HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIENA (OVERLAND RIDGE) PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 39-95A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL■ Street Classification System
The five roadway classifications used in Fort
Collins are identified on the following chart:
Street Classification Tavel A-0-W speed vehklWday
and purpose Lam Vrubb mph in thotmsands
&War Arterial
Connect major activity centers. 6 120' 40 50 20r50
Arterial
Interconnect and augment 4 100' 30-40 30-40
major arterial streets.
M wr Arterial
Collett and distribute business 2 68' 30-3s s-ls
and commercial traffic whac
augmenting atterw asserts.
Conector
Collect and distribute raffle 2 68' 25-30 2.5-5
from residential and W,;i ,s
areas to the arterial sad major
arterial Street System.
14W
Transport rnidcntW traffic. 2 S4' 25 2 or less
Ibis category includes loop
streets, nul de sacs and
residc=W road:.
• sidewalks as included in an street classifications.
• B&9 facilities are included in an but local street
classifications.
■ CommunityTransportalion System Continuity
It is important to ensure that the transportation
network. (streets. transit, b&e lanes, sidewalks,
etc.) connect into the City's overall
transportation plan.
■ Safety'
Safety is considered in all projects and is a
judgement based on accident data, as well as
national and local standards. Safety applies to all
elements of transportation review.
■ 'Traffic Flow on Arterial
The city needs to maintain and maximize
efficient traffic flow on aiterial roadways.
• Signalized and non -signalized intersection
operation.
Adopted transportation policies have identified
peak hour traffic level of Services (LOS) D or
above, as desirable within our community. Left
and right bun bays and other operational
improvements are also considered.
Future
A traffic impact analysis is required to examine
present traffic; conditions combined with future
project traffic in the development area. .
■ National Standards
National and local traffic engineering standards
are used to provide a consistent approach that
reduces potential liability and increases safe use
of the transportation system.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
ne City of Fort Collins. Colorado, Revised March 1994
.24.
/'�4dh. / 2ANOJ'C1P//16
(jL.ACK a/tos tt- 1=, P-C PL/ES
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. %�E�Tz �� Ponin
6 The Land Development /Guidance System contains
7 many references to respecting the character of existing
4-a.17
8 neighborhoods. Item 4Z.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?,DET. /PoNO
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
Transpt tion Services _)
Engineering Department
t
MEMORANDUM E( 1 • Pi
90
TO: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Review Manager AW7'
Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer - Engineering
Basil Harridan, Development Review Engineer - Stormwater EO
DATE___ February26, 1996
RE: Siena PUD (formerly Overland Ridge PUD) and the Planning and Zoning Board
decision on the Final PUD submittal
This letter is to update the conditions that were requested in the letter dated February 16, 1996
for support of the Final PUD. Since that time the Engineering and Stormwater Departments have
met with the applicant and discussed some of our concerns regarding the alley configurations and
the drainage. At that meeting an agreement was reached on an alley configuration that would
satisfy all those involved.
The Engineering and Stormwater Departments are asking that the following (modified) conditions
be placed on this project at the time it goes to the Planning and Zoning board for final approval.
The conditions should read as follows:
Condition 1:
For the alleys to remain public right-of-way (ROW) the alleys needs to be designed
to meet one of the following designs:
1. An alley that slopes to one side shall be accepted if it is constructed with a
driveover curb and gutter on the down (low) side so that the majority of the
drainage flows are confined to the alley. The concrete driveover curb and gutter
should meet city standards or be of acceptable design, if a higher curb is used. At
any location where the flows can not be contained in the alley ROW, drainage
easements and appropriate grading shall be provided. The high edge of the alley
should have a concrete edge that is a minimum of 1 foot wide and 8 inches thick.
The remaining portion of the alley can be of an asphalt pavement section. The
entrance to the alley off of the City street needs to have a street type configuration
( a curbed intersection with handicap ramps).
2. An alley that slopes to one side may also be accepted if it is constructed with
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
Screens are also used to buffer residential areas from
busy struts. Walls or fences proposed along
collector or arterial streets should be visually
interesting and avoid creating a 'tunnel' effect. This
can be accomplished in a variety of different ways.
■ Architectural elements such as .brick or stone
columns, and/or other means of fence/wall
articulation can be integrated into the design.
■ The alignment and/or setback of the fence an be
varied..
■ Berming an be used in conjunction with a wall or
fence to create visual interest.
■ Plant material as soften the appearance of fence
lines and add to the attractiveness of the project
and neighborhood.
L"WWaoa 44q~ra nand to a WOMAN naado"OL
CREATION OF SPACE
Spatial definition can be created by modifying the
ground plane, vertical plane and overhead plane.
Plant material, grading and handscape elements can
be used in the landscape to influence each of these
planes of enclosure. In addition to enclosing space,
landscape elements can also be used to link spaces
together and to direct pedestrian movement. Berms,
Paving, walls, fencing, trellis structures, benches,
etc. an all be used to create or enhance the sense of
enclosure.
Pont mrte/fe/ ufed to Cleere an enCMaad omdopeapaea.
PRIVACY CONTROL
Privacy control is an especially important
consideration #n or adjacent to resdentw projects.
Landscape features can be used to prevent views into
or out of a defined apace.
Neer wrrMara.s Mwe wwa toyarMe to proarda Ph*Cl•
CLIMATE CONTROL
Plant material, walls, fences and overhead structures
an be used to modify the effects of wind and sun
exposure -
-
IIOtIA Dena avarymn wen p4nred on me nartn,rear side
trrtww mo pwiod owt dde span 4 e0.11'" A,
NOMN t byp praeta,p uaua ft" cow W*WS.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-46-
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Linda M. Koenig, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and
5 Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
6 foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of the Application of
7 Siena Final PUD, was held on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at
8 300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado; that said
9 proceedings were transcribed by me from videotape record to
10 the foregoing 59 pages; that said transcript is, to the best
11 of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and complete
12 record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this 15th day of April, 1995.
17
18 �
19 `
J��PM. Kp C 31Linda M. Koenig
20 315 West Oak Street, Su' a 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
21 NOTAW (303) 482-1506
MM►
22 PUBLIC My commission expires April 26, 1997.
23
OF COLO
24 ,
25
1
_2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
the second was to include the conditions in the staff report
as well as the one that we were talking about.
CHAIRMAN WALKER: Okay.
MR. STROM: Just for the record, so that you
have that.
CHAIRMAN WALKER: Yes. Yes. Thank you.
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? �- I
10
MR.
COLTON:
Yes.
11
Bell?
12
LTH:ECLERK:
ELL:
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
& O p, 77 a N AI c nJT/I✓ d s
57
1 backyard area'of 'th`eir lot to help break up the architectural
2 y^massof 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 om the southern tier, on'"the slope, and if 'that's...
21 acceptable to the
22 MR. COLTONc Along the back side. Yeah:,`, along the
23 backlot -11'ine.
24
MR.
STROM:
-- I'll
second
the motion.
25
MR.
COLTON:
Thank
you for
-- I accept that and
CV enru At.Z,rSnt 9 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
it
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 --
C' o 4, Ta N / 7i 6�S
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�.;:BELLz,;w`'.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 B,as,callyya w,e naddres's'ed both of , these issues when we looked
19 at ;this preliminary and what we have beforeus-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 --
p p 1 n 0,✓ A•L Q C/ )IV 6
QJ , kT,4 x t 0 6 m)-- Po N o
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
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'st'ab;M- it;!s1adetenton pond 41 It's
8 owned by"'the ;ty Storm Water.,-Util ty : Iwt'.!s- not a`.park.'areal
,r .....
9 ` '' rhat�/,s sub3,ectl;�to extens h e amount . of,,ruse;:J 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:�bef;r�ehe pAtlan is
15 that. Storm.. Water, will redesi nw:and,N ex apor that: �detent�i�on�
. bq -. ...,. ri g. P . ...
16 area: And at nthattme,they 11 .beansopportunitry;";:;as.well,
17 tt�-operhaps, even r<`econsider rsome of Ethe�'up treain. a-rea to t1.he
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 add�ito�na,h,bufferiyg-'on
24 the north side of the pond.
25 I know it's our intent, from a natural resource
e
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
J` 7 e o /✓1
48
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 the"+!'re going to be
10 under 3w5# feet from average grade-. My -sense would be that`
11 thes'e4w.'i�lcl4l;be;r;architecturally in chara.cter., 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
f EOM - /`I 17—/ rN ib �pP a vC
�0J: a 0211X L M r yj£76N ?
47
ur 7k o /'1 ,2 C_J / ON a d
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
it 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
&ELG /
so0cCX F/e2,V
46
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.
11 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
-6
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
EJh96G
6 (inaudible), and I'm a civil engineer on the project. I work
7 for RBD Engineers.
S. 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?
0,1/ i77E Sa T/y 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.
11 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, 4f urw. have two fu1T:.9tori'es above k ground=<and,`at leash:`
19 one^,'of those :is a walkout basement. Four of�them �hcive an
20 upper 1'evel ,,and -a garden.'level. so they're looking -'like 1 1/2"
21 >Odtorlds; `"and •two ,;6'F them4' 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> 7-
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.
42
1 MR. COLTON: Yeah.
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
11 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
oELG /MeE GNP
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?
ao/AIC/lgfd — 6-7,C-Y/977eNs 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
14 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
L�Lra ru / m c-arx ri C- -z 0
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.
&-Z/c gK.Acpe,
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
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 -lane 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
0
37
✓' e e o 67¢. J
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.
jj4ck i V R N1 N I FF
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.
0iA0.P
i 35
j!�-No �0/3 �✓.
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 ,.w th,the.fact,that.;the.developer did.make..,a:lot of effort
17 t'o`avoi'd disturbing the existing cattal.,aea.
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 wetmeadow 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 pondarea,- willlower the ground surface
24 near"t"o the ground water level, and we will see an expansion
25 of'tAi cattail area.
(N A- (,x Ce % A o a z✓
/v H'Q-A-0: 1-
33
LA.,C7RO -Y 61-G r'f✓AT,J/O L^J
1 more specifically how far down below, if you'd like to know
2 more detail on that.
'yr1 ^i4, x < J w*. .,+�o- y}., ,: i- 4k;..�R� �:8
. � lo - y x ' about ;- the 3 9Below, the• back ards`s: 6 '"feet.. It. s
4 path �s ,abo' 6 feetw,belotheback;,padof the rearhos w
us�esg
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.4 '
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.
11 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, whR9,1f't'.`the predominant -' cat a`1 portion
21 of ;the detent& `on, pond' intact` '-They re, gol�ng to" do their
/w'�y+ i mr+3Y�«:-w ms ,�Ya a > '..=�k P')',"' •yt,.a ., x� ... R
22 excaua�t on .o�u�tIsi e' that +area `and provide constru"ctioh
23 fencing aroun7°dit
24 We talked some about the possibility of doing an
25 enhanced habitat plan for the site, but there will be future
C-6 L 73 n) / /"/ ewp X0-
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.
it 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
0
E r� 0 5,2r V P. ,S'
f
31
I
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
11 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.
d,� &n7"
W
1 That's where the height comes in. If
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 i°sill-!A
10 Well, you're ' concerned about :the hheight• of the
11 »house?-, Okay. e
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.
�3CucE
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 Wet;have specified -on <,the,4plan a maximum height
21 oft: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 lon_ly:. a, standard%�twoR 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
29
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. le
ft r
8 MS. BELL: Oh, we don't?
9 I thought we reviewed elevations on the
10 Ridgewood Hills.
it 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, elevation 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
a
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
Ao t),e o �P LE'-1 7-,, em s 47 cHT
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
11 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
&0 -0 Je P G'03 L/ C �^/ P ci i 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.
ori9 X a
4 There have- been nfatalit# 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
0
/q D T L' vYT'i/✓ L
25
-7- a Ex L i9NE
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,
11 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
yNv f7Z73hJse/It)
24
OC6IA/ L��nyvea1,
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
7�MZee A-ANE
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
t 23
1 We've got Prospect to the south, we've got
2 Mulberry to the north as being what would be considered -maker
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
22
1 year kind of deal.
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 But 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.
ewD GG'Ore- % J (RE 6 /nJ .r72-NJ c/,)
21
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
11 this issue.
12 MR. STINTSON: Good evening, Dennis St-!_tHson,
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
L 0r-V - AMA) + re6n/1C- V /6 %r
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
fG�(G V /Eh1 S 3.), 1714
M,rr. GorroeS
of Co TD-M1r 0 N et' l ii GCE.f
%o oG£s.J
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 youand 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
Lady UJE-By-rz1GHT J741arn7 J,o
ZON6
Nr eo . D Env J i r y
C/P 7D 3-��2pis
If
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
CoR T v ,� L C /AL 18
£NP G P7 /'9/A/,9-W 9 Pe-
E.rEnrTA3-�e.�
i 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
PAN ° L tv% P P e ✓E/M 6n/TS
17
Pv4-4 Lo0o„4
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
GLEYj�Y/Ea/ f o�vp 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 '76 -- 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
pe-1 a H a" rz -r & i /"
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.
7bXRY Mttg4iLs
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 SO
I
16 through 6 grades in a period of over three to five years. MoFE
R-cc(/,ca �£
17 And it sounded like a -- and actually a benefit to the K _4
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
L/I&I =rrnP2
22 West Elizabeth.
I'= 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
)1-GGEyJ
eiherw4Ys 14
r-,do1VT 10AAC wes
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
Fom/Ly IN/ sTo/eY
06- Gr r r/ ^) OP PIG a re'Gy 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.
Fe1M f L Y m, r-rox Y
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
gEG/N �/NR-r�9 P�2E'✓E.�T»n>nl 11
I 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
it 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.
�vfZ_
0--o./g .
J06-r�T/A4, rGOaO)1V G
10
1 negotiations was actually an amended condition that Ted
2 presented to you at the work session and is included on a --
s'EaiA.t.9 1�
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
�2 E'L l ool C , 6 , A • n,2 L07-S 2 3 - a G
9
r/R L G • O. R. (-2- _494-4.EY Oe_X161%J
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
it 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
2C6/1J BoRFo Q(iEa'7ien/S 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.
11 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
0
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
E
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
it sacrifice those lots, the City does not want to move the
P+ti WOU60 F1,10 THis yN��EST NL
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.
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
-7?'&FriC( (c. 06'K
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 wor4 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? THft6 flp-6 NO C u L-OV -sACS ,
ALL-snerrs CaNNEcr _ moa" /rb G,CrO
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. DP'Pe-1X4 p4t
ne- ,ee'rowR)
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.
I AN ftacEP7-R41E / 0,S
25 I might add that since the sign just went up for
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
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
(97Faor (9 0) 224-1199
L
W Weste Post Office Box 2187
0,J Mobilen
Aggregate • Asphalt - Concrete
February 6, 1996
John Mmatta
Minatta Family Partnership
2037 Lexington Ct.
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Re: Siena P.U.D.
Dear John:
Fort Collins. CO 80522
303482.7854
Metro: 534-4583
FAX: 224-5564
Upon review of the January 5, 1996 plans for the Siena Project, Western Mobile sees no problem
in the construction or maintenance of the alleys as proposed in conjunction with this development.
Standard paving equipment with an extendible screed can be utilized in the initial construction or
an overlay of the alleys. Some hand work may be required if fences are built right up to the
pavement. My biggest concern would be the overhead clearance for the trucks, however any
trees could be trimmed and the utilities should be underground.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Van Ronk
Project Manager
-An Equal Opportunity Employer -
Cultui__, Library and Recreational Serum_ i
Park Planning & Development Division
To: Ted Shepard, Planning
From: Craig L. Foreman, Park Planning cj�
Date: February 13, 1996
Subject: Overland Trail Park Path to Clearview Ave.
The new development to the north of the park/stormwater land has raised
a question about the path that connects the park to Clearview Ave. to
the east. Concerns have been expressed about the closeness of the path
to future backyards.
There are several locations throughout the parks and trail system where we
are located close to private property. The concerns for privacy and a sense
of buffering are shared by the landowner and the trail/path user. When this
path was constructed in 1988, care was taken to try and stay as far as possible
from the future backyards and still leave a shoulder near the drop-off into the
detention pond.
The feasibility to move the path at this time is limited due to the stormwater
detention pond configuration. The pond would need to be adjusted through
future development needs to provide for another location for the path. Presently
Parks and Recreation has no funding available to relocate the path. Our
"life cycle" program will have funding to replace the path. The path should
last about 15 years; so our funding is not available until about 2003.
00
Parks has in the past worked with the new homeowners to add
landscaping to help buffer trail/path close areas/Since we do not have a
water supply to the path area maybe the City could supply trees and the
homeowners could help with the watering. This type of partnership seems
to have worked in other areas and may help in this area. We would need
to involve the City Forestry Dept. and work site by site so trees do not
obstruct someone view of the park, cause obstruction to path users, etc.
If you need anything else on this matter please let me know.
NbT EVEIK16nt6 /h,4y wnrn+r -Mez�S
Pi V G L U (JT tj f- y L "IX
281 North College Avenue • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (303) 221-6360
Again all stormdrainage flow must be contained in the alley ROW.
It would also be acceptable for the alleys to become private if they do not wish to conform to the
above requirements. The stormdrainage flows would still need to be contained in the alley and in
the location where the stormwater flows, such as a v-pan, would need to be concrete .
Condition 2:
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal at the Southwest corner of the property has
experienced flooding in the past. The potential for a spill should be investigated
and if needed a conveyance system that would provide for the safe discharge of
these flows across the Minatta property should be designed and included in the
final Utility plans for the Siena P.U.D.
These conditions are requested for the Engineering and Stormwater Departments to support this
project for final approval.
cc: Gary Diede, TOP Group Leader
John Minatta, Developer
Craig Houdeshell, RBD
Bruce Hendee, BHA
a v-pan provided on the down (low) side. Adequate easements need to be
provided for drainage flows outside of the alley ROW with consideration taken for
the effects due to blockage of the flow by obstacles ( such as fences, sheds,
landscaping or changes in the backlot grading). The v-pan should be a minimum
of 2 feet in width, 8 inches thick and have a maximum depth of/e of an inch. The
high edge of the alley should have a concrete edge that is a minimum of 1 foot
wide and 8 inches thick. The remaining portion of the alley can be of an asphalt
pavement section. The entrance to the alley off of the City street shall have a
street type configuration ( a curbed intersection with handicap ramps). A suitable
transition design from the v-pan to the curb is needed to keep flow from going
over the sidewalk as it exits the alley.
It would also be acceptable for the alleys to become private if they do not wish to conform to the
above requirements. The stormdrainage flows would still need to be contained in the alley and/or
provide adequate drainage easements and meet stormwater criteria.
Condition 2:
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal at the Southwest corner of the property has
experienced flooding in the past. The potential for a spill should be investigated
and if needed a conveyance system that would provide for the safe discharge of
these flows across the Naatta property should be designed and included in the
final Utility plans for the Siena P.U.D.
These conditions are requested for the Engineering and Stormwater Departments to support this
project for final approval.
cc: Gary Diede, TOP Group Leader
John N inatta, Developer
Craig Houdeshell, RBD
Bruce Hendee, BHA
Commu -y Planning and Environmental. ..vices
Current Planning
of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
DATE: March 1, 1996
RE: Re -worded Condition of Approval - Siena Final P.U.D.
