HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTFIELD PARK (STOCKBRIDGE) PUD - FINAL - 27-94A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSY a
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In my capacity as a research
social scientist (for the government) I have studied negotiation
and public participation processes., I believe my views on the
matter of the Westfield Park PUD deserve some consideration and
respect -- both as an affected citizen and as a concerned
professional.
I wrote to the Chairwoman of the Planning Board shortly
after that past hearing and received an apology from her for the
indifference evidenced by the Board during a hearing process. I
appreciate her thoughtful response. However, it is apparent that
my argument has had no substantive impact upon the Planning
Board's decision in that Westfield Park PUD is now moving forward
to final approval with no modification in density that I can
perceive --at least not according to the sketchy map enclosed with
your Hearing announcement. At 118 units on 30.21 acres, lots
could not exceed 114 acre if there were no land allotments for
roads, easements, or drainage field. This constitutes
sandwiching a "Postage stamp" development between two spacious
developments. That does not constitute compatible site zoning
and permitting!
Please recall that it is not the developer of this property
who is going to have to live with it for the next 20 or 30 years,
it is we --the neighbors. There is the potential to keep an
enclave of space among houses along the south side of Horsetooth
from Shields to Taft Hill. One mile -long stretch where it is not
virtually possible to step from roof -top to roof -top as it is in
so much of the current Fort Collins and Larimer County sprawl.
In the event that you do actually hear and consider these
comments, I then thank you.
Sincerely,
�!
Dr. Jonathan G. Taylor
Home phone, 225-0154
Work phone 226-9438
6 o("M h"I W 91"T I"e Jaya
'Yao vand&l94,rV
&, d w22 "4, &44a4do
80526
April 27, 1997
Planning and Zoning Board of the
City of Fort Collins
C/O Community Planning and
Environmental Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado
80522-0580
RE: Westfield Park PUD, Final. #27-94a
Dear Board Members:
I spoke out, a year or two ago when the Westfield Park PUD
was before the Board before and during the "neighborhood
explanatory sessions" sponsored by the developer at the nearby
school. This experience, frankly, has soured me deeply
concerning open participation in Fort Collins governmental
process. When I spoke before the Board, I was treated in a
cavalier manner: Board members talked among themselves and
checked on the upcoming agenda rather than listen to my
objection. I argued that Westfield PUD, although satisfying the
Fort Collins requirement for minimum density, totally disregards
the requirement for compatibility with neighboring developments.
Westfield Park PUD is sandwiched between Imperial Estates on the
west --with 112 acre or larger lots, and a "horse property"
development on the east --with 1.75 acre lots. Those are not, by
any stretch of the imagination, compatible or comparable
development designs to Westfield which includes lots as small as
5,000 sq.ft. The only action taken by the Board aside approval
of the Westfield PUD plan, was to pass an exception for the PUD
in case there was any legal problem with the small size of some
lots.
At the time I spoke before the Board, I. mistakenly thought
my views would be shown respect and considered because I am an
affected, concerned citizen. On the contrary, my statement was
ignored, and developers in the hearing room were called by their
first names and were asked, by the Board, to advise them on what
would be needed. I did not list a long litany of credentials
because, as I said, I expected to be afforded respect as a
citizen. I am, however, a research social scientist and human
ecologist. I hold a MS in Environmental Science and Regional
Planning from Washington State University and a Ph.D. in
Renewable Natural Resources from the University of Arizona. I
studied planning at both Washington State and at the University
t
FINAL NOTE:
The Planning and Zoning Board date is uncertain. It depends on stormwater and
drainage issues and the ability to resolve them. The earliest possible date is March
24th, but that date probably will not happen. The next (and most likely) date is April
28th. You will receive written notice, by mail, of that public hearing.
28. Question: Do you have an estimate of completion time lines?
Answer: It won't be until Fall of'97 or Spring of'98 for Phase 1. As for a time
line, we would like to sell 3 to 4 lots per month. So Phase 2 would
roughly be 1998 or 1999.
