HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIENA (OVERLAND RIDGE) PUD - FINAL - 39-95A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Linda M. Koenig, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and
Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of the Application of
Siena Final PUD, was held on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at
300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado; that said
proceedings were transcribed by me from videotape record to
the foregoing 59 pages; that said transcript is, to the best
of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and complete
record of the proceedings so taken.
I further certify that I am not. related to, employed
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
Attested to by me this 15th day of April, 1995.
,
�P M. KpFw L;1-nda M. Koenig
315 West Oak Street, Su' a 500
�+ Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
NOTARY (303) 482-1506
MGM
PUBUC 9 My commission expires April 26,.1997.
op
N
59
1 the second was to include the conditions in the staff report
2 as well as the one that we were talking about.
3 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay.
4 MR. STROM: Just for the record, so that you
5 have that.
6 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Yes. Yes. Thank you.
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
s
58
1 thank you for putting it so succinctly.
2 CHAIRMAN WALKER: We have another motion for
3 approval, with a second, based on the conditions as in the
4 staff report plus this condition related to landscaping on
5 these lots backing up on the open space.
6 Is there further comment? Roll call.
7 THE CLERK: Strom?
8 MR. STROM: Yes.
9 THE CLERK: Colton?
10 MR. COLTON: Yes.
11 THE CLERK: Bell?
12 MS. BELL: No.
13 THE CLERK: Walker?
14 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Yes.
15 Well, Siena has been approved 3-1. with the
16 conditions as noted.
17 At this point in time, we are past our 11:00
18 o'clock deadline, but I'd like to be able to, with -- if the
19 board is agreeable and everyone else who is here is
20 agreeable, to carry on with the Interstate Land PUD. Is that
21 workable for everybody?
22 All right. So we will consider the Interstate
23 Land PUD Preliminary. May we have a staff report on this.
24 MR. STROM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that it was
25 specific in the last motion that the intent of the mover in
57
1 backyard area of their lot to help break up the architectural
2 mass of those houses.
3 I don't think there's anything that would limit
4 you from doing that. I know in other PUDs we have requested
5 those types of things. And that would put some burden on the
6 individual lot owners to deal with landscaping screening.
7 Now, you wouldn't want to tell them exactly where
8 to put those trees, but if you required that they put one or
9 two trees in the backyard and some foundation plantings, that
10 would help. And then you could give some direction to the
11 City to provide additional screening on City property as that
12 area is landscaped, if that helps.
13 MR. STROM: To -- to get us off the dime, I
14 would suggest that, whatever we say to the City is not part
15 of the motion, because we're basically conditioning what the
16 developmental approval would be.
17
And I think the
idea of foundation
plantings is a
18
good one. I would suggest
that the condition
read that there
19
be at least one tree and foundation plantings
along those
20
lots on the southern tier,
on the slope, and
if that's
21 acceptable to the --
22 MR. COLTON: Along the back side. Yeah, along the
23 back lot line.
24 MR. STROM: -- I'll second the motion.
25 MR. COLTON: Thank you for -- I accept that and
�4 Y
56
1 backyards of each of those lots along that south boundary
2 adjacent to that --
.3 MR. COLTON: Right.
4 MR. ECKMAN: -- detention pond.
5 MR. COLTON: Just an appropriate amount. And I
6 don't know maybe that's where Rob kind of give us some
7 guidance on what might be appropriate for that. I heard
8 the -- the statement of one. Does that seem like an
9 appropriate buffer to you with the size of the lots over --
10 MR. WILKINSON: Let me kind of, instead of
11 answering your question directly, make a little bit of a
12 recommendation.
13 I think the design of the open area should be
14 left, and we shouldn't -- left till the future, until we have
15 a better sense of what that whole area is like and we can
16 develop an integrated plan that may have two lots -- two
17 trees, three trees; it may have one tree and several shrubs,
18 but do something more naturalistic.
19 You could put a condition in that, as the city
20 works to design that area, that they work with the developer
21 and that we take into consideration screening in that area,
22 as well.
23 If you wanted to go further, you could say to
24 the developer that each homeowner needs to provide some
25 foundation plantings and/or tree pla and/or tree plantings within
55
1 MR. MINATTA: I wanted to mention, also, that it
2 is a -- and I think Mr. Strom made a point as far as what
3 we do see with really large mammoth structures on steep,
4 sloping hills. This is not a steep, sloping hill.
5 In fact, we are removing dirt from this hill and
6 it's going to be a very gradual slope. The lots are 110 feet
7 deep. Again, we're talking about a 1300-square-foot --
8 typically, 1500-square-foot structure. The structures will
9 be small and they will be set back.
10 Typically, if they've got that much house, it's
11 going to be closer to the street than it will be to the backs
12 of the lots because they are deep lots.
13 So it is -- it -- it won't be, I don't feel,
14 that imposing and it will not be any different than any of
15 the products that are around there or houses that are in
16 that area right now.
17' But we will make sure that, if we can't get
18 the trees in there, to provide buffering and as Rob Wilkinson
19 mentioned, you know, that's something that he wants to make
20 sure happens, also.
21 MR. ECKMAN: If -- if we had -- if -- if we knew
22 how many trees -- as I understand it, your motion would be
23 for approval of the project on condition that the developer
24 plant one or two, I need to know that, I think, trees.
25 And -- and if understand it correctly, it would be in the
54
1 sure -- you know, will it happen or not?
2 Now, as far as the contingency that the Parks
3 Department had in providing these trees was that the
4 homeowner has to agree to take care of them. So if the
5 homeowner says, "I'm not going to water the tree," then
6 that's their concern.
7 Even if I volunteer to plant trees -- and I will
8 gladly provide trees as a buffer along this area to enhance
9 the project -- or this project because I want to make it, you
10 know, as good as I can for both the people walking through
11 the trail -- the park path and the people in the homes.
12 But that's the kind -- the kind of a thing hanging
13 up as far as being able to say, well, there will definitely
14 be a tree or two trees behind each.
15 MR. COLTON: Right. Well, I assume you'll have a
16 neighborhood association, could you not just put it into your
17 covenant that to buy these lots, the person must agree to
18 water the one or two trees?
19 MR. MINATTA: We will have a neighborhood
20 association and that could be one of the covenants, that's --
21 that's a good idea.
22 MR. STROM: All right. Do we have a specific
23 enough condition to satisfy you folks?
24 MR. COLTON: Yeah, I don't know if it's one tree
25 or two trees, but, you know --
53
1
MR.
ECKMAN:
Yes. You've -- you've not passed any
2 motion at
this
point.
3
MR.
COLTON:
Okay.
4
MR.
ECKMAN:
So you can explore with motions
5 and -- or
if --
since
you have an even number of board
6 members,
if you can't
get past a tie, then that's the best we
7 can do.
But I
-- I was hoping we could because it would be
8 helpful
for the Council
if we can.
9
MR.
STROM:
I'd be glad to entertain another
10 motion.
it MR. COLTON: I'd guess I'm just mostly concerned
12 here with this -- the two story with a walkout and there may
13 or may not be trees back there to give some sort of buffer
14 between this path and, I guess, I'm searching for some --
15 some sort of mitigation there regarding requiring trees or
16 some landscape buffering back there between the path and
17 the house.
18
I don't know if --
to go -as
far as saying
not to
19
have the --
the two-story house, but some sort of --
I guess
20
I would move to approve it if
we could
have some sort
of
21
landscape
buffering in there,
require a
tree or maybe
22
two trees.
I'd like to, I guess, hear
what the developer
23
would say
about that.
24
MR. MINATTA: That
wouldn't
be a problem.
And as
25
far as --
I guess what you're
trying to
know is, will
it for
,
52
1 the project, then you could list the criteria upon which the
2 denial is based, the Council would certainly appreciate that
3 in the event of an appeal.
4 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. I would entertain --
5 MS. BELL: A2.1 is what I was basing my comments
6 on or -- or my vote on. Part of my frustration here tonight
7 was this packet of material, and there was much discussion
8 about the transportation issues and I had one map here, that
9 looked just like this, that I was basing my decisions on and
10 no -- you know, there wasn't adequate information for me to
11 consider all of the traffic ramifications.