Condition number one, as written in the Staff Report, is now obsolete due to an
agreement reached between the developer and the Engineering Department and
Stormwater Utility.
Staff recommends that the new condition read as follows:
1. "The Final P.U.D. is approved subject to a public alley design that
accommodates the 100-year storm in accordance with the requirements of the
Engineering Department and Stormwater Utility as outlined in the memorandum
from City Staff dated February 26, 1996."
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 22221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
I■l • jr
Iz
■
■
■
Y�i�i�W■MILK
IIVI:I:1w!1►iIO1:11bINoul1s
L
mom
1 illsbb
1
LIN
1� 22
.m En�■_--■■I
��J 1 = I
mom _
ME m
•IVI2Rol WAOIBM NIDI!-I=11II
L
L�
FINAL SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
...Osm {a• 1 Y� \.YM AW. YFM_ aw.uwew s..�a.�
L. ror Wem
.... -I:I:I:I:
LICE1D w....u.
Q xcarY ruo`�
{ �N•1rM At
" Inl I.. I
ENTRY LANDSCAPE PUN
Na
.i aryl
I
1Y
LANDSCAPE CATEGORIES
•M
•V
�p ���rrW{B►��q.
PLANT MATERIALS LIST
® arl..r
ra•rr
•Irr
r ter.
i ✓•Y
HTr
1
.W ►��r.r.•
r�YW
YV'a
W �W Y
MrW�
wW.
•mow.
••
r wr. .'-
{Y rYrYw.rerr
rw
.+
W ter.
sWrr
ra r.rr�
wr
.r
wry wr.
w .wrr. .Y Rr..Y
Ir
w. ra r
YWYY.YY.Y
MYI.W.
•rrraww
IMI
IrYSr.
.
IDENTIFICATION SIGN WALL E.EVATION
LAND USE TABLE
neYu rw.
CSW Y9w VMVI YMC
MY{w r�I
M1M.VO.P6L.O n.1. Ytl1./l. �
rsrrra rrn
{n maw
{•s^ae.Y�Yoi Ww{ uw
I....Y. {•nW NrY r�vr
rws rem
TYPICAL REAR LOADED LOT
y 3t
SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS
OM..I..YOi b.O
FINAL SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
PERIMETER FENCE ELEVATION
5IENA P.U.D.
W P MC nAe
�^aa � FORT COLLIIV3. COLORADO
e
e
B N H B T 1 O F f
v vBBowBr r. uo•
lam,
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
dispute is presented to the Board for resolution 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.
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
2. The P.U.D. is approved subject to an analysis of the potential flooding of
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. If such an analysis reveals that
flooding could cause problems on private lots, then a conveyance channel
must be constructed for the safe discharge of these flows. Such an
analysis and potential channel must be included as part of the Final Utility
Plans.
3. 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 22, 1996) 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, 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 v
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 if such presentation is made at the next
succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. 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 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
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
9. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
A. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary.
B. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria and the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the L.D.G.S.
C. The project maintains the character of the existing neighborhood and is
compatible with the surrounding area.
D. The P.U.D. features design elements that are considered "neo-traditional' that
promote pedestrian safety and streetscape beautification.
E. The proposed street pattern ties into the existing and proposed network.
F. The traffic impacts have been evaluated and the affected intersections do not fall
below established levels of service criteria.
G. By being on a Transfort route and connecting to the existing path in Overland
Trail Park, the P.U.D. promotes alternative modes of travel and recreational
opportunities.
H. The condition of approval regarding Lots 22 through 26, inclusive, has been
satisfied by a plan to modify the existing Clearview pond which has been
reviewed and approved by both Stormwater Utility and the Department of Natural
Resources.
I. The two conditions of approval regarding alley design and canal flooding
analysis are intended to provide clear direction to the applicant in the finalization
of the Final Utility Plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Siena Final P.U.D. #39-95A, subject to the following
condition:
(ZFW I�0f.0
1. D. is approved su ject o a public alley design that accommo
the 100-year s o t out encroachment onto
private pr he ultimate design of the alley must be me �t-as-part
of mal Utility Plans.
J46C PrTTgC HED M EM 0
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
The stormwater runoff for this project will be accommodated in the adjacent Clearview
Pond without the need to modify Lots 22 through 26, inclusive. Modifications to the
pond will involve a small disturbance to the existing wetlands. These modifications
have been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources which has approved the
plans. In fact, it is the opinion of the Department of Natural Resources that the
proposed modifications will not only help solve some existing problems upstream, but
will result in an enhanced wetland area superior to what is there now.
Staff, therefore, finds that the condition of Preliminary approval is satisfied.
7. Alley Design
There are concerns regarding the design of the alley. (Please see the attached memo
from the Engineering Department and Stormwater Utility.) The concern is that for the
100-year storm, the alley lacks sufficient capacity to properly convey the storm flows
and there will be drainage encroachment onto the adjacent lots. The concern is that
private property owners may place obstructions (fences, sheds, landscaping, etc.) on
their property that may inhibit these storm flows. Since the alleys are public, all storm
flows must be contained in the alley right-of-way. Staff, therefore, recommends the
following condition:
The P.U.D. is approved subject to a public alley design that accommodates the
100-year storm within the alley right-of-way without encroachment onto to private
property. The ultimate design of the alley must be included as part of the Final
Utility Plans.
8. Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal - Potential Flooding
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal at the southwest corner of the property has
experienced flooding in the past. (Please see the attached memo.) The potential for a
spill should be investigated. Staff is concerned that if the canal floods, private lots may
be affected. It may be necessary, therefore, to construct a conveyance channel to
discharge these flows in such a way as to not cause property damage. Staff
recommends the following condition:
The P.U.D. is approved subject to an analysis of the potential flooding of the
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. If such an analysis reveals that flooding could
cause problems on private lots, then a conveyance channel must be constructed
for the safe discharge of these flows. Such analysis and potential channel must
be included as part of the Final Utility Plans.
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P &.Z Meeting
Page 4
Out of 116 lots, 92 are oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line resulting in
a compliance rate of 79%. This exceeds the requirement of 65%.
5. Transportation
The P.U.D. gains access to West Elizabeth from an extension of Rocky Road. A
second access will be an extension of Clearview Avenue at the southeast comer of the
parcel. A third point of access is being planned for with a potential extension of the
existing Pleasant Valley Road from the west in Overland Trail Farm. Until the
intervening property to the west develops, Pleasant Valley Road will terminate at the
western edge of the P.U.D.
The traffic impact analysis evaluated the short term (1997) and long term (2015)
impacts on three key intersections: (1) West Elizabeth Street/Rocky Road, (2) West
Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, and (3) Deerfield Drive/Clearview Avenue. It is
expected that 95% of the projected trips will utilize the West Elizabeth/Rocky Road
intersection and 5% will use the Deerfield Drive/Clearview Avenue intersection.
Based on level of service analysis, excellent levels of service (A and B) will prevail at
the West Elizabeth/Rocky Road and Deerfield/Clearview intersections in both the short
and long term. At the West Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection the level of service will be
acceptable (D) in the short and long term. An important improvement is the addition of
a left turn phase at the traffic signal for east and westbound Elizabeth. This left turn
phase is scheduled for installation by the City in the next several months, independent
of the P.U.D..
The P.U.D. is located on Transfort Route 2/3. There are bus stops at West Elizabeth
and Taft (Cedarwood Plaza, 2,500 feet) and at West Elizabeth and Overland Trail
(2,000 feet) as measured from Rocky Road. The project is found to be feasible from a
traffic engineering standpoint and promotes transportation policies. (The Traffic Impact
Analysis was included as an attachment to the Preliminary Staff Report.)
6. Condition of Preliminary Approval: Stormwater Detention Capacity
At Preliminary, the P.U.D. was conditioned as follows:
Preliminary approval of this P.U.D, shall not grant an expression of layout
and density on Lots 22 through 26, inclusive, due to the need to further
refine stormwater modeling which may modify stormwater detention
requirements in the southeast portion of the site.
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Exil§Bklr--1 • •• • N
Two neighborhood meetings were held prior to consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D.,
August 24 and October 10, 1995. Neighborhood compatibility issues were discussed at
length during the Preliminary consideration. Issues surrounding school capacity, water
pressure, park usage, stormwater runoff facilities, traffic, and street improvements were
thoroughly addressed. The Final P.U.D. is found to be sensitive to and maintain the
character of the surrounding area as well as satisfy the All Development Criteria
pertaining to neighborhood compatibility.
4. Design
The following elements represent the design characteristics of the P.U.D.
A. Alleyways/Garages
Approximately one-half the lots will be served by alleys providing access to the
garages. Placing garages at the rear of the lots will remove the "garage -row" effect
from the street. For lots on the perimeter with no alleys, garages will be setback from
the front building line by five feet to minimize the impact of garages on the streetscape.
B. Detached Walks/Street Trees
The sidewalks will be detached from the curb by six feet. Within the parkway strip,
street trees will be planted in a formal, traditional spacing. This will create a safer
pedestrian area and beautify the streets.
C. West Elizabeth Streetscape
The sidewalk on West Elizabeth will also be detached creating a 9 - 10 foot wide
parkway strip featuring a formal row of street trees. Perimeter fencing along the rear lot
lines will be restricted to four feet in height but placed on a two foot high berm to allow
for better visual and acoustic screening. This is a creative solution to the typical six foot
solid fence that has proven to be unattractive along arterial streets.
D. Path Connection to Park
A pedestrian/bicycle path will connect the project to the existing path to the south in the
City's stormwater detention area and Overland Trail Neighborhood Park.
E. Solar Orientation
Siena P.U.D. - Final, #39-95
March 4, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L;
Existing single family
S: R-L;
Vacant (Clearview Stormwater Detention Ponds)
E: R-L;
Existing Single Family
W: R-L,
Vacant
The property was annexed and zoned in 1970. There have been no previous
submittals on this parcel.
The Preliminary P.U.D., known as Overland Ridge, was approved on November 13,
1995.
2. Land Use:
The request for 116 single family lots on 28.26 acres equals 4.10 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.
In addition, the P.U.D. was reviewed by the variable criteria of the Residential Uses
Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The project scores 72% which exceeds the minimum
required score of 60%. Points were awarded as follows:
d. Being within 3,500 feet of an existing neighborhood park (Overland Trail
Park).
f. Being within 3,000 feet of a major employment center (C.S.U. Foothills
Campus and Cedarwood Plaza Shopping Center).
j. Having 45% of the perimeter boundary contiguous to existing urban
development.
V. Providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to the existing City path in
Overland Trail Park.
The P.U.D., therefore, is supported by the performance on the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the L.D.G.S.
ITEM NO. 7
MEETING DATE 3 4 96
STAFFCoMilov r ; /�1A^e-N �
Ted Shepard
I °► q �
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD wEn
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Siena P.U.D., Final, #39-95A
APPLICANT: John, Sam and AI Minatta
c/o Bruce Hendee
BHA Design Two N E) 61K. P%r & r.
2000 Vermont Drive Au(,. 24 1 14 A S
Fort Collins, CO 80525 OCT. 1 e, 1111S,
OWNER: John, Sam and Al Minatta
c/o John Minatta GGA.�i�°�rT7eiJ ME)"�Q
2037 Lexington Drive F',toM X 71A#"ti/ R 7f"C
Fort Collins, CO 80526 _fJOR $7DF-M W H1E1t oE-1 - P0N�
72tMo $Efo2r l')E6Tnts'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Final P.U.D. for 116 single fa ily lots on 28.26 acres located on
the south side of West Elizabeth Street at Rocky oad. The site is located north of the
City's Clearview Ponds stormwater detention area. The property is zoned R-L, Low
Density Residential. At Preliminary, this project was known as "Overland Ridge" P.U.D.
The new name is Siena P.U.D.
gWAfs = 0AIE1tT&7710A)
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
PAcI�f T ?nl f"o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: .S D+ F P A V A I L RBL 6-
The Final P.U.D. is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary. The Final continues
to satisfy the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. The project scores 72% on the
variable criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart. The P.U.D. is found to be
sensitive to and maintains the character of the surrounding area. The P.U.D. is on a
Transfort route and is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint.Jhere are three
recommended conditions of approval. One regards the alley design"'one regards
potential flooding of the irrigation ditch, and one regards the timely filing of the Utility
Plans and Development Agreement.
4 REwor.0ev c.a.A.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTIvlENT
prr: ide information about the condition and relative
vale of existing trees. The Natural. Resources
Division can provide information about wildlife
habitat value that may be associated with existing
trees.
Proposed tree .locations should be coordinated with
existing and proposed utility locations. The following
list provides some M1111*MIM dimension information
for the most common treehttility separations.
■ Forty (40) feet between street trees and street
lights. Fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees
and street lights.
If trees are planted between the curb line and
sidewalk a tea (10) foot pathway dimension will be
required.
SHADE rnEEs
ORAWEnru 7XW
■ Ten (10) feet between trees and water or sewer
lines.
■ Four (4) feet between tees and gas lines.
■ Street trees on local streets planted within the eight
(8) foot wide utility easement may conflict With
utilities. Additional conduit may be required to
protect underground electric lines.
W
' 0'B meommended es Me
ninwm distance between Me
ck or curb and the sMewltk.
!%
The City's Utility Divisions (Light and power, Water
and Wastewater, and Stormwater) can provide
additional information regarding coordination with
City utilities. Trees should not be placed within
thirty (30) feet of any overhead electric line unless
coordinated with the appropriate electric utility.
IRRIGATION
Provision should be made for permanent irrigation of
all plant material. Normally, an automatic
underground irrigation system is the most cost
effective solution.
VISUAL CLEARANCE
The City requires that a visual clearance triangle be
maintained at street intersections.
vrsuai wearance inenpre
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
- 48 .
CHART A-2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
A-2.13 Landscape
Does the landscape plan contribute in a positive way to the project and
to the neighborhood environment (1) by supporting functional needs such
as spatial definition, visual screening, creation of privacy, and/or -climate
control, (2) by enhancing the aesthetic appearance of • the site and
neighborhood, and (3) by integrating with, and buffering the impact of
the development upon, existing natural areas?
PURPOSE
Plant material and other elements of a landscape plan
can serve functional purposes such as screening and
shading, or they can be used for visual enhancement.
In a well designed landscape plan the elements will
do both — serve fractional purposes and enhance
visual appearance. The following information and
illustrations serve to highlight the most important
functions of plant material. and other landscape
elements from a neighborhood and eommaity
perspective. The effectiveness of the landscape plan
will be evaluated considering the interrelationships
between landscape elements like plant material and
grading. and hardscape elements such as paving,
walls, fences and other site amenities. All of these
components should work together to create a
landscape plan that enbances both the project and the
neighborhood.
The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum
landscape requirements for parking lots. These
standards an be found in Section 29493 - Yarling
Lot Requirements and are explained in The City of
Fort Collins Parking Lot Development Guide.
MITIGATION FOR LAND USE CONFLICTS
Landscape elements an be used to mitigate conflicts
between dissimilar land toes in a variety of ways:
■ Dense plantings of evergreens can provide a visual
buffer.
■ landscaping can soften the contrast between two
abutting land uses by subduing the differeacw*in
architecture and bulk and by providing a gradual
transition rather than a harsh edge.
■ Dense plant material and/or fences can be visually
appealing and discourage unwanted or unsafe
pedestrian and bicycle access between land uses.
■ Plant material an soften the visual conflict created
by unattractive security fences.
■ Berming or other grade changes an alter views,
subdue sounds, change the sense of proximity and
channel pedestrian movement.
SCREENING / BUFFERING
Landscape elements an be used to screen areas of
low visual interest such as bush receptacles, blank
walls, service areas, utility meters, mechanical
equipment, etc-. Screening may be partially opaque
depeading'upon the objective. .
Plant materiel used to ween dk&vVster..
Pent meterW end benni y
used to screen oakihp.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
- 45 .
BUILDING MATERIALS
Generally building materials should be similar to the
materials already being used in a neighborhood
context. If dissimilar materials are being proposed,
other characteristics such as scale, form, architectural
detailing and color, should be examined to determine
if enough similarity exists for the building to be
compatible, despite the differences in materials.
Materials requiring low maintenance are
recommended over high maintenance materials. For
example, materials.with integral color are generally
recommended over materials that need to be painted.
Building materials should not create excessive glare.
If highly reflective building materials, i.e.,
aluminum, unpainted metal, reflective glass, etc, arc
Proposed. the potential for glare will be evaluated to
determine whether or not the glare would create a
hardship for the adjacent property owner(s),
neighborhood or community. The effects of,glars on
vehicular safety and outdoor activities will also be
considered (see page _). All sides of the building
should be equally attractive. Downgrading of
materials for side or back sides is generally not
acceptable. .
COLOR
Color should be used as an extension of architectural
style to facilitate blending into the neighborhood, as
well as providing a way of unifying the development.
Usually, the color of building materials should draw
from colors that already exist in the neighborhood.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Mechanical equipment associated with a building
should always be screened from public view. The
screen should be made of the same material and
reflect the same architectural style as the building.
rJ�
Meeh,niCW eQuwDe•en, en ,eel Sen,wrp „y, PWWW ref.
i
COr"�ft�l
Rant rdrw used to Sown 1e pn),eWrrp,nnw meeArrcSf eOVo.nent
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-38-
CHART A-2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBnzry CRITERIA
A-2.7 Architecture
Is the architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses and
activities that are planned and does it contribute to the neighborhood's
appearance in a positive way?
PURPOSE flroir&C FAniL`I O67-rOtICD
Ou P4EXCES� NET M, F.
The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that the
function, quality and appearance of the proposed
structures) is acceptable when considered within the
context of the neighborhood. The appropriateness of
the architecture will not be evaluated in isolation.
How the architecture relates to other site design
considerations and elements will be considered. The
following information and illustrations delineate what
aspects of architectural design are most important to
the neighborhood and the community.
LAND USE TRANSITION
The City encourages a gradual transition between
land uses, but recognizes that gradual transitions are
not always possible and not always in the best interest
Of the community. When land uses with significantly
different visual character are proposed adjacent to
each other every effort should be made to create
architectural compatibility through careful
consideration of scale, form, materials and colors.
SIZE - HEIGHT, BULK, MASS, SCALE
'The size of a building is an important consideration
in determining whether or not a building is a good fit
within the context of a neighborhood. In general,
buildings should be similar in size to other buildings
in the neighborhood, however, buildings can be made
to be architecturally compatible through skillful
design and careful orientation.
QomN �X= ���� �59�11,{.`I.
f-C'S I o EN'i 1 A t :5
r/.5' r
Issues that relate specifically to buildings greater than
40 feet in height are covered in Criterion Number LS
- Building Height / Views.
•ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER
Building character is extremely important in a,
neighborhood that has developed a distinct
architectural character. For example, the east and
west side historic neighborhoods adjacent to Slttar�
downtown have a distinct historical character.' w j6 G ,
Storefront buildings in the downtown area also t^tt'�oS
provide a distinct architectural character to the `'VO-"Of
downtown 'neighborhood.*. New buildings in these
historic districts should find ways to reflect and tvFtOu
contribute to the .established character without Ps`�
copying it.
grew
µw &Avow w Awr n tv"'M VW"W never dN Name
enMerer of dK npnnonooe VWM" Aogn or mof M&L
"""s of door one .:aeW OAoe r. one ou ono or
enroaonsae onoy rrroo=
Commercial and business uses in residential
neighborhoods are more easily integrated when the
commercial or office buildings are designed to be
residential in character. " This can be achieved
through repetition of roof lines, the use of similar
window and door patterns, and the use of building
materials that have colors and textures similar to
those existing in the neighborhood.
In areas where the existing architectural character of
the neighborhood is less defined, the architecture of
norrrns the new development should present an attractive
image and set a standard of quality for future projects
or redevelopment in the area.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-37-
�onrcY
No grading should occur within drip lines of trees
that are to be preserved. In some cases it may be
necessary to provide retaining structures or wells to
maintain existing grade at the tree's drip line.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
wi;z
CHART A-2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
A-2.3 Natural Features
Do the physical elements of the site plan adapt well to the physical
characteristics of the site and minimize the disturbance of topography,
water bodies, streams, wetlands, wildlife habitats, vegetation and other
natural features? /1/1AAwnat r-pphwATrX DET. Q6N0
PURPOSE Ensure that all area of the site phm wtTl dzsia
The purpose of the above criterion is to ensure that Properly ies. without adversely impacting adjaoeat
the way in which the physical elements of the site
plan are arranged on the site respects the existing Multi -level buildings should follow the general slope C e M Pt y
topography, streams and/or water bodies, vegetation, of the site in order to keep the building height and
and wildlife habitats. profile in scale with surrounding features.
Strucnues should be placed down from the top of the
TOPOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS slope if the building is to blend into the landscape,
rather than being a prominent focal point.
In most cans, it is desirable t0 preserve the existing
topography and maintain natural drainage systems. C D n P c Y
Special, interesting and/or unique topographical
features such as streams, wetlands, rock outcrops,
unusual or scenic erosional features, etc. should be
retained istacLMs
Site buildings and design streets and parldng areas to
minimin the amount of cut and fill necessary.
Grading that is required should be done in such a Cop% Y
manner that the resulting landforms are smooth and
naturalistic as opposed to abrupt and rigidly
engineered. Use grading to reinforce the design Hor
rxa
concept.
&-K-P iVCW �r rev tos or rows ro a wen n.w.r..wr n tlr
uwertJw, .w4 p.iewpr a.r OW r. ew tro .� wen nM]y err,✓
inro sir Ywoauiw,
VEGETATION AND HABITAT
CONSIDERATIONS
Preserve desirable existing vegetation or wildlife ,
habitat areas where possible. The 13t r s Natural
?4 Resources Department can evaluate vegetation and Go v'1 v 6 r
f wildlife habitat to determine its relative value.
Examples of significant vegetation or habitat areas
w.w., include, but are not limited to:
C+ ..,—............... .,........�
Trees over six inches in caliper
Masses of small trees
Large shrub masses that provide wildlife habitat
Wetland and other natural areas
Rare or endangered species
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-27-
J1frJA IS A-mr1acfoONA4 WC16H.
THAT S07YI,prr7-tS W1 Sueaevni4,41, Rµ&-ft
PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS
The effects of high winds can be mitigated by siting
buildings so that the larger surface areas of the
Arrange elements of the site plan to maximize the buildings are oriented parrallel to prevailing winds.
opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project Trees, fences and berms can also be used to duce
and avoid infringing on the privacy of adjoining land wind form
USe3' DC PRTN 9,frKS NRVi A RtONT OF Peivacy•??
PaeaaT ?&iV#%av WOak LieTla Weys?
Some activities should be highly viable, others m �, wmdS
should be screened for visual or sound privacy.
Consider transitions from public to private spaces and \
use architectural and landscape elements to clarify \J
and define these transitions.
rnASISCA a/pubk Bowe to prtuae
apace i, a nfiWnti/l Wain.
Create opportunities for interactions between
neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.
CL lMAT1C CONSIDERATIONS
Orient buildings to mazianisolar gala and minimize.
heat loss.
Iandform can be used to modify microclimate. For
example, south -facing sloped surfaces can be used to
establish areas that receive direct wmta sum with
resulting warmer surface and air temperatures.
Similarly, sun pockets with a southern orientation can
be created with landform to provide spaces that are
warmer and more enjoyably used for longer periods
of the year.
+' .
L&WfWm aMp4At ftWWidff4ffl j.
efters ofam na w:W.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-26-
T
CHART A-2. NEGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
A-2.2 Building Placement and orientation
Are buildings and other site plan elements (such as -fences and parking
facilities) oriented on the lot in a way that is consistent with' the
established neighborhood character?
PURPOSE NEIGHBORHOOD wnGRATION Ck^FncrCR
AfE/a is
The purpose of the.above criterion is to ensure that
the way in which the physical elements of the site
plan are arranged on the site (1) S aadequate for the
purposes of the proposed land use; and, (2) constdeis
neighborhood chi cter? ` Tie %llowiig design'
YGLL31
onentation as "it relates to function of the land use;
neigh borhood"'integration, privacy and aesthetic
considerations.
FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Design building configurations with an understanding
of their implications for shaping outdoor space.
Design recreation areas so they are accessible to the
residents they are intended to serve. The amount of
enclosure and the resulting degree of spatial
perception partially depends on the distance to height
ratio between a person standing in an outdoor space
and the height of the surrounding walls.
Neighborhood character and context .should be
coande mhenmakin " "`
8. decisions about placement of
buildings and othe ; uses.
a+a.,t i .�.......
of
M UCEO.
P a�NM�
When a development is proposed to be located t p�
between aneighborhood and a public place such as a ' POOO
shoppm8 center, library, church or park, the design
of the site plan should maintain access to the public
space or use, and where possible, reinforce and '
enhance the visibility and usefuhiess of the access.
AEST=C CONSIDERATIONS S /r/ S f"
Orient buildings and/or facades to the public street
when possible. Unattractive elements, such as N, fl
service areas and loading docks should belocated out
of public view.
If backs or sides of buildings are oriented toward
public streets, provide visual interest along the street (v . R
through architectural detail, landscaping, berming or
a combination of the above.
Ja
$enwee tan* w1e+trre every 8om Oubft grate .
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-2s-
CHART A-2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
A-2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
Can the additional traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic)
generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the
neighborhood and community transportation network without creating
safety problems? Can impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet
city traffic .flow delay policies? Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be
addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into
the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system?
PURPOSE
Transportation planning is an element of growth
management and is therefore an integral part of the
development review • process. During the
development review process, transportation aspects of
the project are examined to see that City
Transportation policies are being met. The
transportation status quo may change as streets reach
their intended capacity or when community need
dictates a change. Reasons for transportation
Planning include:
■ To address the community's transportation needs.
■ To understand the impacts future growth will
have on the transportation system.
■ To incorporate historical patterns and existing
community -wide expectations, as well as
environmental and topographical concems.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Projects will be required to submit a Transportation
Impact Analysis MA)*. Specific requirements for
what is included within a Transportation Impact
Analysis may vary depending on the complexity of
the project Applicants should discuss requirements
with a transportation planner prior to submittal and
Obtain a copy of T_ransoortation Impact Analysis
Guidelines.
* Uotil new Tmasportation Impact Analysis Guidtlim are
developed, current Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines wit! be
used.
If the proposed project is located along a Federal or
State Highway such as College Avenue (U.S.
Highway 287) or Harmony Road (State Highway 68),
the applicant will need to review the South Colleee
Avenue Access Control Plan or the Harmony Road
Access Control Plan respectively. These plans
regulate access along portions of these arterial streets.
Copies are available in the Planning Department
The Downtown Plan. East Side Neiehborhood Plan
and West Side Nei hborhood Plan also contain
transportation policies that should be reviewed for
developments proposed within the boundaries of these
Pig areas.
THE EVALUATION PROCESS
The development review process is designed to seek
a balance between neighborhood concerns and .
community -wide transportation needs. Many
elements are considered when evaluating a proposed
project's collective transportation impacts that affect
the community and neighborhood. The following
issues are considered during the evaluation process
and form the basis of the Transoortation Imnact
Analysis Guidelines.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 8
At the suggestion of the Project Planner, a second neighborhood meeting was held on
October 10, 1995, again in conjunction with the Preliminary P.U.D. held on November
13, 1995. A second neighborhood meeting is not required but is customarily held if it
would prove beneficial to understanding land development issues. The party that
allegedly did not receive notice of this second meeting is on the mailing list. The
Project Planner later met separately with this party. Again for emphasis, it is the Final
P.U.D. that is subject to Appeal, not the Preliminary.
The Planning Department sent out letters advertising the Final P.U.D. hearing for March
4, 1996. This letter referenced both the old (Overland Ridge) and new (Siena) names
to avoid confusion.
The Planning and Zoning Board meetings are normally held on the fourth Monday of
the month and the annual schedule is set in the Fall of the preceding year. The printed
schedule calls for this meeting to be held on February 26, 1996. This date, however,
was changed to March 4, 1996 to accommodate City Council's preferred date for a
citizen forum on City Plan. (No letters were sent out advertising this date.) Due to the
caseload and the lateness of the hour, the P & Z Board did not conclude its business on
March 4, 1996 and Siena Final P.U.D. was continued to March 6, 1996. These
scheduling issues are not outside the Board's previously established rules of
procedure.
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 7
5. Allegation: Transition Between Dissimilar Land Uses - Houses and the
Stormwater Detention Pond
It is alleged under Section 2-48 (1) that the Board failed to properly interpret All
Development Criterion A-2.13, "Landscape" in that there is insufficient transition
between the southern row of houses and the City -owned stormwater detention
Pond. The conflicts between the two land uses are not mitigated by the P.U.D. A
more gradual transition is needed.
Response:
To clarify, the land to the south is a City -owned stormwater detention pond. While it is
located east of and adjacent to Overland Trail Park, the detention pond area is not
considered to be developed parkland. The passive open -space attributes of city -owned
detention ponds are an ancillary benefit of an overall stormwater management system
that promotes natural surface drainage versus underground piped storm sewers.
As mentioned, the P.U.D. was reviewed and evaluated by the City's Parks and
Recreation Department, Natural Resources Department and Stormwater Utility. These
departments reported to the Planning Staff that there are no land use transition
problems with the proximity of the homes to the city -owned land.
In considering Siena P.U.D. and compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.13,
"Landscape," the Board found that the relationship of the southern row of houses to the
path and stormwater detention pond is sufficient.
6. Allegation: Failure to Hold a Fair Hearing
It is alleged (presumably under Section 2-48-(2) b) that the Board failed to hold a
fair hearing in that there were logistical problems with the neighborhood
meetings and neighborhood notification. It is alleged that, in a general sense,
there was a set of circumstances that diminished opportunities for public input
and citizen participation.
Response:
The appellant cites a list of problems with the first of two neighborhood meetings. This
meeting was held on August 24, 1995 as a requirement of the Preliminary P.U.D., not
the Final P.U.D. which is the subject of the Appeal. As mentioned, the Preliminary
P.U.D. was considered by the Board on November 13, 1995. The Final P.U.D. was
considered by the Board on March 4, 1996.
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 6
4. Allegation: Height of Homes on South Boundary
It is alleged under Section 2-48 (1) that the Board failed to properly interpret All
Development Criterion A.2-7, "Architecture," in that the houses on the southern
portion of the P.U.D. (Lots 23 - 43, inclusive) are located on a slope and will be
two -stories in height. This fails to meet the "Architecture" criterion in that the
land is higher than the area of the detention pond and that most of the existing
houses in the area are one-story in height. The result is an intensified effect from
the path and a lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
It is further alleged under Section 2-48-2-C that there may have been confusion at
the hearing as to the definition of the term "elevation" resulting in the Board
considering evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading.
Response:
As noted by field observation (slides) and even acknowledged in the Notice of Appeal
("Only a few (existing) houses have two stories above ground...") there is a mix of
housing styles in the area. Siena P.U.D. is surrounded on all four sides by a mix of
subdivisions that were approved at different times in both the City (Overland Trail Sub.
and Miller Sub.) and the County (north of Elizabeth Street). No one architectural style
predominates.
In the introductory chapter of the L.D.G.S. (Section II., D., (1) (d), page 11.) the issue of
compatibility is addressed as follows:
"The intent of (neighborhood compatibility criteria) is to ensure that development
proposals are sensitive to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods.
Developments that are proposed in areas that do not yet have a well defined
character are expected to set the standard of quality for future development.
"Compatibility" as used in this section (All Development Criteria) does not require
that development proposals be "the same as," but that they must fit in with, be
sensitive to, and complement their surrounding environment and neighborhood."
The Board considered the evidence and found that two-story houses adjacent to a city -
owned detention pond (not a public park) was appropriate. The height, size, and scale
of two-story homes, combined with building setbacks, fencing and landscaping, is
compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Regarding the definition of the term "elevation," the minutes to the hearing and the
video tape reveal that term was clarified.
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 5
As mentioned, Clearview and Deerfield are classified as local streets. The
Transportation Department has determined that these two streets will continue to
operate within the 'local street" specifications for acceptable volumes and levels of
service. The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed and evaluated Siena
P.U.D. in relationship to the path and finds that the project will not negatively impact the
path and that access to Overland Trail Park is not jeopardized.
3. Allegation: Natural Resources
It is alleged that under Section 2 48 (1), the Board failed to properly interpret All
Development Criterion A-2.3, "Natural Features" and that development, and its
necessary stormwater detention, will impact the natural habitat for red winged
blackbirds and wintering fireflies. The disturbance to the existing stormwater
detention pond, located offsite, should be prohibited.
Response:
The Siena P.U.D. has been reviewed and evaluated by both the Department of Natural
Resources and the Stormwater Utility. The existing stormwater detention pond is City -
owned and located immediately south of the project. The pond features a small
wetland area. „
According to the Stormwater Utility, the pond, in its present form, was built incorrectly fa
and undersized and does not properly accommodate existing upstream drainage. With GLEn) s
the Siena project, the developer will increase the capacity of the pond to handle the Or,-
° ��`�
existing upstream drainage as well as accept storm flows from the proposed P.U.D. G�pR°' °rT'on1
This expansion will be on the upper end (west) of the pond which is in native grass.
The lower end features cattails and will not be disturbed.
This joint use of the offsite detention pond is considered the best engineering solution
and meets the design criteria of the Stormwater Utility.
The Department of Natural Resources has also reviewed and evaluated the
enlargement of the detention pond. The work is considered minor and will actually
improve and enlarge the wetland area after completion. The impacts on the red winged
blackbirds and wintering fireflies are considered minimal in that these species are not
endangered.
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 4
is considered approximate and reasonable based on access to the arterial street
system and existing traffic counts. The predicted Level of Service A at the
Elizabeth/Azuro intersection is considered valid based on trip generation rates found in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers 5th edition of the Trip Generation Manual.
The traffic study was prepared in August of 1995, after the Ponds at Overland Trail was
approved (June of 1995). Scenic Views P.U.D. was originally approved in 1985 and
expired in 1988. Scenic Views then reapplied on February 20, 1996. Lory Ann Estates
Subdivision is a permitted use and was approved in 1979. Jefferson Commons P.U.D.
was submitted on November 20, 1995.
It was determined that the Level of Service at the Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection will
continue to operate Iat Level of Service "D" or better which is an acceptable level based
on the City's traffic flow delay policies.
The traffic impact analysis for Siena P.U.D. used reasonable projections for both the
short (1997) and long (2015) terms and the anticipated Levels of Service for the
affected intersections are considered valid.
2. Allegation: Relationship to Stormwater Detention Pond and Path
It is alleged under Section 2-48 (1) that the Board failed to properly interpret All
Development Criteria A-2.2, "Building Placement and Orientation" and 2.13
"Landscape" in consideration of the relationship between Siena P.U.D. and the
City -owned stormwater detention pond. The path that connects Deerfield to
Overland Trail Park, through the stormwater detention pond area, will be
negatively impacted by increased traffic at the new Clearview/Deerfield
intersection. Privacy considerations between public and private spaces are not
considered.
Response:
The homes on Lots 23 through 43, inclusive, will be required by the P.U.D. to be
setback a minimum of 20 feet from the rear property line. Under a straight subdivision
in the R-L, Low Density Residential, Zone District, the minimum required rear yard
setback is only 15 feet. Therefore, Siena P.U.D. is more restrictive than what would be
allowed as a use -by -right.
Further, a condition was added to the Siena P.U.D. that at least one tree and
foundation plantings be added along the southern boundary of the P.U.D. These
landscape enhancements help define and clarify the transition between public and
private spaces.
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April 29, 1996
Page 3
Response:
A. All Development Criterion A-2.1
A traffic study entitled "Overland Ridge P.U.D. Traffic Study" was prepared on behalf of
the applicant by Balloffet and Associates, Inc. and submitted in conjunction with the
Preliminary P.U.D. This study was made part of the Planning and Zoning Board record
during consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D. on November 13, 1995. At that time, the
Board evaluated the P.U.D. and determined that the project satisfied All Development
Criterion A-2.1. The Final P.U.D. was considered on March 4, 1996. The Board
determined that the Final P.U.D. was in substantial conformance with the Preliminary
P.U.D. and that A-2.1 continued to be satisfied.
Specifically, the Board found Siena Final P.U.D. to satisfy All Development Criterion A-
2.1. The two outlet points are considered sufficient to serve the project and not impact
the neighborhood beyond specified levels. The volume of trips anticipated by the
project can be accommodated on the public street system. Clearview and Deerfield are
classified as "local" streets and the projected volumes on these two streets will continue
to fall into the range of acceptance for the local street category.
West Elizabeth, at this location, is considered to be a minor arterial and the number of
trips expected to be generated can also be accommodated on the street. As with all
projects, Siena P.U.D. will be required to dedicate right-of-way, widen its frontage along
Elizabeth, and build public sidewalks. In addition, a new center left turn lane will
provide safety for left turns into the project.
Similarly, based on the projected traffic impacts, the affected intersections will continue
to operate at acceptable levels of service defined to be L.O.S. "D" or better. The
Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection was upgraded on March 1, 1995 by a City capital project
that added left -turn phasing and left -turn bays.
The Board found that both Preliminary and Final P.U.D.'s satisfied All Development
Criterion A-2.1 and that the additional traffic generated by 116 single family dwellings
could indeed be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation
network without creating safety problems and that all traffic flow delay policies were
satisfied.
B. Evidence
The Board relied on the review and evaluation of the traffic study by the City's
Transportation Department. The traffic split between Elizabeth and Clearview/Deerfield
Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
April29, 1996
Page 2
ALLEGATIONS
(Note: referenced All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
are attached.)
1. Allegation: Traffic
It is alleged under Section 2-48 (1), that the P & Z Board failed to properly
interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Also, it is
alleged under Section 2-48 (2) c, that in considering traffic, the Board received
substantially false and grossly misleading evidence.
A. Failure to Properly Interpret A-2.1
It is alleged that Board failed to properly interpret All Development Criterion A-2.1
("Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation") of the Land Development Guidance
System. With only two outlet points (until a third is allowed by future
development of an intervening property) traffic will impact the neighborhood in
such a manner that A-2.1 cannot be satisfied. There will be too much traffic on
Clearview and Deerfield based on Bauder School being an attractive destination.
The Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection will be impacted.
B. Received Substantially False and Grossly Misleading Evidence
It is alleged that by considering the findings of the traffic impact analysis, the
Board received evidence that is substantially false and grossly misleading. The
appellant claims that this evidence includes:
(1.) The predicted traffic split between the Elizabeth outlet and the
Deerfield/Clearview outlet will be approximately 95%/5%.
(2.) The Level of Service at the intersection of Elizabeth and Azuro will
operate at "A."
(3.) The traffic study did not include background traffic from existing or
future developments.
(4.) The Level of Service predicted at the Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection
is under -estimated.
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner I '
THRU: Greg Byrne, Director, C.P.E.S.
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning rector
DATE: April 29, 1996
RE: Siena Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the appeal regarding the March 4,
1996 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving, with conditions, Siena Final
P.U.D.
Section 2-48 of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal
shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of
the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter;
b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure;
C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its
findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading;
d.. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant."
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
for the first neighborhood meeting was changed at the last
minute, incorrect directions were given initially for the new
meeting place, and neighbors were warned that they might receive
parking tickets at the new meeting place. Although common and
predictable questions about various impacts were asked at the
first meeting, knowledgeable city staffers were not present at
that meeting. Neighbors had to ask for a second meeting to get
responses to their questions. Some neighbors were not notified of
meetings. Dennis Stenson, who expressed strong objections at the
first neighborhood meeting, was not notified of the second
neighborhood meeting, as noted in Ted Shephard's October 17 memo
to the P&Z board. In addition, a couple who own a house adjacent
to the proposed development site were not notified of any
meetings despite their request to be put on the notification
list. The preliminary P&Z hearing was delayed from the advertised
date, so neighbors who attended had to return again three weeks
later. The name of the project was changed midway through the,
process, confusing at least one neighbor who intended to attend
the final hearing. Despite persistent opposition from several
neighbors, the project was listed on the consent agenda at the
final hearing, as if the city planner had no idea that there was
any opposition. The final P&Z hearing was delayed from the
advertised date, so neighbors who attended had to return again
two nights later. Opportunities for public input and willingness
of neighbors to participate were diminished because of these
flaws, and they constitute a failure to hold a fair hearing.
informing them that "elevation" was not an item that could be
considered on this project. Confusion between the common use of
the word "elevation" (synonym: height) and the specialized use of
the word in architecture (synonym: drawing of what the building
will look like) persisted for several minutes and may not have
been completely dispelled in the minds of all the board members.
Although the confusion may not have been deliberately created, I
believe it may constitute substantially false or grossly
misleading evidence.
The board should have applied or properly interpreted LDGS
guideline A-2.13 ("Does the landscape plan contribute in a
positive way to the project and to the neighborhood environment
(1) by supporting functional needs such as spatial definition,
visual screening, creation of privacy, and/or climate control,
(2) by enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the site and
neighborhood, and (3) by integrating with, and buffering the
impact of the development upon, existing natural areas?") The
requirement imposed by the P&Z board of one tree and some
foundation plantings in each back yard bordering the park is not
sufficiently specific to guarantee appropriate visual screening.
Fuller plantings and a buffer strip of land between the trail and
the development would mitigate conflicts between dissimilar land
uses. This would provide a gradual transition between the
park/wetland and the development, and would change the sense of
proximity between the two land uses.
The public process was flawed from the outset by a series of
events that discouraged public participation. The meeting place
(such as fences and parking facilities) oriented on the lot in a
way that is consistent with the established neighborhood
character?") Two paragraphs under this heading are relevant. 1)
Neighborhood integration: "When a development is proposed to be
located between a neighborhood and a public place such as a
shopping center, library, church or park, the design of the site
plan should maintain access to the public space or use, and where
possible, reinforce and enhance the visibility and usefulness of
the access." The detention area trail is the eastern access to
Overland Trail Park .for existing neighborhoods to the east and
south of the proposed development. The usefulness of this access
will be negatively impacted by increased traffic at the
Deerfield/Clearview outlet. 2) Privacy considerations: "Consider
transitions from public to private spaces and use architectural
and landscape elements to clarify and define these transitions."
The same considerations apply here as for guideline A-2.13 below.
The board should have applied or properly interpreted LDGS
guideline A-2.3 ("Do the physical elements of the site plan adapt
well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the
disturbance of topography, water bodies, streams, wetlands,
wildlife habitats, vegetation and other natural features?").
Redwinged blackbirds nest in the marsh in the detention area/park
each spring and summer. The nesting period for these birds runs
into July. Disturbance to this area should be delayed until
August to avoid interfering with nesting birds. Fireflies also
frequent the marsh in the summer. Fireflies pass the winter in
debris and topsoil near wetlands. Disturbance of the debris and
failed to consider that the shortest route to Bauder Elementary
School is via the Deerfield/Clearview outlet. It also failed to
consider that congestion on Elizabeth Street will encourage
drivers to use the Deerfield/Clearview outlet. Elizabeth Street
will have additional traffic from the recently approved Ponds
project, the Lory Ann Estates three-plexes and four-plexes that
were approved years ago and are now being advertised, the
Jefferson Commons apartments, the West Plum development and the
Scenic Views development. In light of these additional
developments, the prediction that the Siena project's Elizabeth
Street outlet will be service level A is extremely optimistic.
According to the traffic analysis, the Elizabeth/Taft Hill
intersection is already at service level D, the lowest acceptable
rating. It too will feel the effects of traffic from these
developments. Parents driving their younger children to school
and people trying to avoid the congested Elizabeth Street outlet
and the service level D intersection at Taft Hill will increase
the traffic at the Deerfield/Clearview outlet and in the
neighborhood southeast of the park. Traffic exiting the Siena
development to the south will be much more than the projected 5
percent, and the traffic numbers given to the board may
constitute substantially false or grossly misleading evidence.
Traffic is already a problem in this residential area. People
often call the police to complain about excessive speed and a
child was killed in an auto -pedestrian accident last year.
The board should have applied or properly interpreted LDGS
guideline A-2.2 ("Are buildings and other site plan elements
LL'3t3��t l 'I
I CITY CLERK
TU 4 Z is an amended notice appealing the race fiiiZj'Zulu Z021141g /
Board's approval on March 6, 1996, of the Siena Final P.U.D.
fk#39-95A).
ant is Judy Harrington
Appellant y ton g
2613 Flintridge Place
Fort Collins, CO 80521
221-0979
party -in -interest because spoke at hearing
Grounds for appeal: relevant laws were not properly
interpreted and applied; the board failed to hold a fair hearing
in general; and the board failed to hold a fair hearing by
considered substantially false or grossly misleading evidence.
The board should have applied or properly interpreted LDGS
guideline A.2.1 ("Can the additional traffic generated by the
land uses within the project be incorporated into the
neighborhood and community transportation network without
creating safety problems? Can impacts from the additio^.al
vehicular traffic meet city traffic flow delay policies?"). The
P.U.D. proposes only three outlets for 116 houses and one of
these outlets depends on the possible future development of a
neighboring parcel (not under the control of the Minatta family)
in such a way as to connect with a street in the Siena PUD. For
the two outlets that can be counted on, the traffic study
estimates that 95 percent of the 1,108 daily trips generated by
this project would use the Elizabeth Street outlet and 5 percent
would use the Deerfield/Clearview outlet. This study evidently
co�
City Attorney
of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 25, 1996
TO:
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM:
W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney$
RE: Notice of Appeal Filed by Judy Harrington Regarding Siena P.U.D.
The notice of appeal that you received on March 20 regarding the above -referenced matter was
timely filed and, in my judgment, contains all of the information required pursuant to Section 2-49
of the Code. The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of my review (as required pursuant
to Section 2-50 of the Code) and to indicate that I have not identified any obvious defects in form
or substance regarding this notice of appeal.
WPE:med
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327
additional traff_ generated by the land uses within the project
be incorporated i.^.to the neighborhood and co:. u ity
transportation network without creating safety problems? Can
-pacts fro:.. the additiona.L ve hicalar traffic -eet city traffic
flow delay policies?"1. The P.U.D. proposes only three outlets
for _15 houses and one of these outlets depe.^.ds on the possible
future development of a neighboring parcel (.^.ot under the control
of the Minata fa-ilv; in such a way as to connect with a street
in the Siena P.U.D. For the two outlets that can be counted on,
the traffic study est-4-aces that 95 percent of the 1,108 daily
trips generated by this project would use the Elizabeth Street
outlet and 5 percent would use the Deerfield/Clearview cutlet.
This s:':dv evidently failed to consider that the s'ortest route
o Bauder elementary Schccl _s via e Deer:;el_,�learview
outlet. Parents driving t he;_ VO'.zncre_ C_ _lCre.^_ t0 scho.,--
-' .., and
people trying to avoid the congested zabeth Street outlet and
the service leve'_ D intersection at Taft L_wi-- increase the
.raf_-c at the Deerfield/ Clearv;ew outlet and in the ne;g=borhood
_.
southeast of the park. Traffic is already a proble- in this
residential area. People often call the police to complain about
excessive speed and a child was killed in a,,. auto -pedestrian
aC ident last year. E'--zabeth Street w_11 nave adcitional traffic
from, the recently approved Ponds project and the development of
four-plexes at the i.^.tersec'on of �lizabet_: Street and Overland
Trai'_. of these add t erg: 'tio.^.a: developments, the preC:C io-
that to __;--abet: Street outlet w'_._ be service revel A ;s
extremely opti:..istic. The El_--abeth;Taft ?l .` l intersection is
mi
This is a notice appealing the Plann
approval on Marc:: 6, 1996, of the Siena Final P.U.U. ;#39-95A;.
Appellant is Judy Larr'_ncton
2613 F2_4-tridge Place
Fort Collins, CO 80521
221-0979
party -in -interest because spoke at hear
Grounds for appeal: relevant laws were not properly
_nterDreted and aaalied.
The board sho:,_d have appl_ed LUGS Guide-ine A-2.7 ("Ts the
architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses
acttes thatnd iviiare =fanned and does it contribute to the
ne,_hborhood s appearance in a positive way?") The houses
corder- the stor^water de:en__cn areal~ark on .:e east anA
soot: average one and a half stories above Ground. Cnly a few
.we two stor-es abcv- ^d and sere :ave ust 0 ne story above
_round. The houses propose~ for the norIu side of the stcr-water
detenti,._. area/park would have two stories above ground and would
be located on a rising slope, thus intensifying the effect of
=eight. These proposed houses, taller than the existing houses
border_-_- the detention area/pari:, would be _-coMpatib'le wit'.: the
. aracter of the -eic :bor hood and wit: the aooeara^ce of t:.e
park. There should be an effort at co-rat'_bi'_ity both because of
the established character of the neigh bor hood and because of the
'_and use transition between the pro. csed houses an, the detention
area/park.
=`e boa= d ^ave aop;led LDGS ^u,de=___e A. 2. _ 1"Can the
7
CC : C 4.
�n�1 4
City Clerk
Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will.hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on March 6, 1996 regarding the Siena Final PUD, (#39-95A) filed
by Judith E. Harrington . You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with
hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by April 26, 1996. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including additional issues identified by City Council members, will
be available to the public on Thursday, May 2, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
April 23, 1996
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0550 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295
Water Utilities
Stormwater
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Azari and City Council Members
FROM:
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utilityxfi— .
THRU:
John F. Fischbach, City Manager
Mike Mike Smith, Water Utilities General Maher
Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Manager
DATE:
May 6, 1996
RE: Item #33 - Siena Final P.U.D. Appeal
This memorandum is for clarification of the second paragraph of the "Response" from
Ted Shepard on page 5 under number 3 "Allegation: Natural Resources" where it
inaccurately states the detention ponds were built incorrectly and are undersized.
The fact is the detention ponds were built correctly. In their present form they are
undersized for existing runoff, however, their size will be adequate when future master
planned improvements identified in the Canal Importation Basin Master Plan are built.
This may seem contradictory but it isn't. Presently, land to the west of Overland Trail
drains through these ponds but it will not when the improvements in the master plan are
built. Drainage west of Overland Trail will be diverted south to Spring Creek. During
the past several years the Stormwater Utility has been purchasing R.O.W. for the
improvements and once this is completed the final design of the system will proceed.
The existing detention ponds were sized for runoff from lands adjacent to them and east
of Overland Trail. The developer is required to ensure his development does not
negatively affect downstream properties. Additional detention volume is being provided
since the master planned improvements will not be built for several years. This will also
provide for additional protection in the future for land owners downstream of the
detention ponds. Also, improvements have taken place below the detention ponds to
reduce the potential for damages to private and public property.
If you have any questions on the above please don't hesitate to contact me.
FAX (970) 221-6239
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ITEM NUMBER: 33
DATE: May 7, 1996
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the March 6, 1996 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving, With Conditions, Siena Final P.U.D.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration, either (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or
(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions, Siena Final P.U.D.
The request consisted of 116 single family lots on 28.26 acres located on the south side of West
Elizabeth Street at Rocky Road. The property is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential.
On March 21, 1996, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office. On April 11, an
Amended Notice of Appeal was received. In the Amended Notice of Appeal it is alleged that:
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence that was substantially false
or grossly misleading.
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Planning Department's summary of
the Board's action in response to the appeal. Also attached is the Planning Department Staff Report
that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board as part of the information packet. In addition,
minutes of the March 6. 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearing are included. Video tapes of the
hearing have been made available through the City Manager's Office.
The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code.
ENHANCEMENT
■ Landscaping should contribute to visual continuity
in a neighborhood and help to create a positive
community image. This is especially important
when dissimilar buildings or land uses work against
neighborhood cohesiveness. Regularly spaced
street trees is the most common way of creating
continuity.
■ Natural areas as be enhanced with plant material
that is indigenous or adapted to the existing site
conditions- However, some species such as
Russian Olive and Lythrum, are extremely
aggressive and can be detrimental to natural areas
Enhancement as add to the visual interest of an
area and an improve wildlife habitat. For f%rtha
information about planting natural areas contact the
City's Natural Resource Division. (See Criterion
Number 2.3)
WATER CONSERVATION
— The City is committed to water conservation efforts
- and encourages the efficient and wise use of water",....� through xeriseape
„ 8 landscaping. Xeing,us, water.
... conservation through creative landscaping, uses seven
simple landscape principles:
■ A combination: of evergreen and deciduous plant
material should be used to create visual interest all
year round and enhance the appearance of a
neighborhood.
• Plant material should complement the architecture.
Foundation plantings ease the transition from
building to ground plane. Trees an be used to
frame architectural elements or to create
background.
-' Leo//lif C
pl*- .Vs It VW foun4 bo of o &A&V ~0 M
amtrcrivrr admYrro•awtant.an.yo.
Fo nett pmntaw Can ft m tM "Wto o hu"T
- Planning and Design
- Limited Turf Areas
- Efficient Irrigation
- Soil Improvement
- Mulches
- Low -Water Demanding Plants
Appropriate Maintenance
For further information about xeriscape and water
conservation contact the City's Water/Wastewater
Utility.
DRAINAGE
Grading modifications are an important consideration
in creating an attractive and functional landscape
The grading Plan should be developed carefully as
part of the overall landscape design. While grading
has a profound effect on the visual quality and
function of the landscape, it is also critical for proper
drainage.
Prosion control along draimageways is another
important consideration. For additional information
regarding best practices in erosion control, contact
the City's Stormwata Utility.
EXISTING TREES
It is the City's policy to retain existing trees when
they are in good condition and it is reasonable to do
so; however, it is not the City's policy to retain
Siberian • Elm, Russian olive and Salt Cedar. In some
cases, trees that are• not in good condition may be
retained for habitat values (g. dead trees that serve as
eagle perch sites). The City's Forestry Division cam
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-47-
Transp ition Services
Engineering Department
9,ece
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Review Manager *�
Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineef - Engineering ��,
Basil Hamdan, Development Review Engineer - Stormwatef
DATE: February 16, 1996 ;
RE: Siena PUD (formerly Overland Ridge PUD) and the Planning and Zoning Board
decision on the Final PUD submittal
The alley design submitted for Final PUD approval by the Planning and Zoning board is
unacceptable. The alleys are currently designed so that the entire alley surface slopes to one side
placing drainage flows 6-10 feet onto private lots. This is not an acceptable design. By placing a
portion of the drainage onto private property the City can not keep the lot owners from placing
obstacles on their property that might obstruct this flow. This could include such things as fences,
sheds, landscaping or changes in the back lot grading.
For this reason the Engineering and Stormwater Departments are asking that the following
conditions be placed on this project at the time it goes to the Planning and Zoning board for final
approval. The conditions should read as follows:
Condition 1:
For the alleys to remain public right-of-way (ROW) the alleys needs to be designed
to meet one of the following designs:
1. An alley that slopes to one side may be constructed if driveover curb and
gutter is used on the down (low) side so that all the drainage flows are confined to
the alley. The concrete driveover curb should meet city standards or be of
acceptable design, if a higher curb is required. The high edge of the alley should
have a concrete edge that is a minimum of 1 foot wide and 8 inches thick. The
remaining portion of the alley can be of an asphalt pavement section. The entrance
to the alley off of the City street needs to have a street type configuration ( a
curbed intersection with handicap ramps).
2. A `V' shaped alley configuration may also be used. This should be
constructed entirely of concrete with a concrete v-pan down the center of the alley.
281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6605
topsoil around the marsh should be prohibited to avoid
disturbance to the overwintering stages of fireflies. At the
second neighborhood meeting, we were told that the developer
would have to provide stormwater detention on his site. That
condition was contained in the preliminary approval, but was
removed at the final hearing. Detention on the development site
would eliminate disturbance to the soil in the wetland.
The board should have applied or properly interpreted LDGS
guideline A-2.7 ("Is the architecture proposed for the project
appropriate for the uses and activities that are planned and does
it contribute to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive
way?") The existing houses bordering the stormwater detention
area/park on the east and south average one and a half stories
above ground when viewed by someone standing in the park. Only a
few have two stories above ground and some have just one story
above ground. The houses proposed for the north side of the
stormwater detention area/park would have two stories above
ground, when viewed by someone standing in the park, and would be
located on a rising slope, thus intensifying the effect of
height. These proposed houses, taller than the existing houses
bordering the detention area/park, would be incompatible with the
character of the neighborhood and with the appearance of the
park. There should be an effort at compatibility both because of
the established character of the neighborhood and because of the
land use transition between the proposed houses and the detention
area/park. When board members began discussing this issue, the
city planner created confusion among the board members by
a' -ready at service eve -I D, the 2owes: acceptable rat_:g, and '_:
too will feel the effects of tra_`Fic Fro:,. the bonds and the four-
plexes.
The board should have applied LDGS _ ide'_i-.^.e A-2.3 ('Do the
Physical ele-e-ts of the site plar. adapt well to the physical
characteristics of the site and ...in i^_ze the disturbance of
topography, water bodies, streams, wetlands. wi_-_ife habitats,
vegetation and other natural feat_:res?";. cedwinged blackbirds
nest 14- the marsh .'- the detention area/park each spring and
s-.,=er. The nesting aeriod For these birds runs Into
Disturbance to this area should be delayed ..nti_ August to avc'-d
interfering with nest,^g birds. ,fireflies also frequent the mars_
the su-per. Firef_ies pass the winter in debris anc topscil
1 �tr;`. nce o f y._n c_-r - psc -_ aroma t,':c
^ear wetlan=s. �- _ oa_-..- .,- _ e d_-_ _s a..c .o.. _.� _
mars'- s.:o-:-_ be arc =_b_ted to avcic cistwrba_:ce t_ G
overwir_ter_= stages of firef_ies.