29. Question: Are all of the utilities coming from the south?
Answer: They will come through the Mountain Ridge PUD development.
30. Question: What are the sizes of the lots?
Answer: The smaller lots are about 50 x 100. The ones along Imperial Estates
are larger.
31. Question: I think you have done an admirable job addressing some of the
subjects from 3 years ago. Why has it taken so long to do this plan (2
years)? Also, why not consider bringing the Burr property (to the east)
to add to this?
Answer: We did try to buy the land but it was sold to someone else. The
sanitary sewer is the reason why we haven't done this for 2 years. It
is expensive because it is 20 feet deep. The sewer has now moved
west, closer to the development.
32. Question: Is there a stoplight planned for the intersection of Seneca Street and
Horsetooth Road?
Answer: No, there is not.
33. Question: Steve, do you enforce the private development covenants?
Answer: No, we do not.
34. Question: Do you enforce grading plans?
Answer: Yes, we do. All of the lots and homes have to meet a minimum grade.
These plans are reviewed and enforced by the City Engineering
Department and Stormwater Utility.
35. Question: In reference to the widening of Horsetooth Road, will that be clear to
Taft Hill Road? We'll see a lot more traffic with this development.
Answer: Basically, the developer will be responsible for only the improvements
along the frontage of his property.
20. Question: You are bringing a sanitary sewer line in? Is that an open sewer?
Answer: No, it is a pipe that is buried 10 feet under the ground.
21. Comment: There was mention of fencing between the Westfield Park PUD and
Imperial Estates. There is a different neighborhood here. The idea of
a fence is more for privacy.
22. Question: Will the fence go on down to the park?
Answer: It will eventually go down to the north property line of the park but I
don't think the fence will go along the park. There will be landscaping
in that location.
23. Question: Who is responsible for the fence until the lots are done, the
homeowner's association?
Answer: We (the developer) would own any portion of the fence that we
haven't sold a lot next to.
24. Comment: Typically the City does not review or enforce private covenants. That
is a civil issue and we're not enforcers.
25. Question: What does the time frame look like as to when you will complete the
3 phases?
Answer: We do not know yet.
26. Question: In regards to the ponds, what kind of drainage is there?
Answer: The detention pond is designed to accept and hold storm water for a
short period of time, then release it slowly into the City's regional
detention system.
27. Question: I'll ask again, when you start Phase 1 at what point will there be a
homeowner's association to enforce the covenant (how many homes
will be built?)?
Answer: We try, when we get as many as 20 homeowner's, to recruit people
to the board. Then we wean ourselves off the board as we are
finishing up. We're on the board until we are almost done with the
development.
11
12
13.
14.
15.
16
17
Im
19.
Question: Who is responsible for the maintenance of the property?
Answer: The developer puts the fence in. The maintenance of the fence
becomes the responsibility of the new property owner.
Question: The natural slope runs down. What about that?
Answer: Each one of the sites tilts to the east and no berming will occur along
the west side of this development because of drainage. This site will
drain between each house.
Question: You won't use Crescent Street in Imperial Estates, for construction
traffic during construction, will you?
Answer: No, there's no street connection for possible access there, between
the two developments.
Comment: There is a native area/grass area on the east side of Seneca Street.
Question: When is this planned to start the digging?
Answer: Roughly, in the Spring of 1997.
Question: Did the 1 st plan submitted to the City say that there would be the 6
foot fence?
Answer: Yes, the preliminary plan that was approved in May, 1994 proposed
a 6 foot high architectural screen fence.
Comment: We can approach you with discussion on the design of the fence. I
just want to be a good neighbor.
Question: That retention pond/park, is it similar to Rossborough Park? Is it like
the detention there?
Answer: Yes, it is. It does have some 6 foot cuts.
Question: Where the bicycle/pedestrian pathway breaks through the fence,
along the west property line. Is there no fence right there?
