department. Anita Colardi,
17
who had to go home, she's severely diabetic, but she works
18
full-time as the receptionist for the County Planning
19
Department.
20
These are the kind of people that will be living
21
in these homes, and the only way they can also enjoy their
22
home ownership and be in a mixed neighborhood is to have
23
this kind of overall development project which will be a
24
quality development.
.
25
We need to be sure that we do not confuse
56
1 elitism with what is our true democratic process in
2 planning. We need to consider how do we develop a truly
3 balanced, wholesome choice community. Thank you.
4 MS. BELL: Thank you.
5 MR. DONNELLY: Good evening, and thank you for
6 the opportunity to speak tonight. My name's Dennis
7 Donnelly. I live in Victoria Estates. I don't have access
8 to the lake, but I live roughly on the east side here, and I
9 just want to say from what I've heard about this
10 development, it sounds like a very unique and neat thing to
11 have in the neighborhood, so if you wind up in the
12 neighborhood, that's good.
13 As part of this unique neighborhood that we're
14 planning, I just wanted to emphasize that the lake in its
15 current form is a very unique place in south Fort Collins.
16 It's a fairly large body of water in an area that doesn't
17 have very much in the way of large bodies of water. In that
18 sense, anything you can do to keep it at its current size
19 would keep it in its unique character and contribute to the
20 unique character the neighborhood that you're planning.
21 So I'm here to urge you to find ways to keep the
22 dam the way it is or to repair it, to keep that body of
23 water the size that it is, so it balances the land you have
24 in the south part of the development here. You've got a
25 great corridor for wildlife, and I can tell you that there's
0 57
1 plenty of wildlife out there, and for the new people who
2 might be moving in, they'll have plenty to see.
3 So that's my spiel for tonight, and the bottom
4 line is, try to keep that body of water the way it is.
5 Anything you could do there would be appreciated. Thank
6 you.
7 MS. BELL: Are there other people who would like
8 to speak to us tonight? Please come forward.
9 MR. SPARKS: Hi. My name is Doug Sparks. I
10
live at 900 Deerhurst Circle. I'm right at the corner of
11
Brittany and Deerhurst, which is one of your collector
12
streets.
13
What I'm concerned about is a number of things.
14
First of all, I wasn't notified of this meeting. Had not
15
heard of any kind of a meeting taking place, except for one
16
of my neighbors that approached me. I don't think most of
17
the people in the area have heard that we've had meetings
18
planned, and it would be -- I take it as appropriate to send
19
out fliers so that people can attend these meetings.
20
I object to the density. From what I read in
21
some of the literature, this is an experimental plan. What
22
I'm concerned about is doubling or tripling the amount of
23
traffic that's going to flow past my street, and at that
24
point, I guess, from the discussion we had earlier, we'll be
25
back here talking about sound abatement and how we're going
I.Y:
1 to control 2,000 cars going by my house.
2 I think, personally, that the high density that
3 you're planning on is going to devalue the property that we
4 have. I think that there will be a lot of unusual activity
5 in that area, because of the high density. Currently, we're
6 restricted by covenants on everything that we do in our
7 subdivision, and I would hope that anything planned would
8 also have covenants that everybody would have to live and
9 abide by.
10 I've just relocated from St. Louis, Missouri,
11 and basically, because of the amount of density that you're
12 talking about, I think that the gentleman was up here,
13 termed it very well. It's a project. We have projects in
14 St. Louis, and I think that's the direction you're going to.
15 MR. COVER: My name is Don Cover. I live at 900
16 Benson lane. The reason that my wife and I came down
17 tonight was to not necessarily question the project itself
18 but maybe question the placement of the experiment, as it
19 has been called.
20 Going to the issue of density, it is not
21 consistent with the entire general area of that part of the
22 City of Fort Collins. And from what I understand, zoning is
23 designed to provide consistency and blending. I don't see
24 this as being the case, with this in this placement in the
25 city.
59
1
Traffic has been brought up many, many times
2
before I stood up here. Lemay at Southridge golf course is
3
apparently being considered or has already been planned.
4
Trilby and College is one, I think, that needs to be looked
5
at very strongly. That is not the best intersection to
6
begin with, plus the width.
7
With high density, from what I understand, and
8
busing has come up quite a bit, there is, from what I
9
understand, potential plans. They are not plans at this
10
point, and I could be wrong on that, to provide for that.
11
There's also no amenities. You know, they keep talking
12
13
again about walking and biking in this area. There's no
amenities such as grocery stores to walk to or bike to, at
14
least not within a reasonable distance.
15
They have talked about a fire station, but I
16
hope we never have to use that.
17
I want to bring up one point that was made in
18
the last debate for the last project that was brought up by
19
a Council member that he felt that traffic and noise was a
20
problem in the city of Fort Collins. I don't think that by
21
moving many, many people further away from where they need
22
to go so they have to drive further is even solving that
23
problem or going in the right steps to correct it.
24
Final point is the planner of this, the
25
presenter for this project, had mentioned this has been done
M
1 in Denver.
We moved from
Denver. I
don't know
if that is
2 the goal of
Fort Collins,
to become
like Denver,
but I sure
3 hope not.
4 MR. PACKUM: My name is Trent Packum. I live at
5 931 Benson Lane, at the very end of where the previous
6 gentleman was talking.
7 I ditto the remarks of those who are totally
8 against this. It is not the atmosphere I want to raise my
9 four children. And I speak from experience, from inner-city
10 Detroit. This is not an experiment for most big cities. I
11 don't think Fort Collins has the experience, really, to get
12 into these types of experiments.
13 And from a large family within a project, I can
14 tell you what bored teenagers do, and with nothing to do,
15 nowhere to go, I -- I mean, like he said, there's nowhere to
16 even ride to. What are they going to do? Ride around in
17 circles.
18 It really doesn't make any sense to me, and I
19 chose that part of Fort Collins to move to, specifically for
20 my past, and that's pretty much what I wanted to say, is,
21 you know, none of these other people could happen to show
22 up. Well, I drug myself out of an inner-city type of an
23 atmosphere, and I don't want to see that move right next --
24 pretty much, to the top of my street, and I feel very
25 strongly about this. Thank you.
61
1
MR. DUNN: Madam Chair, my name's Larry Dunn.
2
I'm project director for The Resource Assistance Center, and
3
I'd like to clear up just a couple of things.
4
First, we really look forward to this opportunity
5
to work with Pridemark, and I think this is a real
6
opportunity to see a mixture of the nonprofit and for -profit
7
working together.
8
We build affordable houses, and the land is our
9
biggest -- biggest concern. It's always hard to find land.
10
So this could be a real help to us in providing more
li
affordable housing for working poor.
12
And this, we're talking about, you know, people
13
who are making, as Lou listed, you know, it's the people
14
that all of us work with. This is not projects. A part of
15
what we do is neighborhood education. So we talk about, you
16
know, obtaining housing, but we also talk about the
17
maintaining, the retaining, and the sustaining, which is the
18
neighborhood development and the community development
19
piece, and we have a substantial Kellogg grant to supplement
20
what we do in providing this education.
21
So, you know, I'd like to just clarify that
22
point, that it's not just putting people into houses and
23
then, you know, hoping that they do well. It's working with
24
them in that neighborhood situation. Thank you.
25
MR. ECKLA: Good evening. My name is David
62
1 Eckla, and I reside at 924 Deerhurst Circle in Eagletree
2 subdivision.
3 First of all, I'd just like to start off by
4 saying why myself and my family have chose to live in the
5 Eagletree subdivision, because I feel the most important
6 things is what it represents. It has a unique identity.
7 Very -- as we really look through the Fort Collins
8 community, of an area such as this, with low density, a lot
9 of room between homes, larger lots, really something to take
10 forward with my children, and allow them that opportunity to
11 live in an area like that. Also, it's very environmentally
12 intact, and it's, again, just a great area to raise
13 children.
14 The reason I oppose Provincetowne PUD and the
15 development is for a couple of key reasons. One, I think
16 it's been stated a variety of times about the density of
17 this area. As we look at 5.5 to 7 homes per acre or 12 per
18 acre, I think it's inevitable the impacts of traffic, the
19 impact of what that could do to a development like Eagletree
20 as far as property values. And so forth.
21 And I guess what I'm asking more is just a
22 better transition from dwellings, of going, you know, if we
23 have one dwelling per acre, up to three or four, just a
24 better transition in that community for the transition of
25 dwellings.
•
63
1
I just had left a community where it was a very
2
desirable place to live, and again, same growth pattern as I
3
believe Fort Collins is. Again, a development occurred near
4
the development which my family and I chose to live of
5
high -density housing, and that community really turned to be
6
less desirable. Property values went south. And was very,
7
again, impactful, economically, for our family.
8
And I guess -- I guess what I'm asking is the
9
Board to consider the following. Again, a less dramatic
10
transition of dwellings per acre. More compatibility to
11
this unique area that I think the developers of Eagletree
.
12
have built. And I would appreciate the consideration of a
13
more practical transition rather than innovative. Thank
14
you.
15
MS. BELL: Are there others who would like to
16
speak to us?
17
MR. SCHENDEL: My name is Wayne Schendel. I
18
live at 925 Deerhurst Circle. And have you ever considered,
19
where are these people going to go to work who live there?
20
Do you live in an area like that? You on the Planning
21
Commission?
22
We moved here from Denver on our own choice, get
23
away from the smell. The stench. The people driving down
24
the street, racing and so forth.
•
25
I worked on the police department in Houston. I
rV
1 worked on the police department in Lakewood. I'm not on the
2 police department here. But whenever you have high density,
3 crime starts in. And I don't appreciate it, because we live
4 right off of Brittany, and the traffic patterns, I can see
5 all of that increasing.
6 But I'd like to give a solution, maybe that
7 orange area up there, if you'd split it up and move one-half
8 down to the south, you'd be concentrating the high density,
9 maybe, and people can flow out a little better. And talking
10 bout when you come out of Brittany Drive and you kind of
11 look left to Trilby, before you know, you've got a car right
12 there that come over this hill, and you can't even see
13 them. So I think the planning people in the City of Fort
14 Collins ought to start planning a little better in some of
15 these areas.
16 And I think, I don't know why we can't have
17 developers from Fort Collins doing this. I think, don't we
18 have the resources right here in the City of Fort Collins?
19 I think you should look at that, too, because Denver, we
20 have enough crime there, and that's the reason I moved.
21 And I can say this over and over again. I don't
22 want the crime. I don't want the stench. And I don't want
23 the noise. And I really don't appreciate it, having this,
24 because we weren't even made aware of it, that this thing
25 was being developed. People I asked, more than once, said,
65
1 we don't know, and another thing is, we really weren't
2 noticed of this meeting until the round and about.
3 So I think you should -- and another thing I'd
4 like to mention, when you have meetings like this, Madame
5 Chair, that if you feel that it's a long meeting, I don't
6 appreciate sitting here for two and a half hours until my
7 turn is up. So please plan a little better next time.
8 Thank you.
9
MS. BELL: Is there anyone else who would like
10
to come forward to speak to us tonight?
it
MS. SCHENDEL: Good evening. My name is Joanne
12
Schendel. That was my husband that just spoke. I'm also a
•
13
resident of Fort Collins and of Eagletree. I'm not a
14
political person. I voted all my life, but this is the
15
first time I've ever been to any kind of a political
16
meeting, and so I'm very much an amateur.
17
I wanted to give you a little bit of background
18
of our situation so you can understand why we're opposed to
19
this. In 1952, my husband immigrated from Germany for the
20
prospects of a better quality of life in the United States.
21
His first job paid $1 an hour. We've been married 42 years
22
as of last Saturday. In fact, we cut short an anniversary
23
celebration to attend this meeting tonight because we
24
thought it was very important.
25
35 years ago, we moved from Houston, Texas, to
M.
1 Colorado for a better way of life, the open spaces and the
2 beautiful mountains. 34 years ago, we purchased a house
3 between Lakewood and Golden. It was definitely what would
4 be considered modest, affordable housing. We worked hard
5 and raised our three children in that little house, and
6 finally, four years ago, the house was paid for. It was
7 ours.
8 I tell you this to let you know that we are not
9 wealthy, snobbish residents. But there were things that
10 were happening that were very upsetting. Traffic was
11 increasing to an unbearably high rate. As a result,
12 pollution was terrible, and my husband has asthma, which is
13 aggravated by smog. The noise was increasing daily. We
14 were feeling increasingly closed in. The Denver West
15 complex was starting to build approximately 1,000 housing
16 units next to our subdivision, just as you proposed here.
17 In short, the quality of life was fast
18 diminishing. Even though our house was paid for, and we are
19 in our 60s, not exactly the age to pull up and move, we
20 decided that we wanted a better quality of life. We
21 searched and found what seemed to be the perfect setting.
