HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL ..... SECOND PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING - 3-96A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSNeighborhood Meeting Minutes `�
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 2
3. The three proposed housing types are not connected to each other for the benefit
of creating the park space. But this benefit is internal to the project and comes at the
expense of the existing neighborhood. By not providing an access to Elizabeth or
Overland Trail for the single family area, all this traffic, by necessity, will impact the folks
living in the immediate neighborhood.
RESPONSE: One of the primary objectives of the plan is create an internal open
space area of real value for residents of the project as well the surrounding neighborhood.
By not constructing a bridge over the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, a continous linear
greenbelt is preserved for a bicycle/pedestrian path. Internal circulation among the three
housing groups would be by bikes or pedestrians which promotes a safe friendly
neighborhood. The design of providing each housing group its own primary access
(condos - Elizabeth, duplexes - Overland Trail, and single family - Orchard Place) prevents
any one particular group from overloading any one particular access point.
4. The design is advantageous for the internal amenities but puts a burden on Locust
Grove, Louise Lane, and Kimball Road.
RESPONSE: The traffic impact analysis has not been done yet. We will look at the
impact on these local streets. In addition, the City's Transportation and Engineering
Departments will evaluate the anticipated traffic loads and the ability of the local streets
to carry this new traffic.
5. . Will the traffic study account for new traffic generated by The Ponds at Overland
Trail and Overland Ridge P.U.D.? These two new projects will add a substantial amount
of traffic onto Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street.
RESPONSE: Yes, the study will be required to consider these projects as part of the
"background" traffic on these two streets.
6. What about extending Orchard Place all the way west to Overland Trail?
RESPONSE: This extension is not part of this request at this time. The intervening
property is not part of this P.U.D. There are two points to consider regarding this ultimate
extension. One point is that an additional access to the west will help distribute the new
traffic from the 66 single family homes and minimize the direct impact on Orchard. The
possible downside is that new traffic from Overland Trail could be introduced onto Orchard
that serves the entire neighborhood and not just the 66 homes in Scenic Views.
7. Without an alternative access point for the condos, these folks will be landlocked
before and after C.S.U. home football games. Also, if there is a stalled car or snow drift,
these folks will be stuck for hours without an alternative access point.
STORMWATER QUAL17Y
AND
MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN
Prepared for Scenic Views, 2nd Replat
City of Ft. Collins
Stormwater Utility
rocky mountain research institute
5545 a nerlwge piece so 1 engiewo= co 80111 ) 303-721-5054
fa. 303-721 -0245 I. bl a 303.548-4540
marketing, real estate and economic consultants
FINAL SUBMITTAL
February 5, 1997
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
i
,..
i
,09-16-1996 03=59PM FROM R49R
ENSR wa
III
RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1996
2246111 P.03
��r�IY�NIXru41!'M,ry'pplNr:IW;'am�:M�flk�Pv: a�Wq, rw.�nnWMIeH.N�`CMr�n+l
line. If water is allowed to collect now my property line, it could cause seepage
problems at my house.
• Protection of property - I assume that no portion of my property win be directly or
indirectly impacted during construction activities. I request that when the developer
surveys in the property line, that this line be marked/staked in the field to clearly
designate the limits of proposed construction activities. I believe that a buffer zone
would be. appropriate in order to accommodate the inaccuracies Inherent with heavy
construction equipment operations. Currently, metal and wood fences are in place
new my southern property line and these are to remain in place and undamaged.
I do not want to get into discussions with the developer regarding damage control
and repairs. I believe that it would be poi appropnateao;estabGsh and
_majn.the:.field,:,,,........::: .::.......,.
a sufficiently wide buffer area and that this area be enforced by the developer in .
order to avoid such discussions.
e Wetla s - I would be extremely supportive of the protection/avoidance of the
wetlands that occur along the southern edge of my property.If any .of the.
cattaild/wetlands along my southern property line occur on my property, I would like
them to remain In place. I believe that they provide wildlife habitat, Improve water
quality through filtration, and also improve aesthetics in the area .lust out of
curiosity, have the wetlands been surveyed for the Ute. ladies tresses orchid and the
PrebWs jumping mouse; is this potential habitat for these species.: .
• Trash/debris - I request that trash be collected, contained,' and removed on a regular
basis to ensure that trash doesn't collect along or near my. property line and fences.
• PQi d of contact - Will there be a point of contact for the City and the developer, in
Me event that I have questions or if problems arise, I. would like to be able to deal
with the appropriate and authorized representative. _...,......,
I app this opportunity to provide input to the final hearing/meeting for the Scenic Views
pro a
development. These comments are based on my experience in the environmental
perm ' business as well as my personal experiences, having been a resident of Fort Collins
for over consecutive years. I would appreciate any comments or responses to these issues
and cor Gems that I have summarized in this memo.
Thanks saaln, '
Phil
Page 2
J
Structural BMPs to be Used at Scenic Views
The following Best Management Practices are being employed for the Scenic
Views development:
1-2 Irrigated Grass Buffer Strips and Grass -Lined Swales.
Adjacent to all buildings and parking areas are large patches of grass
to which roof top drains will direct storm runoff. Passing through the
grass and vegetation slows the storm runoff peak and promotes
pollutant fallout prior to the water entering the stormwater drains.
Grass lines swales direct stormwater flow, contribute to lowering the
peak flow, and reduce pollutant loads into the stormwater basin. A
Swale will occur in the detention pond bottom to direct water flow to
the wetlands. This wetlands bottom channel will be gravel lined and
filter particulates.
NOTE: Healthy grass can generally be maintained without using
fertilizers because runoff from lawns and other areas contain the needed
nutrients. Periodic inspection is needed in the first few years to identify
any problems areas and to plan for long-term restorative maintenance.
3. Water Quality Extended Detention Basin (Dry Basin)
Extended detention basins are designed to drain their brim -full volume
in about 40 hours through a perforated riser pipe to remove a significant
portion of the particulate pollutants found in the stormwater runoff.
Soluble pollutant removal is enhanced by providing the small wetland
marsh. or ponding area in the basin's bottom to promote biological
uptake. The basin is considered dry because it is designed not to have
a large permanent pool of water. The flood detention volume is
provided above the water quality capture volume (WQCV)'of the basin.
No more than 50% of the WQCV will be released in 12 hours. The
extended detention basin reduces peak runoff flow rates into the canal
and prevents periodic flooding of properties downstream while
improving water quality and providing recreation and open space
opportunities. The basin is effective in removing particulate matter and
associated heavy metals and other pollutants.
On -Going Monitoring of the Stormwater Outfall
The HOA will be responsible for the drainage basin maintenance and
will have instructions for using bio-degradable pesticides, debris
removal, grass mowing, and wetlands monitoring. The HOA will keep
a log of basin grounds maintenance including pumps, recycling pickups,
resident attendance at on -site ecological seminars, and use of outdoor
litter disposal conveniences. Annually in May, July, August, and
September the HOA will monitor pond discharge by water sampling
and send results to an independent lab for content analysis. Results will
be evaluated by the HOA Board annually to track the effectiveness of
the Best Management Practices program.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
11
r.
January 20, 1996
Dear Mitchell'Haas and Ted Shepard:
I recently purchased a house at 1013 Timber Lane, for investment rental. I recently wrote you I
was opposed to the development of the "Scenic Views" proposal. I have not changed my mind in regard
to this proposal. What will become someone else's view will lose my view. I believe we should make this
an open space area. The noise and dust and traffic to construct this area will be awful. I believe it will
affect my rental abilities and cause me to need to sell, which would end up being a lose.
What I do not understand is this second proposal "West Plum P.U. D." that may contain
approximately 16 lots on 3 acres. This was not told to me when I bought this house. My realtor went to
the city and this development was not mentioned. I will be opposed to this development as well.
ThanK you for your attention in this matter. '
Sincerely,
Mc EC DI: i g 9'
Rogers Park
Neighborhood
Group
December 16, 1996
Mitch Haas
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Haas,
We are writing on behalf of the Rogers Park Neighborhood Group. The core leaders
along with input from several neighbors would like to express our concerns regarding
the Scenic Views final proposal which includes a retention pond to disperse storm
water into an irrigation ditch.
There is not sufficient information to support this alternative for storm water drainage as
an environmentally safe addition to our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Lombardi
*6ic
Gail Yerbic
Contact: Gail Yerbic 482-9497 Contact: Kevin Lombardi 484-7410
i
09-16-1996 03;5E3PM FROM FNM
TO
2246111 P.02
RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1996 "
esn oormup4�a ana peg uC..
MEMORANDU N 'O"It"".NFR4ew ppl(NIWm�u�ygppin�ua m..n�r,. ur+M»h gp.�
TO: Mitch Haas/City of Fort Collins Planning DATE: September 16, IN6
Department ..
FROM: Phil Hackney/Fort Collins FILE: Scenic Views PUD
RE: Input to Sept.23 Final Approval Mtg CC:
Mitch,
As the owner of 720 South Overland Trail, I would like to document my: conoems:as an adjacent...:. ,
landowner to the proposed Scenic Yews development project ' Unfortunately, I will be out of
town during the final hearing/meeting with the City. However, I would like to state my concerns
and if propriate have the City address these issues at the meeting. My property borders the
northi portion ofthe proposed development and as a result, the following potential issues have
been
Air u,� - Fugitive dust emissions during construction need to be controlled at an
times with, appropriate dust suppression methods.
Noise - It, is assumed that construction and builders equipment and Crews will be
active over a long period of time. 1 would like to see designated construction activity
periods enforced for a project of this magnitude. I believe that it would be
appropriate to restrict all construction activities to daylight hours (8:00 to 5:00)
Monday and Friday of each week; weekend construction should not be
:all
so that adjacent neighbors can enjoy their time off without constant
cetion noise 7 days a week for 365 days a year. (This may be consistent with
the City's cement odes).
Additionally, over the years I have seen construction sites become motorcycle tracks
until the development has been completed. Will the site be fenced off and will this
type of activity be controlled. In my opinion, this;is one on the worst sources of
noise pollution and also I would think that this opens the door to potential liability
Issues for the developer.
Suftce water runoff control - it is imperative that the surface water from the site is
oorttroged and directed to the proposed storm water pond at the northeastern comer
of the site and that the water doesn't collect and impound at my southern property
=ROM FMR 1 WM VE I0 FEB .....56 5 :55PM P.001
February 12, 1996
213 Thunderbird Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 60525
Mr. Bill Veio
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
6645 E. Heritage Place South
Englewood, CO 50111
Dear hr. Veio,
.Per your request, of February 9, 1996, I visited the property
located on the northeast corner of Elizabeth Street and Overland
Trail this morriing to determine whether or riot Ute ladies' -
tresses orchid (S -it 1, 1es dil uv;. az) habitat exists on -site.
Limited, marginal orchid... habitat''is• present. In my opinion,
however, it is unlikely that the orchid occurs on the property.
Small mud flats (ie., 10 square feet or less) present within the
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal channel provide extremely limited,
degraded potential orchid habitat. Relatively steep canal banks
are densely vegetated, primarily by reed can arygrass (?_h &l rya
arundinacea), and provide no orchid habitat.
A cattail marsh in the northwest corner of the site is bordered
by a pasture that appears to be mowed as close as possible to the
marsh. Smocth brome (Br m,e inerm=) is the predominant grass in
this area; sedges and rushes typically associated with Ute
ladies' -tresses orchid were not apparent. The orchid is unlikely
to occur in association 'with the marsh due to the dominance of
tali pasture grasses, apparent absence of associated species, and
disturbance due to mowing.
Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this survey. Please
contact rie (phone/fax: 270-223-8.744) if you have questions or
need additional information.