12 And from what I'm considering, with the 650
13 additional homes in the area, I'm still concerned about
14 some of the intersection problems and the traffic flow
15 in the area.
16 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Bernie.
17 MR. STROM: I guess if I could respond.
18 Basically, we addressed both of these issues when we looked
19 at this preliminary and what we have before us is a final,
20 which meets the conditions of the preliminary. The traffic
21 engineers, once again, have told us that it meets the
22 standards that we have to address.
23 MR. COLTON: Can I ask a procedural question? Is
24 there an opportunity to have another motion and then vote on
25 that or how's this --
50
1 that would be -- that would be affected by that.
2 MR.
COLTON: Correct.
3 MR.
BLANCHARD: And -- but, of
course, those are
4 the ones that
are most visible from the --
the drainage area
5 and from across.
6 That site, as Mr. Minatta was just explaining, is
7 a drainage area. It's a -- it's a detention pond. It's
8 owned by the City Storm Water Utility. It's not a park area
9 that's subject to extensive amount of use. The impact of
10 those homes would be probably on the folks across the pond
it and from those of us who might walk on the path.
12 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Are there -- have a comment here
13 from our Natural Resources person.
14 MR. WILKINSON: As I mentioned before, the plan is
15 that Storm Water will redesign and expand that detention
16 area. And at that time, they'll be an opportunity, as well,
17 to perhaps even reconsider some of the upstream area to the
18' west of the park and the whole northern boundary or interface
19 of the park with this development.
20
Mr.
Minatta
mentioned that Parks and Recreation
21
had offered to
do some
tree planting. I think there might be
22
an opportunity
at that
time to reconsider the landscaping all
23 along that boundary and provide some additional buffering on
24 the north side of the pond.
25 I know it's our intent, from a natural resource
49
1 limitations are -- are typically measured from the -- the
2 average grade of the lot, first of all. I think that's right
3 or -- or from the front. And so the issue, the way that I'm
4 understanding and hearing the concerns, is with the walkouts,
5 on those back lots on the south side, the back to the
6 detention area.
7 And I think Mr. Minatta has explained that the
8 Parks Department at least to help ameliorate those impacts
9 have agreed to -- to plant a tree, at least one tree, along
10 each lot, back there, and -- but they're not going to do it
11 until somebody's in there because the homeowner has to -- has
12 to water it and -- and things like that.
13 So,I may be waltzing around an answer here, but
14 I mean, the fact is that we do have walkout basements in a
15 number of -- in a number of homes and you see them from
16 arterials. They're not always attractive. But when you have
17 a sloping site, even if you have a one-story house, you very
18 frequently have a walkout basement.
19 And -- and so the -- the issue, you know, if
20 you want -- if you want to address the building height or
21 the number of floors, it would be -- it would be probably
22 from the street frontage, not from the back, unless you
23 specifically address it in that perspective.
24 One other -- one other thing is that there --
25 there's a limited number of lots that -- that would -- that
U-3
1 talking about in Clarendon Hills. In addition to which
2 the topography is quite a bit steeper in most places in
3 Clarendon Hills.
4 My sense is that you're talking about fairly
5 modest structures, you're talking about, by and large,
6' structures with -- with fairly steep sloping roofs that
7 bring the eaves down.
8 And so the reason that I chose not to include a
9 height limit, they've -- they've said they're going to be
10 under 35 feet from average grade. My sense would be that
11 these will be architecturally in character with the
12 surrounding area, which is certainly somewhat mixed.
13 But I don't know. Bob's back in the room.
14 Did you hear what we were talking about?
15 MR. BLANCHARD: I understood you were talking
16 about height limits and in terms of compatibility with the
17 surrounding area.
18 MR. STROM: And -- and Glen was looking for a
19 little bit of guidance compared with Clarendon Hills, for
20 example, where there are some fairly extreme elevation --
21 extreme heights. And what I -- my response was steeper
22 slopes, which extenuate the heights and --
23 MR. COLTON: Just how we've handled these in other
24 areas throughout town, other developments.
25 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, the -- the height
47
1 with the conditions as indicated by the revised staff report.
2 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. There's been a motion to
3 approve Siena PUD final. Is there a second?
4 MR. COLTON: I'll second it.
5 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. So we moved and seconded
6 to approve Siena PUD final. Are there other comments before
7 we vote on this?
8 MR. COLTON: This issue with the house height, I'd
9 like to look to my longer -term board members in experience
10 with that issue. All I know is I live in an area that has
11 some of those, in Clarendon Hills, and it's just an -- an
12 eyesore.
13 And I know we raised it as an issue at a
14 work session when we saw the Harmony Ridge prelim --
15 preliminary -type stuff. And I mean, what have we done here
16 in the past? And when would we consider it enough of an
17 issue to say, we'd like to have a restriction that there
18 only be single family -- or one -- one story with walkout
19 or 1 1/2 story versus 2?
20 MR. STROM: I'd -- I'd give you my response to
21 it and maybe turn a little bit to staff, who just left
22 the room.
23 The -- my sense, from the typical architectural
24 character sketches that we have, is that these are quite
25 different from the size and scale of houses that you're
rrq
1 Because I know there's a big -- the Overland Trail
2 Park and then I remembered -- I thought I remembered in our
3 preliminary report that the detention pond, because it's
4 often not without water, is considered by neighborhood
5 residents as a park area and used as a park. Kids play
6 soccer down there. Is this true?
7 MR. MINATTA: This -- this is the -- the dry
8 detention pond is about halfway through the middle of this
9 property. This is a dry detention pond. It's got wetlands
10 in it and, you know, people typically don't even go in it.
it They don't play in it, that I know of. I mean, you could
12 walk through it, but I've never seen anybody using it for
13 recreation purposes.
14 This portion here is a wet pond, which -- that
15 water is used from that pond. It's collected and it's used
16 to irrigate the park. The soccer fields are in this area.
17 There is a soccer field just on the corner edge of the
18 property right over here, next to this wet detention pond.
19 So actually -- you know, this is a detention pond
20 area. It's a -- it's a nice area, but it's typically not
21 used for recreation. People walk through the path and use
22 the park typically for the recreation purposes.
23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Are there other questions or
24 comments or a motion at this time?
25 MR. STROM: I'll move approval of Siena PUD final
45
1 questions, comments by the board, motion, what have you?
2 MR. COLTON: Just on the water table issue. Is
3 this going to be a problem for basements or anything, the
4 area? I know that was brought up as an issue or . . .
5 THE SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Craig
6 (inaudible), and I'm a civil engineer on the project. I work
7 for RBD Engineers.
8 Geotechnical investigation was performed on the
9 site for foundations, basically, and for roads, upgrade -type
10 investigation. And at that time, it showed ground water
11 table at 6 to 8 feet below grade. And in some places on the
12 site there will be a maximum cut of about 2 1/2 to 3 feet.
13 So that means that the ground water table will be at --
14 possibly at 5 feet from grade.
15 MR. STROM: (Inaudible)?
16 THE SPEAKER: I can't -- I can't say for sure, but
17 I'm -- I'm.thinking it was -- we started on the project last
18 June, something like that, so it was definitely during
19 irrigation season.
20 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. Yes, Gwen.
21 MS. BELL: I'd just like to be a -- a little bit
22 more clear on this detention pond. I thought I remembered at
23 the preliminary discussion that this area south of the site
24 is often used for soccer practices and what not. Am I
25 confused about which area this -- that we're talking about?
44
1 As far as regulating, I haven't really looked
2 into that. I didn't really feel to -- that it was that -- be
3 that important of an issue -- well, and part of the fact was
4 the homes across, on the other side of the canal, are, you
5 know, standard. A lot of them are two stories.
6 MR. COLTON: But those are walkout, probably? The
7 ones on the other side?
8 MR. MINATTA: The -- there will be walkouts here.
9 MR. COLTON: No, I mean --
10 MR. MINATTA: On the other side, I don't know.
it MR. COLTON: Yeah, I just know that --
12 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Can -- can you add something
13 to that? Sure, go ahead, if you can add something to the
14 discussion.