22 The beautiful, smaller town of Fort Collins. No smog, far
23 less traffic, low crime, and a slower pace.
24 Then we found the subdivision of Eagletree with
25 open spaces, clean air, and no noise. We pulled up our
• 67
1 roots and went into debt to purchase the home of our dreams
2 for what we were searching for, quality of life, or so we
3 thought.
4 Now we find that is all about to be changed by
5 the City of Fort Collins. I can't even begin to tell you
6 the sinking feeling we have of knowing that approximately
7 1,000 housing units are to be erected right next to us.
8 This means over 2,000 added cars, over 10,000 car trips in
9 and out daily. Brittany and Province and Trilby have become
10 congested with smog and with noise.
11
Tonight, you alluded to the growing impact of
•
12
those and
its impact on the community when you talked about
13
the discussion
with Harbor Walk Estates. This certainly
14
applies to
this proposal due to heavy traffic to be
15
generated.
Traffic studies have been done by traffic
16
engineers.
However, obviously, they do not reside at
17
Eagletree
or they have -- they would have ruled differently.
18
We are simple folks, and we have worked hard all
19
our lives
to achieve what we have. Nothing has been given
20
to us. We
chose not to retire at an age that most people do
21
to retire,
simply to improve our quality of life.
22
All those people who now live in the southwest
23
part of town have chosen this area because of the type of
24
lifestyle,
open spaces, lower density, low traffic, and low
•
25
northeast
noise. Is this proposed development consistent
68
1 with the character of that neighborhood? I think not.
2 We are not objecting to development, but we are
3 objecting to the density proposed and the traffic congestion
4 and noise that will be results -- the result of the
5 density. We were told at the May neighborhood meeting, that
6 as residents of this area, our ideas and concerns would be
7 listened to by City Council. All residents who attended
8 that meeting voiced the concerns that I have listed. Many
9 letters were written to Mike and to the City Council,
10 pleading that this plan be redesigned to address these
11 concerns.
12 Residents are here tonight to once again voice
13 these concerns. Eagletree density was approved by you
14 before this new development. Perhaps you have listened, but
15 have you heard? The government of our country is based on
16 the premise that it is to serve the citizens and not vice
17 versa.
is We plead with you tonight not to go ahead with
19 this plan as currently outlined. Please give us lower
20 density, greater greenbelts between planned and existing
21 areas, different and better street access, and let us
22 continue with the quality of life that we moved to Eagletree
23 and to Fort Collins to attain. Thank you.
24 MS. BELL: Thank you.
25 MR. PADEN: Good evening. My name is Ken
0 69
1 Paden. I live in Victoria Estates.
2 There has been several questions throughout
3 these last 10, 12 months that I have been down to this
4 Planning and Zoning Board meeting that nobody has ever
5 really been able to tell me.
6 Number one is, does the City of Fort Collins
7 have a substation in the area to supply all these homes that
8
you have okayed the -- the ODPs on Shenandoah, Ringwood,
9
Registry Homes, Eagletree, Greenridge -- Greenstone, and now
10
Provincetowne? What about the water issue?
11
Is there enough water from Larimer -- Fort
12
Collins Loveland Water District to supply all of these
13
homes? How many police officers are you going to have to
14
hire to patrol all of this area when you have 110 homes in
15
Ridgewood Hills, 200 homes in Shenandoah, and now you're
16
talking 1100 homes in Provincetowne? How many more City
17
workers are going to have to be hired to do all this?
18
You keep adding more and more homes to the City
19
of Fort Collins, but since all these homes that are being
20
added to are in the Loveland school district, do you realize
21
the burden that you're putting on RJ-2 School District?
22
Sure, they have enough room, they stated, for Shenandoah and
23
Ridgewood Hills, but how about another 1100 homes for
24
Provincetowne?
.
25
One other comment is that I am in favor of
Frio]
1 having them rebuild the dam because this is a site that you
2 can see off of 287. It is a natural area with the wildlife,
3 the scenic view, and everything else. You reduce the size
4 of the lake that has been stated that the City of Fort
5 Collins does have water rights that they could put in that
6 water -- put into that lake.
7 And there are also underground streams that fill
8 that lake. That lake has been at this level ever since the
9 Duwicks have left the project, and it has not decreased
10 any. Water runs through it. What runs in, runs out. But
11 the water level has stayed the same. So I don't see where
12 there is a problem with not rebuilding the dam and having
13 it -- a natural area for everybody to see. Thank you.
14 MR. OSBORNE: My name is Jerry Osborne, and I
15 also live in Eagletree, and I won't spend a lot of time
16 going over the same issues that my neighbors already
17 covered.
18 But I'd just like to say that I've lived in this
19 area all my life, except for the last two years, and I just
20 moved back to this area. And our current house is the third
21 house that we've had in Fort Collins. And we moved into
22 this subdivision for some of the same reasons they already
23 stated, because of the open field and the sort of rural
24 setting, even though it's within the city limits.
25 And with this density that's proposed, the
•
71
1
traffic volume is going to be unbearable. And I think
2
that's probably hard for people to understand, unless
3
they've really been in the area, because it's sort of -- I
4
mean, everybody talks about Trilby and Lemay, but the impact
5
is going to be on Brittany Drive and on the Deerhurst Circle
6
and the arteries -- the smaller streets that are within the
7
subdivision. And the traffic on Lemay and Trilby is not an
8
issue for us so much as the traffic within the subdivision,
9
at least not for myself.
10
So I would also urge you to consider reducing
11
the density or at least not approving the high density
12
that's proposed. Thank you.
13
MR. GLOVER: My name's Kip Glover. I also live
14
in Eagletree, and I'll try to keep this real short.
15
But I'm not against the low income housing. I
16
think that's great. It's just that this project is so big.
17
I've always tried to live my life with one word,
18
moderation. This project, it just -- it seems like there's
19
a lot of issues here tonight, separate ones from everybody,
20
the lake, the traffic, the density. It seems like such a
21
big project, maybe we should consider some moderation in
22
there. Some small -income housing would be great.
23
MS. BELL: Is there anybody else who would like
24
to speak to us this evening.
M25
Okay. I guess we're ready to bring this issue
72
1
back before the Board. And since
that took several hours, I
2
think --
3
MR. SAY: My name's Mac
Say --
4
MS. BELL: I'm sorry.
5
MR. SAY: My name's Mac
Say, and I live in
6
Colorado. The only reason I made
a remark, I come back 30
7
hours ago. Four years ago, when I
pulled off Trilby to get
8
on College, it was one minute. I
have to wait that long
9
because I have a bigger vehicle.
You have problems then, I
10
think you'll have bigger problems
now, with traffic.
11
MS. BELL: Thank you.
I'm sorry I didn't see
12
you. Is there anybody else?
13
MS. FERENIO: My name is
Bee Ferenio. I live at
14
517 East Trilby. That's the mobile
home park. So I'm one
15
of those people who doesn't have a
house. I have a house,
16
but no land.
17 I live on the south side of that mobile home
18 park, and I look out over the wetlands that gentleman from
19 Brittany Knolls mentioned, and I have a concern about that
20 area being preserved or at least not disturbed, and it looks
21 to me from the map as if that's an out lot, but I'm not
22 sure.
23 That's one of my concerns. I appreciate other
24 people's concerns about the traffic and the density in what
25 essentially is a rural area. But my experience in Fort
11
•
i 73
1 Collins has been such that I could not possibly oppose any
2 proposal that would bring moderately priced housing to this
3 area. Thank you.
4 MS. BELL: If there's anybody else, please come
5 forward.
6
Okay. I'm going to try again to close this
7
portion of the meeting. And I would like to take a
8
five-minute break so that we can go to the rest room, and so
9
we'll be back in five minutes to discuss this.
10
(Recess.)
11
MS. BELL: This meeting is called back to order.
•
12
I've been advised that I need to give the
13
applicant an opportunity, if they choose to give a very
14
briefly rebuttal. Does the applicant have anything that
.15
they would like to say that you could keep brief, please?
16
MR. HARMON: I'll do my best. Certainly,
17
there's a lot of testimony. I think I can keep it fairly
18
brief.
19
I think the main things to address, I'm just
20
start with TRAC, briefly. Granted, this project will add a
21
significant amount of traffic to the area. But I just want
22
everybody to understand that the approved development on
23
this piece of property included 1.4 million square feet of
24
commercial office and industrial space. 150,000 square feet
i25
shopping center. The traffic generation by the approved
74
1 plan would be triple or quadruple what this development is
2 going to generate.
3 We'll also be paying close to a million dollars
4 in fees under the current fee structure which I understand
5 is about to go up to the City for off -site improvements,
6 Lemay, Trilby, Highway 32, the intersection at College, all
7 those types of things. All that Money is going to be paid
8 to the City beyond our control as to when and how they spend
9 the money. But this development will provide those funds.
10 I want to address briefly Mr. Zier's remarks.
11 You know, frankly, as a developer, I always make sure when I
12 go buy a piece of ground that I know what's going to go on
13 next door. And if I don't like what's going to go on next
14 door, then I choose to develop somewhere else.
15 When Mr. Zier's client purchased the Eagletree
16 property, which, by the way, is approved as Provincetowne
17 filing number 1, they knew full well that the property to
18 the south was zoned for a shopping center and an industrial
19 park. The property to the east was -- or west would be
20 zoned for five dwelling units to the acre.
21 The intensity, as he called it, this massive
22 zoning and development that we're proposing, is roughly the
23 same from a residential standpoint as the approved plan.
24 That the maximum, we're talking 120 units more than the
25 original plan called for, and when you take into account the
.
75
1
extreme lessening of intensity from industrial development
2
to open space, the impact on these folks who bought at
3
Brittany Knolls is lessened dramatically.
4
I appreciate their concerns about our
5
development, but frankly, they should have had their
6
concerns when they first purchased the property. The
7
property directly to the south was zoned for industrial
8
ground. The multifamily component of their property is
9
within a hundred feet of the existing homes -- 110 feet, I
10
think, is the distance that they called for. We didn't
li
scale it. It's written on their ODP. There's an exact
.
12
figure on their plan.
13
So when they stand up and they cast these
14
general aspersions on our development, they're sort of
15
leaving out what the basic facts are; and the facts are,
16
there's an approved project with a much greater density than
17
what we're providing.
18
And this project does provide amenities for the
19
neighborhood that don't exist today. They're right.
20
Brittany Knolls and Eagletree basically have zero amenities
21
in them. What we've done is cluster the development so
22
there's now 160 acres of amenity for everyone in Fort
23
Collins to enjoy. Granted, they have larger lots. But all
24
they have is private open space.
25
As the one gentleman said, there's nothing for
76
1 the kids to do. You know, that's what we're trying to
2 correct. That's the future of planning. That's how you
3 build good communities, is to create some density, provide
4 some amenities, allow people to circulate on their bicycles,
5 by foot, on trails, provide parks. That's the kind of thing
6 we need to be doing, not putting people in quarter -acre lots
7 surrounded by private property with absolutely no amenities
8 for the public.
9 This is an issue you face everywhere. And we
10 really made a great effort and worked with the City to try
it to address it. And I think we've done -- the Downy folks
12 have done as good a job as I've ever seen in any kind of
13 development.
14 And I also object to the characterization of this
15 project, this development, as a, quote -unquote, project. I
16 group up on the East Coast. I know exactly what he's
17 talking about. In fact, right now, they're bulldozing the
18 projects and creating developments like this. They just
19 announced in Chicago a two or three billion dollar plan to
20 bulldoze a major project in Chicago -- the name slips my
21 mind -- and put in what they call a neotraditional type of
22 neighborhood. They're going to bulldoze 4,000 units.
23 MS. BELL: Can you summarize, please?
24 MR. HARMON: The bottom line is, I think that we
25 have addressed the issues that these folks are concerned
. 77
1 about. If they really look at the plan closely, they'll see
2 that we're providing a lot of things they don't already
3 have, and this is a project that's good for the community
4 and good for the area. Thank you.
5 MS. BELL: Okay. We're now open for questions
6 and discussions here with the Board, so who would like to
7 start? Karen?
8
MS. WEITKUNAT: Mike, I would like a
9
clarification of the Benson Lake Reservoir situation and how
10
that affects this project at this time, just for the record,
11
and the -- the --
.
12
MR. LUDWIG: In a minute, Tom Shoemaker is
13
available, if I can't answer this. But typically, the
14
situation is that the dam either needs to be replaced
15
completely or broached and reconfigured in some other form.
16
The only way that Benson Lake impacts this
17
development is if the dam remains. If the dam remains,
i8
parcels B and C become -- they're located in what we call
19
the spillway for the dam. They would not be able to be
20
developed.
21
And what we've indicated as a condition of our
22
recommendation this evening, is that if the dam remains, the
23
ODP would need to be amended that parcels B and C and any
24
other parcels which, you know, we may not be aware of at
25
this point, could not be developed, would have to be amended
WU
1 to show that they couldn't
2 MS. WEITKUNAT: But at this point in time, we
3 can do nothing about that.
4 MR. LUDWIG: That is correct.
5 MR. GAVALDON: I probably think Tom should come
6 up. I have a few questions relative to Karen's points that
7 needs more clarification.
8 Hi, Tom.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes, sir.
10 MR. GAVALDON: A couple of concerns were brought
11 up by the neighbors I'd like you to help me understand, and
12 going back to the some of the points you had raised.
13 One, first option, to rebuild the dam was
14 probably not one of your plans; is that correct?
15 MR. SHOEMAKER: What I indicated to you is that
16 that isn't what we're recommending at this time. And the
17 reason for that is two -fold. One is the impact that was
18 just discussed about the spillway and the large area of the
19 spillway below that jurisdictional reservoir. And then the
20 second is the cost.
21 Of the options that we looked at so far -- and
22 these are feasibility -level assessments -- breaching the dam
23 and allowing, taking the grade back to its original
24 prereservoir grade, which would still leave a lake of
25 between 20 and 30 acres there, is about $139,000 cost to the
79
1
City of Fort Collins, compared to the full reservoir, is at
2
least $440,000 cost to the City of Fort Collins. So there
3
are financial costs here.
4
I think the key thing that I would want to
5
emphasize on this is we're very much aware of the view
6
corridor coming down off of College and looking across
7
that. We're very much aware of the wetlands and habitat
8
value of the existing situation. And our desire, the sole
9
reason that the natural resources program and the natural
10
areas program is interested in this property would be to
11
enhance that value.
•
12
And the alternative that, in my mind, makes the
13
most sense on that, we would still be looking at investing
14
almost $280,000 in that lake and wetlands complex.
15
MR. GAVALDON: Can you help me on some of the
16
points raised by the citizens about the water rights and the
17
amount of shares the City has and relative to the farm on
18
the east that has access rights from Benson to its
19
property? And the options that you'll be exploring? Is
20
that going to be a compromise? What concerns will be raised
21
by all this?
22 MR. HARMON: Okay. With respect to the water
23 rights owned by Mrs. Grace, who lives downstream of this, we
24 do need to make sure that we provide pass -through capability
• 25 for those water rights. That would be part of the design of
80
1 whatever happens here. So the water rights that she
2 controls would be passed through when she requires that
3 irrigation water.
4 With respect to the water rights situation for
5 Benson Reservoir itself, it may sound a little confusing.
6 It is a little confusing. I guess what I meant to say is
7 that the City did not get back any water rights, storage
8 rights, for the reservoir when we got the land back. So
9 coming back, when the land came back, or came to the City
10 ownership, it came without any storage rights or any water
11 rights for that reservoir.
12 It is true that the City of Fort Collins does
13 own shares of North Louden water, and it is possible that we
14 could transfer those and use that in storage in any of the
15 alternatives. But the water rights that the City does own
16 in North Louden were not acquired as part of this project
17 and were not acquired for the purpose of filling Benson
18 Reservoir.
19 MR. GAVALDON: So essentially, you can still go
20 back to the rebuilding of the dam by breaching and bringing
21 it up to the levels, or use a modified form with the
22 available options you have available to you, right?
23 MR. HARMON: That's correct.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And you did indicate that
25 whatever you all do with the reservoir, you include the
81
1 residents of the area's inputs and their involvement.
2 MR. HARMON: Yes.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
4 MS. BELL: I'd like to follow up on a couple of
5 his questions.
6 Could you show us -- you said it would just
7 reduce the size of the lake. Could you kind of circle an
8 area that you think would be the size with your proposal?
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, the reservoir depicted on
10 this diagram is about 40 acres in size, and the engineering
11 estimate is that the reduced lake would be approximately
12 half of that. So it would be -- I'm just guessing, but
13 somewhere in that vicinity.
14 MS. BELL: Okay.
15 MR. SHOEMAKER: Again, this is a very conceptual
16 design, and what we're talking about, potentially, is fairly
17 major work in that area.
18 MS. BELL: And related to the water rights over
19 there on Lemay to the farm, is there like a ditch system
20 already in place there? Is that how the water gets to that
21 farm?
22 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes.
23 MS. BELL: So you're looking at, what,
24 undergrounding that or keeping the ditch system configured
• 25 in development, how? Where is that farm?
82
1 MR.
HARMON:
It's
over
in this area.
2 MS.
BELL:
So it
comes
down across the open
3 space.
4 MR. SHOEMAKER: So we would likely just maintain
5 the ditch configuration or incorporate it in the development
6 design.
7
MS.
BELL: Okay.
Just to ask a couple more
8
questions from
the citizens.
This wetland that's behind the
9
trailer park;
it looks like
it's called Cattail Marsh; is
10
that right? Does
that seem
to be what everybody was
11
referring to?
12
MR.
SHOEMAKER: It is. I would ask Rob Wilkinson
13
to come up on
this. He's done the review of the development
14 proposal.
15 MS. BELL: There was that area of concern, and I
16 think the Board wants to know what the status of that is and
17 if that's being protected or encroached upon in any way by
18 this development.
19 And then there was the one woman's question about
20 the wetlands. There's some area of concern that she thought
21 was there by that park area or somewhere in that concern.
22 So maybe someone could help us with some of these issues.
23 MR. WILKINSON: Okay. We are aware of the
24 wetlands adjacent to and on the site. And there are some
25 areas that are downstream or to the east, northeast, of the
• 83
1
dam, that appear to have some wetland characteristics, and
2
we had requested a delineation by the developer of wetlands
3
on the site. And also asked them to modify the plan to show
4
the potential for transition or buffer to the wetland areas
5
to the north and west, which are the ones just south of the
6
trailer court, which were described.
7
Now, in the staff report, it says that the
8
ultimate disposition of the wetlands on the site will be
9
determined at the time of preliminary review. We didn't put
10
a condition on the development, because it's my
it
understanding that an ODP doesn't set conditions for buffer
.
12
or whatever to wetland, and that those will be discussed in
13
detail when we do have a design before us, inform us about
14
the types of approaches we take on other things.
15
If the attorney feels like we need a stronger
16
statement based upon some issues that have come up recently,
17
we could craft a condition that we are not committing to any
18
disposition of those wetlands at this point in time.
19
Because it's my understanding that we'll have that
20
opportunity at preliminary.
21
MS. BELL: Okay. There was also --
22
MR. LUDWIG: Wait, I'm sorry.
23
MS. BELL: Oh, excuse me.
24
MR. LUDWIG: Once again, on page -- that was on
•.
25
page 15 of the staff memo, where it discussed about the
84
1 disposition of the wetlands and natural resources.
2 MS. BELL: Okay.
3 MR. LUDWIG: It's the last paragraph before the
4 findings of facts.
5 MS. BELL: There was also a question about
6 some kind of a three-year period and don't rush into the
7 dam. Does somebody know that answer or that question?
8 MR. SCHLUTER: I'm Glenn Schluter with the
9 Stormwater Utility. You guys know me, but that letter was
10 sent to us in 193, I believe. And '97 is when we have to do
11 something with the dam.
12 Right now, the only way water gets out of there
13 is there's two people that have the key, the river
14 commissioner and the ditch rider. And they have been
15 limited to holding the water six feet from the top of the
16 spillway. That's why it stays at a constant level. So they
17 are -- when will they run water to Mrs. Grace? They go over
18 there and they adjust it constantly. So -- but we do have
19 to have it fixed by 197 or breach it or something.
20 MS. BELL: So we're real close to that.
21 MR. SCHLUTER: That's true.
22 MS. BELL: Also, the related question was, if
23 this didn't pass or something, what happens to Benson Lake?
24 I guess the Benson Lake issue still remains, whether this
25 goes forward or not and all the time frames and things that
85
1
have to be done.
2
MR. SCHLUTER: Yeah, we still have to do
3
something with that reservoir, because of the -- there's
4
already properties downstream that could be in danger.
5
MS. BELL: Okay. I'm going to let other Board
6
members ask questions, because I know they'll get to some of
7
the other concerns that citizens have. Like traffic.
8
MR. BYRNE: Unless I missed something, I think
9
traffic is a little bit of an issue. And we're with you on
10
that one, I think. I think it was -- was it Ann Maxan,
11
you've been there a long time and you made a very plain and
12
simple statement that is one that I know I personally think
13
about a lot, which is the impact of development on schools
14
and our roadways.
15
I sort of look at some of these development
16
proposals as the food pyramid, and there are things that are
17
fundamental, like grains and vegetables and a lot of times,
18
we focus on the sweets and we spend a lot of -- we spend a
19
lot of our time and energy on the very top of the food
20
pyramid when I really think we need to focus on the bottom.
21
So let's just talk about traffic a little bit. I
22
certainly appreciate that the proposed development is a
23
neotraditional or new urbanist design. And the books that
24
I've read -- and I've probably read six or seven books in
25
the last year on new urbanism. Usually, in about the first
m
1 chapter, they talk about connections. They talk about the
2 fact that, you know -- one of the real problems I see with
3 this development is the lack of connections. We've got one
4 major entrance, I guess, off of Lemay and another one off of
5 Trilby. And there was some discussion about potential other
6 routes in and out of the project.
7 So can anybody talk about that aspect of it, you
8 know, how potential is it? Is it just somebody's dream?
9 Are we talking about something that is reality here? Or --
10 you know, because I think, obviously, that is one of the
11 opponents that, personally, I would say is one that concerns
12 me pretty seriously, is that we're going to channel a whole
13 bunch of cars through one basic -- you know, through a
14 couple different choke points, and I don't think we want
15 that.
16 MR. JONES: My name's Fred Jones. I'm with
17 Transportation. That's a very good point, Mike, that you
18 bring up. The original ODP that was approved had another
19 southern connection down to County Road 32. This one
20 doesn't have that. We essentially have two collector
21 streets that take the residential traffic back out to the
22 arterial street network under the current proposed Overall
23 Development Plan.
24 If you look at the entire square mile of
25 development that we have proposed here, boarded on the east
• 87
1 by Lemay, on the north by Trilby Road, on the west by U.S.
2 287, and on the south by County Road 32, there are only two
3 major collector roads proposed in this ODP.
4 There is a potential for another connector
5 through this parcel and potentially could come out to U.S.
6 287. That has not been proposed at this time. We would
7 probably entertain an opportunity to have that connection
8 either go out to U.S. 287 or up to Trilby Road in another
9 fashion. We're kind of market -driven in that area, too.
10 Unless someone develops some of the outlying parcels, we
11 don't have an opportunity to see how those connections would
• 12 be made.
13 Under the current traffic operation plan or
14 traffic operation analysis, we show that Province and Lemay,
15 with 2015 traffic volumes, would operate at level service
16 A. And likewise, Brittany and Trilby would operate at level
17 of service A.
18 We currently have a traffic signal at the
19 intersection of Trilby Road and U.S. 287. We have a
20 proposed traffic signal that has been approved and will be
21 installed in the near future at County Road 32 and U.S. 287.
22 We've recently installed a multi -way stop at
23 Lemay and County Road 32 due to some accidents that we've
24 had at that intersection. And it operates very efficiently
25 at this time. The projected traffic volumes and level of
1 service operation with the two-way stop indicated a level of
2 service E in the year 2015. With a multi -way stop, it would
3 more likely become a signalized intersection in the future.
4 We've also talked about the potential for a
5 signalized intersection at Lemay and Trilby Road. That
6 would also happen, and it will happen probably before the
7 year 2000.
8 There have been some concerns about the two-lane
9 cross-section of roadway north of Trilby Road on Lemay, and
10 that currently is carrying about 3200 cars per day. This
11 site -generated traffic will create an estimated 4150 trips
12 per day.
13 There's a break point of where we go from a
14 two-lane cross-section to a four -lane cross-section, and
15 those average daily trips usually trigger around 13,000 cars
16 per day. There is a proposed improvement process that will
17 provide for additional funding for that stretch of Lemay to
18 be improved in the future.
19 But to address your concerns, the ODP does not
20 include the south access, because of the open space area and
21 the feel for, we don't want to build roads in open space.
22 And there is an unforeseen, what is going to happen in this
23 area? We don't know at this point whether that's going to
24 be commercial, whether that commercial will have porosity
25 back out to U.S. 287, or whether we will have additional
.
89
1
access points back to Trilby Road.
2
MR. BYRNE: Okay. Just to follow up a little
3
bit. Arterial is now considered what type of street? Is
4
that a collector street or is that an arterial street?
5
MR. JONES: On the Master Street Plan, Trilby
6
Road, from Lemay to Shields Street, will be a four -lane
7
arterial. There are pieces currently that are built to
8
arterial standards about a quarter of a mile, a third of a
9
mile, through this section here, was built as part of the
10
old SID and part of the other developments that have
11
happened, Brittany Knolls on the north.
.
12
MR. BYRNE: And that arterial, as it builds out,
13
that would naturally be built to the new street standards.
14
MR. JONES: Yes, it would be, which would include
15
a five -lane cross-section, two lanes each direction, and a
16
center reversible turn lane.
17
MR. BYRNE: And a number of people spoke of a
18
hill that makes, I guess, exiting from Brittany Knolls
19
somewhat treacherous because of the limited field of view.
20 Can you comment on that one as well?
21 MR. JONES: I am aware that there is a hill down
22 here, but I haven't done sight distance study; but based on
23 the comments that have been brought forward at the hearing
24 tonight, we will be looking at a sight distance study at
. 25 that location.
m
1 MR. BYRNE: And then what is the speed limit?
2 MR. JONES: The speed limit is currently posted
3 at 40 miles per hour. We are now in a reevaluation of all
4 of our arterial streets in the City of Fort Collins. We're
5 reevaluating the numerical posted speed limit on our major
6 arterials. This will also be on the list to look at that,
7 based on the engineering criteria is traffic volume, speeds,
8 85th percentile of speeds that people drive at, hazardous
9 locations within the section of roadway, bicycle and
10 pedestrian activities on that roadway, and sight distance at
11 critical intersections.
12 MR. BYRNE: Okay. Now, I guess -- you know, the
13 only other thing I want to comment on is the -- the reason
14 that the streets are configured the way they are is really
15 kind of a historic thing. I mean, we've got Eagletree,
16 which is -- was built, and then we've got Victoria Estates,
17 which was built, and then we have the site that we're
18 looking at, which is kind of an irregular -shaped thing, and
19 in order to make this work, we're sort of forced into a
20 street configuration that's -- I think the way the British
21 term it is a wandering cow where it just sort of -- and
22 that's quite honestly the term that they use, but is that
23 fair to say?
24 MR. JONES: We categorize this as a curved linear
25 type design. Yes, and on the -- on an ODP, we primarily
•
91
1
only look at arterial streets and collector street
2
networks. we don't look at a breakdown to each individual
3
residential street and how it all connects. But I guess
4
that would be a fair assessment.
5
MR. BYRNE: Okay. And it's also fair to say that
6
if the northwest portion that currently is not under review
7
here were under review, we would probably end up with a
8
street configuration that would allow us greater access to
9
the site.
10
MR. JONES: Yes, we would. We would more than
11
likely look at additional porosity, possibly back over into
12
this neighborhood, which has some dead-end streets that look
13
like they were originally set up to have some other
14
connections of that nature. And whether or not -- I'm not
15
sure if the trailer court would have some sort of a porosity
16
back into the activity center or not, I'm not sure.
17
MR. BYRNE: Does somebody else want to take
18
schools?
19
MS. BELL: I think we'll get to schools, but I
20
have a couple other traffic things. So there are no
21
traffic -- did you say there might be a traffic signal at
22
Trilby and Brittany at some point?
23
MR. JONES: At Trilby and Brittany, I would --
24
fair to say that if it met signal warrants and there was an
•
25
accident history, that it could be a potential location,
EK
1 based upon circumstances.
2 MS. BELL: It's reasonably easy to make
3 right -outs, but boy, those left -outs are going to be a
4 problem.
5 And how about along Lemay there? Is that like
6 a -- I know that there's plans further north on Lemay to
7 have signals at different intersections. Has a study or any
8 kind of, you know, reasonable plan been made for what to do
9 with this section of Lemay in terms of signalization?
10 MR. JONES: No, we basically, currently, with the
11 City, evaluate and have about 30 locations on a priority
12 list of potential signalized locations, and we base that
13 upon the Federal warrant criteria in the Manual on Uniform
14 Traffic Control Devices that states a specific volume for
15 eight hours of a 24-hour day, interruption of continuous
16 flow, school crossings, safety, accident history, and some
17 peak hour volumes and peak hour delays.
18 MS. BELL: And does this -- is this project
19 required to do -- I guess they would be considered off -site
20 improvements at 287 and Trilby?
21 MR. JONES: Yes. The traffic impact study does
22 show some off -site improvements by the year 2015 at Trilby
23 and U.S. 287. That would be to build that out to a full
24 arterial standard with a five -lane cross-section.
25 MS. BELL: So, what, there's money being put
93
1 aside from this -- I'm asking if this project here is
2 contributing to some of those improvements at that
3 intersection.
4 MR. JONES: The money that is put aside goes into
5 an oversizing fund that handles off -site improvements
6 throughout the city. So it doesn't necessarily mean that
7 this would be a priority intersection until it deemed
8
necessary.
9
MS. BELL: Could you just clarify. There's a
10
proposed future school pickup place here, and the bus barn
it
is across the street. How long do you think it would be
.
12
before this area really is able to service mass transit for,
13
you know, for people that would be living here?
14
MR. JONES: I think -- I'm not the correct person
15
to answer this, but I think bus ridership is based on the
16
supply and demand. If you have the demand, then the supply
17
would be there. So that would possibly be.why our City Plan
18
is looking at closer densities and developments like this,
19
so we can have those opportunities for mass transit.
20
MS. BELL: So when there's enough people, then, a
21
bus will come, so to speak.
22
MR. JONES: Very true. It's the reverse of the
23
theory if you build it, they will come. If you don't build
24
it, they won't come.
•
25
MS. BELL: Okay. Does that finish it up, or are
94
1 there other Board members who have traffic questions?
2 okay.
3 MR. GAVALDON: I'd like to go back and address
4 the reservoir, and maybe, Mike, you can help me on this, and
5 Tom, possibly. I was doing some analysis and was looking at
6 the effects of B and C. And, Tom, I need your help on
7 this. Given the number scenarios that you addressed
8 earlier, how many of them would either impact partially or
9 entirely parcels B and C? And that's dealing with the dam
10 and the reservoir configuration.
11 MR. SHOEMAKER: Only alternative 5, the full
12 jurisdictional reservoir.
13 MR. GAVALDON: I'm sorry.
14 MR. SHOEMAKER: Only alternative 5, which was
15 totally rebuilding the existing dam in its current location,
16 would preclude development on parcels B and C. The other
17 four would not.
18 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So what would be the net
19 effect of alternative 5, to rebuild the reservoir, in
20 affecting B and C in terms of dwelling units reduction?
21 MR. SHOEMAKER: I don't know.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Maybe Mike can help me.
23 MR. LUDWIG: Parcel B is designated for clustered
24 single-family, and that's showing 72 to 84 dwelling units.
25 Parcel C is medium density, single-family residential, and
.
95
1
that's showing 100 to 120 units. So anywhere from, you
2
know, 214 to -- 172 to 214 dwelling units could be impacted
3
if the full dam is replaced.
4
MR. GAVALDON: So it could conceivably take it
5
down to 936, given the average of 200, from, let's say,
6
1136.
7
MR. LUDWIG: Correct.
8
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So if that was an option --
9
because I'm hearing people indicating that they favor
10
rebuilding it in its entirety, and that is going to have an
11
effect on this development in some form or another, and the
12
amendment will address that? You know, the condition of
.
13
approval?
14
MR. LUDWIG: Yeah, they would have to either
15
amend, delete, whatever, those parcels from the plan. They
16
couldn't be built on.
17
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to be sure I
18
had the numbers correct on that. Thank you.
19
MS. BELL: I'm ready to move on to some other
20
issues. I'd like someone to address, maybe Mike, this
21
employment issue that we always have to talk about on ODPs.
22
Where are all the people going to work? Or where are the
23
projected, you know, employment sites for this development?
24
MR. LUDWIG: I don't know at the ODP stage.
25
During the preliminary PUD, they'll be required to meet our
m
1 residential uses point chart. Whether or not they gain
2 points for being in proximity to an employment center, I
3 don't know.
4 Harmony Road, I would assume, two miles to the
5 north, would be the closest major employment center, with
6 all the activity that's going along Harmony Road. I do know
7 there's been discussion in previous considerations, like on
8 Ridgewood Hills, of counting the Kenmore strip as an
9 employment center. You know, I don't think at an ODP stage,
10 we can say where the residents are going to work in the city
11 of Fort Collins. They can work anywhere, just as any
12 neighborhood in the center.
13 MS. BELL: Will this project be under the new
14 density --
15 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
16 MS. BELL: -- point chart? Okay. Are there --
17 is there, like, a grocery store -- where's the next grocery
18 store planned for this neighborhood? Is it in this
19 neighborhood or --
20 MR. LUDWIG: I believe it's in the Shenandoah
21 ODP, nearer to College Avenue.
22 MS. BELL: So everybody will have to drive all
23 the way around there to get to that grocery store, I guess.
24 How about covenants? Somebody asked about
25 covenants. Will there be covenants that go with this
0
•
97
1
development? I guess that would be a question for the
2
applicant.
3
MR. LUDWIG: Could -- yeah. You might need to
4
restate that question.
5
MS. BELL: Covenants? There was a question from
6
citizens regarding covenants in this area. Would there be
7
some kind of protective covenants?
8
MR. HARMON: Yes. Jim Harmon, representing
9
Pridemark. Absolutely. In all developments that we do
10
today, there's restrictive covenants, and they will apply to
it
all homes within the development.
12
MS. BELL: Thank you.
13
MR. LUDWIG: Just one, while the applicant is
14
here, you had a question about schools, and I do know that
15
the applicant has worked extensively with the Loveland -- or
16
Thompson Valley School District, so I'll let Rick Volpe
17
possibly explain some of the talk that they've -- talks
18
they've had with the school district.
19
MR. HARMON: We have a letter from the district,
20
I believe, with us tonight also.
21
MS. BELL: Maybe the issue at hand is, we've had
22
many projects in this general vicinity over the past number
23
of months, and what's the capacity like when we count all
24
four or five of these projects in the area, not just this
•
25
one, but all of them?
m
1 MR. VOLPE: Rick Volpe with Downy, Thorpe, and
2 James, planning consultant. I've had numerous discussions
3 with the school district, and they have had -- they have a
4 major concern for growth and development in this area and
5 its effect on school capacity. As a matter of fact, they've
6 just approved a -- and adopted -- the Board of Education for
7 the Thompson R 2-J School District, June 19th, 1996, adopted
8 a new master plan with master plan goals and objectives for
9 the future of growth and development and capital
10 improvements for schools.
11 Currently, according to the school district,
12 they're right now experiencing their greatest growth in this
13 area of the school district. We are on the very border, the
14 northern edge, of the school district. I think Trilby Road
15 is.the northern extreme of the school district.
16 They -- according to the master plan, which I
17 received a copy of, there is -- they are not currently
18 overcapacity in the Cottonwood school, Cottonwood Plains
19 school. However, they are concerned that the growth in this
20 area is going to bring that to an overcapacity very soon.
21 The middle schools are the bigger problem right now, and the
22 middle school, Conrad Ball, which is the middle school for
23 this area, is overcapacity. However, the high school is at
24 or close to capacity right now.
25 So as a result of this -- and it's not just this
•
99
1
projects; it's numerous projects in the area -- the top
2
three goals of the 10 or 12 to 15 goals that they've
3
identified address, number one, a new middle school for this
4
area and a new high school as number two. Both of those
5
would help improve the conditions of this area. Number
6
three was an expansion, an addition, to the Cottonwood
7
Plains school, which is in a half a -- $500,000 improvement
8
to the school, adding additional seats. So they are aware
9
of the problem.
10
The bigger -- another issue that they wanted to
11
address with me was access to the -- to the schools; how do
12
students get there? Cottonwood Plains is to the south of
13
the project, south of County Road 32, and I worked with them
14
closely, and I have a letter from them here which I can give
15
you, which is addressed from the transportation director at
16
the school district, thanking us for an opportunity to look
17
at the plan and to work with them closely at this ODP level.
18
The plan, and you had -- I think this was brought
19
up before, there was a bus stop shown? That was a school,
20
potential school bus stop, and I'll just point that out. In
21
working with the school district, we talked about a
22
potential bus pickup for elementary school students as well
23
as high school and middle school students at this access
24
here, with the collector road of Trilby and Brittany. And
25
another one, in this location here, at Province and Lemay.