Sincerely,
�
Ellen Wheeling
enclosure
=
Fe'Ri WM VEIO
APR `.86
10198M P.001
R MR 1 Ali i►.�.
rocky nmuritein research tnstttute
nlericetin;, reel esume end ecwrorr= corksultwMB
DATE: April 8,1996
Post4t' FaX Note 7e71
tximOf -
"M
T° ITN AfAfs
co,o"Wr C. iM+ 06-
OD
Ph
FO%B �XWW Z
B845e. MrAW PW09 Go : angawmti Cb BD1 1 1 : 9D9.781 •eD66
TO: City of Ft. Collins
Planning Department
FROM: Bill Veio, Manager
Solitaire Properties, LLC
RE: DRAINAGE EASIINENT FROM THE FISBIRS�
This document reflects Scott and Cynthia Fisher's willingness to grant a drainage
easement across their property to Solitaire Properties, LLC. The precise location of the
easement will be determined from engineering drawings. approved by the City of Ft.
Collins upon Final Plat approval of the Solitaire Properties, LLC. parcel to the west.
Al,ZO�W -
s�fG
H. Fisher Date
2705 Orchard Place
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Cynthia Fisher Date
2705 Orchard Place
Ft. Collins, Colorado.
William B. Veio Date
Manager, Solitaire Properties, LLC
6645 E. Heritage Place South
Englewood Colorado 80111
innovative ideess for- industry since 1972
J
EIGHBORHOOD ItiTFOPLtiI �TIO�i i�IEETIN Did You Rcccive Ic,r-cc:
�'rittca \octGc::iort.kddress'J
of this mcctiag?
ZiD Yes I Noyesl No
,,��,�
7�
ra�ol
i
I
I
\NEIGHBORHOOD INF 1RMATION MEETIN
Did You Rccciv
�Corrcct
Vritten NodCtcador.
Address.
or this meeting?
Name Address Z11)
Yes
I No
I Yesl
No
Fl
I
�v- 4P5L�
ICI
-
C k4fI
✓
(
Ivy
I
22
I I
✓I
��� �'• "7
I
I
I
I I
' �Y\ 2 � C Cv , C �i �. �� �ey� �S � �
�
�
A/ter
c?
so'l I %i1P708 g��� � �
( I
I
✓
37CC� �
I
rit° `" l���N�.i.�iGl ���7/,CI �'i?t'0'��� 0� �G'�3 ��Cr. � SUN �'i_,��� 1 I ✓ I
✓I I
rra �Ya.r Ames
r awsl ua�
r rwr�n �nrn
a �MObpM<�
r un�
• Y AYIIO
I I I I FMr AW �wiu I I i
�-- 1
I I
t--�
L-7 LAW
'
LAND tft BIFJUmOV M
WYMMI.� WYK
ILMIMP'a rM[ W C
rTb� YO1J Nlt Y IMF
�n�wvlwa. awn
Yu. wn swami.
aeu MarHrr ns AVK
rlw.Ywe
Iln aar nluaa oaYe mut o.l.w
�. awwn
�. awwn
� �a�avmwn.�ap aa+lu�
�>,Isrmun. vy+
••�
}ap�a��, pmaYp
1'blaOr M1 .1l{L��V MI(II
® Y&M,
zlk-�
N tmYa
-
SCENIC VIEWS P.U.D.
PRELIAWARY SITE 8
LANDSCAPE PLAN
4
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 7
32. Is there bike access to the park from Overland Trail?
RESPONSE: Yes, the bike path is designed form a loop around the project using
the path and the sidewalks along Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street.
33. We will be very disappointed to see this project develop. Right now we enjoy the
open field. We see deer, red fox and other wildlife. The northwest comer of the site is
marshy which also attracts wildlife. We enjoy our views. It would be tragic to call the
project "Scenic Views" when all it does is destroy our views. This project will disturb our
quiet neighborhood.
34. Is the site in the City? I don't remember the project being annexed.
RESPONSE: The site was annexed in different stages around 1979 and 1980.
35. Since the neighborhood is located east of the project we are downwind. Also, the
Happy Heart Farm is an organic farm and wind and water erosion and dust will be --a
serious problem. We are concerned about the disturbance due to construction and
erosion. .
RESPONSE: These are good concerns. If we get approval to build, we can work
with the neighborhood to minimize these problems. One possible solution would be
construct a fence on the eastern property line to mitigate the construction activities.
RESPONSE (from City): If there are problems, the City Engineering Department can be
called since they enforce construction sites for compliance with City Code. A construction
inspecctor can be dispatched to the site if there are code violations. Also, the Stormwater
Utility has an erosicr: control inspector to enforce the erosion control measures. These
two departments can be called upon to inspect the site.
36. The grass used in the park and common areas should not be irrigated blue grass
sod. Drought tolerant grass mixtures should be'used that are more native to the area.
Fescue blends are very effective ground covers in our arid climate. Water conservation
is an important community value.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The City has adopted water conservation
standards for new developments. In addition, irrigation plans are also reviewed so that
watering is efficient and not wasteful.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 6
development. Increasing lot widths from 50 to 60 feet wide could add $20,000 to the cost
of the end product. This is because of land development costs and development fees are
expensive. If your lots were developed in today s market, you could not buy them for what
you paid for them. The only feasible way to make this project competitive in the market is
to keep lot widths at 50 feet.
27. There is equestrian use in our neighborhood. Are you planning any equestrian
trails?
RESPONSE: This is an interesting revelation. We are not planning on providing
any equestrian trails.
28. You have provided no parking for the park which will cause users to park in front
of our houses. This will disturb our peace and quiet.
RESPONSE: Our park is not a public park that will be programmed for organized
sports. There will be no soccer field and no softball diamond. These activities are
provided at the nearby public parks. We hope our park will be used by bicyclists and
pedestrians.
29. The developer is encouraged to use the park as a permanent site for the City's
Horticulture Center. The Horticulture Center is seeking a site for a community garden and
other activities. In addition, the park could feature edible plants and fruit trees as was
done in a successful project in Davis, California. These are positive steps that could be
taken so that the development becomes an asset to the neighborhood, not a liability.
RESPONSE: This is an interesting comment. We know that there used to be, or
perhaps still is, a fruit orchard located on the property to the north. We have looked into
this concept and it may not be feasible for us to do this.
30. Could you shift the park to the northeast corner to help buffer the existing
neighborhood? Is the park site set in stone?
RESPONSE; . The park could be shifted a little but it is designed to tie into the bike
path which will follow the canal.
31. Will the canal area be used as a stormwater drainageway?
RESPONSE: Our plan, at this time, is to try to place the canal into an underground
pipe and use the land for the path. Stormwater will be routed to the two stormwater
detention ponds. It is possible that a dual system, one pipe for the canal and one pipe for
the drainage, may be allowed but would require permission from the ditch company and
approval by the City's Stormwater Utility.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 5
20. Will you consider restricting the single family area to one-story ranch -style homes
to preserve views?
RESPONSE: No, this would place our project at an unfair disadvantage when other
projects are not so restricted.
21. Is this project viable given two recent development proposals in the area: The
Ponds at Overland Trail and Overland Ridge?
RESPONSE: We have factored these projects into our market analysis. We believe
we are targeting a "first-time buyer" or "empty -nester" market which these other two
projects do not.
22. What will this project do to, school overcrowding?
RESPONSE: The Poudre R-1 School District has capacity in the district to serve
new students at all levels. Students from this project will be assigned to a school that has
capacity. This may or may not be the nearest school. Students will be bussed rather than
build new capacity. Keep in mind that condos and duplexes historically generate fewer
elementary students than single family.
23. If there will be so few students generated by this project, why the need for a daycare
facility?
RESPONSE: The daycare is part of the amenity package and points are awarded
under the Land Development Guidance System for providing this service.
24. Will Overland Trail and Elizabeth be improved by this developer?
RESPONSE (from city staff):. The developer will be obligated to construct sidewalk,
curb, and gutter and the appropriate street widening along the frontage of both streets.
25. Are you willing to reduce density in the single family area to minimize traffic impacts
on the neighborhood.
RESPONSE: We will conduct a traffic impact study and work with the City and the
neighborhood to plan a project that will work. .
26. Our existing neighborhood is on larger lots. Why can't this project feature larger
lots for the single family?
RESPONSE: Larger lots like yours cannot be provided in today's market at the price
range we are targeting. Lot widths are the key variable in determining the cost of land
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Yews - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 4
14. Will the project be subsidized or supported by a public agency as an affordable
housing project?
RESPONSE: No, the project will be sold at market rates.
15. Are the units "for sale" or "for rent?" Can a covenant be placed on the project so
that owners do not rent out their units?
RESPONSE: The units are "for sale." It would be against the law to restrict a
private property owner from renting out his or her unit after the initial sale.
16. Our neighborhood is suffering from owners who rent to college students. In some
cases, the landlord is a parent of a college student who buys a house for the student for
a four year period and then sells the property. These rentals are filled with students who
are not desirable neighbors.
17. What is the price range for the units?
RESPONSE: At this time our thinking is as follows:
One bedroom condo Low $60's
Two bedroom condo $88 - $90,000
Three bedroom condo $90's
Duplex $120's
Single family $140 - $160,000
18. Will all the houses look alike?
RESPONSE: There are a variety of floor plans and models that can mixed and
matched so all the houses will not look alike.
19. What about our view to the west? The new development will block our view of the
mountains?
RESPONSE: The view on the low horizon will probably be obscured but the view
to the upper horizon will probably not change. Views are a sensitive issue as properties
develop west of existing development. The only view protection is in R-F, Foothills
Residential, Zone. In the R-F Zone, in a cluster development plan, new development must
minimize the aesthetic impact upon the view of the foothills as well as the view from the
foothills. This proposal is located in the R-L, Low Density Residential, Zone which
contains no provisions regarding view preservation.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Comer of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 19M
Page: 3
RESPONSE: These are good comments. The C.S.U. games are infrequent (five to six
home games per year) and there is adequate warning. ' The main point is that the concept,
at this time, is to not penetrate the central park and not cross the canal with a street as this
would have an adverse impact on this attractive central feature.
B. What is the projected trip generation for the project?
RESPONSE: The single family houses will generate approximately 10 trips per day,
five trips out and five return trips. Total trip generation for the single family would be 660.
9. What about connecting Plum Street to the project? This would relieve traffic on
Orchard.
RESPONSE: We are planning for a future Plum Street connection but the
intervening property, Happy Heart Farm, is a viable organic farming enterprise and
residence and is not available to be divided by a street connection.
10. Will Elizabeth be widened and if so, how many lanes will added?
RESPONSE: The City consideres West Elizabeth to be a minor arterial street once
you get west of K.F.C. This means one travel lane in each direction, and one continuous
center left -turn lane. East of K.F.C., the street is planned to widened out to an arterial with
two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center left -turn lane.'
11. What about the intersection of Taft Hill and Elizabeth? This intersectrion needs an
eastbound left-turn'lane with separate green arrow. Otherwise, traffic stacks up back to
the west.
RESPONSE: This intersection will be,widened with a city capital improvement
project this Spring (1996).to provide a separate left -turn lane for eastbound traffic.
12. Louise Lane is used by high school students who cruise around the neighborhood.
Plus, kids use Louise Lane to get to Poudre High. This project will only add more traffic
on this street which will make things unsafe for everyone.
13. There is a speeding problem on Kimball already. This project will only make it
worse.
RESPONSE (from the city): Speeding problems should be reported to Police
Department. Your report will be logged in to the computer. If you do not call in, the Police
Department will never know about the problems and will not be able to respond.
Communi manning and Environmental Se
Current Planning
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
ces
PROJECT: Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail and
West Elizabeth Street
DATE: January 18, 1996
APPLICANT: Mr. Bill Veio
CONSULTANT: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
STAFF: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer
The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing .
a mix of housing types and densities on 36 acres. The southern portion of the site would
feature 192 condominium units. The western.portion of the site would feature 28 duplex
units. The eastern portion of the site would feature 66 single family detached units. Total
number of units would be 288 units. Orchard Place is proposed to extend west to serve
the single family area but not extend to Overland Trail with this project. A 3.9 acre park
site along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is proposed. (Unless noted, all responses.
are from the applicant.)