15 MS. HARRINGTON: I counted them when -- when the
16 preliminary thing was going on. The -- of the first ten
17 houses going in from the east toward the west on the south
18 side, four have two full stories above ground and at least
19 one of those is a walkout basement. Four of them have an
20 upper level and a garden level, so they're looking like 1 1/2
21 stories, and two of them are single -story houses.
22 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you.
23 MS. HARRINGTON: I'm sure it would be possible to
24 count further, but that's all I -- I know for sure.
25 CHAIRMAN WALKER: All right. Thank you. Other
f
43
1 what day it is. But it's -- gets a little bit of traffic,
2 but it's mostly from folks in the surrounding neighborhood
3 passing through to the park.
4 MR. COLTON: Yeah, okay. I guess I can understand
5 the concern with two story plus walkout, which I guess is
6 what 35 foot probably is. Could there be any possibility of
7 saying these need to be just one story with walkout -type
8 houses instead of two story?
9 MR. MINATTA: Well, what might dictate as far as
10 the size of the structures, again, is the -- is the price
11 range and market we're trying to be in. And to make really
12 large structures is going to be difficult to do here. As far
13 as the overall, you know, width and -- and height of these
14 buildings because they won't be in the market that we're
15 trying to -- to sell them in.
16 I feel like -- I think the 40 feet, as I
17 understand is a City regulation; we're at 35. You know, what,
18 happens -- it kind of works both ways. For approximately --
19 a little over 200 feet from the edge of the property line to
20 where this kind of starts to get -- the ridge starts to level
21 out and the ground starts to level out, there's a real
22 gradual slope across here.
23 It makes for beautiful homes, if you want to have
24 a home on -- on the side of a gradual sloping hill. This is
25 something people like and would like to see.
f
1 MR. COLTON: Yeah.
42
2 MR. MINATTA: I know there's a mixture. It's --
3 I'm not even sure if there's actually some bi-levels, but
4 there are, I think, are some two stories and they're not --
5 they're not just ranches. And I believe there are -- and
6 I don't really know, they have fences and a lot of mature
7 landscaping. So they're not real evident. But I think
8 they're just typical and they're not, you know, any --
9 not shortened or not as regulated as far as the height.
10 MR. COLTON: Okay. And you mentioned that this
it pathway isn't a -- a City of Fort Collins bike trail or
12 anything, but is it extensively used by people just --
13 MR. MINATTA: Well, I think that might depend on
14 who -- who you ask. But, you know, I was corrected by the
15 Parks Department when I used the term "trail." They said,
16 "It's not a trail; it's not part of the trail system. It's
17 a pathway."
18 I spend a lot of time at this park with some kids
19 because I live nearby this area and coaching soccer teams and
20 working on the site, as far as being out there. It's a --
21 it's a wonderful park. This -- and there's activity. As far
22 as, you know, how many people use that trail,,there's quite
23 a bit, but I've been out there at times and -- and you don't
24 see anybody.
25 So it depends on when you're there and -- and
•
41
1 compatibility, and -- and height and -- and the size of the
2 house, and things like that.
3 MS. BELL: So it is true that we have looked at
4 that issue before?
5 MR. BLANCHARD: Yeah, and at preliminary --
6 MS. BELL: But we did limit the height. I do
7 remember.
8 MR. BLANCHARD: We have limit -- true.
9 Yeah, and -- and, if you remember, on the questions on
10 Ridgewood Hills is on -- on top of the ridge, we did limit
11 the height.
12 MS. BELL: Right.
13 MR. BLANCHARD: And we required a special
14 setback. But any elevations that you look at are always
15 classified as, quote, typical and may not, in fact, be what
16 the house actually looks like.
17 MR. COLTON: Just along those lines, the houses
18 across the detention -= the detention pond from this site,
19 what are those? Are those one story, two-story? Does anyone
20 have a -- two stories with walkout, one story's with walkout,
21 no walkout?
22 MR. MINATTA: These -- these along here?
23 MR. COLTON: No. I was referring to across the
24 detention pond to the south in the existing development.
25 MR. MINATTA: Here?
40
1 south exit?
2 THE SPEAKER: Or coming from the south.
3 MR. COLTON: Per day? Okay.
4 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. Further questions or
5 comments by the board or a motion at this time?
6 MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Chairman, could I expand on
7 my response to Gwen? I feel like I may have dismissed the
8 issue about single-family elevations, and I didn't mean
9 to do that,' and explain myself a little further in that, when
10 you're looking at single-family developments, if we required
11 elevations, it's possible that you would require an elevation
12 for every single lot, which is why we don't.
13 You know, that's why at preliminary, you often get
114 typical elevations like Mr. Hendee passed out. At final,
15 they're not required because often individual lots are sold
16 to individual builders. And they don't always build spec
17 houses; they may build custom houses.
18 So I didn't mean to dismiss the question in terms
19 of compatibility. But what we're more concerned with the
20 single-family developments, in terms of compatibility, would
21 be building height, the building footprint on the plat, if
22 it's shown on the plat or the site plan.
23 And -- and, you know, if you get into that level
24 of detail, the size of the house, not the distinction that
25 the chairman made and -- and what it looks like, but rather
39
1 lanes. Is that clear, now?
2 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you.
3 Other traffic issues?
4 MR. COLTON: Well, I think there are some
5 questions around the Deerfield exit or -- and the 5 percent
6 versus the 95, and some of the traffic issues there, that the
7 neighborhood brought up. Can you just hit on that.
8 THE SPEAKER: That connection was primarily made
9 in the preliminary stages of this development to -- to allow
10 people to go south, in particular to Bauder School, without
11 having to get back onto the arterial system and -- and
12 drive around. And it provides another release for the
13 neighborhood, that the 5-to-10-percent distribution to the
14 south through there is probably reasonable.
15 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay.
16 THE SPEAKER: It's normal neighborhood traffic.
17 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Other traffic questions while we
18 have Eric here? Okay. Thank you.
19 All right. Go ahead.
20 MR. COLTON: I guess just -- how much -- how
21 many -- 5 to 10 percent of what? I mean, what's the traf --
22 for the overall development, how many trips are there?
23 THE SPEAKER: About 1100 --
24 MR. COLTON: Per day? So you're -- okay. So
25 you're saying about a hundred or so would be going to the
r ,i
38
1 a little bit more of the capacity of the roadway, but the
2 developments that are occurring out there are primarily
3 residential, which are the lowest of the traffic generators.
4 We don't anticipate that -- under a two --
5 two-lane cross -- cross section in the future that West
6 Elizabeth will be operating at unacceptable levels of
7 service. It should operate quite well.
8 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. Question?
9 THE SPEAKER: In fact, I'd like to just clarify a
10 point there. I -- I wasn't sure if Eric made it clear.
11 The three-l-ane cross section is only going to be
12 in front of this development. Along the portion of Elizabeth
13 from this development up to Taft Hill, it will only be a
14 two-lane cross section through most of the residential area.
15 That is not being expanded to a three lane.
16 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay.
17 THE SPEAKER: Along this portion here, of the site
18 right here, it's going to transition from two lanes into a
19 three lane so there are two of the left -turn lanes into these
20 areas and into this access point here.
21 At this point, it transitions back to a two lane
22 until it expands back into the three lanes up here where
23 Kentucky Fried -- or I guess, it's all the way up here --
24 up here where Kentucky Fried Chicken and King Soopers and
25 everything are at. And there are currently center turn
r,
37
1 And which is, as you say -- now does that -- will
2 that con -- does that continue -- does that cross -- how
3 far east does that cross section go, then? Is it -- is
4 that all the way through to Taft? From all the way to
5 Taft going east?
6 THE SPEAKER: It will taper back from about King
7 Soopers --
8 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Yeah. Okay --
9 THE SPEAKER: -- to Overland Trail.
10 CHAIRMAN WALKER: So beyond the immediate
11 commercial area with King Soopers, it will be a -- as you
12 described it.
13 THE SPEAKER: I -- I would also mention that
14 there's been a number of developments in this area and
15 there's been a lot of concern about the -- the rebuilding
16 and resignalization of Elizabeth and Taft Hill and that's
17 being done this week.
18 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay.
19 THE SPEAKER: Thought I would mention that.
20 CHAIRMAN WALKER: And from -- from a traffic
21 standpoint, the projects that are developing in that area
22 of Overland Trail and West Elizabeth, how will that
23 affect the capacity of West Elizabeth? Will the street
24 be adequate to --
25 THE SPEAKER: Each development is going to consume
36
1 on West Elizabeth, can we get some perspective on that
2 from our -- our traffic engineer.
3 MS. BELL: Lloyd, could -- could I add to that
4 while you're here? Could we find out -- this map I do not
5 know where Rocky Road is, when I look at this map, and there
6 was a lot of discussion, so I need to have that pointed
7 out to me.
8 THE SPEAKER: Was there a specific question on
9 capacity on West Elizabeth?
10 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I think there was this question
11 of the cross section of Elizabeth as it goes west toward
12 Overland Trail and issues about, you know, traffic calming
13 based on the cross section and -- and, you know, what is
14 the -- what is the standard the City is working to on that.
15 THE SPEAKER: At this point in time, we're looking
16 at West Elizabeth being two through lanes and a center
17 left -turn lane with bike lanes attached and not,your standard
18 arterial cross section, which is four travel lanes and the
19 bike lanes inside a travel lane.
20 So it will be a lot narrower than an arterial
21 cross section.
22 CHAIRMAN WALKER: So -- so it's one -- one travel
23 lane in each direction?
24 THE SPEAKER: And a center turn lane.
25 CHAIRMAN WALKER: And a center turn lane. Okay.
i 9
35
1 I can't guarantee that, but that's my best guess
2 as to what will happen. And I didn't require that the
3 developer show that. They are going to reseed the disturbed
4 area with native grasses.
5 Above and beyond that, the timing of construction,
6 that was an issue brought up by the neighborhood. I think it
7 would -- would be desirable if the construction could be done
8 later in the summer after bird nesting season. But from our
9 knowledge of the site, the only birds nesting in the area are
10 red -winged blackbirds.
11 They are not an endangered species. They're not
12 a species that is rare, even within Fort Collins. They
13 utilize a lot of the cattail areas around the community, so
14 I did not feel it was appropriate for us to place any kind
15 of a specific condition on the developer because of that
16 to require that the construction not occur during the
17 breeding season.
18 It will -- it might possibly disrupt the breeding
19 this year, or during the construction year, but my guess is
20 that the birds will be back next year, and we have no real
21 firm data that it will keep them from breeding this year.
22 So that's the reason for our position.
23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: All right. Thank you. Any
24 other questions on this issue? Thank you.
25 Also questions about traffic and capacity
34
1 expansion of this detention pond in alignment or in
2 conformance with City standards for a regional detention
3 pond in the future.
4 They will not be doing the full expansion at this
5 time. So to do an extensive revegetation habitat plan for
6 the area right now is probably inappropriate until we know
7 what the final configuration for that pond will be. At least
8 that's my understanding.
9 And at that time, there may be some possibilities
10 for enhanced plantings along the pathway, even on City
11 property between the bike path and the edge of this
12 property.
13 The developer did express some interest in
14 providing some additional plantings, if necessary, but
15 I didn't make that requirement of him. I was very pleased
16 with the fact that the developer did make a lot of effort
17 to avoid disturbing the existing cattail area.
18 I've watched this area expand over the last ten
19 years, when I've been -- that I've been working for the
20 City. At one time it was more like a wet meadow and has
21 developed into a more elaborate wetland area in those years.
22 I do believe there is a strong possibility that
23 the excavation of the pond area will lower the ground surface
24 near to the ground water level, and we will see an expansion
25 of that cattail area.
33
1 more specifically how far down below, if you'd like to know
2 more detail on that.
3 Below the back yards, 6 feet. It's about -- the
4 path is about 6 feet below the back pad of the rear houses.
5 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Further questions?
6 I'd like to explore the issue of -- maybe someone
7 from our Natural Resources Department, the question of bird
8 habitat, location of the trail, screening of this -- this
9 natural area with trees. Can we get some perspective on --
10 on those sorts of issues and how they might be resolved.
it MR. WILKINSON: We did not request any specific
12 screening of the area. It is a storm water detention pond,
13 downstream of an existing open water pond in the park.
14 At the time we first became involved with the
15 design of the area, it appeared that the developer might have
16 to excavate the pond fairly extensively and disturb some
17 existing wetlands.
18 Over the course of discussions for about a month
19 and working with their engineer, they were able to come up
20 with a plan, which left the predominant cattail portion
21 of the detention pond intact. They're going to.do their
22 excavation outside that area and provide construction
23 fencing around it.
24 We talked some about the possibility of doing an
25 enhanced habitat plan for the site, but there will be future
32
1 And the Planning -- when we first started this
2 project, we talked with the Planning Staff and asked which
3 would be preferable, and we understand that Planning is
4 looking for interconnectivity on neighborhoods rather
5 than having cul-de-sacs that create more concentrated
6 traffic flows.
7 So I just wanted to clarify those two
8 particular points.
9 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Further questions?
10 MR. COLTON: A follow-up on the house heights.
11 Evidently these are -- the path is some distance down below
12 the elevation where the houses will be sitting. How much is
13 that -- I mean, if they're going to have walkout basements,
14 they're going to have some elevation. Do you have any idea
15 what that is?
16 MR. HENDEE: That's -- that's correct. First of
17 all, just a point of clarification. The area that the homes
18 back on, and this is semantics and I don't want to make a big
19 issue of semantics, but technically it's not the park. It is
20 a detention area and it was originally purchased by the City
21 specifically for the purposes of detention. It is an open
22 area but it is specifically for that purpose.
23 The trail that goes through there is a path; it's
24 not part of the City's trail system. The path is below. And
25 our civil engineer is here and he might be able to tell you
31
1 representative building elevations. Even though they're not
2 required, we did want to indicate that we were intending to
3 provide an attractive residence.
4 I do have one copy with me tonight, that I
5 can pass around, that just shows some typical building
6 elevations.
7 Our intent is -- by this neighborhood is to
8 provide something that's more -- that is in keeping with what
9 we're hearing from the visual preference survey that was
10 conducted by the City for more traditional neighborhoods
it with porches and gabled roofs and so forth. And I do have
12 a typical representation here that I can pass around and
13 look -- and have you look at.
14 If I could just make one more point on the
15 level of service on the traffic issues, just as a point of
16 clarification only.
17 We did have Balloffet & Associates, a traffic
18 engineer, do a traffic study on this project. And they
19 showed through the year 2015, levels of service of A and B
20 on Elizabeth, and 95 percent of the traffic turning onto
21 Elizabeth, 5 percent of it going through the Deerfield
22 part -- Deerfield intersection.
23 We also have designed those roadways to provide a
24 more circuitous route so that it's not a -- a through
25 street. It's not a direct through street.
30
1 That's where the height comes in. But as I
2 indicated, the elevations usually are used to indicate -- or
3 what am I trying -- trying to say, architectural style. But
4 the height limits and the -- the use of walkout basements is
5 certainly something the board can comment on.
6 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I think there is a terminology
7 question here. Elevation and height are two different things
8 in this situation. Elevations show what a house looks like;
9 height is how tall it is.
10 Well, you're concerned about the height of the
it house? Okay.
12 MS. BELL: The compatibility of --
13 MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Hendee may happen to have some
14 indication as well.
15 MS. BELL: The implication was that it wasn't
16 compatible with what's there.
17 MR. HENDEE: Good evening, my name is -- Planning
18 and Zoning Board members, my name is Bruce Hendee. I'm with
19 BHA Design. We're the landscape architects on this project.
20 We have specified on the plan a maximum height
21 of 35 feet. The City code is -- is 40 feet, I believe, for
22 the maximum height of a building. Our intent is to provide
23 only a standard two-story house though, nothing unusual.
24 At the preliminary stage of the plan, we did
25 hand -- hand out to the Planning and Zoning Board some
go
1 or two tall one -- two stories but . . .
2 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
3 understand your concern more clearly.
4 And then I -- if we could have some pictures of
5 the elevations and get a better idea here?
6 MR. BLANCHARD: This is a single-family project;
7 the board does not review elevations.
8 MS. BELL: Oh, we don't?
9 I thought we reviewed elevations on the
10 Ridgewood Hills.
11 MR. BLANCHARD: Single-family elevations that are
12 provided are usually just as an indication of a typical
13 house. You don't have the --
14 MS. BELL: We even put a condition on that, that
15 along that ridge --
16 MR. BLANCHARD: We can -- we can condition the
17 heights, yes, correct. But I mean, elevations typically are
18 used to give an indication of architectural style. And
19 that -- those are the types of -- of drawings that you
20 typically see and they're usually provided as a typical.
21 If you look back at the Ponds at Overland,
22 that's what was provided to you. Some of the others at
23 Ridgewood Hills is provided, but we don't -- you don't have
24 the authority to review the architecture on single family
25 like you do on multifamily.
28
1 looks like, and we perhaps should say that we don't think
2 that that looks very good for the park.
3
MS.
BELL: So the concern is that when you're down
4
lower in the park --
5
MS.
HARRINGTON: Uh-huh.
6
MS.
BELL: -- it's -- it's from a park
7
prospective, when you're a user of the park --
8
MS.
HARRINGTON: Right.
9
MS.
BELL: -- and you're looking, because
10
of the --
11
MS.
HARRINGTON: Because it slopes up.
12
MS.
BELL: -- difference in the grade, it will --
13
MS.
HARRINGTON: Yeah.
14
MS.
BELL: -- appear to --
15
MS.
HARRINGTON: Yeah.
16
MS.
BELL: -- be higher.
17
MS.
HARRINGTON: It's going to look -- it's going
18
to look tall.
It's not going to look open --
19
MS.
BELL: Okay.
20
MS.
HARRINGTON: -- like it does. The ones
21
that are on the -- the south side of the park were mostly --
22
I think one of
them is even a one-story, but a lot of them
23
are garden level --
24
MS.
BELL: Okay.
25
MS.
HARRINGTON: -- bottom story. There are one
27
1 park area, to have those with walkout basements.
2 As I understand it, Mr. -- the -- the idea is
3 to -- the -- the road above them will be slightly above and
4 so they won't be two-story houses at the front door going in,
5 but they'll be two-story houses at the back going out,
6 right? With walkout basements?
7 MS. BELL: I -- I guess my concern is to find out
8 what your concern is because I thought you were --
9 MS. HARRINGTON: That if you're standing in the
10 park, it will look like a two-story house to you. Most of
it the houses along there --
12 MS. BELL: Are -- are just one story.
13 MS. HARRINGTON: -- have -- have garden level.
14 The ones that are on Timber Lane, going up on the east,
15 because of the way the land slopes, they often don't
16 even look like they have garden level.
17 They look like one-story houses if you're
18 standing in the field. And if you were standing down in
19 the park, I think that the walkout basements will look like
20 two-story houses.
21 There are some houses, on the very far west
22 end of the park, that were built next to it, that are
23 two-story houses, out kind of where Mr. Davidson lives,
24 and it's not very attractive.
25 I think that we have an example of what that
a
26
1 many houses and trips, particularly south in the morning with
2 only one exit, and again, with only one exit to the north, I
3 feel that is a very serious concern over the traffic flow.
4 There have been fatalities of little children in
5 the neighborhood before. I believe one little boy a few
6 years ago. And I wish we would take a look at that again.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you.
9 Any others that would wish to speak to us on
10 this issue?
it okay. Seeing now closed public input and the
12 board will discuss this matter and come to a vote. There
13 are a number of issues that were brought up by some of the
14 citizens, and I'll just ask if any of the board members have
15 any comments on that or questions of their own at this time.
16 MS. BELL: Yes. I wanted to follow up on the
17 question relating to the limit of the height on -- on the
18 houses. If we could have some more information about --
19 the implication was, I.believe, that the houses are taller,
20 I guess, than what the current houses are.
21 Is that right, Miss Harrington?
22 MS. HARRINGTON: I'm sure Mr. Minatta might want
23 to say something about it. As I understand it, the plan is
24 to have the houses that are on the -- the -- that very bottom
25 tier, that's -- that's overlooking the kind of storm water
25
1 north to south. It's a pretty steep grade and cars move down
2 that street at a pretty rapid pace.
3 When it hits the bottom, it takes an immediate
4 right turn and then turns onto, I believe, the street is
5 Deerfield? -- Clearview and then Deerfield, which then goes
6 on a grade going up to the south.
7 In the morning most of the traffic from that
8 neighborhood -- a lot of the people in the neighborhood
9 work to the south of Elizabeth, so the morning traffic flows
10 through those neighborhoods. It's a'natural shortcut,
it Timber Lane down to Prospect. All of the -- all the
12 elementary school students in the neighborhood flow south
13 to Bauder school, so the morning traffic tends to all
14 flow south.
15 In the evening, once again, it flows north back
16 into the houses, kids coming home from school: On our street
17 alone, we have -- I believe it's 18 elementary school kids.
18 The -- there's a current traffic problem there
19 with speeding in the neighborhood because of the slope
20 and the grade of the streets and because of that rather
21 sharp corner.
22 That's always been a natural shortcut between
23 Elizabeth and Prospect. It's the fastest way to get between
24 those two streets, all the way over to Taft Hill.
25 And the addition of these houses, showing that
1
1
24
1 basements on streets farther along West Elizabeth already.
2 So what I'm saying here is that the equation for
3 storm water and drainage is not just a function of water
4 flowing over the banks of the Pleasant Valley ditch. And it
5 really does need to be concerned in what kind of detention
6 takes place and so on down there.
7 Those are the two major concerns that I needed
8 to -- to bring to your attention tonight and thanks for
9 your time.
10 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you.
11 Others that would like to speak, please.
12 MR. CLAYPOOL: My name is Joe Claypool. I live
13 on the immediately parallel street to the east side, the
14 north -south street called Timber Lane -- excuse me -- and I
15 live in the southeast corner.
16 My major concern— I certainly respect the
17 family's rights to develop the property to many -- for many
18 respects. I do have one of the best views in Fort Collins,
19 which will disappear, but that's not my main point
20 right now.
21 I -- I think the City really needs to seriously
22 look at the traffic -flow patterns, once again do a traffic
23 study on the southeast corner.
24 Timber Lane, which is the street immediately
25 parallel, as I said on the east side, has a natural grade
■
23
1 We've got Prospect to the south, we've got
2 Mulberry to the north as being what would be considered major
3 arterials, and I really want to see Elizabeth Street staying
4 a narrow street to -- to have a slowing and a calming effect
5 on this huge number of cars that could potentially.at least
6 be coming through that part of town.
7 The second thing is on Elizabeth -- on Pleasant
8 Valley ditch. The Pleasant Valley ditch also waters my farm,
9 the Happy Heart Farm, on the other side of the street.
10 And I know that last year was a huge rain
11 year in the spring, but it's -- it's not just whether the
12 water overflows the banks, that's a -- a real important
13 consideration here, is that when that water table is as high
14 as it is, the Pleasant Valley ditch being one of the ways
15 that they evacuate the huge amounts of water that come in
16 the springtime, that whole water table out there, everything
17 east of it, is affected by the level of the water in the
18 Pleasant Valley ditch.
19 So the consideration isn't just of water flooding.
20 over the tops of the banks that's a -- a real concern is that
21 the total flow through that area is a factor of just the
22 seepage that comes through there.
23 And we personally at the Happy Heart Farm have
24 been involved in litigation where just the water table itself
25 is affected all the way past Rocky Road into people's
1
1 year kind of deal.
22
2 The traffic studies on this particular site
3 indicate the traffic going to West Elizabeth Street, 90
4 percent, I believe is the total, and most of those exiting
5 and going to the east. .
6 1But I really think that it's critical that we
7 consider the traffic in total here because the difference
8 between the 116 houses here and the 650 dwelling units in
9 total in that neighborhood is -- is quite extensive. If it's
10 ten car trips per day, and I believe that's pretty close to
11 what the -- the ten car trips per day per household, is what
12 the City says is generated, we're talking about a difference
13 between a hund -- 1,160 car trips and 6,500 car trips
14 per day.
15 Elizabeth Street is -- is bound to be a part of
16 that equation. And so what I'm really urging here sounds
17 like a little bit backward logic but I'm really encouraging
18 the Planning and Zoning Department to really consider these
19 kinds of traffic situations as an opportunity to narrow
20 and -- and to slow some of these major arterials, like
21 Elizabeth Street here.
22 So what I'm really standing on personally here is
23 anything to the west of Rocky Road here, I really want the
24 Planning and Zoning Board to really do everything they can to
25 make sure that that stays a narrow street.
G�
`1
1 feelings. You,say -- you say that you must follow the City
2 policies and land use plans, yet you seem to be surprisingly
3 unfamiliar with the specifics of these policies and plans.
4 And armed with this lack of knowledge and lack of
5 feeling, you cast a vote that can change the face of the land
6 and a neighborhood forever.
7 Please take more seriously your responsibility to
8 make decisions that will be good for our community.
9 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you.
10 Others that would like to address us on
it this issue.
12 MR. STINTSON: Good evening, Dennis Stintson,
13 2820 West Elizabeth Street. I live across the street to the
14 northwest corner of the proposed site.
15 A couple of concerns. One is that this is a --
16 this number of houses is just a -- a small fraction of the
17 number of houses that are going in in that neighborhood.
18 In total, we're looking at the Ponds and Overland Trail
19 being 282.
20 The -- there's a proposal now for the Overland
21 Trail and Elizabeth Street corner, both sides, 288 units on
22 the one side. The Loriana (inaudible) on the other side.
23 Like I don't even know the number, 80 some. The sum total in
24 that particular neighborhood equalling some 650 new units
25 going in -- in the -- in the present tense, you know, this
i
20
1 planners, they should be looking out for the best.interests
2 of the City, not be a tool of the developers. I resent the
3 fact that our tax money is used.to pay them for this.
4 During P&Z meetings, the City staff withholds
5 information and give evasive answers, and you and the board
6 often do not pursue these answers.
7 When you ask a staff member or developer a
8 specific question and they start talking about something
9 else, stop them. Keep on asking the question until you get
10 an answer or they admit they don't know. If you don't insist
11 on an answer, it appears that you're asking the question only
12 for appearances sake.
13 The whole development review process is
14 backwards. Instead of the developer having to prove that his
15 project is good for the community, the community must prove
16 that the project is bad. The P&Z board is like a huge rubber
17 stamp marked yes. It is poised over each developer's project
18 and City staff puts the ink on that stamp.
19 The board is supposed to use Robert's Rules of
20 Order. These rules have existed since 1876, yet you seem to
21 be unfamiliar with them. You often discuss procedure when
22 you should be discussing the proposal. This wastes everybody
23 time --.everybody's time and diverts your attention from the
24 matters at hand.
25 You say that you can't vote according to your
19
1 the beauty of the open field, the park and the wetland that
2 will -- will be affected by this project.
3 Unfortunately, aesthetic value only seems to be
4 considered when a developer can get points for it, not when
5 he's about to destroy it.
6 During a neighborhood meeting, we were told that,
7 if this developer didn't build on the site, something worse
8 might go in. It is amazing how developers take what is a
9 negative and use it as a positive.
10 I have concerns about the increased use of the
11 park and streets in our neighborhood. During the
12 neighborhood meetings, when concerns in these areas were
13 expressed, City staff fell back to quoting statistics.
14 They have a policy stating that a certain number
15 of people deserve a certain number of acres of park. They
16 say a certain street is planned as an arterial or a collector
17 and their statistics show that it can handle a projected
18 traffic.
19 There doesn't seem to be any consideration of the
20 big picture of how each development affects the quality of
21 life in Fort Collins. Apparently, no creative work is
22 allowed. But problems are not solved by rigid application of
23 statistics.
24 The City planners work with'the developer to
25 design a proposal that will pass this process. As City
18
1 across this undeveloped property right here.
2 In fact, our property, for the most part, just a
3 very small portion of this, actually at this point, flows
4 into the canal. It's a very small contribution. And we are
5 grading that so it now flows away from the canal.
6 And it never -- we have never seen nor experienced
7 or have any evidence that this canal has ever had any
8 water -- contributed any water problems from spillage or
9 really much seepage into the property. There is a problem
10 over here.
11 And -- but we've agreed to go ahead and do some
12 cross sections of the -- of this corner right here and --
13 and verify the capacity and verify and work with -- in fact,
14 we -- Glen Schluter and I walked it the other day. And we
15 agreed to take some steps just to make sure that -- you know,
16 that isn't a problem.
17 I think that's all I had. I appreciate your time.
18 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. Questions by the
19 board? Okay. At this time, if there's -- we'll open it up
20 for public input if there are other -- if there are any in
21 the audience who would like to speak to this issue, please
22 come forward and state your name and present your issues.
23 MR. CLARK: My name is Robert Clark. I live at
24 2613 Flintridge Place. I oppose this development mainly for
25 aesthetic reasons. I'm not ashamed to say that I appreciate
17
1 street, we're going to raise the elevation a slight distance
2 to allow us -- the pond to hold more water.
3 We will be going, to a small degree, in the pond
4 to increase the capacity. But what it will actually be doing
5 is -- in the one spot where we will be making it deeper, over
6 time it will, in fact, enhance the -- the wetlands of the
7 pond and increase the capacity for anybody else who's putting
8 water in the pond.
9 Craig Foreman did submit -- I got a letter the
10 other day where he has agreed to provide trees for the
it homeowners who back up to the park area at their wish, if
12 they want one. They'd have to agree to water it.
13 And I believe he's agreed to do one tree per --
14 per lot. So there is response from the City there to help
15 buffer the lots to some degree between the park.
16 You know, these homes are going to be nice homes.
17 They'll hopefully be of value. I think they'll be very.
18 compatible with the surrounding area. And architecture is
19 something I'm very concerned about and working very hard
20 towards providing something that's really valuable or --
21 yeah, valuable.
22 As far as the canal, I -- I do want to mention,
23 that this -- this canal has never experienced flooding.
24 There is some evidence of flooding. It comes here from
25 West Elizabeth down and takes a turn here and heads west
.1 3
16
1 piece of infrastructure.
2 We're going to improve this street, adding a
3 25-foot frontage, 5-foot sidewalk, set back 15 feet from the
4 curb, to make it a much more safer, friendly -- pedestrian-
5 friendly access. Also, a 50-foot-wide flow lane, which will
6 make it safer for cars, also.
7 This won't benefit just the people in the
8 subdivision, this will benefit everybody who uses
9 West Elizabeth. It's really needed at this time.
10 Finally, in -- in 176 -- 1976, when City Storm
11 Water was in its infancy, they determined that this lower
12 10 acres was really needed for the entire Clearview drainage
13 basin. So they approached my mother. She negotiated with
14 them at the time, and we had sold that to the City.
15 And that particular piece of ground constituted
16 25 percent of the original parcel. That's 10 out of the
17 original 40 acres.
18
The pond was not a
built --
was not built as it
19
was originally designed. And
we've determined,
in looking at
20
this, that the pond is not even
at the
capacity that it's --
21
that it's rated at. So we're
going to
improve this pond.
22
Actually what -- one
of the
ways we're doing this
23
is -- at the intersection of
Clearview
and Deerfield here,
24
we're going to have to go in
here and
put our utilities
25
anyway. So this very small --
a small
portion of this
15
1 interested and concerned neighbors at our first meeting.
2 Had a lot of concerns, so we scheduled a second
3 meeting. And at our second meeting, we felt like we did a
4 real good job. In fact, the -- the neighbors that showed up
5 was down to eight, and we felt like we did a good job of
6 answering their comments.
7 The principal from Bauder Elementary was there,
8 and he encouraged us to build this development because
9 they're -- they are seeing a declining enrollment trend in
10 his school right now. He has a difficult time. The big
11 problem for him is -- is keeping his staff stable. It's not
12 operating at the capacity that it's designed to. And this
13 project, he felt, were to help it out.,
14 Carol Agee mentioned that approximately 30 to 40
15 students could be added to this, through the kindergarten
16 through 6,grades in a period of over three to five years.
17 And it sounded like a -- and actually a benefit to the
18 school -- the school system.
19 You know, as far as the traffic goes, there is a
20 quarter mile of West Elizabeth that this property fronts
21 onto. And currently on -- where our property is is next to
22 West Elizabeth.
23 There is a 4-to-5 foot dirt shoulder from the
24 edge of the asphalt to a wire pasture fence. It's not a
25 pedestrian -friendly street at this time. It's an outdated
14
1 So that's the other part of -- aspect of this
2 project, which we have been able to achieve. And we are
3 trying to provide homes in 130 to $150,000 range, 13-to-1500
4 square foot homes, with a basement. And -- and this is also
5 very -- was very critical to us.
6 And the third thing, of course, was we wanted to
7 do -- do something about enhancing the architecture, which
8 Mrs. Harrington referred to.
9 And I just didn't like the sight of rows of
10 garages with attached houses. And I thought, was there some
11 way we could somehow improve upon this? And this is how we
12 came upon the alley concept.
13 There's -- 59 of the lots are front drives and 57
14 of them are alley access. So we've done a combination here,
15 in addition to the detached sidewalks.
16 The houses with garages in the front will have --
17 be set back to use the same distance as the front of the
18 house, so they won't protrude as much and -- excuse me, I
19 lost my place here -- and we're trying to do as much as we
20 can in the way of enhancing front porches.
21 The response has been terrific and -- and this is
22 going to really be a neat addition to the neighborhood and
23 the Fort Collins community.
24 It is an infield project. Our first neighborhood
25. meeting, we had sent out 700 notices. We received 60
J
13
1 development stopped about 30 years ago at the edge of this
2 property. He wanted to preserve this plan and keep it and
3 give it to his daughter or son, at the time, to give them
4 something more than proceeds from a sale. She's been
5 approached many times, also, and she felt the very same
6 about it.
7
We are
in the position now where we
have been
8
approached quite a
bit and the growth in town,
it really --
9
has created a situation
where we either had to
sell it or
10
do something with
it. What is important to us,
with this
11
property, is that
we had some control over it since
we've
12
been associated as
long -- associated with this
ground longer
13 than anybody else.
14
And part of that,
what was important
to us, was
15
the density of the project.
And we wanted to make
it
16
compatible to what's in the
neighborhood now.
17
So as you know, there's 6 -- they're
6-to-8,000
18
square foot lots, very similar to what's in the
surrounding
19
area. And we would achieve
that -- achieve that
with a -- in
20 the 4.1 units per acre density.
21
The other thing
that was very
important to us was
22
the -- the home market and
what we could
do in here. Of
23
course, the price of homes
has really risen in this town and
24
it's -- we -- it's hard.
You can't find
a home for under
25 $130,000, a new home.
a
12
1 First of all, we're very excited about this
2 project. It's -- there's a lot of different details. I
3 think Bob explained most of them. But what we're really
4 excited about is it's -- well, we think we're proposing a
5 really neat project that's important to Fort Collins home
6 market and contributes a wonderful lineage for my family.
7 And with -- we'll get to this, with regard to this ground.
8 My great grandfather, Jack Barr, bought this
9 property -- and now if I just could impose real short
10 about -- a little bit of history. He bought this in 1918.
11 It was part of a larger parcel. His new son-in-law, which
12 was my grandfather, Sam Maransi and his daughter, Elvira,
13 bought this then, which was a 40-acre tract, which
14 included -- which included this detention pond at one time.
15 After purchasing that, they went into the dairy
16 farming business and farmed it for about 30 years. My mother
17 picked cherries there on the property as a young girl. She's
18 here tonight. Mom give us a wave.
19 She doesn't like me to mention what she was doing
20 in the 20s because she feels like it kind of dates her, but
21 she has a lot of wonderful stories to tell about growing up
22 in Fort Collins. And she's very interested in what's going
23 on with this property and in the city itself.
24 As my grandfather -- when he had this property,
25 he farmed it. He was pressured many times to sell it. The
11
1 Lake Canal. If such an analysis reveals that flooding could
2 cause problems on private lots, then a conveyance channel
3 must be constructed for the safe discharge of these flows.
4 Such analysis and potential channel must be included as part
5 of the final utility plans."
6 So that issue would be resolved -- could be
7 resolved after final Planning and Zoning Board approval
8 during the approval process of the Utility plan.
9 In addition to those two conditions, there's
10 a third condition, that's our standard condition, that
11 accompanies final -- final PUD approval, which -- which
12 relates to the required Utility plan approval and development
13 agreement approval.
14 If there's questions, I'll attempt to answer
15 them. There are staff -- other staff here to address those
16 issues that resulted in the -- in the conditions, as well.
17 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Questions at this time?
18 Okay. May we hear from the applicant.
19 MR. MINATTA: Good evening. My name is
20 John Minatta, and I'm representing the Minatta Family
21 Partnership. So I've got a little bit of information here
22 that maybe talks to more than what -- what Ms. Harrington had
23 brought up. And I did -- did want to speak a little bit
24 about the property, and I can address some of those issues
25 thats-- that we were talking about.
10
1 negotiations
was
actually an
amended
condition that Ted
2 presented to
you
at the work
session
and is included on a --
3 on a handout.
4 That particular condition has been changed to now
5 read that "The final PUD is approved subject to a public
6 alley design that accommodates the hundred -year storm in
7 accordance with the requirements of the engineer -- the
8 Engineering Department of Storm Water Utility has outlined
9 in a memorandum from City staff dated February 26, 1996."
10 And Ted had included that memorandum to accompany
11 that -- that condition. And because of the extensiveness of
12 the memorandum, it was felt that -- that it was appropriate
13 to refer to the -- to the memo rather than to restate the --
14 the memo in its entirety as a condition.
15 The other concern is the potential flooding for
16 the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. This canal exists on
17 the -- on the western edge of the property. And it has
18 experienced flooding in the past. And again, there was a
19 memo in the record that -- that related to that.
20 And it still feel -- there's -- there's still an
21 opinion at the staff level that the -- that the potential
22 should be investigated and -- and to reflect that, we're
23 asking that an additional condition be applied to the final
24 that states that "The PUD is approved subject to an analysis
25 of the potential flooding of the Pleasant Valley and
0
1 an expression of layout and density on Lots 22 through 26
2 inclusive, which is in the southeast corner of the property,
3 due to the need for further -- to further refine storm water
4 modeling, which may modify the detention requirements of the
5 southeast portion of the site."
6 What's been determined by our Storm Water Utility
7 is that the -- the storm water runoff of the project will be
8 accommodated in the adjacent pond without the need to modify
9 any of the layout.
10 Modifications of the pond will involve some
11 disturbance to the existing wetlands. But it's -- those
12 disturbances have been reviewed by our Natural Resources
13 Department and actually the determination has been made that
14 the proposed modifications may actually help resolve some of
15 the upstream problems and will actually result in an enhanced
16 wetland area that may be superior to what's there now.
17 There are remaining concerns at the staff level
18 with the -- with a couple of things. First of those is -- is
19 alley design. That there are concerns that were expressed in
20 a memo that are included in your packet from the Engineering
21 Department and also from the Storm Water Utility.
22 The concern is that during a hundred -year storm
23 that the alleys may lack sufficient capacity to properly
24 convey the storm flows. Storm Water Utility has continued to
25 work with the applicant and that -- the result of those
8
1 have a number of wide-ranging concerns, so I think what we'll
2 need to do on this is to -- well, what we'll do is we'll go
3 through our normal hearing process where we'll hear from the
4 staff, the developer, ask for public input, and, you know, go
5 through our discussions, unlike the last one, where it was
6 just one particular point.
7 So could I hear the staff report on this, please.
8 MR. BLANCHARD: You get the second team because
9 Ted, who's the project planner, is on the way to the beaches
10 of Puerto Rico tonight.
it This particular project, when it came to you
12 as a preliminary in November of last year, was known as
13 Overland Ridge; it's now known as Siena. This is a request
14 for a final PUD approval for 116 single-family lots on
15 28.26 acres. It's located on the south side of West
16 Elizabeth directly across from the intersection of -- of
17 Rocky Road. It's located just north of the City's Clearview
18 Ponds, which is a city -owned facility for storm water
19 detention. Property is currently zoned RL, which is
20 low -density residential.
21 The -- as was mentioned, there's a couple of
22 issues that -- one of -- one of the issues resulted in a
23 preliminary condition when preliminary approval was granted.
24 That particular condition was -- to quote the condition, it
25 said that "Preliminary approval of the PUD shall not grant
I
7
1 Several of our neighbors came here Monday night to
2 show their opposition to this project, but, unfortunately,
3 you didn't get to our item at that meeting.
4 We have single parents who have jobs, we have
5 people with young children, we have people who work swing
6 shifts, they can't come down to City Hall night after night
7 and sit through four hours of meetings waiting to be heard
8 on their issue.
9 I regret that this had to be pulled from the
10 consent agenda, but I'm very surprised, considering the
11 amount of opposition that I've been giving to it since the
12 beginning, and that other people have also put in, as you can
13 see from your packet, that this was ever put on the consent
14 agenda. How could anyone not realize that there was
15 opposition to it?
16 For years we have been hearing the mantra of
17 the developers that growth is inevitable. It is not. If
18 it were inevitable, the developers' trust that calls
19 itself Fort Collins, Inc., would not have to advertise in
20 Southern California urging businesses and people to
21 move here.
22 The P&Z Board has a responsibility to look beyond
23 the profits of one developer to the well-being of the
24 neighborhood that is affected by this proposal. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. It sounds like you
0
1 about several things that might be done to make the project
2 more acceptable to the neighborhood.
3 The developer might be asked to sacrifice four of
4 his lots to build a detention pond, which would be a nice
5 feature and would prevent disturbing the marsh entirely. The
6 park trail might be moved, so that it's not right next to the
7 backyards in this proposed development, and a screen of trees
8 might be put in.
9 He discussed all those things with me, but it was
10 all talk. In the end, the developer does not want to
11 sacrifice those lots, the City does not want to move the
12 trail, and the screen of trees is a pitiful voluntary program
13 that individual buyers of those lots will be notified of,
14 but not required to do.
15 In the letter -- in the City commenting on that,
16 it appears that there's some concern that putting in those
17 trees might obstruct someone's view of the park. No one
18 seems to be concerned that this entire development will
19 obstruct two -dozen families' view of the field and the
20 park and the foothills.
21 I urge you to reduce the size of this project, to
22 improve the access to it from Elizabeth Street, to require a
23 buffer zone or a screen of trees at the boundary with the
24 park, to limit the height of the houses at that boundary, and
25 to delay or prohibit the disturbance to the wetland.
5
1 required to dedicate an inch of land to enlarge our park or
2 to provide a buffer zone. He's not being required to plant a
3 single tree to screen off the park from his development or to
4 make his houses compatible with the height of existing homes
5 along the perimeter of the park.
6 The Land Development Guidance System contains
7 many references to respecting the character of existing
8 neighborhoods. Item A1.7 mentions architecture that is
9 appropriate in the context of the neighborhood.
10 A2.13 mentions a landscape plan that contributes
11 in a positive way to the neighborhood environment. It
12 mentions spacial definition, visual screening, and buffering
13 the impact on existing natural areas. Why hasn't any of this
14 been required for the boundary with our park?
15 The so-called improvements to the pond in the
16 wetland area, that have been recently proposed, were not
17 included in the preliminary proposal but are -- are part of
18 the contingency.
19 At the very least, disturbance to this area should
20 be delayed until August to avoid interfering with the redwing
21 blackbirds nesting in the marsh. Disturbance of the topsoil
22 around the marsh should be avoided because it might interfere
23 with overwintering stages of fireflys, which are not common
24 in Fort Collins, and are present in our marsh.
25 The City planner for this project has talked to me
4
1 four-plexes at the corner of Overland Trail and Elizabeth and
2 since there is even more development proposed for Elizabeth,
3 that intersection is going to be going to Level D or worse
4 real fast and a lot of people are going to be coming down
5 through Deerfield.
6 The storm water channel in the storm water
7 drainage in this section of town, according to the City,
8 will need improvements to handle the extra runoff from
9 this project.
10 There is a plan for the City to collect a storm
11 water fee from the developer, but as I understand it, they're
12 not planning to spend that money in making the necessary
13 improvements to the channel. They have other things that are
14 higher on their priority list.
15 I think that the fees from this project shouldn't
16 be allocated elsewhere until all the problems generated by
17 this project are paid for from those fees..
18 Our neighborhood park is already well -used and
19 putting another 116 families in here along with the people
20 from the recently improved Ponds Development and the newly
21 advertised multi-plexes at Elizabeth and Overland will be a
22 disaster for our neighborhood park.
23 The height of the houses next to the park is
24 incompatible with the neighborhood and will destroy the open
25 character that we now enjoy. Yet the developer is not being
a f
3
1 it's getting close.
2 My name is Judy Harrington. I live at 2613
3 Flintridge Place. I oppose this development. It will be
4 detrimental to the neighborhood and, as we can see from
5 Monday's paper, growth still does not pay its own way in this
6 town despite the assurances from the.pro-growth faction.
7 I hope that you will require changes to mitigate
8 the worse effects of this project. Traffic will be dreadful,
9 with a hundred and sixteen families trying to get into and
10 out of the development at only two access points.
11 The City planner for this project has been quoted
12 extensively in the newspaper on January 2nd on the advantages
13 of grid streets over curved streets and cul-de-sacs. But his
14 concerns about congestion don't prompt him to suggest grid
15 streets in this case. Why not?
16 The traffic study estimates that only 5 percent
17 of the trips will be coming through the Clearview-Deerfield
18 intersection, which is near where I live. I would like to
19 believe that, but I kind of doubt it.
20 That route is the shortest route for people who
21 are driving their kids down to Bauder Elementary School.
22 And it will be a very popular route when the Taft Hill
23 intersection goes to Service Level D, as it's projected to
24 under the traffic study.
25 I might add that since the sign just went up for
t• T
2
1 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Moving on to Siena, this is also
2 another item that was pulled from the consent and could the
3 individual that pulled this, if they have --
4 MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I have a
5 conflict of interest due to technical -- technicality of
6 notification of this within proximity of the development.
7 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. Go take a break, then.
8 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. May I -- may I hear --
10 can we hear what the issue is? Do we have a specific issue,
11 as we did with this last one on Siena, or do we need sort of
12 a -- a total presentation on this?
13 MS. HARRINGTON: I have several specific comments,
14 but I'm -- I'm not sure if you would want to spend the time
15 having a total presentation --
16 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Well --
17 MS. HARRINGTON: -- or if you would just like to
18 have me make my comments and then have the developer respond
19 if he wants to, if you even care to hear.
20 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay. Go ahead.
21 MS. HARRINGTON: Okay. If someone would kind of
22 tell me when -- give me a one -minute warning.
23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Go ahead.
24 MS. HARRINGTON: I don't think there are very many
25 people to speak, but if you're concerned, let me know when
M r
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Wednesday, March 6, 1996
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning the Application of Siena PUD
Members present:
Lloyd Walker, Chairperson
Bernie Strom
Gwen Bell
Glen Colton
Court reporting services provided by
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(97Fax:r (9770) 224-1199
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 6, 1996
Page 14
SIENA (OVERLAND RIDGE) PUD - FINAL - #39-95A
This project was appealed, and a verbatim transcript is attached.
51
1 perspective, to integrate more natural resource, natural area
2 types of features into the landscaping along that path and in
3 the detention pond area.
4 So I don't know if you would want to say anything
5 to that but it might provide a potential solution in the
6 future to the problem.
7 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. Other comments
8 before we move to a vote here?
9 Okay. May we have roll call, please.
10 THE CLERK: Bell?
11 MS. BELL: No.,
12 THE CLERK: Strom?
13 MR. STROM: Yes.
14 THE CLERK: Walk -- or Colton?
15 MR. COLTON: No.
16 THE CLERK: Walker?
17 MR. WALKER: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Tie vote. The motion has
19 failed; am I correct?
20 MR. ECKMAN: That's correct. And I think that it
21 would be a service to the Council, it may be impossible
22 because you have just four members, but if you could coalesce
23 a -- a motion and pass a motion in the event of an appeal,
24 it would be helpful for the Council.
25 For example, if there were to be a motion to deny