100
1 A third access was proposed for a bus pickup as
2 well as a potential crossing down here at Victoria Estates
3 and County Road 32. Those three were added to the plan as
4 potential bus pickup locations. The biggest concern was how
5 to get students, elementary school students, to the school.
6 If we are within the criteria of walking distance, which is
7 a mile and a half from the elementary school, how fast could
8 they cross County Road 32.
9 And so we talked to them about this potential
10 location or potentially this intersection over here at
11 County Road 32 and Lemay. One opportunity, and one thing we
12 talked about, was adding a pedestrian trail corridor through
13 the open space which would provide access to County Road 32
14 on the north side and then down across County Road 32 at
15 this drive here, into Victoria Estates, which runs north and
16 south, straight down to the school. That was a very strong
17 possibility, and we've kind of identified that on the plan.
18 The middle school and the high school are outside
19 the walking distance zones for the school district, and so
20 the bus pickup points would be critical at those two points
21 to the north, as well as this one to the south.
22 That's basically my summary of what our
23 discussions have been with the school district.
24 MR. LUDWIG: Another point I'd like to add is
25 that since 19 -- the existing ODP has been approved since
0
0 101
1 1987, and once again, we're dealing with an increase of 128
2 dwelling units, so it's not like we're talking about a
3 brand-new development of 1200 or 1100 dwelling units on the
4 property. It has been known since 1987 that this is
5 possible.
6
MR. BYRNE: Can I just follow up on the school
7
pickup? How far is it from the neighborhood park to one of
8
the close -- the closest bus pickup points?
9
MR. VOLPE: It's generally a mile between these
10
major intersections. So if you're talking about this
it
particular park here the closest point would either --
•
12
probably almost equidistant between this point here and this
13
point here. Probably a little further if we have to go
14
around the corner. This is probably the closest point. I
15
would say roughly a half a mile.
16
MR. BYRNE: I think that's probably -- I think
17
that's probably an excessive distance for kids to go to get
18
picked up by a bus, isn't it?
19
MR. VOLPE: The school district that we talked
20
about, whether they would want internal pickup points, and
21
they said no, that they generally -- pickup points are on
22
the edges of the property, and they selected those points of
23
access. We would be -- we offered and would be happy to
24
talk to them about internal points of pickup along the
.
25
internal collector streets, if that was something that they
102
1 wanted.
2 There's a letter that I'd like to enter into the
3 record from the school district, and I'll just give Mike the
4 copies of it.
5 MS. BELL: Okay. Are there other Board questions
6 or concerns at this point?
7 MR. COLTON: Could you, Mike, verify what the
8 approximate density is of like Brittany Knolls and
9 Huntington Hills and some of these other developments that
10 are going on out in the area?
11
MR. LUDWIG:
I believe they're
all right around
12
three dwelling units an acre,
basically.
It's a city
13
minimum.
14
MR. COLTON:
So I
believe, as
I heard earlier, if
15
you count all the area
here,,including
the
open space
16
dedication, it's at --
about
the same as
those other areas
17
that are in the area.
18 MR. LUDWIG: Correct.
19 MR. COLTON: Correct. So people have
20 characterized this as high density, but that's only if you
21 look at the area that's being developed, not at the total
22 number of acres available. Is that correct?
23 MR. LUDWIG: Correct. And the fact that it's 160
24 acres of public open space, versus development all over the
25 entire property for private yards or parking lots or
. 103
1 whatever.
2 MR. COLTON: And the traditional alternative to
3 this would be just to have larger lots and probably not have
4 that open space, if we're going to develop this like we've
5 done Ridgewood Hills and Registry Ridge and things like
6 that? Is that --
7
MR. LUDWIG: I'll let Tom discuss possibly the
8
status of the natural area as far as potential development.
9
MR. SHOEMAKER: I just wanted to make one -- one
10
clarifying point, actually, is why I came down. Glenn, you
it
referred to it as an open space dedication. It is not.
.
12
It's purchased, internal purchase, within the City;
13
essentially, a natural areas program, buying the land from
14
the Finance Department, which currently owns it.
15
With respect to development potential, depending
16
on the dam's safety considerations, you could view that
17
property as potentially developable or not. If the dam were
18
breached and a -- you know, a pathway for the remaining
19
water designed, then under current rules and regulations,
20
most of the remainder of the property could be developable
21
as it was proposed in the previous ODP.
22
MR. COLTON: Okay. But if we go ahead and do
23
this plan as shown, it would not be developed.
24
MR. SHOEMAKER: Correct.
•
25
MR. COLTON: Correct? I don't want to get into a
104
1 lot of financials, but I hope that the open
space fund
2 doesn't have to pay a heck of a lot, seeing
as
how the
3 density that would have been allowed anyway
is
being still
4 allowed but on a smaller area, and I'd like
to
save some of
5 those funds for other open space. So just
a comment in
6 terms of negotiating buying this from the City.
7 MR. SHOEMAKER: I always try and
do
the best I
8 can.
9 MR. COLTON: Thank you. I had a couple other
10 questions. Maybe more for the applicant. What uses do you
11 anticipate being in that six -acre neighborhood shopping
12 area, other than the fire station?
13 MR. HARMON: Jim Harmon, representing Pridemark.
14 You know, typical uses in this type of center would be local
15 convenience -type uses. Obviously, the local convenience
16 store, the 7-Eleven style store, dry cleaners, small video
17 stores, insurance agents. Local uses.
18 It's not a large enough site, and frankly,
19 there's not enough rooftops in the square mile right there
20 to handle a shopping center, grocery store type center. You
21 might achieve a small Wild Oats type market in there. We're
22 only talking five to ten thousand within the center, but
23 you're can certainly not going to get a 25 or 40,000 foot
24 Safeway there.
25 We see it more as neighborhood convenience. With
•
105
1
the fire station there, it might lend itself toward
2
combining in a restaurant pad type gas station, the whole
3
convenient package they put together now. That might be
4
something we'd like to integrate, and we're, in fact,
5
meeting with the fire department right now to see if we
6
can't integrate their use with the entire center in sort of
7
a unique way.
8
MR. COLTON: Okay. And I'm wondering if you
9
looked at any other configurations for that little
10
neighborhood shopping center that would be more centrally
11
located, like where the park is or something. I'm just
.
12
thinking -- there's a lot of people in that area, and it
13
might be more conducive to walking. I'm just wondering if
14
you looked at that or if this is really more -- serve not
15
only this neighborhood but maybe some of the other
16
neighborhoods.
17
MR. HARMON: Well, and in point of fact, that was
18
something we considered very -- very early on in the village
19
center, was, did we look at that as maybe a mixed -use --
20
office, little office area, little shopping, that kind of
21
thing. And what we were told by the retail experts was that
22
putting it in the middle limited it to just our residents,
23
and with a thousand homes, you could hardly support a corner
24
store, let alone 50,000 feet of retail.
•
25
But, however, by locating it out on the arterial
��
1 and having it connected to the development via the trail
2 system, what you do is pick up not only our thousand homes
3 but the couple hundred homes in the Brittany Knolls area,
4 the mobile home residents, and also the Eagletree
5 residents. They feel more empowered to use it. It's not
6 like it's tied to the middle of our -- of our development.
7 So it really becomes more of a focal point for a couple
8 square miles.
9 MR. COLTON: Thank you.
10 MS. BELL: I have a question related to
11 transitioning. We've heard quite a bit of talk tonight
12 about trying to transition this project a little bit
13 differently. I'm sure that's been thought about it, but
14 maybe you could comment on that a little bit more. And if
15 you need to stay down here.
16 You know, obviously, what we're talking about is
17 Eagletree feels that the density is too high right up
18 against them, and you know, how to -- is there any more
19 flipping around or changing that could be done. And maybe
20 you could also address, you know, is this very much
21 different than what the -- I think has been said before, but
22 maybe you can say it again, is this very much different than
23 what the original ODP was in terms of densities and
24 transition.
25 MR. HARMON: Well, with respect to the
.
107
1
transitioning issue, and we heard what they said, and we
2
really have made some fairly significant changes, although
3
they're difficult to see just by looking up at the plan.
4
I'd point out to the -- it's an area -- I mean,
5
it's a little fuzzy. I guess that's area G, up above, which
6
is right adjacent to the Eagletree development.
7
What we've done there is taken our -- it's our
8
cottage home product, which is a 1200 to 2,000 square foot
9
home, and with a rear entry garage and a detached or
10
attached, which is primarily an alley -loaded situation, and
it
we're going to front those out to Brittany.
.
12
And those homes, the front door of those homes,
13
will be approximately the same distance from the adjoining
14
Brittany -- or Eagletree homes as the Eagletree homes are
15
from their multifamily. So they've got a multifamily that
16
they're calling a 12 density, which is a similar product to
17
what we're going to build in our area, in our multifamily
18
area, and we have a six to seven DU product there.
19
So I think we've adequately transitioned there.
20
And not only that, we're providing very much of a human
21
scale to that, where it's going to be set back from the
22
collector road, and there won't be any garages. You won't
23
have that row of fences. You won't have the kind of
24
detrimental effects on the folks, and they won't be impacted
.
25
so much by the traffic, either.
1 To the south, at area D, we originally had that
2 as one of our more medium density developments. That was
3 also going to be either a paired home or more of a higher
4 density product. And after listening to what they said, we
5 transitioned that down to -- essentially the six to eight
6 thousand square foot lots, and while those aren't huge lots,
7 that area is also surrounded by a greenbelt to the north of
8 our area D, between Province Avenue; and then, of course,
9 you have the intervening of Province Avenue right-of-way,
10 which I believe is a hundred -foot right-of-way. I might be
11 wrong on that, but it's a very extensive right-of-way.
12 So I think they would maybe like to see 10 or 12
13 thousand foot lots there. But in point of fact, it's just
14 not going to work within this development. And we also
15 looked very closely at the original plan, and where we have
16 four to five DUs planned, there was 150,000 foot shopping
17 center on one side, and on the other side was an industrial
18 park.
19 So in terms of a transition from their proposal,
20 I think our impacts are far less severe than the original.
21 With appropriate landscape screening, with the traffic
22 access set up the way it is, the homes on our side of
23 Province Avenue, I think, are going to have minimal impact
24 than the larger lots that they have proposed there.
25 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. Looking at my
109
1 notes. I forgot to bring up, there was a comment brought up
2 about the notification process. Could you clarify for us
3 what that process was and how did somebody get left out of
4 that.
5 MR. LUDWIG: Basically, the notification process,
6 this project was submitted about three months ago.
7 Normally, our notification lists are generated -- we don't
8 keep them after six months. They would have to submit a new
9 one. So there may have been new purchasers of property that
10 weren't notified.
11 We did mail out over -- close to 600 notices in
• 12 the surrounding area, which is a substantial mailing list
13 for the project. Included Brittany Knolls, Paragon Point,
14 Victoria Estates, and anything around there. So we felt
15 that it was.-- we extended that boundary quite significantly
16 beyond what is technically required by the Code.
17 Granted, there can be errors in mailings and the
18 sort. But, you know, we try our best out of 600 notices to
19 get maybe three that didn't, you know -- it's kind of a
20 difficult situation to make sure everybody gets, but we do
21 our best.
22 MS. BELL: Well, are there any other Board
23 questions or comments, or can we move towards a decision?
24 Go ahead, Mike.
25 MR. BYRNE: Just a closing comment for me. I --
110
1 you know, in general, I think this is the first project that
2 I've seen here in Fort Collins that is along the lines of
3 things that, up to this point, I've just been reading about,
4 which has a certain appeal.
5 I think, you know, for those people who maybe
6 aren't familiar with some of the things we've talked about
7 recently, about neotraditional design or new urbanism,
8 there's some lovely books out there you can read in an
9 evening that would bring you up to speed on what a lot of us
10 think is the direction that the City needs to go. There's
11 real reasons for that, and rather than spend much time here,
12 I'll just say, you know, if you go to the library or book
13 stbre, there's some wonderful books about this kind of
14 approach.
15 I am concerned about the road configuration. And
16 I would like to see us apply a condition that makes it so
17 that we do the best we can to try to get access out onto
18 287. I don't know if there's a way that we can write a
19 condition that says, just do the best you can, and if it
20 works out, please do it.
21 Because I think that would -- you know, one of
22 the things that this whole thing about neotraditional
23 urbanism is all about achieving some balance in
24 transportation, and it's not only cars but it's bikes and
25 it's walking and it's -- you know, trying to minimize the
r�
.
111
1
impact of garages and all those things that I think most of
2
us who come from older communities recognize that that works
3
much better than what we've done in the recent past.
4
But it also means distributing and providing more
5
ways for people to move around and not restricting them to
6
go through various choke points; and that's a real major
7
shortcoming for me, as this thing is currently configured.
8
However, I think that the project does have some
9
real merit, and I think that for those of you that are
10
really, really concerned about the impact on your
11
surrounding neighborhood, I would just encourage you to
•
12
maybe spend some time -- there's a wonderful book out called
13
A Better Place To Live, and it's one that I read about a
14
year ago, and it does a very good job of describing the
15
concepts, and it's something that, you know, we know we're
16
going to grow in this community, and the question is, how
17
are we going to do it.
18
The comparison that was made about what the oDP
19
that's currently approved is all about and what this one is,
20
there's some real differences. And in my mind, this
21
proposal is much better than what is currently on the books.
22
So if we can fashion -- I'd like to -- if we get
23
to the point of making a motion, I'd like to make sure we
24
apply some conditions that address some of the traffic
25
issues.
112
1 MS. BELL: Along the lines of what Mike is
2 saying, I have a couple of questions. In order to get out
3 to 287, there was some discussion about going through Trilby
4 Heights or the mobile home park. Aren't those -- are those
5 county subdivisions? Are they in the city yet?
6 MR. LUDWIG: Trilby Heights and the mobile home
7 park are all in the county at this time. They're outside
8 the City.
9 MS. BELL: And isn't that that typical issue, you
10 know, it's awful hard to go through there, having all these
11 residents, you know, impacting these county roads. So that
12 currently isn't a very realistic option.
13 MR. LUDWIG: There are options we can't control
14 at this point.
15
MS. BELL: So it
looks like there's an area,
16
commercial
development zone.
Is that where that really nice
17
house that
overlooks Robert
Benson Reservoir sits, in that
18
area right
along 287, that says commercial development
19
zone?
20 MR. LUDWIG: I think that's actually between the
21 commercial development zone and parcel A. You see some
22 building outlines on the plan you have in front of you? I
23 think that's the actual farm house.
24 MS. BELL: Okay. So the best option would be
25 somehow to go through that property owner's property into
• 113
1 this commercial development zone to get out to 287. Is that
2 what we're --
3 MR. LUDWIG: Right, and if those parcels came in
4 for development or annexation in the City, we would have
5 this ODP on file to say, look, we're thinking about
6 potential connections to the west, and the importance of
7 those connections to College. And so --
8 MS. BELL: So that's the way we'd have to kind of
9 fashion a condition, if that's something we wanted -- as
10 Mike says, is there a need for --
11 MR. LUDWIG: Well, I'll let John Duval answer
•
12
that.
13
MR. DUVAL: I'm not sure you need a condition,
14
necessarily, because the amended ODP itself shows those --
15
well, a potential future connection there, going towards
16
College, and then there's another one shown, this is off of
17
tract A, another one going north towards Trilby Road.
18
So when these come in or when tract A comes in
19
for a preliminary, at that time, that could be negotiated at
20
that point, that there would be potential connections going,
21
that if the adjacent properties were developed, there would
22
be the connection there onto Trilby or College. But I don't
23
know that you necessarily need as a condition, because
24
you're approving the amended ODP showing those two potential
.
25
connections already.
114
1 MR. BYRNE: My concern, John, is that I would
2 like to strengthen that as much as we can, and I don't know
3 if that's possible, but I would like to see, rather than
4 sort of a passive acceptance of whatever happens, that we
5 try to be a little bit proactive and encourage, you know,
6 other connections. Because I think, overall, it will
7 provide balance and it's a wise investment on the part of
8 the community.
9 MR. COLTON: I'd like to follow up on that also.
10 I'm wondering if there's been any thought given to the road
11 going to the south, across that open space. And the reason
12 I'm saying that is, you know, as they talked about, maybe
13 having some sort of a trail or path for school children.
14 That nearest shopping center is right over there to the west
15 of County Road 32 and College.
16 And I think if you could put in maybe just a
17 narrow road, where all we'll have is traffic and no houses
18 on it, with a nice bike path or something like that, that it
19 would allow us to have some of this porosity plus just
20 enable this pedestrian, bicycle, whatever, shopping access
21 to that nearest shopping center. So has the applicant or
22 City or anyone taken a look at that?
23 MS. BELL: Maybe that -- the discussion tonight
24 was to put that back into some natural grassland and kind of
25 a pathway for wildlife. Would a road interrupt quite a bit
0
.
11s
1
of that?
2
MR. SHOEMAKER: I guess this is one of those
3
points of trade-offs that we all get into. Yeah, there
4
were -- there was some conversation about the connections,
5
and in general, where we have fairly large tracts of open
6
land, natural area, we're trying not to run roads through
7
the middle of those.
8
The notion of a trail down there, I think, we
9
could probably accommodate that. But I would say that a
10
road, you know, not to say that we couldn't design it so it
11
would work, but generally, there are two issues with that.
12
One is that the roadway is disruptive to the natural area,
.
13
as well as to, you know, the views of it and the wildlife
14
use of it. The other is the expense of the road
15
construction, because typically, the way roads get built in
16
this city, there is a City contribution, but the adjacent
17
landowner pays also for the local street portion of that.
18
And up to this point in time, the natural areas program is
19
not using natural areas money to build roads. So those are
20
some of the issues there.
21
MR. GAVALDON: I have a couple of comments I want
22
to share on this. First is, there's a lot of known
23
variables that have to do with Robert Benson Reservoir,
24
parcels B and C, so I think the citizens have expressed
.
25
their desire to be involved in the process, whichever way
116
1 they go. Still hearing that they want to keep the reservoir
2 intact, so that's going to have a big impact on this project
3 if it's approved. So I would encourage Natural Resources to
4 really work with the residents in all areas on this project.
5 Two, looking at Eagletree, I see a lot of
6 benefits of Eagletree in gaining with a project like this as
7 its neighbor versus the current ODP, in terms of natural
8 areas, accessibilities, and a lot of neighborhood. Whether
9 we like it or not, this is offering a lot of benefits that
10 was not included, and I see a lot of pluses.
11 Yet I see concerns, and I see that the developer
12 has made a lot of effort on this with the citizen inputs.
13 There still could be more room for opportunity when you get
14 into preliminary. So this is not a dead end. There's a lot
15 of opportunity that -- conversation, communication, which I
16 really want to applaud everybody for being here, folks
17 coming down and expressing their views, because we recognize
18 a lot of them, and there's a lot of opportunity. So I just
19 want to commend the staff and everyone's contribution to
20 this.
21 As far as natural areas there, I do sense a
22 concern about putting a road through it or a trail, but for
23 the school stops and that, that's quite a hike for these
24 kids to take. I would encourage a better effort in taking
25 care of that, because that's a long trek for, and a lot of
117
1
walking, for some kids to take, and also, I recognize that
2
the traffic needs to have -- has a lot of opportunity to
3
work with, too. So those are my thoughts that I wanted to
4
share.
5
MS. BELL: Is there someone that would be willing
6
to make a motion at this point so we get that on to the
7
floor and we can move forward?
8
MR. BYRNE: I'll make a motion. I move approval
9
of Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan, with the
10
condition, as stated in our packet, which is that the
li
selection of how the Robert Benson Reservoir will be
12
addressed. And -- that's the first condition. And the
13
second condition would be if we can become more proactive in
14
our approach towards getting access to 287 from the
15
development.
16
MR. COLTON: Yeah, I second that.
17
MS. BELL: We now have a motion on the floor.
18
Are there any further comments that the Board members feel
19
inclined to make?
20
MR. COLTON: Yeah. I agree with Mike. I think
21
there needs to be another access, and maybe that south one
22
isn't right. I would hope that we could seriously work on
23
something around the north end of Benson Lake or some other
24
way, because I think we do need another access to this area.
25
As far as other comments, I think this is a big
118
1 improvement from the normal ODP. In my mind, I was also on
2 that region between Loveland and Fort Collins task force,
3 and as far as I can tell, if this gets approved, this may be
4 the only green space left between Loveland and Fort Collins,
5 the way things are going, in that particular part of the
6 countryside.
7 Already, we're south of County Road 32. You know
8 what's down there, and I don't see the County doing much of
9 anything to stop any of the development out there. So I
10 think this is a much better solution than having
11 single-family houses spread over the entire area and not
12 having that open space.
13 And I think it does result in a higher density in
14 that area being developed, but that's a trade-off we need to
15 have, and the overall density is not different than if we
16 developed it in the traditional manner and the traffic
17 impacts aren't going to be any greater than if we developed
18 it in the traditional manner. So I think this is a big
19 improvement there.
20 Let's see. The schools, I've tried to fight that
21 battle before, and I don't seem to get a lot of reception
22 from other public officials in the area. I will try to
23 fight that again when our City Plan comes up, and we can
24 make it a criteria for approval of a subdivision or a PUD
25 that the schools either be existing or financing be planned
•
119
1
to do it. If that gets voted down by the City Council or
2
CPAC, and they say we don't need that as part of our
3
implementation, then I guess that won't be a criteria, and
4
I'll quit fighting that battle.
5
But at this particular time, I think this is much
6
better than what we had, and you know, the traffic impact,
7
basically -- a lot of new people living out here. I've seen
8
the traffic go up a lot where I live as well, near Harmony
9
and Shields, and I don't think you're going to have anywhere
10
near the traffic I have out there.
11
I hear a lot of new people moving in here,
12
saying, gee, we're going to ruin it. Well, I wish you
13
people would have spoken up when we were talking about City
14
Plan about six months ago and some of us talked about having
15
growth caps or other forms of regulating growth in the City
16
overall, because this is what it's coming to, and you just
17
can't fight it in your back yard. You have to get out and
18
get involved in the overall City Plan, and the route we're
19
going now is, let sprawl occur, and I think some of the
20
areas you live in are more of an example of sprawl than
21
this, because everything's spread out. You're far away from
22
services also. And you know, we did a lot of wrong things,
23
perhaps, with some of the areas that currently exist out
24
there.
25
And if we're going to keep open space like this,
120
1 we have to have a more density within our Urban Growth Area,
2 and that's the way we're headed. And if you don't like the
3 way we're headed, then you need to get involved in the City
4 Plan now, because we're getting to that stage where we'll be
5 implementing things like this, which is the current vision.
6 So thank you for your participation.
7 MR. BYRNE: I'd just like to make one final
8 comment, and that is that several weeks ago, we passed new
9 street standards for the City, and in fact, we passed --
10 that moved on to the City Council where that's now been
11 approved. And I know a lot of the issues that have been
12 raised will be better addressed because we've got these new
13 street standards.
14 I think the street standards that have been
15 adopted just recently are much, much better, and what I
16 would encourage the various neighborhood groups and the
17 people who, you know, took time to come down here, and
18 perhaps it was the first time that you spoke, but there's
19 always a good time to get started. The time line at which
20 those new street standards are applied to the area that
21' you're concerned about, you know, quite practically, is
22 going to be somewhat of a function of how active you are.
23 And I would just encourage you to stay active,
24 and as things unfold, because a lot of times, the way they
25 do unfold is somewhat unpredictable, or it's very
• 121
1 unpredictable, but when conditions are right, just make sure
2 that, you know, you become familiar with those standards and
3 make sure they happen in a timely manner, because it's
4 neighborhood groups that with their active involvement do
5 play a large role in how successful these kinds of things
6 are.
7
MS. WAMHOFF: I'm Sherry Wamhoff with the
8
Engineering Department. I just wanted to make a comment.
9
In talking about the access onto 287, possible
10
access, all access points on 287 are controlled by the
11
State. So anything proposed would have to be approved and
12
accepted by the State. So that may be a point there, too.
13
We may want something, but if the State doesn't want it, so
14
we can pursue these things, but it's ultimately up to the
15
State.
16
And the College access plan does not go this far
17
south, so there are no already -approved, looked -at access
18
points, so that's another consideration in -- I mean, I
19
agree that access to 287 would be good, but whether or not
20
the State would approve it, that's something we'll have to
21
look into in the future as it comes forward.
22
MR. COLTON: Can I just ask you one question real
23
quick? Where is the Ridgewood Hills access point that we
24
recently approved north of --
25
MS. WAMHOFF: The Shenandoah one?
122
1 MR. COLTON: Yeah, the Shenandoah one.
2 MS. WAMHOFF: It comes in probably about right
3 here.
4 MR. COLTON: Okay. So there could be some
5 possibility of a road going around the lake, still coming in
6 at that same spot.
7 MS. WAMHOFF: Well, whether or not you can get
8 something going back up, it may depend. If the lake is
9 smaller, it might be more of a possibility.
10 MR. COLTON: Thank you.
11 MS. BELL: I would just like to make a final
12 comment that I have the opportunity to -- or I commute on
13 287. And I really do appreciate Benson Lake. You can see
14 the wildlife there, and it's just a really neat thing. So I
15 hope that we really can work hard to preserve that corridor
16 there. I think it's a very high priority, because we've got
17 to have some relief along there for people to enjoy. So --
18 MR. DUVAL: Madame Chair. Point of clarification
19 on the motion. On the condition. Typically, conditions of
20 ODPs, PUDs, and so forth are conditions that can be
21 satisfied or required to be satisfied by the applicant. And
22 as I understood the condition here, was that the City be
23 more proactive in pursuing this connection.
24 So I guess I'm concerned that the condition is
25 not one that the applicant controls or can have anything
0 123
1 to -- or can do anything to satisfy. So I guess I would ask
2 for either clarification, if I misunderstood the
3 condition --
4
MR. BYRNE: No, I don't think so. I think, you
5
know, ultimately, it comes down to an issue of at what point
6
does the City enter into control of neighborhood streets.
7
And you know, that's a balancing act. We know that in the
8
older part of town, the City laid out the street pattern,
9
and it's got a very predictable grid -like pattern that
10
people like, for the most part. And we know that new
it
neighborhoods where developers figure on where the streets
12
are going to go, sometimes end up with irrational streets.
.
13
And personally, I would like to see the City play
14
a more active role in rationalizing of the neighborhood
15
streets. So that's my intent. If it's difficult to state
16
that in a way that we can work on, I apologize, but that's
17
sort of where I'm headed.
18
MR. DUVAL: Right. But I guess I'm still not
19
sure how the developer can satisfy that condition. I mean,
20
I understand what you're saying, and that, you know, the
21
desire is to have the City, at least in this particular
22
case, try to find a way to make that connection, but I guess
23
I'm not sure -- other than what they've shown on the ODP,
24
which is, they've shown two areas of connection that is part
•
25
of the ODP, and then when it becomes time to become platted
124
1 as a preliminary PUD, then those connections would be dealt
2 with then, and the streets could be stepped in and so forth
3 in the adjacent property to be developed in the future.
4 MR. BYRNE: Okay. So what you're saying is the
5 condition is satisfied already.
6 MR. DUVAL: Yeah, I think it's on here in the
7 sense that it's already shown on the ODP as two future
8 connections but that -- so they've done all that they can on
9 the ODP, I think.
10 MR. BYRNE: Okay. So I'll amend my motion and
11 just strike the second condition.
12 MR. BLANCHARD: And just as a follow-up to that
13 is, as we get the preliminary applications within the ODP,
14 we have the opportunity to be able to address future
15 connections to the west. And then as those properties
16 develop, if they develop within the City, we can complete
17 any connection that's reasonable to gain the considerations
18 of some of Sherry's comments and any access points.
19 So I agree with the direction that John
20 suggested, and then it's incumbent on the staff and the
21 Planning and Zoning Board, as we review preliminary PUD
22 applications to the west, to make sure that we don't
23 preclude any potential connections to go out to that
24 direction.
25 MS. BELL: What appears to be the first phase
• 125
1 that's going to be developed here, potentially?
2 MR. HARMON: One of our commitments is that we're
3 going to make a strong effort to develop the multifamily
4 housing, along with one or two yet to be determined --
5 MS. BELL: So which of the eight?
6 MR. HARMON: Up at the very top. It's A.
7 MS. BELL: In orange?
8 MR. HARMON: Yes, the orange that's farthest to
9 the west.
10 MS. BELL: So you feel like you'll probably build
11 from the outside in?
• 12 MR. HARMON: As a general rule, we think we'll go
13 from the outside in from both major arterials.
14 MS. BELL: One last comment that I have. I've
15 been really strongly dismayed by the fact that we don't have
16 a South College access plan for all this development that's
17 occurring beyond Trilby Road. And I don't know how to get
18 that rolling. I think we should have one, because it's very
19 distressing, not -- to just be going -- flying by the seat
20 of our pants, so to speak, on what we're doing in these
21 areas.
22 I think it works much better, like Mike says, if
23 the City gets a little more proactive in saying, what would
24 work here and how would we like some of this to go. So I
25 would really like to see us get on the stick here and have
126
1 some sort of notion as to where we think these access points
2 and lines should be in this area.
3
Okay. Let's go ahead . . .
4
MR.
COLTON: I second the corrected motion.
5
MS.
BELL: Okay. Are we ready to take a vote? I
6
think we are.
7
THE
CLERK: Byrne?
8
MR.
BYRNE: Yes.
9
THE
CLERK: Colton?
10
MR.
COLTON: Yes.
11
THE
CLERK: Gavaldon?
12
MR.
GAVALDON: Yes.
13
THE
CLERK: Wyatt?
14
MR.
WYATT: Yes.
15
THE
CLERK: Bell?
16
MS.
BELL: Yes.
17
MS.
BELL: The ODP passes. And this meeting is
18
adjourned.
19
(Matter
concluded.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
127
1
STATE OF COLORADO )
2
) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4
I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5
and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6
the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Provincetowne
7
ODP and Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, was held on
8
Monday, August 26, 1996, at 300 West Laporte Avenue,
9
Colorado; that said proceedings were transcribed by me from
10
videotape to the foregoing 126 pages; that said transcript
11
is, to the best of my ability to transcribe same, an
12
accurate and complete record of the proceedings so taken.
13
I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16
Attested to by me this 16th day of October, 1996.
17
l�
18
19
Jaspil T. Xeadors
20 3X5 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
21 (303) 482-1506
22 My commission expires January 6, 1997.
24
25
No Text
•
August 22, 1996
IVE� A�G� 6 1996
Dear Mr. Shepard,
Regarding the proposed sound abatement wall along the west side of
Lemay Avenue by the Harbor Walk Estates development, we will not be able
to attend the meeting scheduled for August 26. However, we do wish to
express our opposition to the plan, as we feel it would be an unnecessary
eyesore along the road.
We live in Harbor Walk Estates, on Lemay Avenue (Lot 18) and have
never been bothered by traffic noise on the road. Houses built on a lake are
focused on the lake and the views across it, not on a road on the other side.
Harbor Walk Estates is a beautiful neighborhood, not an exclusive club and
not a fortress. Sound abatement walls may make sense along heavily
traveled interstate highways filled with semi trucks, but not along residential
• streets.
We therefore ask and recommend that the request to build this
unneeded and unattractive wall be summarily denied and that the wall not be
built.
Sincerely, j
Gfi .
Craig ET Su an ozak
4101 Harbor alk Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
P.S. Perhaps you would consider reading this letter at the meeting.
No Text
August 2, 1996
• Part 1. Chronology and Homeowner Statements
Harbor Walk Estates Phase II Wall Issue
This information outlines the sequence of events leading up to
the public discussion of the acceptability of a five foot
"noise abatement wall" to be built by the Harbor Walk Estates
developer extending approx. 150 yards along the top edge of
the Warren Lake dam embankment along South LeMay Avenue.
Summary
We, the undersigned, contend that this wall:
1. is not necessary; no need for it has been
demonstrated,
2. detracts from the open appearance of the
neighborhood,
3. is visually and physically exclusionary; it is
designed to separate Harbor Walk homeowners from
the rest of the neighborhood,
4. totally eliminates any remaining mountain and lake
view for many Golden Meadows residents who bought
their homes reasonably expecting to see the view over
the dam, unobstructed by other homes, much less a
wall,
5. may contribute to hazardous road/weather conditions
along LeMay Ave.,
6. violates several principles of the City's
comprehensive long range plans and
7. will provide an attractive nuisance for vandals and
grafitti "artists."
See Part 3 of this report for a detailed discussion of each of
these points.
0
Part t. Chronology
1988 The first set of public hearings were held to
approve the creation of Harbor Walk Estates
P.U.D. The entire 16-lot P.U.D. was
approved, contingent upon approval from Army
Corps of Engineers. This was required because
of the need to in -fill soil behind the
existing dam. No fence or wall was proposed
In the original approved P.U.D. Site Plan drawing.
1990 A second public hearing was held at City Hall
because the Harbor Walk developer, Mike
Sollenberger, wanted to turn the original 6
lots into 5 larger lots. The Corps of
Engineers had apparently given their approval
for these first lots, but had not yet approved
the last 10 lots.
At this meeting, when the revised, larger -lot
blueprint was presented, it showed a wall or
fence to be built along the top of the slope,
between Harbor Walk Court and South LeMay.
The residents of The Landings and Golden
Meadows argued vigorously against this wall on
the grounds of noise, view, air current
patterns and appearance. A concession was
made by the City that NO WALL OR FENCE WOULD
BE ALLOWED THERE WITHOUT A FULL PUBLIC HEARING
PROCESS. That statement was agreed to by the
participants and written on the plat document.
The actual wording* on the P.U.D. Site Plan
was that the fence (or wall) was deemed
"not part of this P.U.D. Site Plan
and approval process. If there is
fencing, it will have to be reviewed
and approved separately by the City
Planning and Zoning Board."
*approved by Planning Staff 10/10/90,
attached to Final P.U.D. Jan. 1990.
This is referred to in several correspondences
as the 1990 "Fencing Note."
The only Golden Meadows resident present at
this meeting was Mrs. Sandy Newlin. Several people
from The Landings subdivision were there.
NOTE: Ted Shepard has notes of this meeting
(he was not present - someone else from the
planning office ran this meeting).
Late 1990
or 1991 Not long after construction began on the
first houses along Harbor Walk, Mrs. Newlin
saw some survey stakes and then a series of
fence posts appear at the top of the slope
exactly where.the revised plat drawing depicted
them. She contacted City Planning and told them to
review the minutes of the previous meetings
and the Site Plan drawing (i.e. the Fencing Note)
because they and the developer should know that a
wall or fence was not allowed without a public
hearing. The fence posts came down the next day
and no further attempts were made to build a wall
in front of the original 5 lots.
January 1996 Apparently having received Corps of Engineer
approval for the last 10 lots, developer Mike
Sollenberger and City Planner Ted Shepard held
an informal meeting at Spirit of Joy Lutheran
Church to answer any last minute concerns of
neighbors. No one from Golden Meadows was
notified to attend this meeting because Ted
Shepard felt Golden Meadows was "not affected"
by these last 10 lots.
The wall appeared back on the Site Plan drawing
for the north 10 lots. Since no one from The
Landings subdivision objected to the Site Plan,
Mr. Shepard made what he terms an "administrative
decision" to allow the wall to be constructed.
May 1996 Doug and Sandy Newlin went for a walk along
Harbor Walk Drive and noticed survey stakes for
a wall appearing again at the top of the dam
slope. Since no public hearing had been held
regarding the construction of this wall, Mrs.
Newlin immediately called City Planning to
object and was referred to Ted Shepard. He
seemed strangely unfamiliar with the 1990
Fencing Note, so she asked him to research the
minutes of the meeting. He called her back
later and told her the 1990 Fencing Note applied
only to the first five lots.
However, the 1990 agreement was very explicit in
stating that a wall would not be built unless
there was a public hearing to discuss it.
This was the intent and understanding by those
present at the meeting. At this point, Mr.
Shepard reiterated that such a wall "won't
have any impact on Golden Meadows anyway."
Mrs. Newlin asked him to reverse his
"administrative decision" and he said that it
couldn't be done (although he had just
overturned a decision made in an open hearing
in 1990 without any further public scrutiny).
May 18 A Golden Meadows Homeowners Association
Meeting was held at Spirit of Joy Church.
Mrs. Newlin brought up the subject of the
wall. This was the first time most of the
Golden Meadows homeowners had heard about the
proposed wall. It was decided to hold further
discussions.
May 19 A reeting was held at Mrs. Newlin's home
(4112 Mt. Vernon Ct.) with Harbor Walk
developer Mike Sollenberger and several Golden
Meadows residents. Mr. Sollenberger
presented his plan for the masonry wall - 5
ft. tall with 6 ft. pillars.
The Golden Meadows homeowners expressed
numerous concerns about the plan. Ted Shepard
was invited to this meeting, but did not
attend.
A second meeting was attempted on May 23, but
fell through as there was not enough time to
arrange. At this meeting, Mr. Sollenberger
wanted to bring his acoustics engineer, Dr.
Armando Balloffet, to counter homeowner's
noise objections to the wall.
Mrs. Newlin took flyers around.the
neighborhood so at least those most concerned
would know about the impending construction of
the wall without a public hearing.
June 5 A Golden Meadows neighborhood meeting was held
at the home of Vance Burns, 1200 Ticonderoga.
A committee was appointed (Bob Nikkel, Dwayne
Westfall and George Obssuth) to meet with Greg
Byrne, the City -appointed Neighborhood Liaison
for Golden Meadows. The neighborhood group
felt that since the original ruling (the
Fencing Note of 1990) by the City required a
public hearing process before a wall could be
approved, the later "administrative decision"
was in error. The consensus was that no one
wanted a wall of any kind.
June 13 A meeting took place at City Hall. Attending
were three representatives from Golden Meadows
(George Obssuth, Dwayne Westphal and Bob
Nikkel), Greg Byrne and Ted Shepard. Golden
Meadows representatives presented their
concerns and were informed the situation would
be explained to the City Attorney's office for
a ruling.
Later (by phone), Golden Meadows Homeowners
Assoc. President George Obssuth was informed
that the City Attorney's office considered
that all procedures had been correctly
(technically) followed by Ted Shepard and
therefore his "administrative decision" in favor
of the wall would stand.
June/July At that point, Mrs. Newlin called the office
of City Manager John Fischbach. Although she
did not reach him directly, she explained the
situation to his secretary and sent her a copy
of the time -lines for Harbor Walk that she had
prepared. She also explained her strong
concern that the City had. made a promise to
its citizens (that-av,'to hold a public
meeting before allowing this wall to be built)
• and was now reneging because of an apparent
technicality. She felt that, in acting in an
administrative capacity, Ted Shepard took it
upon himself to become a public hearing of the
Planning & Zoning Board. This is how, Mr.
Shepard explained it to George Obssuth in his
phone call.
Mrs. Newlin further explained that as
citizens we should be able to believe our
government would act in good faith and fairly
represent taxpayers' wishes in its decisions.
This apparently hadn't worked in this instance.
John Fischbach later called Mrs. Newlin and
told her he understood completely and would
look into it. He later met with George Obssuth
and other City employees on the dam and made
the decision that the City would not allow the
wall to proceed until it met its due process
obligations (i.e. a public hearing on the
wall.)
July Next Mrs. Newlin received a phone call from a
"professional mediator" who wanted to set up a
meeting between the developer, the City and
representatives of the neighborhood. Mrs.
• Newlin explained to him that she thought there
was going to be a public hearing where
every citizen could express his own concerns
and the decision would be made in public. She
also told him she didn't represent other
homeowners who each had their own ideas and
concerns. He asked if she would still attend
and bring a couple of other neighbors. She
agreed to attend the meeting, but again voiced
her objection to any binding agreement coming
out of such a non-public meeting.
July 15 A meeting was held first on the dam and later
at Spirit of Joy Church. Attending were Ted
Shepard, Greg Byrne and City Attorney John
Duvall, developer Mike Sollenberger. Also
attending were Kevin Keane, Dwayne Westfall,
Gordon Claus, George Obssuth, Tim Dolan and
Mrs. Newlin from the Golden Meadows
neighborhood.
The mediator -led meeting lasted for about
three hours. Golden Meadows residents
explained their concerns, both with the wall
and with the City not following proper
procedures. By noon, Tim Dolan and Mrs.
Newlin were the only homeowners left at the
meeting. The others had left to get back to
work, etc. The mediator at that point asked
Mrs. Newlin to choose which Golden Meadows lot
she felt was most affected by the wall. He
asr-�d: If they (the City and e,eveloper) could
answer all her objections on behalf of that
lot owner, could they then come to some sort
of agreement on "what kind of a wall we could
all live with!!"
At this point, Mrs. Newlin patiently
explained again that: 1) each lot was
affected differently, 2) she could not make
objections on behalf of other homeowners, 3)
she was not empowered to make any agreements
for anyone else and 4) as far as she could
determine, there was NO wall "we could all live
with." Despite any arguments or explanations,
the Golden Meadows homeowners "did not want to
sit on their back patios and look at ANY
wall."
The mediator then asked Mrs. Newlin why they
had this meeting in the first place which is
what Mrs. Newlin had already questioned. She
had tried to explain to the mediator from the
very first that homeowners were promised a
PUBLIC hearing, not an exclusionary meeting
between developers and a couple of homeowners.
The City then said that, finally, a public
hearing on this matter would take place before
the Planning and Zoning Board on Aug 12.
July 21 In preparation for this August 12 public
hearing that was originally promised back in
1990, another meeting was held at Mrs. Newlin's
home where the date of the upcoming
hearing was announced. Meeting attendees made sure
everyone was in agreement about not wanting
ANY wall and they discussed how to present
their objections.
Part 3. Goqen Meadows Residents' Concerns and.Issues
1. NOISE
. The construction of this wall will exacerbate the
traffic noise created by South LeMay avenue by
"bouncing" the sound back into the Golden Meadows
subdivision.
2. GRAFITTI AND VANDALISM
This wall will become a perfect target for "tagger"
spray paint cans. Vandals are already writing
all over the Warren Lake spillway less than a block away.
Vandals can deface this wall on the LeMay side
without being seen by Harbor Walk homeowners.
3. CREATING A MICRO -CLIMATE
The wall will block low -setting winter sun and create
a "shade" on the LeMay roadway which will hinder snow melt
and accelerate ice formation. The roadway, being
lower than the lake water level and cooler than
surrounding areas, will also experience more fog. Since
it will also block the morning sun, the Harbor Walk
Drive roadway will also be subjected to reduced ice melt.
4. VISUAL EFFECTS
The wall will "exclude" the rest of the community.
The building materials used on the wall will not
enhance the appearance of the community, it will
appear as an element to "hide behind." It will block
the neighbor's view of the sunsets, the lake and the
foothills. Similar walls in the City are criticized
for being ugly.
5. CONTRADICTS THE CITY"S LONG RANGE VISUAL PLANS
Fort Collins has spent a lot of money studying its
citizen's visual preferences. According to the recent
"Visual Preference Study" (VPS) on page 17 there is a
picture (image 1.43) of an embankment with a street
below and a wall above which closely resembles the
Harbor Walks Wall. Respondents to the survey rated
this picture with a minus 4.7, the second lowest
rating of all 240 views.
From the Community Vision and Goals portion of the
survey:
p. 27: "Our community's streets and walkways will be
planned, built and maintained as attractive public
spaces."
The wall on the embankment is NOT attractive
as proven in the VPS.
P. 29: "The design of streets will complement the
distinctive character of their respective districts or
neighborho�us and will serve to CONNEC,`rather than
separate adjoining neighborhoods."
We can think of no better way to separate
adjoining neighborhoods than to build a wall
between them.
p. 31: "Community design will include views of the
foothills and mountains as physical features to be
given basic consideration in the arrangement of
streets and other public outdoor spaces."
Our primary view of the foothills was
destroyed when houses were built on the dam.
We foolishly thought our view would be
un-spoiled because NO ONE WOULD ALLOW HOUSES
TO BE BUILT ON A DAM!. The wall will
completely eliminate what remaining view we
have.
p. 49: "Important natural areas will be preserved and
protected."
The City may have abrogated its responsibility
in this area when it allowed a lake front to be
filled in, in favor of developing 16
residences. Can we expect further filling -in
around the lake that will change current lake
front homes into ordinary housing subdivision
lots?
p.55: "The City will involve citizens in the planning
and decision -making processes of government."
A public hearing on the wall BEFORE making an
"administrative decision" would have clearly
satisfied this goal.
"Residential neighborhoods will develop as
INTERCONNECTED parts of the broader community,
extensively linked into a generous range of settings
and activities."
Activities and settings that are blocked by a
wall are not INTERCONNECTED. The wall will
isolate and separate these "California
high -equity homeowners"* from the rest of us.
*from a 7/14/96 Coloradoan article
on the Harbor Walk development in which
Mr. Sollenberger is quoted as saying
his subdivision will appeal to these
buyers.
It is our understanding that the City has adopted the above
two documents as part of the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan.
6. THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR THIS WALL
a. Noise abatement for Harbor Walk lots - Homeowners
10 in the Est five lots of Harbor Walt Estates have
stated that street noise from LeMay is not a factor.
When the developer offered to build the wall in front
. of their houses, they declined. No long-term sound
study was conducted to determine the effects of this
wall on sound abatement. Houses on lots 7 though 16
are located farther back from the embankment than lots
1 through 5 and the LeMay traffic noise is nearly
non-existent as the dam embankment provides sufficient
noise abatement.
b. The appearance of "exclusivity" - Since the wall
will be built only in front of lots 7 through 12 or
13, the wall will only lend this exclusivity to SOME
of the lots. It appears that only those with the
money to "buy" this wall will benefit from its
"exclusivity."
C. The developer has promised this wall to some
initial buyers - Any buyer who understands that the
inclusion of the wall will cost him additional
thousands of dollars in purchase price and will not
affect the amount of traffic noise he hears, will
allow economics to prevail (whether he is a
"California high -equity" buyer or not).
For the reasons outlined above, We
ask the Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board to disallow the building of this
•
wall.
Signe
•
in the firsc five lots of Harbor Walk Lnstates have
stated that street noise from LeMay is not a factor.
When the developer offered to build the wall in front
of their houses, they declined. No long-term sound
study was conducted to determine the effects of this
wall on sound abatement. Houses on lots 7 though 16
are located farther back from the embankment than lots
1 through 5 and the LeMay traffic noise is nearly
non-existent as the dam embankment provides sufficient
noise abatement.
b. The appearance of "exclusivity" - Since the wall
will be built only in front of lots 7 through 12 or
13, the wall will only lend this exclusivity to SOME
of the lots. It appears that only those with the
money to "buy" this wall will benefit from its
"exclusivity."
C. The developer has promised this wall to some
initial buyers - Any buyer who understands that the
inclusion of the wall will cost him additional
thousands of dollars in purchase price and will not
affect the amount of traffic noise he hears, will
allow economics to prevail (whether he is a
"California high -equity" buyer or not).
For the reasons outlined above, We ask the Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board to disallow the building of this
wall.
Signec
/f.
( e1
u c??
O O S O
Sm�
�Fp p O _ fD ^� O C° CD 7 .w+ p 2
tab C=D
S p C '• p ry S. p v pi ���pD
• »a$.coc?D so
fir
o S� E H � n u c c fD rZ.
A
2.4
On
pT '; v
�Op A vBL
L3. O n. Eai' C w A m O
m w_ �p C C "0 E O p J'
A O w it O LT,
• 'O wAw C 'ti P = fj9y A w w CA
.. ^ .� n O ��Opp .b w 7 `.G
g.
b H eL a w V G O O w
6 �' Zp w nC+. QOO p O w G w w_ C C
^ m O Q O m m b � 'g �' "• l0D
4 S .' :D p ^ < p
n
00 CD
�s. �• � � y�, �srD Lr -ob�o
Q O pC
^ m ° �. M S i'. fOf � � y �• � O. w
w
p 0 W O
? .y O rs G .. w^ CD
O
O
I
§
B
§y
E®a9
&E
»%§�
\�
ID
�%{\
}
�B47
�)CL
\
»
ƒ��
@
§&i
/
k}�
�gC
i
§;«
�
$
S?
»&�
0
k
17f
2
i■2
`CL;
so•CL
.
�
\�[
{Epo
/
iƒ�
�
D
/
j \I
■
± �
2 —
0
•
Table 10.1 The intensity of common sounds measured in decibels relative to the
threshold of hearing.
Pain threshold 1'_0
Jet engine
Rock music
Noisy traffic
Normal street traffic
Fairly noisy office
Noise in a small car
Quiet office
Waves on seashore
A small brook
The wind in leaves
Threshold of hearing
Shouted conversation
Normal conversation
Quiet conversation
Whispered conversation
Range
of
telephone
conversations
176
Location
1. Lemay sidewalk
2. Sidewalk in front
of lot seven
Peak Traffic Noise
------------------
74db to 78db
64db to 68db
Date of Measurement
-------------------
8/23 @ 5:20 PM
8/23 Q 5:28 PM
3. Sidewalk in front 66db to 70db 8/26 Q 8:15 AM
of my house
R24
oveland, Colorado
July 11, 1996
Rick Volpe
Project Manager
1881 9th Street #103
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Dear Rick:
RECEIVED
JUL 1 G 1996
Transportation Department
200 N. Wilson Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80537
(303)667-6003
On behalf of the Thompson Schools RE2-J Transportation Department, I would like to express
our appreciation in being able to contribute input for the proposed development of the
Provincetown subdivision located in the northeast comer of our district.
In our recent meeting with Diane Reusing, the District/Community Coordinator for RE2-J and
the City of Loveland, we were able to review and discuss possible walk paths, bus stop locations
and routing for the student population in that area. By being able to review these concerns
beforehand, we are better able to plan for the transportation needs of our students in the most
efficient and safest manner possible.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with your company during the preliminary
planning stages uL your new counnunliy. W e look forward to being of condriuea assistance in
assuring that the needs of our student population are met.
Very Sincerely,
Sincerely,
///�ilG>si
Nansi Crom
Transportation Director
0
No Text