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. With the proposed extension of West Orchard as the primary ingress and egress
for the 66 single family units, we are concerned about the introduction of new traffic into
our neighborhood. It looks like Kimball will bear the brunt of the new traffic as this will be
the primary route to West Elizabeth. Louise Lane and Locust Grove will carry additional
traffic as the primary route to West Mulberry.
2. The single family area is cutoff by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal which
eliminates access out to Elizabeth. There should be a bridge over the canal so the single
family area does not have to soley rely on Orchard for access.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Bros 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 3
The LDGS defines recreational space as "privately owned space which is designed for
active recreational use for more than three (3) families and would qualify as one (1) of
the following categories:
(1) Active Open space
(a) A parcel of not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet and not
less than fifty (50) linear feet in the smallest dimensions;
(b) Public dedications may not contribute to the active open space
area;
(c) Partial credit may be given to active open space areas which are
devoted to improved flood control channels and areas encumbered
by flowage, floodway, or drainage easements ...................."
Under this definition, portions of the retention area can technically be claimed as
recreational space. However, continuing to claim points for the area labeled as
"created wetlands" on the final landscape plan and the adjacent slopes is inappropriate.
The applicant has revised the points claimed for recreational use from 10 to 8 after
deleting these areas. The project still exceeds the required 100 points necessary for a
density of 10.6 dwelling units per acre by earning a total of 103 points (see attached
revised point chart).
If there are any questions regarding the resolution of these issues, please call either
one of us. We will also be available at the Board's work session on February 21 and
the Board's March 10, 1997 meeting.
docfi I\p&z\scnvi ew. mem
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 2
he made at the P & Z Hearing which is to eliminate it and therefore will not have
basements in the northern portion of the development.
Water Quality
To address water quality issues the developer has researched the "present state of the
art" concerning water quality and summarized the findings in the Stormwater Quality
and Management Control Plan (attached). As a result of the this plan there are now
many features shown on the construction plans to treat the runoff from the development
and, in fact, will be treating runoff from the CSU Equine Center as well. The plans now
incorporate "Best Management Practices", both structural and non-structural which
includes extended detention and wetland water treatment. The plan includes control of
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, illicit discharge controls, grass buffer strips, grass -
lined swales, and a commitment to a monitoring program. The Stormwater Utility can
endorse this plan (staff feels it is one of the best ever submitted by a development
applicant) and will assure that agreements are in place to assure compliance.
Recreational/Active Open Space
The applicant has made changes in the design of the retention pond that affect its
recreational use:
The retention area is now 12 feet deep except for an area in which a
wetland will be created which is 16 feet deep (the previous depth was 10
feet).
2. The side slopes have been decreased from approximately 2:1 to
approximately 4:1.
3. A five foot path has been provided down the sloped area on the north side
of the retention area.
4. The landscaping has been rearranged (the numbers and types of trees
have been retained).
5. Two picnic tables have been added in the northeast section of the
retention area.
The Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H) of the Land Development Guidance
system (LDGS) allows points to be awarded for recreational use based on the
percentage of the entire project area that meets the definition of recreational uses.
Community Planning and Environmental zervices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
DATE: February 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
At the December, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Scenic Views PUD, Final
was continued until "the staff is comfortable that all issues have been as fully resolved
as possible." Over the last two months, the applicant has addressed the concerns
expressed at the hearing and staff is comfortable that the issues have been addressed.
This memorandum is a summary of the issues and their resolution and should be
considered an addendum to the staff report. The original staff report has not been
amended and is included in this packet for your reference.
At the December meeting, issues surrounding the retention pond design focused
discussion on the actual feasibility of the pond and its functionality - what impact does
the depth of the retention pond have on ground water and will the underdrain system
back water into the sanitary sewer bedding. Two additional related issues include
water quality (what is the impact of pumping water from the retention pond into the
adjacent ditch, is there an impact on downstream users of the ditch water?) and the
ability of the retention pond to meet the requirements of the Residential Uses point
chart to count as recreational, active open space.
Groundwater Impact
The retention pond will be isolated from the ground water by surrounding the pond with
a cutoff trench of non -permeable clay soils extending into the bedrock. This will allow
the depth of the pond to be below the existing ground water table to accommodate the
additional volume of runoff being required to be retained - two times the 24hr. - 100
year storm runoff.
Underdrain System
The developer has decided to eliminate the underdrain system due to concerns of the
Water and Wastewater Utilities. The Stormwater Quality and Management Control Plan
prepared for the applicant is attached to the staff report. In that study the developer
was reconsidering the underdrain system but has since gone back to the commitment
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
JAN-24-97 FRI 16:13 DEPT OF ATMO SCIENCE FAX NO, 970 491 8449 P,07
MEDIAN LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN MOISTURE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1889 - 1991
cn
0
u-
0
cc
W
m
Z)
Z
JAN-24-97 FRI 16:11
OR
0
F
EPT OF ATMO SCIENCE
FAX NO. 970 491 8449
D
P. 05
FORT COLLINS -- DRY -DAY PROBABILITIES
BASED ON 1889 - 1991 DAILY DATA
f e,
Me
.1
.;
20
4.
�I�r
r � < .10" FOR
6 DAYS
t
< .01" FOR
6 DAYS
0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
.J
2.4.3 Conclusions Drawn From Stormwater Quality Management Practices
An effective strategy for reducing stormwater pollution loads is to use
multiple BMPs, including Non -Structural measures, source controls, and
Structural BMPs. These water quality facilities are designed to capture and
treat the 80% percentile storm runoff event. Capturing and treating this
volume is estimated to remove between 80% and 90% of the annual TSS
(total suspended solids) load. Multiple BMPs can provide complementary
water quality enhancement to achieve desired results. A multi -level approach
deals with many pollutant and runoff sources throughout a watershed and
shows that combining most effect BMPs in a series can be an effective
strategy to reduce pollutant loads being transferred to receiving waters by
stormwater. This is the BMPs Strategy that is being employed for stormwater
control and quality enhancement at Scenic Views.
2.5 The Overall Detention Pond Appearance, Dry -Wet Areas, and Depth to Bottoms
The Scenic Views Pond could be just as easily be called an Extended Detention Pond
as a Retention Pond. With the smaller permanent pond and wetlands being charged
by groundwater and periodic stormwater runoff, it is the calculation of the water
quality capture volume which determines the more accurate description of the basin.
The WQCV computations show a required volume of .42 ac-ft. This translates to a
permanent triangular -shaped wetlands pond of about 170'length by 130'• width by 3'
deep. The remaining volume of 13.8 ac-ft is the DRY portion of the basin which
varies in depth from 9' to 12' and will handle 2 times the 100-yr storm. The exhibits
specified in Section 3 of the outline are being prepared for the neighbors and the Final
Plat hearing. You will receive copies for review when they become available. The
purpose of the exhibits is to show how the pond will look in Plan and Profile view,
and how the BMPs work together on the site. .
2.6 Summary of The Detention Basin Benefits
The above storm drainage basin will handle all on -site runoff for the 100-year storm,
plus has additional capacity to hold the off -site runoff volume from CSU and the
northern flows for the 100-yr storm. This excess storage capacity insures enhanced
stormwater quality to the downstream users. Of major importance is that Plum Basin
downstream property owners and homeowners should never again be flooded in the
5-yr, 10-year, or 100-yr storm event. This basin improvement is estimated to save
downstream residents over $2,800,000 in potential flood damages over the next 50
years.
3. Exhibits to Clarify Detention, Water Quality, and Open Space
3.1 Water Table Profile Duplex Area —Now vs. Underdrain
3.2 Water Table Profile Pond Area --As Detention Pond -As Retention
3.3 Pond Area in Plan View --As Detention --As Retention
3.4 Rendering Showing Pond Functioning with Best Management Practices Identified
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
14
J
contaminants and can require from 12 to 40 hours to settle out of suspension.
Extended detention allows smaller particles to agglomerate into larger ones,
and for some of the dissolved and liquid state pollutants to adsorb to
suspended particles, thus removing a larger portion of them through
sedimentation.
Filtering. Here particulates are removed from water by filtering. Particles
attach to small diameter collectors such as sand, pebbles, or gravel.
Infiltration. Pollutant loads in surface runoff are removed or reduced as the
water infiltrates or percolates into the ground. Particulates are removed at
the ground surface by filtration through the vegetation and soil, while
soluble constituents are also adsorbed into the soil, at least in part.
Biological Uptake. Plants and microscopic animals require soluble
constituents such as nutrients and minerals for growth while are found in
stormwater runoff. Soluble constituents are ingested or taken up from the
water and concentrated through bacterial action and phytoplankton growth.
In some instances plants could be harvested to remove the constituents
permanently. In addition, certain biological activities can reduce toxicity of
some pollutants and/or possible adverse effects on higher aquatic species.
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Table 4 presents the ranges of pollutant removal efficiencies which are
expected using the Structural BMPs with the above processes.
Al1tB�MpPQLL#37ANI`1tiKMAYt,kFktiC
.
i2EMt3YAi.
iPEYttl�l?x.
t:C31�FFRf)L tl�Ltl;Rt+IATiYE
Suspeadid
Ttftatl
7oEal
.........
Baiterta
:..:. .......:......::.; ::...:,..:....:;....
$tlltd$....:.
PAosplloru .,;
1<lit age3lt :.
;.'
Grass Buffer Strips
10-20
0.10
0.10
0-10
n.a.
Grass -Lined Swales
2040
0-15
0-15
0-20
n.a
Extended Detention Pond
50-70
10-20
30-20
30-60
50-90
(Dry)
Retention Pond (Wet)
60-95
0-80
0-80
0.70
na.
Constructed Wetlands
40-50
10.60
0-20
50-60
n.a
Source: Observed BMPs reported for Extended Detention and Retention Ponds by Environmental Protection Agency
(1983), Grizzard (1982), Whipple and Hunter (1982) and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Metro
Denver (1992). Wetland data from USGS for all constituents except Total-P, Lakatos and McNemer (1987) for
Total-P as reported by Urban Drainage Flood Control District, Metro Denver (1992).
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
13
J
The HOA will check the retention pond pumps prior to the start of the
rainy season, and during major storms. In the event of a pump
malfunction, possible repairs will be made, and the ditch company and
city stormwater department notified, if repairs are unsuccessful, and a
storm is occurring or forecasted.
4. Water Quality Retention Pond (Wet Pond)
Retention ponds are designed for a 40-hour drain time above the
permanent pond because the sedimentation process is more efficient and
some mixing and dilution between a permanent dry weather pool and
storm runoff occurs. The wet pond also provides for treatment between
storms which provides a long period of time for fine particles to settle
out and for biological activity to occur. Outflow occurs above the
bottom of the basin allowing sediment to be trapped below the outlet
with sedimentation continuing after the captured surcharged volume is
emptied. A continuing source of water flow is needed to support the
permanent pond (WQCV). Refer to Pond Plan in the Utility drawings.
5. Constructed Wetlands
Wetland basins are designed to drain the water quality capture
volume (WQCV) in no less than 24 hours, thereby providing for some
biological uptake during the contact with wetland media. The depth of
the WQCV is under 2'. The permanent pool area is divided between
free water surface area (30% to 50%) which will be 2' to 4' deep ... and
the wetland zones with vegetation (50% to 70%) which are typically 6"
to 12" deep. A skimmer device is installed on the pond outlet about
one-half the depth below the permanent water surface and rises to the
maximum capture volume depth. The full WQCV should be above the
permanent pool level. Refer to the Landscape Plan and Utility Drawings
for the wetlands area design.
6. Sand, Gravel and Other Filters, Skimmer, Perforated Raised Pipe
These ate other BMPs that work in conjunction with the above Structural
BMPs which enhance the stormwater quality before it enters the canal
or other waterways.
Effectiveness of BMPs Measures
Runoff Pollutants can be grouped into two categories: particulate and soluble.