Answer: Yes, that is correct. The fence stops north and south of the proposed
pathway to allow it to continue west into Imperial Estates.
4. Comment: Also, the wind could go through. Fences fall down all the time
because of that. I think the spaces would be good.
5. Question: The landscaping in the rear yards should be there indefinitely and, if
they cut them down, we could report that to the City?
Answer: Yes, you could. That would be a violation of the approved planned
unit development approval.
6. Comment: I would like to say that you really spend a good amount of time seeing
what the developer is going to do. I think the neighbors should have
volunteers to be on the Homeowner's Association. People will receive
covenants which most of them won't read. Most problems come from
people not reading the covenants.
Response: The fence needs to be discussed very well. I think it would be a good
idea to have no fence but that is not acceptable to the neighbors. I
think a shadow box fence is a good effect.
7. Question: Would you fully fence all of the west side of the development initially
or just Phase 1?
Answer: All of Phase 1 and about half of Phase 2 when Phase 1 is developed.
8. Comment: You, as a developer, can help that relationship so much by being very
concrete, specific about what you are going to do. I have been yelled
at by my neighbors.
Response: I like the fence to be "concrete" in terms of what is going to look like.
I am not one that likes 6 foot high fences. I would propose a 5 foot
fence if I could. It apparently is unacceptable to you as home owners,
however.
9. Comment: The developer is building all the fencing along the west property line
himself. Sometimes (most times) home owners are responsible for
that.
10. Comment: If I were you, I would only allow there to be one kind, one style of
fence.
Response: I agree. You have got my vote on that.
Comma—tty Planning and Environmental _ervices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
DATE:
APPLICANT:
CONSULTANT:
STAFF
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
Westfield Park PUD
February 12, 1997
Leo Schuster
Bruce Hendee
Steve Olt, Planner
Comment: In regards to the buffering along the west, I'd like to see more
buffering along there next to the parcel at the northwest corner. That
land has become part of my property now.
Response: There will be a 6 foot fence and landscaping in the rear of the lots in
the Westfield Park PUD adjacent to that property, just like along the
remainder of the west property line.
2. Comment: According to the City there is really no enforcement for you to add
trees in the back yards? You can't force the people to plant trees
there.
Response: A temporary certificate of occupancy is needed from the City to
occupy any home. The developer will either plant the trees or put up
money in escrow to ensure that the trees will be put in at the time a
home is built. The developer will be committed to install the fence
along the west side with Phase 1 and approximately % of Phase 2 at
the beginning of the project. This will be part of the approved Site and
Landscape Plan.
3. Question: Is that going to be a solid rail fence?
Comment: I like to have small spaces in a fence. If dogs can see through the
fence, they tend to not bark as much.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
I APPt_ICAELE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is :he c�enon Will the uTeric .
acplicaele7 be satisfiee7
3• 3<IYes INo If nc, please ex -lain
A1.
COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1
Solar Orientation
1.2
Comprehensive Plan
I I1>�1 I DC I I
1.3
Wildlife Habitat
I IBC
1.-
Mineral Depcsit
I I Ix-7FI
1.5
1.c
=colecically Sensitive Areas
Lands of Aericultural Imoorance
I reserved I I
I reser ed
1.7
Enercv Conservation
1.8 .
Air Qualitv
1.0
Wcio_r cualltV
10
JcWBce anc Wasies
I W I I I
1 11
W=terrorservation
ix I x
1.12
ResideniialDensity
I I I I
A. 2.
NE!GHEORHOCD COMPA' TIcILITY
C.RI T =-RlAl
L
Venicuiar. Pcciestran. Bike Transocration I I I I I I
2 2
?uiicinc P!ccer%ent and Orient -tier
I p(I I
2=
Natural r"e_tures
I I pC I I DC I I
_.-
V_nicular Circuiation anc Parkinc
I I X 1 1>< I.
