The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 33-01D1 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCILt; and Loveland, the Fossil Creek Area Plan, and the State's raptor biologist all recommend the 1/4 mile setback as well. The Fossil Lake PUD proposal, in some areas, does not meet a 300 foot buffer zone, which is seen as grossly inadequate by the City's Natural Resources staff. Furthermore, no wildlife mitigation studies have been completed by the applicant to identify how these regionally sensitive wildlife resources will be protected as part of the development plan or how adverse impacts will be mitigated. Significant redesign of the project will be needed to accomplish this resource protection. Density Questions • A comparison of the proposed project with the Fossil Creek Area Plan (not yet adopted) and the City Structure Plan was completed by City staff . This analysis was completed based upon the definition of developable land per the Land Use Code. including the netting out of appropriate areas identified in the Code. It demonstrated that while the density is close in some areas to the densities outlined in the Fossil Creek Area Plan, the project does not comply 100% with that planning document. With density shifts from areas closer to the reservoir (those natural resource/buffer areas discussed above) to create more buffer, the plan would conform to a greater degree than currently shown. Transportation -Related Questions • It is unclear what street standards are being used for the street system in the Fossil Lake PUD. In addition, the location for future connections from this proposal to outparcels are not shown. A traffic study has not been submitted as of yet, and this will help to flush out some of the issues regarding the design (structural) of the street system and the number of connections to various locations. The main concerns of the City staff are both the structural and urban design of the street systern allowing high porosity for all modes of travel within and to the proposal. doc%councAfasiIake.wpd ti • The plan apparently utilizes a program of transfer of development rights when the County does not have an adopted TDR program. The County staff has indicated that this proposal is not using TDRs, but is shifting the density of one part of the PUD to another area. The proposal states that the density from the southern parcel (which would equate to one unit per 2.29 acres) is being transferred to the northern parcel. The issues surrounding this matter include the number of units being �ONuh transferred, the manner that these units are being calculated, and the fact that the t>E+JSC transferring of that density is resulting in open space which is then in turn being applied towards the 30% open space requirement per the PUD Resolution (the County's PUD regulations require that a minimum of 30% of the developable area within a project be retained as open space). • There are also inconsistencies between the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the zoning, PUD, subdivision and mobile homes regulations. The adopting resolution for the IGA states that when there are inconsistencies, the provisions of the IGA take precedence. The IGA also has.Land Use Policies specifically for the area beyond the Urban Growth Area which state: "Residential development will only be allowed at a density of 5 acres per dwelling unit unless the proposed development is within a PUD where the density can be increased to 2.29 acres per dwelling unit." [Exhibit A, Section 3.1.C.1(a)] Open Space Question and Appropriate Buffer Zones ,_r • The PUD resolution states that 30% of all developable land in a PUD must be open space. Rough estimates on the number of acres dedicated to open space indicate that the northern parcel, taken as a separate entity, does not meet the open space requirement. It is only after the open space from the southern parcel is added into the equation that the requirement is exceeded. The issue here is double -counting -- once for the density transfer and a second time in the calculation of the required amount of open space • There are several wildlife areas, as well as natural areas, associated with the Fossil Lake PUD. Bald eagle night roosting areas and heron rookeries exist along the north shore of the Reservoir, (the south side of the development proposal) and the issue of the appropriate buffer zone is not yet resolved. Based on the date of the Division of Wildlife letter in the submittal packet, there is some concern that they may have reviewed and provided comments on an earlier version of the Fossil Lake PUD that showed a greater buffer area. There is also a conflict with some of their conin-ients. In a letter dated this February, they indicated that there should be a 300 yard setback from the lake. However, in other statements they have indicated a preference for a 1/4 mile setback. The Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins comments to the County as part of the County Referral process. The following provides a brief discussion of staff identified issues as background for Committee discussion. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FOSSIL LAKE PUD: The Fossil Lake PUD Preliminary Plat and Master Plan is a request for approval of a non- contiguous PUD (two separate parcels) with density transfer from the south parcel to the north parcel. The south parcel is currently used as a farm, and is located on the east side of Duck Lake and Mud Lake, between County Roads 30 and 32 and to the west of County Road 9. The north property is located at the southeast corner of County Roads 36 and 9. • Total number of acres = 745.8 acres north parcel = 465.19 acres south parcel = 280.59 acres • Total number of proposed lots = 425 • Overall density = 1.75 acres per dwelling unit • Number of dwelling units = 424 • One 10 acre industrial site on the southern parcel. • Existing zoning: north parcel - FA1 Farming (allows for densities of 2 acres/1 dwelling unit if part of a PUD) south parcel - AP Airport (allows for 1 unit per 2.29 acres) • The project is located within Subareas 16 and 17 of the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The preferred scenario for these subareas is preservation in recognition of its natural resources values. Residential development would be allowed as an alternative. ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOSSIL LAKE PUD: Regulatory Questions • There is some question on how this is defined as a PUD. The County regulations define a PUD; however, there is no language concerning non-contiguous PUDs. The County staff commented that non-contiguous PUDs have been accomplished in the past, and, therefore, a precedent has been established. The County PUD Resolution does not include the Airport zoning district as one where PUDs are allowed. However, the AP zone mentions PUDs in the County zoning ordinance. There remains some gray area as to whether the two parcels can be combined into one PUD. Z Commu.dty Planning and Environmental . ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins TO: Council Growth Management Committee THROUGH: John Fischbach, City Man er��' Greg Byrne, CPES Directo FROM: Bob Blanchard, Current Plan inq erector DATE: September 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Fossil Lake PUD ISSUE: The Fossil Lake Special Area Plan is nearing completion and will be considered by both the City and the County in the near future. At the same time, a sizeable development application (Fossil Lake PUD) has been submitted to the County and forwarded to the City for review as a County referral. City staff have identified significant issues with this PUD application beyond just the timing with the adoption of the special area plan that have been forwarded to County staff. The City has always seen this area as a logical expansion of the Urban Growth Area. However, if the County were to approve development proposals in this area, it is questionable if we would be amenable to annexation if developments were not to City standards. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: County staff have inquired as to what changes to the Fossil Lake PUD would be needed to ensure the City would agree to annex the property when it becomes eligible. The Council Growth Management Committee is being asked to identify these issues. In addition, the Committee should comment on the timing of the development application prior to the adoption of the special area plan. BACKGROUND: Recognizing the land use and natural resource issues surrounding the Fossil Lake reservoir and the probability of this area being considered for an expansion of the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA), the City and the County initiated a joint study of the area. An area plan is expected to be presented to the City and County for adoption by February or March of 1998. In the interim, the County has received a development application covering a significant portion of the planning area (Fossil Lake PUD). The City is providing information and 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020