Particulates are considered larger than .4 microns in diameter. In many cases,
constituents, such as metals and oxygen demand compounds, become
adsorbed to particulate matter. If the particulate matter is removed, so are
the adsorbed or attached constituents. A combination of the following basic
pollutant removal processes is used to remove pollutants at Scenic Views:
Sedimentation is the process of particulate matter settling,out of stormwater
runoff. Smaller particles under 60 microns in size (fine silts and clays) can
account for 80% of the metals in stormwater attached or adsorbed with other
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
12
J
activities by far exceed the quantities from urban areas. Establishing
and maintaining landscaping and vegetation in existing urban areas can
assist in reducing stormwater runoff rates and volumes, sediment loads,
and pollutants associated with sediment from entering streams and
lakes. Vegetation acts to reduce raindrop impact on soil, slows runoff
rates, and encourages infiltration of precipitation into the soil.
Pollutants, such as metals, nutrients, and bacteria that are attached to
sediment will also be removed. The overall volume of runoff from a
vegetated area is less than from an area of bare soil. Although bare soil
will also allow some infiltration, its surface has a tendency to seal and
erode. The eroded soils are a source of sediment transport to the
receiving waterway.
The landscape plan for the site contains over 100 trees, bushes, shrubs,
and several acres of grass vegetation. The landscaping and vegetation
will reduce the sediment load from existing conditions and enhance
stormwater quality. Maintenance of the planted areas will be the
responsibility of the HOA.
Advantages of Structural BMPs
Reduced runoff, particulate removal, and some measure of flood control
are the principal benefits of Structural BMPs. Pollutants are removed
by adsorption, settling, precipitation, infiltration, filtration, and
biological activity.
The advantages are:
* Enhanced stormwater runoff quality
* Can reduce runoff volumes through infiltration and interception
* Can reduce peak rates of runoff, especially for smaller storms, by
capturing and slowly releasing urban runoff
* Can be constructed first and then used to control erosion and
sedimentation during site construction
* Can be combined with other municipal or public uses such as
active and passive recreation, open space, and wildlife habitat
* Can sometimes integrate BMPs into site landscaping to supplement
irrigation of vegetation
* Can be combined with drainage and flood control objectives at
incremental costs to minimize and control downstream flooding
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
10
J
Other on -site actions that will be taken to improve resident and visitor
awareness and personal responsibility for stormwater quality:
* Distribution of the Irrigation Ditches brochure in the rec center, sales
offices, and on the bike and walking paths along the canal
* DON'T LITTER signs in open space and along canal
* Neighborhood clean-up day for parks, bike paths, open areas
* Pet Waste disposal bag containers along paths and park areas
* Waste containers distributed throughout the open spaces and walks
4. Guidelines for Proper Use of Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers
Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are chemicals used in landscape
maintenance. Pesticides are used for insect control, herbicides for weed
control, while fertilizers are used for the growth and greening of grass.
Pesticides and herbicides are toxic to aquatic life at low concentration,
and fertilizers can be toxic at high concentrations. Fertilizers tend to
promote algae growth which can deplete dissolved oxygen for fish and
other aquatic organisms.
The rate and timing of the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
are important to minimize potential transport by stormwater runoff.
Overapplication and overspraying onto impervious areas needs to be
avoided as well as too frequent or excessive use. Following
manufacturer's recommendations can prevent most of the surface water
contamination being attributed to their use. With the HOA"in control of
all open space applications, manufacturer's specifications can be
followed.
5. Illicit Discharge Controls
Educating residents and visitors about illegal dumping practices, about
the potential hazards to public health and the environment, and
encouraging the immediate reporting of spills can create a citizen
sensitivity to deter illicit dumping.
Controlling public automobile access to the neighborhood would go a
long way to prevent the dumping of trash, refuse, and fluids or toxic
substances into the canal. Controlled access to the neighborhood was
part of the original design to presented to the city planning staff, but
was refused "as an undesirable neighborhood element".
6. Landscaping and Vegetation Practices
Soil erosion and transport from urban areas produces only a fraction of
total sediment arriving at streams and waterways. Agricultural
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
7
Non -Structural BMPs Used at Scenic Views
The following Best Management Practices are being employed for the Scenic
Views development:
1. Preparation of this Storm Water Quality Control Plan which states
water quality control objectives, the description of stormwater quality
management practices, contains exhibits and drawings showing the
structural BMPs, the hydrological and hydraulic calculations
documenting sizing and stability of drainage features, and descriptions
of maintenance responsibilities and access.
2. Preparation of an Erosion Control Plan
This Plan is a part of the Final Drainage Plan and Utility drawings which
have been submitted to city staff. The objective of the Plan is to mitigate
the potential for soil erosion and to control sediment movement during
the construction process until final landscaping and stormwater quality
measures are effectively in place.
3. Proper Disposal of Household Waste and Toxins
The developer and the Homeowners Association will create a resident
and visitor information program that teaches the proper disposal of
household waste, litter, pet waste, yard waste, used oil, and toxic waste.
Facilities for proper disposal will be provided throughout the
development. Neighborhood newsletters, HOA monthly billing inserts,
recreation center bulletin boards, the HOA covenants, and periodic
HOA meetings will reinforce these policies. Proper disposal of
household waste and toxics can reduce the deposition of solids,
organics, nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, solvents, caustics,
paints, automotive fluids, toxic substances and fecal material on the land
and reduce their presence in the stormwater reaching receiving waters.
Improper disposal of used oil and automotive fluids causes receiving
waters to be contaminated with hydrocarbons and residual metals that
can be toxic to stream organisms. Used oil and other petroleum
products can be recycled. Information on the location of recycling
centers, the benefits of recycling, prevention of fluid leaks, and the
importance of proper disposal for improving stormwater quality can
reduce the amount of oil and used automobile fluid reaching receiving
waters.
Through an on -site communication program residents and visitors will
be alerted about their everyday use of toxic wastes: paint, solvents,
putties, cleaners, waxes, polishes, oil products, aerosols, acids, caustics,
pesticides, herbicides, and certain medicines or cosmetics. Seminars will
present non -toxic, safe, biodegradable product alternatives and discuss
proper disposal points within the community.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
T
r
h. The irrigation company is willing to allow the discharge into the ditch
after peak flow periods of a storm, because of the benefits cited above.
2.4.2 Stormwater Quality with Development —Best Management Practices
Urban stormwater runoff contains a variety of constituents that originate
from a number of different sources. To reduce the concentrations and the
loads that would reach the irrigation canal or other receiving waters, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) have been suggested by EPA, other Federal
and State Agencies, and professionals who deal with stormwater.
There are two categories of BMPs, both of which will be utilized in
improving stormwater quality at Scenic Views:
Non -Structural BMPs include pollution prevention and source control BMPs.
Structural BMPs include facilities constructed to passively treat stormwater
runoff before it enters the canal or other receiving waters.
Advantages of Non -Structural BMPs
Non-structural BMPs prevent or limit the entry of pollutants into stormwater
at their source. Prevention is desirable and can be cost effective because it
avoids pollution in the first place and thereby reduces the amounts that need
to be removed by subsequent treatment. The advantages of Non -Structural
BMPs are:
* The quality of stormwater runoff is improved
* The volume of sediment, debris, and other pollutants deposited in
receiving waters is reduced
* The operation and maintenance of structural controls is reduced
* There are benefits to air quality, ground water quality, and waste control
* Open space and wildlife habitat is enhanced
* Public awareness of water quality problems is heightened and personal
involvement in solutions happens
* Public awareness of stormwater quality issues increases
* Most require only a modification of existing practices, are simple to
understand, and make good sense
* Implementation can occur rapidly
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
7
2.3 Wetlands Transfer
There is an existing area of about 8,000 sq.ft. near the northwest property boundary
which is a wetlands created accidentally when the CSU Detention Pond and City
water lines were installed in Overland Trail in 1988. This wetlands is too small to
qualify for U.S. Corp of Engineer regulations, but will be relocated to the Detention
Pond area to enhance stormwater quality and to create a visual amenity for residents.
2.4 Stormwater Quality and Best Management Practices
2.4.1 Existing Stormwater Quality --Prior to Development
a. The existing storm runoff now contains fertilizers and pesticides used
to grow alfalfa, plus wastewater and stream particulates from the CSU
Veterinary School and Equine Center. In storm conditions these
particulates are deposited into the canal.
b. In periods of storm runoff, particulates from the horse pastures to the
north of the Scenic Views site enter the canal.
c. According to the ditch company representative, it is a common
occurrence to have illegal dumping of oil, trash, and organic materials
into the canal.
d. Under present conditions, the canal water quality is poor quality due to
runoff for up to 24 hours after a storm,. The canal representative has
advised the Happy Heart Farm and other water users "NOT TO USE
the canal water for irrigation purposes within 24 hours of a storm
because of its poor quality during storm events." After 24 hours the
sediment will settle out in the canal bottom, and the water quality vastly
improves for irrigation.
e. The irrigation canal water is NOT for human consumption.
f. The ditch company has NO WATER QUALITY delivery standards or
criteria to meet or to guarantee for any of its users. Users of the
irrigation ditch take whatever water is in the ditch and use it for
irrigation purposes. They have operated this way for many generations
without service disruption or dissatisfied customers.
g. The irrigation company sees the creation of a retention pond as an
effective tool for limiting peak flows, which could also improve the
stormwater quality which would flow overland into the ditch. They
also recognize there would be less risk of overtopping of the ditch due
to flooding. They are also aware that detaining the stormrunoff would
cause less damage to the ditch embankments, and would result in
greater effective use of the ditch capacity in flood periods. They also
recognize the detention basin would reduce the historic flow of
stormrunoff into the ditch.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
31
I
-- J
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
5
2. FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DETENTION & RETENTION POND
2.1. Definition of Detention, Extended Detention, and Retention Ponds
A detention pond holds runoff and may be releasing runoff simultaneously at the 2-yr
historic rate. The primary function of a detention or retention pond is moderating
flood flows. An added benefit is their ability to provide water quality enhancement.
An extended detention pond is designed to totally empty after runoff ends. The extended
pond extends the emptying time of the more frequent storms to facilitate pollutant
removal and does so with a smaller outlet. A drain time of the brim -full capture
volume of 40 hours is recommended to remove a significant portion of fine particulate
pollutants found in urban stormwater runoff. Soluble pollutant removal is enhanced
by providing a small wetland marsh or ponding area in the basin's bottom to promote
biological uptake. The basins or ponds are considered DRY because they are designed
not to have a significant permanent pool of water.
A retention pond has a permanent pool of water with a base flow to flush the
permanent pond, that is replaced with stormwater, in part or in total, during storm
runoff events. Temporary detention is provided above the permanent pool to allow
more sedimentation. Retention ponds are similar to extended basins because they are
designed to capture in total, and detain a volume of runoff from frequently occurring
storms. Retention ponds differ from extended detention basins because the runoff water
mixes with the permanent pool water as it rises above the permanent pool. The water
quality capture volume above the permanent pond is released over 40 hours, the same
as for an extended detention basin. The 40-hr discharge period allows the sediment
removal process to be more efficient when the outflow occurs above the bottom of the
basin. (See Utility Plan pond profile) Sediments become trapped below the outlet and
sedimentation continues in the pool after the captured surcharge volume is emptied.
Retention ponds are very effective in removing pollutants. They are used to improve
the quality of urban runoff from roads, parking lots, residential neighborhoods,
commercial areas, and industrial sites. They are generally used as regional or follow-
up treatment ponds.
Determination of the classification of the Scenic View basin as a retention pond or as
an extended detention pond is determined by the pond outlet elevation, the rainfall -
runoff data, the groundwater elevation, and the volume storage capacity.
2.2. Pond Water Levels for 2-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr, and 100-Yr Storm Events and Impact on
Open Space Use
In a typical year the amount of runoff that needs to be detained can be estimated by
examining the mean inches of rainfall and storm frequency by month. Tables 1 and
2 contain the estimated amount of annual rainfall for the site. Table 3 shows the
seasonality of rainfall for the site. In general, 0.1 inches of rainfall depth is the
amount necessary to cause runoff. On average, about 35 storm events occur each year
that are equal to or greater than 0.1 inches in precipitation depth.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
4
L_
J"
The rainfall data is from the Climate Control Center in Ft. Collins. Depth and Pumping
Rates, and Wet Time Hours are from the JR Engineering spreadsheets submitted with the.
Utility Plans. The city SWMM for this basin was used to determine runoff volumes which
led to the water level depths above the wetlands pond. Please refer to the Utility drawings
for any additional details needed.
1.2 The Groundwater Table Impact
The groundwater level for the retention pond will be reduced using a cutoff trench
around the pond perimeter with non -permeable clay soils. After excavation of the
pond, any groundwater left in the soil, should dry up to create a dry pond, except for
the water quality portion of the pond wetlands area.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
3
1. RAINFALL, RUNOFF, AND POND DEPTH
1.1 Rainfall and Runoff data for the site show that 57% of the annual storms will create
practically NO RUNOFF producing events. These are storms with rainfall from .0 to
0.1 inch. About 34% of the storms will have rainfall depths from .10 to .50 inches.
These two categories of storms represent 91% of the annual storms which will impact
the site and can be handled readily with only minor water depths in the retention
pond. The average depth would be 0" in the pond for a Storm of up to .5" if we were
retaining only site -generated runoff. With the pond designed to retain the off -site
flows from the CSU Equestrian Center and areas north of the site, the pond depth
would rise to 21" for a storm up to 0.5". Pond Depth refers to the area of the Pond
which is above the wetlands water quality control volume, which is graded a few feet
below the overall pond. The Pond would be DRY for resident use as Open Space, 97%
of time, if we were retaining solely on -site generated runoff. By increasing the capacity
of the pond to retain all off -site flows from the CSU facility and the area north of the
site, the pond will be dry 85% of the time during the year. Please refer to Table 1 and
2 on the following page for these explanations.
.... ............... ......5
:1t�II..... el 1� 5....T.1 '1`I "1 ri�l Y i s tl t p N ' :a � : ............ <
VMSFSNwSI)tA IA > s>[<Pltp
..........................
....::.:.::::.:::......... .......:.::.:.:::....:........
;Ax::::>tun�:.:....:.:.:.Totat.....:
o
».;:;;: ::: <:>:<>:<:::::<:::::>:::>::<::s:::>::>::>::><:::>::: >::;> »: t1►::>:::::::::::::> ....:::;o::::::::::::.:otcd::15?`et::: Timr:<:>::
'>:>:i2:<:><:><::'
::,:.::::::.:::::::::::::.:::.::::::::.:::::::::..:::.:.::::::::::::::::::::.:,:.:::::t.:::::::::::.
0.0 to 0.1 47.5 57.1 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 to 0.5 28.1 33.8 90.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
0.5 to 1.0 5.5 6.6 97.5 12.0 8.4 32.4 178.2
1.0 to 2.0 1.9 2.3 98.8 31.2 22.2 46.2 87.8
2.0+ 0.23 0.28 100.0 (Figures included by type of storm below)
Total Yrly: 83.2 100.0 100.0
2-Yr 0.5 20.4 14.1 38.1 19.1
5-Yr 0.2 38.4 28.2 52.2 10.4
10-Yr 0.1 48.0 36.9 1 60.9 1 6.1
25-Yr 0.04 61.2 50.0 74.0 3.0
100-Yr 0.01 81.6 71.7 95.7 1.0
Total Average Time Period Pond is Wet Per Year (Hours): 305.5
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
2
y
RMRI ®A&
rocky mountain research institute
marketing. real estate and economic consultants
DATE February 5, 1997
6645 a rer ge oiace sc = engiew000. cc 601 1 1 =. 3 :3-72 t •9.^.54
TO: City of FtCollins Planning Staff and
STORMWATER UTILITY
FROM: Bill Veio, Manager
SOLITAIRE PROPERTIES,LLC
RE: OUTLINE OF OUR RESPONSES TO THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
RAISED AT THE PAST P & Z MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997
After reviewing the video tape of the December 16 meeting and after hearing Staff's concern in
our phone conversation this January, we have prepared this outline of the development issues
we intend to resolve. The issues are these:
1. . Rainfall, Runoff, and Pond Depth
1.1 Rainfall and Runoff Patterns
1.2 The Groundwater Table Impact
2. The Functional Differences between the Detention vs. Retention Pond
2.1 Detention, Extended Detention, and Retention Ponds
2.2 Water Levels, Frequency, Open Space Use
2.3 Wetlands Transfer
2.4 Stormwater Quality & Best Management Practices
2.5 Overall Detention Pond Appearance, Dry -Wet Areas, Depth to Bottoms
2.6 Summary of The Detention Pond Benefits
3. Exhibits to Clarify Detention, Water Quality, and Open Space
3.1 Water Table Profile Pond Area --As Detention Pond -As Retention Pond
3.2 Pond Area in Plan View —As Detention --As Retention Pond
3.3 Rendering Showing Pond Functioning with Best Management Practices Identified
The following text is for your technical benefit and study. After reviewing the text, we would
like a meeting to discuss your comments and suggestions. The outline addresses what we believe
from an engineering, legal, and water quality perspective meets or exceeds the City of Ft. Collins
requirements for development approval. We would like to have your support for the Stormwater
Quality plan before scheduling a meeting with the neighboring property owners.
innovative ideas for industry since 1972
LEVEL OF SERVICE,DEFINITIONS FOR
STOP -CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Source: Transportation Research Board, Righway Capacity Manual, Special Report 2 ,, Third
Edition, 1994.
0
3
1
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
VII. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the potential impacts of constructing the Scenic Views PUD, a residential project
in Fort Collins, Colorado. As a result of the analysis, the following conclusions were drawn:
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following intersections: Overland
Trail at Elizabeth Street, Overland Trail at the access drive, Elizabeth Street at Cuerto Lane (the western
access drive), and Elizabeth Street at Tierra Lane (the eastern access drive).
The traffic impact analyses were performed for existing conditions and future Years 1997 and 2015.
Future background traffic conditions without the project and total traffic conditions, with completion
of the proposed project, were evaluated.
Under existing conditions each of the intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street is currently
operating at an acceptable level of service.
For Year 1997 background and total traffic conditions, the study intersections are projected to operate
at acceptable levels of service.
For Year 2015 future background and total traffic conditions, it was determined that the study
intersections would operate at acceptable levels. It was assumed that Overland Trail would be a four -
lane facility with a center left -turn lane and Elizabeth Street would be a two-lane facility with a center
left -turn lane.
As required by the City of Fort Collins, Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street will need to be improved
adjacent to the project site. However, no additional roadway or intersection improvements would be
necessary due to the proposed project.
21
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
Peak Hour Level of Service
Background Traffic
Total Traffic
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Overland/Elizabeth
(stop -controlled)
WB L
C
C
C
D
WB R
A
A
A
A
SB L
A
A
A
A
Overland/Access Drive
(stop -controlled)
WB UR
-
-
B
B
SB L
-
A
A
Elizabeth/Cuerto
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
-
A
B
EB L
-
-
A
A
WB L
A
A
A
A
Elizabeth/Tierra
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
Wg L
A
A
A
A
20
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Peak Hour Level of Service
Background Traffic
Total Traffic
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Overland/Elizabeth
-
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
B
C
C
C
SB L
A
A
A
A
Overland/Access Drive
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
-
C
B
SB L
-
A
A
Elizabeth/Cuerto
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
-
-
A
A
WB L
A
A
A
A
Elizabeth/Tierra
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
WB L
A
A
A
A
19
VII. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The previous chapter described the development of future traffic forecasts both with and without the
proposed project. Intersection capacity analyses are conducted in this chapter for both scenarios to
assess the potential impact of the proposed project -generated traffic on the local street system.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 1997
The peak hour background and total traffic volumes for Year 1997, illustrated on Figures 4 and 7
respectively, were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level of service.
Table 3 summarizes these results for Year 1997 background and total traffic conditions.
As indicated in Table 3, each of the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level
of service under future traffic conditions for Year 1997.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 2015
The Year 2015 peak hour traffic volumes for background and total traffic conditions (after completion
of the proposed project), were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level of
service. Table 4 summarizes these results.
As indicated in Table 4, with the assumed improvements described in Chapter III each of the study
intersections is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service under future background and total
traffic conditions for Year 2015.
18
a
M o
b
515
L
15110
fr
N N
7 �
^
tn
vtn
Ln
n �
"+ ^
1051105
Lf7
65/145
O
H w
o
~ N 10/25
f-140/220
J L 10/10
o
10/25
—140/240
i L 10/10
fr 160/245 r 180/245
0 5/10 v, 0 5110
o c '^ v,
b �
Note-naffu volumes rounded
•earest 5 whitles
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
STREET
lk-19-Ure
TOTALTRAFFIC - YEAP "15
AM/PM PEAK HOU...)
j
Note- Traff it volumes rounded
to nearest 5 vehicle;
10/25
+— 110/180
f-- lalo
N
NOT TO SCALE
�' igaare 7
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
V. FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The future total traffic projections reflect future traffic conditions with traffic from the proposed Scenic
Views PUD project. The future total traffic projections were developed for Years 1997 and 2015.
TOTAL TRAFFIC YEAR 1997
The total traffic for Year 1997 was developed by: adding traffic from the proposed project to the
background traffic for Year 1997. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 1997 are
shown on Figure 7.
TOTAL TRAFFIC YEAR 2015
The total traffic for Year 2015 was developed by: adding traffic from the proposed project to the
background traffic for Year 2015. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 2015 are
shown on Figure 8.
15
a
N
0
a 7/4 NOT TO SCALE
i L � 15/10
fr � � •
0000
00
M ~ N N
%0 17/18
25/15 J L 127J 9/27
1L 9/27 ELIZABETH
I F 5/15 5/14 STREET
5/14 —o--
26/16 —�
0o v
a;
a
Kiur7e6]
SITE - GENERATED TRAFFIC
AM/PM PEAK HO(TR
approximately 65 percent to the east.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway
network. The site -generated trip assignments are shown on Figure 6.
13
IV. PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Development of traffic projections for the proposed Scenic -Views PUD project involved the following
steps: estimation of trip generation, development of a trip distribution, and assignment of traffic onto
the roadway system.
TRIP GENERATION
Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their
report entitled Trip Generation, 5th edition, 1991, and revised February 1995, were applied to the
proposed land use in order to estimate the daily, AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips for the site. A
vehicles trip is defined as a one=way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination.
Table 2 illustrates the projected daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed
project. It should be noted that the full trip generation estimates for the day care were assumed.
However, most likely a large number of the children at the day care would be from the Scenic Views
project and would not generate and external trip onto the roadway system.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Units
ITE
Code
ADT
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Tot
In
Out
Tot
Condos
192 DU
230
1,125
14
70
84
70
36
106
Duplex
40 DU
210
382
8
22
30
26
14
40
Single Famly
68 DU
210
649
13
37
50
44
25
69
Day Care
2 KSF
565
159
14
12
26
13
14
27
TOTAL
2,315
49
141
190
153
89
242
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The overall directional distribution of the site -generated traffic was determined based on the location
of the site within the .City of Fort Collins. The trip distribution used in the traffic analysis was as
follows:
approximately 15 percent to the north,
approximately 20 percent to the south, and
12
tn
N
�O
l
90/85
40/130
r",te-Trait volumes rmunded
:crest 5 erhitles
�— 125/210
—1oi10
�— 130/215
10/10
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
ST�F'
]Figure 5
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - Y" 4 R 2015
AM/PM PEAK HOU-1�'
0
N
M
l
I�
70/65
30190
fr
N �
L
4
Note-Traffu volumes rounded
to nearest 5 whiles
I
NOT TO SCALE
I-moo— 95/150 -00._
100/155
10/10 10/10
GLIZABETH
105/165 —i 105/165 —� STRET
5110
5/10 1 F ,o
d' igure 4
BACKGROUND TRArric- YEAR 1997
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
Background Traffic Year 1997 )
The peak hour background traffic for Year 1997 is depicted on Figure 4. As mentioned above this was -/
developed by factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth in the City of Fort Collins and
adding the traffic from the nearby projects described above.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC YEAR 2015
Future projections of background traffic for Year 2015 were developed by: factoring the existing traffic
to account for overall growth and adding traffic from proposed developments.
Future Roadway Improvements
The analysis of the long term future traffic conditions within the study area included several roadway
improvements. These assumed improvements are described below:
Overland Trail would be widened to accommodate four travel lanes, two in each
direction, with a center left -turn lane.
Elizabeth Street would be improved to accommodate two travel lanes and a center left -
turn lane.
Citywide Traffic Growth
An overall growth in traffic of 1.5 percent annually was assumed. The existing traffic volumes were
adjusted upward by a total of 33 percent to reflect this citywide growth.
Traffic From Nearby Proiects
City of Fort Collins staff provided information on the projects near the study area which could be
completed within the long term. A description of each of these projects is provided below. The Year
2015 background traffic projections also include the list of proposed projects to be completed by 1997.
The remainder of the proposed Ponds project would be completed. This would include an
additional 200 single family homes.
Background Traffic Year 2015
The peak hour background traffic for Year 2015 is depicted on Figure 5. As mentioned above this was
developed by factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth in the City of Fort Collins and
adding the traffic from the nearby projects described above.
9
III. FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed Scenic Views PUD on the local traffic
conditions, future traffic volumes were first estimated for the study area without the project. These
future forecasts reflect the growth that is expected from overall development in the study area and the
City of Fort Collins and from proposed projects within the vicinity of the project site.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC YEAR 1997
The growth reflected in'Year 1997 Background Traffic is based on two factors: citywide growth and
development, and traffic generated by specific projects located near the study area.
Citywide Traffic Growth
Based upon recent historical traffic data, it was determined that traffic within the study area has
increased at a rate of approximately 1.5 percent per year. Assuming a completion date in 1997, the
existing traffic volumes were adjusted upward by 1.5 percent to reflect this citywide growth.
Traffic From Nearbv Proiects
City of Fort Collins staff provided a list of the projects near the study area which could be completed
within the short term. A description of each of these projects is provided below.
The Lory Ann Estates is a residential project located south of the project site. Although it is
not known if this project would be completed by Year 1997, this was assumed to provide a
conservative analysis. It was assumed that this project would include 30 duplex units.
The Ponds is a proposed residential project located west of Overland Trail at Prospect Road.
It was assumed that the first phase of this project would be completed in the short range and would
include 84 single family homes.
Sienna is a proposed residential project located south of Elizabeth Street at Rocky Road. This
project would include 116 single family homes.
The West Plum PUD is a small residential project located off of Plum Street, east of Rocky Road.
This project would include 16 single family homes.
Jefferson Commons is a multi -family residential project located west of Taft Hill Road.
Jefferson Commons would include 192 apartments. This project would also extend Orchard Place
through to Taft Hill Road.
The trip generation for these projects was developed based upon the trip -generation rates in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report entitled Trip Generation, 5th edition, 1991. The
project traffic from each of these developments was then assigned to the roadway system.
8
>j
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Peak Hour Level of
Service
AM
PM
Intersection
Overland/Elizabeth
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
B
C
SB L
A
A
7
Figure -3
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
AM/PM
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed description of the existing
conditions within and near the project site. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study include
land use, streets, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system.
EXISTING/FUTURE STREET SYSTEM
Overland Trail is a two-lane north/south roadway which serves the western areas of the City of Fort
Collins. South of the project site, at Drake Road, Overland Trail ends and curves to the east. There
are bike lanes present on both side of Overland Trail, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph. It is
anticipated that in the long range future, Overland Trail would accommodate four travel lanes, two in
each direction, and a center left -turn lane. The T-intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street is
stop -controlled for Elizabeth Street.
Elizabeth Street is a two-lane, east/west roadway. Adjacent to the project site, Elizabeth Street is
narrow without a paved shoulder. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. In the long range future,
Elizabeth Street would continue to provide two travel lanes, with the addition of a center left -turn lane.
EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were conducted at Overland Trail and Elizabeth
Street during February 1996. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 3.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the conditions of traffic flow, ranging
from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level of service definitions are
provided in Appendix A. The City of Fort Collins standard for minimum acceptable LOS is D. The
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manua/ by the
Transportation Research Board in 1994, were used to analyze the study intersections for each of the
traffic scenarios. The capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix B. These techniques allow for the
determination of the intersection level of service based on congestion and delay of each traffic
movement.
EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 1 summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening peak hour level of service at the
intersection of Overland/Elizabeth. Under actual, existing conditions, this study intersection is operating
at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours.
5
Background Traffic - Year 2015 - Future traffic conditions for Year 2015 will be
determined. The Year 2015 traffic projections will be determined by accounting for
overall future growth in the study area and for traffic generated by proposed projects
within the vicinity of the project site.
Proiect Generated Traffic - The traffic generated by the proposed project will be
determined.
Total Traffic - Years 1997 and 2015 - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions
with traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project added to the Background
Traffic forecasts. • The impacts of the proposed project on future traffic operating
conditions can then be identified.
The City of Fort Collins identified the following intersections to be analyzed for the scenarios identified
above:
1. Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street
2. Overland Trail and the Access Drive
3. Elizabeth Street and Cuerto Lane (western access drive)
4. Elizabeth Street and Tierra Lane (eastern access drive)
In addition to the above analysis, a subsequent traffic analysis will be conducted to identify the
potential impacts to the local street system within the adjacent. neighborhood. The traffic data for this
focused neighborhood study is being conducted. The results of this analysis will be summarized and
submitted to the City of Fort Collins.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this report is divided into six parts. Chapter II presents and analysis of the existing
street system and traffic conditions for each of the study intersections. Forecasts of future background
traffic for Years 1997 and 2015 are provided in Chapter III. Traffic projections for the proposed project
are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents the total traffic projections for Year 1997 and 2015.
The future intersection operating conditions are presented in Chapter VI. The conclusions of the traffic
impact study are provided in Chapter VII.
4
N
NOT TO SCALE
MULBERRY
STREET
Lo 5
w
cR Sr o
o
0
ORCHARD
i
i
PLACE
� •
O V
qq
SITE
PLUM
.� �...--
-
STREET
ELIZABETH
0 w
w
STREET
�' ngaare �
DETAILED SITE LOCAr- -N
p
NOT TO SCALE
Figure I
SITE LOCATION
1. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the findings of a traffic study conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impacts
and circulation needs of the proposed Scenic Views PUD residential development in Fort Collins,
Colorado.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Scenic Views PUD is a residential development proposed at the northeast corner of Overland Trail
and Elizabeth Street. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The final number of residential dwelling
units has not been determined however, for purposes of the traffic study the maximum number of
dwelling units was assumed as follows: 192 condominiums, 40 duplex units, 68 single family homes,
and a 2,000-square-foot day care center. The proposed project would also include a 3.9 acre
neighborhood park.
A detailed site plan is provided on Figure 2. Access to the site would be from Overland Trail, Elizabeth
Street, and from the existing neighborhood to the north and.east of the site. The proposed duplex units
would have a full access from Overland Trail. The condominiums would take access from two
driveways to Elizabeth Street. These driveways were designed to align with the future driveways to
the residential development south of the project site. The single family residential homes would have
access from Orchard Place and ultimately Plum Street.
The proposed site plan has been designed with strong pedestrian and bicycle links between the differing
residential uses. A bike path would be provided within the site. The bike path would connect between
Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail. The path would also service the neighborhood park.
It is anticipated that the Scenic Views project could be completed by Year 1997.
STUDY SCOPE
The scope for this study was developed in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins traffic engineering
and planning staff. The base assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic coverage of the
study were all identified as part of the study approach.
The study is directed at the analysis of potential project -generated traffic impacts along the existing and
future street system. As directed by the above mentioned agencies, the following traffic scenarios are
analyzed in the study:
Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide
a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis.includes an
assessment of traffic volumes and operating conditions at the study intersections.
Background Traffic - Year 1997 - Future traffic conditions will be projected for Year
1997. The objective of this phase of the analysis is to project future traffic growth and
operating conditions which could be expected to result from regional growth and from
related projects in the vicinity of the project site.
I
AF
SCENIC VIEWS PUD
Fort Collins, Colorado
Traffic Impact Study
February, 1996
Prepared for:
SOLITAIRE PROPERTIES, LLC
6645 East Heritage Place South
Englewood, Colorado 80111
Prepared by:
RUTH CLEAR, P.E.
430 East Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 416-0410
Ref:9610
January 30, 1996
Mr. Bill Veio
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
6645 East Heritage Place South
Englewood, CO 80111
Re: Colorado State University Foothills Campus
Dear Bill:
Colo do
a
University
Facilities Management Department
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
As discussed, blueprints illustrating the building groups at Foothills Campus are attached.
Approximate numbers of employees are noted on the prints. They are:
Atmospheric Science & Solar Village 92
Atmospheric Science Lab 7
Engineering Research Center 78
Colorado State Forest Service Nursery & Shop 16
Animal Reproduction Biotechnology Lab 26
Embryo Transfer 2
Environmental Stress 12
Equine Teaching & Research Center 12
245
The Center for Disease Control is also located on the CSU Foothills Campus. We do not have
access to their data; however, I called and they said approximately 120 employees are located at
that site.
The two private groups Joe mentioned are E.N.S.R. (I don't have any information on them at
all), and the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). NWRC is a federal installation so,
again, we have no data on them. That facility is currently vacant; however, it will be occupied
in the near future.
As we discussed on the phone, these figures are approximate. If our Human Resources
Department is able to provide figures which differ from these significantly, I will call you.
Very truly yours,
Nancy G' christ
Facilities Planning
Enclosure
Division of Administrative Services
Criterion - Earned
Credit
1 ]fit can be da onstratal that the project will reduce nos-rracwable energy usage eitbertbrough the application otatternative energy'
systems or through oommutted-meW womv&u measures beyond thou normally required by City Code, a 5% bonus 'maybe
earned for every S% reduction in coat/ use IGJ'(O
Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 acres included is the project
Il Calalale the pareadage ofthe total acres in the project that are devoted to ==tioaal use. Enter % of that percentage as a bonus.
O If the applicant Oommnits to preserving pem sneat off-aite open apace that meds the City's minimum requires calculate the
percentage of this open space acreage to the total developmerd acreage and enter this percentage as a borne.
P. I Ifpart of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not required by City Code,
ad= a 2% bonus for every S 100 per dwelling unit invested.
I IfW ofthe total dcvelopmat budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services.which are not otha wise required b C'
de,ats q Coea 1% bonus for every S 100 per dwelling unit invested. .Y
Iftbe p mjed contains dwelling units ad aside for individuals earring 80% or less of the median income of City residents, as adjusted
I, for family size, and paying less than 306A of their gross income for housing, including utilities ("AEadable Dwelling Units"
calculate the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the projed and enter that percentage
as a boats, W to a me):imurn of 15°A (lfthe project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units,
must be oonstriuded as a part ofthe phase for vvbich approval is sought) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain
affordable far a period ofnot less than 25 years, the developer shall record such protective covenants as may be required by the City
under Sec. 29-526(JX4}
Ifa cnm>mitmad is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B"
hudicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
S Type "A" .5 x Tmx "A" Units
Total Units
In no case shall the combined boas be greater than 300/6
Type "B" 1.0 x Type "B" Units
TOW Units
If the site or adjacent property contains. a historic building or place,.a bonus may be earned for the following:
3% For preventing or mitigating outside intluencea adverse to its preservation (e.&, environ enntal, Iand use, aeslhetiq
economic and social facton);
3% For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units;
3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation and improvement in as
appropriate manner
if, portion cc an of the required perking in the multiple family project is provided uodergound, within the building, or in an elevated
u parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be eamed as follows:
9% For providing 75% of
more of the packing in a structure:
6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a stmdum,
3% For providing 25 - 49a/e of the parking in a strucisme,
VIfa oorm itmat is being made to provide approved automatic foe extinguishing systans for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%
W If the applicant counits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any
of the destination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connecting to the scares! existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/laor. S
5% For crowding to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the disiaas defined in Ibis Density Chart; U
S% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail witich is adjacent to or traverses the Vmjea
TOTAL I.rU
'
.. ': v.:..:.:'.}::::}:4iY.}ii)'.,vi':'i:. ei ::: •:. yi: ::.... �':. n .. .:.
n'
Mapmum '. :.Famed
Criterion Credit . ` C edict
200o fed Oran exdsiuhg neighborhood service lacer, or a ne;ghborhood. cervix center to be constructed as a part
20a/e.
a
oftbe prgat (If the project is proposed to be mosWcted in multiple phases, such neighborhood se roe center
must be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought)
�. •.
650 fed of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [6) dwelling traits
20i4 '
. per acre on a gross ac ear basis)
4000 fed of an existing community/regional shopping center, or a oomaunity/regiond shopping center to be
1056
C
constructed as a pert of the project (If the projod is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such
community/regional slopping center must be constructed as a part of the phase for which approvals sought)
3500 fed ofan aadcg neighborhood or community park, or a community facility (EXCEPT GOLF COURSES)
200/6
°`
-----------------------------------------------------------
---=----
�j��°-
d
35011 fed of a. publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood. or community paric, or community facility
100/a
(EXCEPT GOLF COURSES) or
— --
A,
3500:fed of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed or not
100/0
e
2500 fed of an existing school, 'amding all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education WAS
104/6
f
3000 fed of an existing major employment center, or a major employmed center to be constructed as a part of
200/G '
the pr%*& (Ifthe project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such major cmploymem ewer must
".
be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) No building, office or business park, or .
shopping cader which has served as the basis for the claiming'of credit under any other base" criteria of this
�
Density Chad can also be used as the basis for claiming credit under this criterion.
gproject
1000 fed of an existing child cue tender, or a child care center to be constructed as a pet of the project. (If the
5%
is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such child care carter must be constructed as a part of the
phase for which approval is sought)'
S�
O
ti
"North Fort Collins"
204A
I
The Central &uirxw District
200A
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban developmeriL Credit ray be earned as follows:
30%
0% For projects whose property boundary bas 0 -10°/. ooc tiguity;
10 - 1 S% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20°/. mrdiguity,
15 - 20°/. For projects whose property bourdary has 20 - 30% contiguity,
20 - 25% For projects whose properly boundary has 30.40-A watiguity, .
25 - 30°/. For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 50°G ooctiguity. .
If the project coalLmst dwelling units ad aside for individuals caning 806/9 or less of the median irhoomne of City
15%
residents, as adjusted for family +ire, and paying less thank 30% of thew gross intone for housing, including
k
uth7uies ("Affordable Dwdli g Unity" X calculate the permdage of AfIbrdable Dwelling Units to the total number
afdwelling units in the project and eats that percentage, up to a maximum of IS°/. (If the project is proposed
to be censtrthcted in nuhiple phases the Affordable Dwelling Units must be constructed as a part of the phase for
which approvalis sought.) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain affordable for a period
ofnd {ass than 25 }car; the devekper shell textd such protective covenants as may be required by the City under
Sec, 29-526(Jx4}
CTIVITY:
osidential Uses
(DEFINITION:
H
residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes,
bile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses;
.ernity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit
Lsi-public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for
ilic assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
development plan.
Yes No N/A
1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE X ❑
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a
residential project shall be based on the following:
60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre
60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre
90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40 Yes No N/A
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED CK El
ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H"
FROM BASE POINTS?
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996.
CTIVITY:
:h.sidential Uses
EFINITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single-family attached dwellings; townhomes, duplexes,
mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group. homes; boarding and rooming houses;
fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit
quasi -public. recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for
public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA:
The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and'implemented within the
development plan.
1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN -THE hINIMUM PERCENTAGE
Yes No El
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a
residential project shall be based on the following:
60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre
60 - 70 percentage points = 677 dwelling units per acre
. 70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre
90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
10.0 or more percentage points = 10 or more, dwelling units per acre
2. DOES THE PROJECT. EARN AT LEAST 40
Yes No N/A
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED
p
ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H"
FROM BASE POINTS?
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996.
"' CEN IC VIE\A �jNAL V. a#3.96
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA -
ALL CRITERIA
CRITERION
Al. COMMUNITY -•VIDE CRITi=PI.=.
1.1 Solar On.ertation
1.2 Comorehensive Plan
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
1.4 Mineral Deposit
1..==alocically Sensitive Areas
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Imoorance
1.7 Enercv Conservation
1.8 Air Quality
1'9 Water cual11V
c=Nice and VVasteS
1 1 i N rfbn
1.12 Residential Densitv
2. NE!GHEORHOCD COMPATIEILI
2. , Vesicular. Psdesaran. Bike Transoor,al
2 2 =uiicinc P!acerrent and Orientaticr,
2.3 Natural Featur=s
2 4 Venicular Circulation an P_CRirc_
Energency Acc=ss _
2. Pedestrian Cicc;:lation
2.; Arcniteciure
2 =' wilding Heicnt and Views
`2.S : Shading
2.10 Solar Access
2.11 Historic Resources
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 L=_ndscace
2.14 Signs
2.1 . Site Lighting
2.16 Noise and Vibration
2.17 Glare or Heat
2.18 Hazardous Materials
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity
3.2 Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
3•4 Geologic Hazards
I I I'll APPLICABLE CRITE=I;, ONLY
:he c.-tenan wlll Ne C.M
acrticac ie7 be satbrtea?
-I I
� 1 3 Yes No If no, ple2se explain
RITERIA1
_ I ✓I �
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised 7119
h 1994
. gl . A_5 UCE;t
SCENIC VIEWS
FINAL PUD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the said Northwest Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North
00142'00" West with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the
boundary lines which begin at the West Quarter corner of said section 16 and run thence
North 00042'00" West, 328.90 feet; thence North 89018'00" East, 150.00 feet; thence
along the arc of a 175.00 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 83.99 feet, the long
chord of which bears North 75 °33'00" East 83.19 feet; thence North 61 1148'00" East 90.00
feet; thence along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 23.56 feet,
the long chord of which bears North 161148'00" East 21.21 feet; thence North 28012'00"
West 120.00 feet; thence South 89 ° 18'00" West, 261.61 feet to the West line of the said
Northwest Quarter; Thence along said West line North 00042'00"West, 703.10feet; thence
East 440.00 feet; thence North 00042'00" West, 100.00 feet; thence East 336.66 feet;
thence South 00053'20" East, 659.23 feet; thence South 27036'00" East, 57.01 feet;
thence South 29 °32'00" East, 321.27 feet; thence South 19 ° 53'00" East, 83.69 feet;
thence South 00152'00" East, 252.00feet to the south line of the Northwest Quarter of said
section 16, thence along said South line, West 987.80 feet to the point of beginning.
The above described tract of land contains 23.6034 acres more or less and is subject to all
easements and rights -of -way now on record or existing.
Proposal:
Description:
Density:
General Population:
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final
Mixed use development that includes 222 residential dwelling units (192
multi -family and 15 duplex units on 20.09 acres.
11.05 du/ac (gross)
192 (multi -family units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 614
30 (duplex units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 96
School Age Population:
Elementary: 192 (units) x .104 (pupils/unit) = 20
30 (units) x .104(pupils/unit) = 3
Junior High: 192 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 10
30 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 2
Senior High: 192 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 9
30 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 1
TOTAL = 45
*Figures assume a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom multi -family residential units.
SCENIC VIEWS
FINAL PUD
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
MAY 20, 1996
Area
Dwelling Units
Solar Oriented Lots
Density
Coverage
Floor Area
Gross 910,405 sq.ft. 20.90 acres
Net 910,405 sq.ft. 20.90 acres
Duplex Units 05 Lots) 30 units
Multi -Family 192 units
TOTAL UNITS 222 units
12 units 80%
Gross
Net
10.62 du/ac
10.62 du/ac
Buildings
160,000
sq.ft.
17.57%
Street R.O.W.
0
sq.ft.
0.00%
Parking & Drives
219,638
sq.ft.
24.13%
(Includes multi -family garages)
Open Space:
Recreational
190,799
sq.ft.
20.96%
Other Common
282,156
sq.ft.
30.99%
Private
57,812
sq.ft.
6.35%
TOTAL OPEN SPACE
530,767
sq.ft.
58.30%
Residential 316,500 sq.ft.
Minimum. Parking Provided
MULTI -FAMILY PARKING DEMAND
1 Bedroom Units @ 1.5 spaces/unit
32
Units
48
Spaces
2 Bedroom Units @ 1.75 spaces/unit
144
Units
252
Spaces
3 Bedroom Units @ 2.0 spaces/unit
16
Units
32
Spaces
Daycare 2,200 sf @ 3.6/1000 sf
8
Spaces
TOTAL
192
Units
340
Spaces
MULTI -FAMILY PARKING PROVIDED
Garage/Carport
192
spaces
Standard
206
spaces
Handicapped
18
spaces
TOTAL VEHICLES
416
spaces
2.17 spaces/unit
DUPLEX PARKING PROVIDED
Garage/Carport 60 spaces
Standard 9 spaces
Handicapped 0 spaces
TOTAL VEHICLES 69 spaces 2.30 spaces/unit
NOTE: Garages and/or driveways will accommodate
handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking
Maximum Building Height 40 ft.
Setbacks (unless otherwise noted)
Duplex
Front 20 ft.
Side 0 ft. (10 ft. Between Buildings)
Rear 10 ft.
. ...... . ...... .
��Z'Iffiffib
a1!...... .
NO
7m -
'
c T F IF 4m 11 l�°`�ii�:::::; Il li
ME,
=1 =VIACC�l
i NEI . ........ ..... . ..... . ........ i■
wi
ON Mg .........
ON
No Text
No Text
alM-E •PILY
I I I
I I I
I
I
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
L—L————— — — — — ——-——
— — — — — -
-
1—
WEST ORCHARD PLACE (FUTURE)
�•P� +N►Y•
ouvr �v�
"rtyii^i. .r
'
�w
Roa M� aWN
81NC.LC �YIILT
,.. _.
IrYY A11Y�R10Ym
SLTIIIJC ILL
I
• , iC
>w�
1
i
1
r
1
1
ICE■_■_;
i
J
1
1
1
1
ii�'� �+IV ♦1
SE2\
ZQ,I 1
u Mo La D
GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
D D �
FINAL SITE PLAN
.�...
'"
.a 2 a a
No Text
m
L
J
'r
R: HIM HIM M
■pi�� �I�'le nl Ti ===?'-
I �C : (IIII: III■'.. �:R: 111111I :IIIII III
1 �� I — � IIII IIIA llll�llll
...... �_— sl dIIIILi illllllll
I 1� _ ■ �' IIIIII .
IIII II IIII .■ / ■1! !111111111111111 I':
nn, ■ .■l. •= _
:'�� ► I vllll. _. le J _' ,�; .� =111111PIIilllllllll=
� �■u • .nllll : : IiJ- i � ♦♦i �♦/IIII `q�- ���nmm. p� num I .
► :: i11►/_ _ ululu . _ � ♦ ♦�IL III /=.. .nnnu �r �uuu I!�-- .