2.
merge^cy, Acc=_ss _
11 XI . I x I I
2 5z
Pedestrian Cirr--lation
I IoCI I I I
2 .7I
Ar :,ltec.ure
I I IXI I I
2 e'
?uilding Heicnt and Views
I I I)(I I I
2.S .
Shading
I Inl I I ➢C I I
2.10
SclarAccess
I
2.1
Historic Resources
2.12
ceL7acks
I I I
2.13
L andscace
I I I (pC I I
2.14
Sicns
2.1 ;
site Lighting
I IKI I K I I
2.16
Noise and Vibration
I I K I I P<I I
2.17
Glare or Heat
I I 1 1
2.18
Hazardous Materials
I I I
A 3.
ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1
Utility Capacity
I 1
3.2
Design Standards
I I I I
3.3
Water Hazards
1 x.
3.4
Geologic Hazards
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised . h 1994
-61-
l� usl
Proposal:
Description:
Density:
General Population:
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
#27-94A Westfield Park P.U.D.
Final
118 single family residential lots on 31.02 acres.
3.80 du/ac (gross)
118 (single family units) x 3.35*(persons/unit) = 395
School Age Population:
Elementary: 118 (units) x .104 (pupils/unit) = 12
Junior High: 118 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 6
Senior High: 118 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 5
TOTAL = 23
*Figures assume 3-bedroom single family residential units.
IMPERIAL E51
e..ae e..ar�vYA
Ac
NXI16 KCIb
LEGEND
KINGSTON WOODS PIA
IDil.-WOVAC i.01
MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM PUD
vAwRtoYn wr
ar YNAc
aRN
r
��.� FRwoam a..mcRr R�
PLANT MATERIALS LIST
a
e
A N nsa P.AY� fi1..Y
any • w. b n
�uRw YA.b'
.b A.pr •ex
14A i.v iv Wu
�xlw, Nx.e .0.1 �mw.w� O
GENERAL NOTES
I .°6c oe`w w�'".n.1tle..°�"o.mowA�'°c'"°. LM Y.M .O v.Ymr
a' wim w°�ir.erae. .awa."`�'ea.w..lo�i •w.mn wr
wfml flLLm.Y1CR'0
M gTlnl.'i TYCA..[M Wa.r .auuK mb.
YO NPOY.
`' LLwbo.urmmw�"R.-:.emp'P`,w am�..cx A. rr.,..xm eort.vw
��Ye newTlelvvm
..LL xmeaa A.... R IRm r�
� YM ITRIt M_YYO YlbvLLTM� 11Y Y.aH.t.1
rtn MYWQ P. yayaA NAR.
i. s.waeveaX.l.mrwam man naobarman n..&RAOAOA
x �aeaaYvrtm Wpm ��itl
YlmxOnl loW p mRrJ.�f.YmPx.., xiY P.� ra
M�RA [.[al nla.[Y.18. YOA M.me AT. R,1�Oo.O.A YYl1
LL4ID w e.oad YM M lvSI6! ILnlla w Odn.
mbvs.I.maxrie. v. P M r.ue w ne AY
_� L.ea„wlaen ne wuw.z P rE ner m[m-.wrt
P wr tial
e Pa.M4LNm1WTM VIOKM M1w wuMs. wtd RmM NwwH
�snaaaD a..o.Y.KwI dY W M. A Onl1
cPwT.Y:TiaY D.L rtRnfM¢, NT FlVYA abLL V.�d YY �WIRWYA P
I.ua.rY[ 4DNR d M19Y1
�a rP.W ®eNb YC mN'm
R xNM1MMALNO IM.aI'b xpq u• Ra61LNRF
FENCE ELEVATIONS
LAND USE TABLE
w'
.xPeem Ae.
IH.N.
wl.c
.e+Arexu
u.uR.
aPLL W'l1GYi1M W1.
MWI MIAT
Y
.IO.Y.CNIW.mMn
afl prlc
.Y ro..x..
oY'�°wn.T'�"iery swan
.n.+maY.rYNn r.lY..
iiaw..r
mavr
va
iw
OF.TYfIV W
pY�fYT.nal4bRM,
aM
ro.w oAv r.Na
avAw.
ssa.c
wean mum rdr
urvr
w,vo.rion
aYr
,'.gym.
SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS
L M'OiwFCR1Y.�lI®�.a1T
YY mg110YA. YAmcnou uu .R qT! d M.I,. RY,
r�� � mow. A—Mna a.aY,.rtr wtw
aOY,.A OM RYMW ..O lww CYb
LANDSCAPE CATEGORIES
Westfield Park P.U.D.
FORT COL L I N & CO L OR A 0 0
FINAL SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
deAigv
Pm�'Y
RNAL SITE
Arm UMSCAM
PUN
i�
0
Westfield Park PUD - Final, #27-94A
April 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
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.
Westfield Park PUD - Final, #27-94A
April 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
between the developments and provide an easement for bicycle/pedestrian access
to the east, across the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal.
* The development is in compliance with the City's Solar Orientation Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the Westfield Park PUD, Final - #27-94A, with the
following condition:
The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final
plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans,
and final PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between
the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the fourth
meeting (June 19, 1997) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the
meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally
approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the City staff, at said
subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The
Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that
there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain
specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting
of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the
owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in
the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the
Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the
staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient
information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made.)
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended,
as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall
become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition
is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of
calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter
2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall
be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval;
however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution
Westfield Park PUD - Final, #27-94A
April 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Landscaping along the rear of Lots 28 - 30, 49 - 51, 68 & 69, and 86 - 88, in
conjunction with a solid 6' high wood fence, is being provided on the lots along the
entire west property line of the Westfield Park PUD as visual and noise buffer to the
Imperial Estates Subdivision. The developer will be responsible for constructing the
fence along the west property line. Money for the landscaping on the rear of the
aforementioned lots will be placed in escrow and drawn on as the trees are planted
with each home.
Staff feels that the condition of preliminary approval has been met. A copy of the minutes
of the meeting is attached to this memo.
5. Transportation/Engineering:
Access to this development is from Seneca Street, a collector street that bisects the
property north to south between West Horsetooth Road (to the north) and West Harmony
Road (to the south).
The developer is proposing to implement a series of chicanes (traffic calming, speed
reducing devices) in Seneca Street. These chicanes would be raised islands that would
direct automobiles through two short curvilinear sections of the street. They would be
separated from the normal curb and flowline of the street by approximately 6 feet, thus
allowing on -street bicycle lanes to continue on a straight line behind the chicanes (where
they occur). The chicanes would have street trees planted in them to provide a vertical
element for visual purposes. There are on -going discussions between the developer and
City utilities about the compatibility of the trees in the chicanes with the underground
utilities along the street, with the intent to resolve any issues (before the final utility plans
could be approved and signed) and allow the addition of the chicanes. However, if it is
determined that the chicanes cannot work then Seneca Street can be built without them,
as a collector street to current City standards. Either solution does not change the layout,
density, and function of the overall development.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Westfield Park PUD, Final, staff makes the following
Findings of Fact:
It is in conformance with the approved Stockbridge PUD, Preliminary;
It meets the All Development Criteria of the LDGS;
It satisfies the condition of preliminary approval that required the developer to
continue to work with the neighbors to the west concerning adequate mitigation
Westfield Park PUD - Final, #27-94A
April 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Transportation/Engineering of this staff report) along Seneca Street. The common open
space areas and regional detention pond (along the West Horsetooth Road frontage and
the east side of the development along the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal) will contain a
mix of shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees and deciduous shrubs. The common open
space areas and landscaping within adjacent street rights -of way will be maintained by the
homeowner's association for this development.
Solar Orientation:
This development is subject to the City's Solar Orientation Ordinance that requires at least
65% of the lots in the Westfield Park PUD to conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented
lot". A total of 98 of the 118 lots, equaling 83%, comply with the ordinance.
Condition of Preliminary PUD approval:
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary on May 23,
1994 with the following condition:
That the developer work further with the neighborhood and planning staff on
transition issues, berming, landscaping and fencing on the western portion
of the property, and that the developer be willing to provide pedestrian/bicycle
access across the canal, with the variance to the point chart.
The developer discussed the transition issues between the Westfield Park PUD and the
Imperial Estates Subdivision with neighbors at a "follow-up" neighborhood meeting (see
Section 4. Neighborhood Compatibility, below). The developer is dedicating an access
easement and constructing an 8' wide bicycle/pedestrian trail between Purple Sage Court
and the east property line, along the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal. The reference to the
[residential density] point chart variance was obviously dealt with when the Board granted
approval of a variance to the Residential Uses Density Chart the night of the public hearing
for the preliminary PUD. Staff feels that the condition of preliminary approval has been met.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A "follow-up" neighborhood information meeting was held on February 12, 1997 at Webber
Elementary School to discuss the transition issues between this new development and the
Imperial Estates Subdivision. There were approximately 12 affected property owners and
neighbors in attendance. The specific purpose of this meeting was to discuss potential
mitigation measures for the interface between the Westfield Park PUD and the Imperial
Estates Subdivision, in compliance with the aforementioned Planning and Zoning Board's
condition of preliminary approval. The developer and the neighbors in attendance reached
an agreement based on the following commitment:
Westfield Park PUD - Final, #27-94A
April 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RL, LMN; existing single family residential (Kingston Woods PUD)
S: RL, LMN; planned residential (Mountain ridge PUD)
E: UE, RL; existing large acreage single family residence
W: R; existing single family residential in Larimer County (Imperial Estates)
The property was annexed into the City with the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation in
June, 1980.
The property was subdivided as the Stockbridge Village PUD in May, 1981 for 63 lots on
30.47 acres. A portion of this property was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board
in January, 1990, for an 8.0 acre church site.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Stockbridge PUD, Preliminary on May 23,
1994 for 117 single family lots on 31.02 acres.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for final PUD approval for 118 single family residential lots on 31.02
acres. It is in conformance with the approved Stockbridge PUD, Preliminary (renamed
Westfield Park PUD with this final request) and meets the applicable All Development
Criteria in the LDGS.
3. Design:
Landscaping:
Landscaping along the rear of Lots 28 - 30, 49 - 51, 68 & 69, and 86 - 88, in conjunction
with a solid 6' high wood fence, is being provided on the lots along the entire west property
line of the Westfield Park PUD as visual and noise buffer to the Imperial Estates
Subdivision. The developer will be responsible for constructing the fence along the west
property line. Money for the landscaping on the rear of the aforementioned lots will be
placed in escrow and drawn on as the trees are planted with each home.
There will be street (shade) trees, at 40' spacing, in the parkways along Seneca Street.
There will also be shade trees in the proposed chicanes (see Section 5.
ITEM NO. 3
MEETING DATE 4f 9R/97
STAFF St2y@ Olt
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Westfield Park PUD, Final - #27-94A
(approved at preliminary as Stockbridge PUD)
APPLICANT: BHA Design Inc.
2000 Vermont Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Progressive Living Structures Inc.
4190 North Garfield Street
Loveland, CO. 80538
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for final planned unit development (PUD) approval for 118 single family
residential lots on 31.02 acres. The project is located on the south side of West Horsetooth
Road at Seneca Street and is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Final PUD with a condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for final PUD approval:
* Is in conformance with the approved Stockbridge PUD, Preliminary;
* meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
(LDGS);
* satisfies the condition of preliminary approval that required the developer to
continue to work with the neighbors to the west concerning adequate mitigation
between the developments and provide an easement for bicycle/pedestrian access
to the east, across the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT