Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 33-01D1 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY HALL (3)Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larimer County Board of Commissioners October 9, 1997 Page 5 In conclusion, the Council Growth Management Committee recommends that: • Any decision on the Fossil Lake PUD not be rendered until such time that the Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan is adopted and implemented by both Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins; • That prior to evaluating this PUD, Larimer County establish clear implementing regulations for density transfer (either through a TDR program or a non- contiguous PUD ordinance amendment,) and that these regulations be applied to this and subsequent development applications in the Plan area; • The Fossil Lake PUD, as presently proposed, should not be approved by the county since it is inconsistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement and the County's own land use regulations. At this time, the Council Growth Management Committee is unable to provide direction as to the whether the City of Fort Collins will commit to the future annexation of this area until the above issues are addressed by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. cc: Mayor Azari and Members of Council Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larimer County Board of Commissioners October 9, 1997 Page 4 is also a conflict with some of their comments. 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 and Loveland, the draft Fossil Creek Reservoir Special 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 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. (Please see the more detailed memo from Tom Shoemaker to Bob Blanchard that is attached.) Density Questions • A comparison of the proposed project with the draft Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan 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 Reservoir Special 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 system allowing high porosity for all modes of travel within and to the site. Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larimer County Board of Commissioners October 9, 1997 Page 3 are being calculated, and the fact that the 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)] The proposed density for the northern parcel is one unit per 1.10 acres based on gross acreage). Thus, the PUD is inconsistent with the IGA. Open Space Question and Appropriate Buffer Zones • As noted above, 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 (as mentioned earlier) is double -counting of the south parcel — 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 question that they may have reviewed and provided comments on an earlier version of the Fossil Lake PUD that showed a greater buffer area. There Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larimer County Board of Commissioners October 9, 1997 Page 2 Area Plan. Considerable thought and evaluation of alternatives has gone into the creation of this land use framework to recognize the importance of this area for wildlife habitat and other natural area values. Of primary concern to the Committee is that all development proposals located within the area plan meet the setbacks/buffers for the Reservoir as identified on the land use framework plan, and review of the Fossil Lake PUD indicates that it does not comply with the recommended buffers and setbacks. Thus, it is inappropriate to review and render a decision on a plan such as the Fossil Lake PUD until such time that the area plan is adopted and defines the recommended land uses, buffers and setbacks, and implementation techniques for the area. A number of issues regarding the proposed Fossil Lake PUD were identified by City staff. These include interpretations of County regulatory documents, open space questions, buffer widths, density questions, and the layout and design of the street network. The following provides a brief discussion of those issues: Regulatory Questions • There is some question on how this project can be processed as a PUD. The County regulations define a PUD; however, there is no language concerning "non-contiguous" PUDs. Instead, a PUD is defined in the PUD Resolution as "an area of land." The County staff commented that non-contiguous PUDs have been accomplished in the past, and, therefore, a precedent has been es tablished. However, there appears to be no legislative authority for allowing non-contiguous parcels of property to be developed as a single PUD: • Also, the County PUD Resolution does not include the Airport zoning district as a district where PUDs are allowed, even though the AP zone mentions PUDs in the County zoning ordinance. Therefore, there appears to be no legislative authority for a PUD to be approved in the AP zone. • As noted, 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 simply shifting the density from 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 transferred, the manner in which these units City N!, Eger City of Fort Collins TO: Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larimer County Board of Commissioners FROM: John F. Fischbach, City Manager DATE: October 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Issues associated with the timing of the Fossil Lake PUD submittal and adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan. The Fossil Lake PUD was discussed at the September 15, 1997, Council Growth Management Committee meeting. Several issues were raised at that meeting regarding this development proposal, including the following: s timing of the project submittal and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan adoption schedule; s commitment by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners to adopt the Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan prior to the Fossil Lake PUD approval; • completion and implementation of a viable Transfer of Development Rights by December 1, 1997; and • additional issues specific to the Fossil Lake PUD. The position of the Council Growth Management Committee is that approval of the Fossil Lake PUD should not occur until such time that the Fossil Creek Reservoir Special Area Plan is complete and adopted by both jurisdictions per the schedule as proposed by the Larimer County Planning Director. In addition, a viable Transfer of Development Rights Program must be completed and in place by December 1, 1997, and if this cannot be accomplished, the Commissioners should not accept a voluntary application to transfer development rights for the Fossil Lake PUD development proposal. We have a significant concern that the December deadline for a TDR program will not be met and the Fossil Lake PUD will utilize a program that, essentially, does not exist as an implementation tool. Initial review of the Fossil Lake PUD development proposal by the Council Growth Management Committee indicated that the plan as submitted does not meet the proposed land use framework identified in the draft Fossil Creek Reservoir Special 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6505