++.� . 2=-1 MEMOi : iM
we
� .. :11 il: ileum � . 111'� . CIIU■11■■■■■■p g111■null
NMI
a� ::: '• .. �� � .. Hem" I. - ■11 �
.a �\ I�� it 11'.i �'•• 1�11, n I MOR
■■■.... �• -.� rI. �'I .. �`l:'.j.euu �lllllll: I �■■.���L.�
. 21 = ununu " - 1Elm
::► \ :IM: ununu it♦♦:♦ -� :I '. - :: i■i �`�\�� I 1 ����
■
♦ Q�u Qlnn■ y� ��
' s <, ♦ , -.I u
-._._._ ' 1
.,'-''�;� .�plllllllllllll ? FFF. �1'Iy � ■
---- ' ■1\, � 1�1111■\\UPI III � �*�1��
0
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be
counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
E. The Final P.U.D. is feasible from a transportation perspective and promotes City
transportation goals and policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Scenic Views Final P.U.D., #3-96A subject to the
following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final
plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans,
and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated
between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to
the second monthly meeting (April 28, 1997) of the Planning and Zoning
Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan
was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the
City staff, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an
extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time
unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit
development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary
circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent
exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such
property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in
the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the
Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the
staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient
information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made.)
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended,
as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall
become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition
is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of
calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter
2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall
be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval;
however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
The proposal would provide access to/from the multi -family portion of the development via
West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail; access to/from the duplex portion of the
development would also be gained via South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street.
West Elizabeth Street is designated on the City's Master Street Plan as a "minor arterial"
(four lanes) street, and South Overland Trail is designated as a "major arterial" street (six
lanes).
The traffic study submitted with the Preliminary proposal states that 65% of the anticipated
trips generated from this development, will be traveling eastbound on Elizabeth Street,
toward shopping, CSU, employment, and most other destinations. The proposed Final
plans allow for recirculation of auto traffic from the duplex portion of the site to West
Elizabeth Street, allowing vehicles to travel to the east or the north (depending on which
part of the site the vehicle is coming from) without having to make more than one turn onto
an arterial. The condition put on the Preliminary requires this desired on -site recirculation
of vehicles, ensuring that recirculation of vehicular traffic is not forced to occur on the
arterial street system. As the condition has been satisfied, recirculation of traffic can now
occur as desired, internally.
Overall, the studied intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
As required by the City of Fort Collins, Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street will be improved
adjacent to the project site; however, no additional roadway or intersection improvements
would be necessary due to the proposed project. The Scenic Views Final P.U.D.,
therefore, is feasible from a transportation standpoint, and promotes City transportation
goals and policies.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusions:
A. The Scenic Views Final P.U.D., #3-96A continues to satisfy the applicable All
Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
B. The Final P.U.D. continues to exceed the minimum density requirements of the
L.D.G.S. and the required minimum point total (100 points) on the Residential Uses
Point Chart (Point Chart H: Density Chart) with a score of 105 points.
C. The Final P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding area and exceeds solar
orientation requirements.
D. The Stormwater Utility Department recommends approval of the Scenic Views Final
PUD based on adequate on -site retention and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
approval.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
6. Stormwater:
There have been significant storm drainage concerns associated with the Scenic Views
development. The developer was required to acquire downstream easements that would
convey storm runoff from this PUD to the Plum Creek channel, which is located to the east
of the proposed pond. The developer had sought downstream easements from various
property owners, but to this date has been unable to acquire said easements. Instead, the
current proposal shows a retention pond. A retention system is one that would retain all
drainage in the pond without release; thus, no easements would be required from
downstream property owners. As proposed, the retention pond would include a pump
system that discharges all retained storm drainage runoff into the Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal.
Due to the high groundwater levels on the subject site, especially during the irrigation
season, it is anticipated that there will be considerable seepage of groundwater into the
retention pond. In order for this pond to still be able to handle surface runoff, the developer
will need to show that the provided pumping system can hold the retained water down in
a manner that would maintain the required retention volume. This volume is equal to twice
the developed runoff generated by a 100-year storm on the subject property.
The developer will also need to seek and obtain approval from the Pleasant Valley and
Lake Canal company (PV&L) to implement the above described system. This approval will
be required prior to Stormwater Utility's signing -off on the Utility Plans associated with this
development. Thus, the approval of this development, subject to the recommended
condition would, in turn, also require the developer to obtain approval from the Pleasant
Valley and Lake Canal Company. In other words, the City will neither sign the Scenic
Views PUD Development Agreement, nor file its plat until PV&L has approved the plans.
It is based on these specific conditions that the Stormwater Utility recommends approval
of the Scenic Views Final PUD. It should be noted that these type of issues are commonly
resolved during the utility plan and development agreement reviews that are carried out
after final Planning and Zoning Board approval.
7. Transportation:
Pedestrian/bike circulation is provided by connecting sidewalks from within the
development to South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street. Similarly, the West
Elizabeth sidewalk will be connected with the sidewalks along South Overland Trail. The
developer will be installing a pad site on West Elizabeth Street for a future Transfort bus
stop. In addition, the proposal provides for connections to the bike lanes on both West
Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
4. Design:
The streetscapes along West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail would be defined
by sidewalks detached from the curb by approximately eleven (11') feet and eighteen (18')
feet, respectively. Within the resulting parkway strips, street trees would be planted in a
formal, traditional spacing. Trees would also be planted behind the sidewalks, filling in the
spaces formed by the street trees. Together, this serves to create a safer pedestrian area
while beautifying the streets. The eastern border of the site is bounded by a
pedestrian/bike path that would run alongside the existing ditch and provide access to the
proposed 167,878 square foot (3.85 acre) retention pond/recreation area. Pedestrian/bike
access to this retention pond/recreation area is also provided off of Overland Trail. Where
existing homes are found adjacent to the site, significant landscaping has been proposed
in an effort to provide visual screening, buffering, and privacy.
The proposed site and landscape plans provide for entry features at the main access
points off of both Elizabeth and Overland Trail. Internally, the site layout is designed to
provide for efficient use of land and substantial accommodation of pedestrian circulation.
Adequate parking is being provided in accessible garages and outdoor parking areas. The
proposal also includes a community clubhouse and swimming pool, as well as a 2000
square foot child care facility. Front yard setbacks for the duplexes would be at least 20
feet, and rear yard setbacks would be at least 10 feet. The closest structure to Overland
Trail would be more than 52 feet from the curbline. The closest structure to West Elizabeth
Street would be more than 35 feet from the curbline.
The architectural elevations submitted with this proposal depict two-story structures with
pitched roofs. The notes on these elevations state that "compatibility of elevations will be
created through the use of materials and colors. Considerations will also be given to
existing buildings, materials, and colors surrounding the site." To avoid a monotonous
color scheme, a variety of colors will be used; base colors will include tans, beiges, and
soft pastels, with white trim and brighter and/or bolder accents. The potential materials list
includes asphalt shingle roofing, and brick, stone, or masonite lap siding (or equal).
5. Solar Orientation:
Of the 15 applicable lots, 12 are oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line, or
have a minimum of 50 feet of unobstructed access along the south lot line. This results
in a compliance rate of 80%, which exceeds the required minimum of 65%.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
(CSU Foothills Campus, see attached letter of verification); 5 points under base criterion
"g" for being within 1000 feet of a child care center (located within the proposed project);
10 points under bonus criterion "k" for achieving a minimum energy score rating of G-80;
10 points under bonus criterion "m" for devoting of open space to recreational use; 15
points under bonus criterion "q" for committing to develop a minimum of 15% of the total
number of dwelling units for low income families; and, 5 points under bonus criterion "v" for
connecting to the nearest City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. The Final PUD continues
to achieve 65 base points and 40 bonus points for a total of 105 points, thereby continuing
to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Uses Point Chart.
The P.U.D., therefore, continues to be supported by its performance on the Residential
Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December
19, 1995.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 18, 1996, prior to submittal of the
Preliminary P.U.D. Neighborhood compatibility issues were discussed at length; issues
surrounding school capacity, density, water pressure, park usage, occupancy, stormwater
runoff facilities, views, traffic, and street improvements were thoroughly addressed. The
Preliminary P.U.D. was found to be reasonably sensitive to and maintain the character of
the surrounding area. The request satisfies the applicable All Development Criteria
pertaining to neighborhood compatibility. These findings continue to be applicable to the
review of this Final P.U.D.
The surrounding area has been in a relative state of flux; that is, many of the remaining
infill sites found in this area of the City seem to be developing in close temporal proximity.
For example, the proposed Scenic Views PUD site is across the street from the platted
Lory Ann Estates subdivision, which has approval for 29 multi -family lots on 10.8 acres;
Lory Ann Estates is currently under construction. Not far south of the proposed Scenic
Views PUD, on the west side of Overland Trail, final approval has been granted to the
Ponds at Overland PUD (an RF Cluster Plan of 284 single-family). In addition, along
Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road, final approvals have also been granted to the
Siena PUD (116 single-family units currently under construction), the West Plum Street
PUD (thirteen single family units currently under construction), and the Jefferson Commons
PUD (192 multi -family units currently under construction); consequently, the area is
developing as a neighborhood of mixed residential densities. This proposal contributes to
this mix of residential densities in a compatible fashion.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows
N: RP; One existing single-family home, a vacant lot, then County land (Mtn. View
Acres).
S: RLM; Lory Ann Estates (under construction) approved for 29 multi -family lots.
E: RL; Vacant, then Happy Heart Farm.
W: FA-1; CSU Equine Teaching and Research Center.
In July of 1985, this site was granted Final PUD approval for 210 two -bedroom units in
four- and six-plex configurations with a day care center, a community clubhouse, and
tennis courts on 23.6079 acres. An extension on the approval, until January 24, 1988, was
later granted; however, as no site improvements were made, the PUD approval has since
expired. The current proposal is the first request involving this parcel of land since the
approved Final PUD expired on January 24, 1988.
2. Land Use:
All Development Criteria:
The request for 222 dwelling units (15 duplexes and 24 eight-plexes) on 20.9 acres equals
10.62 dwelling units per acre. The P.U.D., therefore, exceeds the minimum requirement
that there be at least 3.00 dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis.
At Preliminary, pursuant to All Development Criteria A-2.4 (Vehicular circulation and
parking), staff recommended a condition of approval which would connect the two portions
of the Planned Unit Development while providing access to both arterial streets, Elizabeth
and Overland Trail. This condition has been satisfied with the Final development plans;
thus, the request satisfies all applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H):
At Preliminary, the P.U.D. was reviewed by the variable criteria of the Residential Uses
Point Chart of the L.D.G.S, as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December 19,
1995. The project scored 105% which exceeds the minimum required score of 100%.
Points were awarded as follows: 20 points under base criterion "b" for being within 650 feet
of an existing transit stop; 20 points under base criterion "d" for being within 3500 feet of
an existing neighborhood or community park (both Rogers Park and Overland Trail Park);
20 points under base criterion "f' for being within 3000 feet of a major employment center
ITEM NO. 13
MEETING DATE 3 / 10 197
STAFF Bob Blanchard
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Scenic Views P.U.D., Final, #3-96A
APPLICANT: Solitaire Properties, LLC
% Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Snowoods Land and Cattle Jeanne A. Gidding
2900 Lincoln Center Building 1532 Adriel Court
Denver, CO 80264 Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Final P.U.D. approval for 222 dwelling units (15 duplex lots containing
30 units and 24 multi -family structures containing 192 units) on 20.9 acres located at the
northeast corner of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The proposal includes
such amenities as 4.33 acres of recreational open space, bike/pedestrian connections from
the public sidewalks to the recreational open space, a day care facility, a community
clubhouse, and a swimming pool. The parcel is zoned rp, Planned Residential with a
P.U.D. condition.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a condition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Final P.U.D. request continues to satisfy the All Development Criteria and the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The Preliminary P.U.D. was approved with
the condition that the proposed "twenty foot emergency access" be changed, at final, to a
permanent roadway connection, of at least twenty-four (24') feet in width, between the
duplex and multi -family portions of this development; this condition has been satisfied.
The land use is compatible with the surrounding area. The project is feasible from
stormwater and traffic engineering perspectives, and it promotes City transportation
policies.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281N.College Ave- PO. Box580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT