HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89C - REPORTS - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTr
•
Planning and Environmental Analysis of
Laurie Subdivision, a P. U. D.
Prepared By;
RICli,,'P101VD ASSOCI TES
Architects/Planners
DONALD L. RICHMOND
ARCHITECT
420 WEST OAK STREET
FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 (303) 224-3140
MARK LINDER
Broker
Marketed by:
Linder
309 West Harmony Road Btu: (303) 229-0544
Fort Collins, CO 80526 Rea: (303) 493-5624
_J
• September 6, 1990
Planning and Environmental Analysis
of Laurie Subdivision, A P.U.D.
INTRODUCTION__.
This study is intended to analyze the various Engineering,
Storm Drainage, and Environmental considerations for the design
of Laurie Subdivision. It is the intent of the developer to
create a unique, low density, custom home environment that is
compatible with and sensitive to the unique environmental
qualities of a portion of the site. Through the use of sensi-
tive and practical design, strong protective covenants and
architectural controls, and the creation of city -owned drainage
• tracts we feel that the unique areas of the site can be preserved
and the project developed with a minimum of environmental impact.
DESCRIPTION_ OF SITE
The subdivision site contains appoximately eight acres. The
site is bounded on the east by Shields Street and on the west by
The Ridge subdivision. The site is long and narrow, approximately
300 by 1200 feet from east to west. The site contains an area of
approximately 1.5 acres of wooded south sloping hillside and
approximately 1 acre of ravine that is crossed diagonally by a
discharge ditch of the Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal Co. It is
these two areas that the proposed subdivision design strives to
be sensitive to and preserve intact over time. The ravine is
largely a man created environment that was caused by the intro-
duction of irrigation to the area and has been carved through the
100 years use of the canal system. The excess water flows have
a
• been diverted though this drainage channel creating the dramatic
relief features on the site.
CONTENT
This study addresses three primary areas of concern: Access
and Engineering, Storm water Drainage, and Natural Resource and
Environmental issues. A specific section is included for each
major.area followed by a summary of the proposal.
ACCESS_ AND ENGINEERING_ISSUES
The first alternative considered was a proposed access for
the western portion of the site from Hepplewhite Court in The
Ridge subdivision. This access would proceed due north from
• Hepplewhite Court approximately 200 feet and teminate in a cul-de
-sac. This access was the least intrusive on the site in that it
did not require a crossing of the ravine. The easterly portion of
the site would be served from a cul-de-sac off of Shields Street.
This approach was protested vigorously by the residents of The
Ridge and removed from consideration in the master plan phase.
The protective covenants of the Ridge specifically did not allow
such an access.
After The Ridge access was denied, access from Shields
Street became the only alternative possible. we feel that this
access provides for a better unified development and also allows
for the sewer service for the entire project to run in one direc-
tion versus two. Soils tests were run on the property and re-
• vealed that the soils exhibit suitable bearing and compaction
characteristics for either a bridge or an engineered fill road
2
• design.
The location of the proposed street is, we believe, the best
location to affect the fewest number of trees in crossing the
ravine and provides a useable cul-de-sac location that does not
significantly alter the contours of the terrain on the west por-
tion of the site. The decision of this proposed crossing of the
ravine involved a thourough evaluation of various alternatives.
The first type of crossing considered was the utilization of a
bridge. This alternative had the advantage of not creating any
drainage flow obstacles that could be covered or blocked by tree
limbs and debris during a large storm and impacted less of the
existing terrain with necessary embankments and headwalls. The
disadvantages with a bridge solution are many. Perhaps the most
significant is that the slopes involved due to the western end
being lower than the eastern end would be a safety hazzard, par-
ticularly in the winter months due to the freeze thaw cycle and
the micro climate of the ravine. Please refer to exhibit A. The
length of span is very long, and utilities would have to be
attached to the structure. A bridge would require massive head-
walls for the approaches and still impact a sizeable portion of
the ravine. A bridge would involve the loss of appoximately three
trees of 6 inches plus diameter versus six trees of that size in
an embankment approach. An engineer that had designed bridges in
similar terrain was consulted and asked to review.the possible
alternatives. His recommendation for all of the above reasons was
• }o not consider a bridge, beat opt for an embankment -fill •approach
that could be sculpted, contoured, and landscaped to blend into
3
I
0, 0
. the existing environment. For the above reasons, and beacause we
feel a bridge structure would be very intrusive on the site from
an aesthetic standpoint our proposal includes an embankment
approach.
Initial proposals we made involved a standard width rig ht.-
of -way and pavement section road on an engineered fill embank-
ment. The embankment will be the best solution in that it can be
made to look or appear again like the natural terrain and main-
tain the same slope and landscape characteristics. The most
difficult problem to resolve is the conflict between trying to
minimize the mass and width of the fill area and not have overly
steep slopes that make access difficult to the upstream drainage
• way for periodic maintenance purposes. We are proposing that a 3
to 1 slope be maintained to mitigate the loss of existing trees
on the site. We evaluated the possibility of retaining walls or
reinforced earth on both sides to narrow the width of the fill
area and feel that a "highway look" or man -created feel would be
the result from an aesthetic standpoint. In examining the present
road embankment crossing on Hepplewhite Court with the City
Forester we determined that due to the water flows in the ravine
and high levels of moisture and tree cover that the natural
grasses and foliage flourished in this unique micro environment
and would offer the best solution. We do not feel that the
Hepplewhite crossing is intrusive and have opted £or the same
natural approach in our proposal. To reduce the width and mass of
• the fill area we are proposing narrowing the street, Wooded Creek
Court, down to 410 feet at this point and not allowing parking on
0
I
0, 0
• either side. Because this street only serves 4 lots on the
western side and nine lots total we are proposing sidewalk only
on one side in this section, again with the goal of reducing the
fill width and area. We will have signage and guideposts warning
of the embankment and a 6 foot shoulder on both sides for safety
and utility placement. We feel that with proper landscaping and
revegitation in a very short time the fill area can be returned
to a very pleasing condition.
STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
-------------------------------
The proposed embankment creates several conflicts between
the desire to be less intrusive with regard to width and sire and
the requirement to channel storm water drainage and canal dis-
is charge flows through it without obstruction and blockage. Several
alternatives were reviewed with regards to this problem. We re-
viewed the possibility of doubling the capacity of the pipe (to 6
feet) to allow limbs and debris to flow through in the event of a
large storm. Please refer to exhibit B for a cross section
drawing of this. The disadvantage of this is that the potential
still would exist for blockage and it did not provide an access
of any kind for removal. Our proposal provides an access road
with an approximate 20% slope on the uphill side to a work
platform above a small headwall that would allow a rubber tired
backhoe access to clear any obstructions from a normal 4 foot
diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The providing of an
appoximately 8 foot headwall shortens the width of the embankment
by appoximately 20 feet. This access also provides a way for
people to observe the bottom of the ravine if they would so
5
• desire. The access way can utilize grass Crete to have a more
natural appearance and not invite abuse. The 3 to 1 side slopes
of the embankment can be seeded and revegitated to appear in the
same condition as the existing side slopes of the ravine. For a
cross section of our proposal please refer to exhibit C.
To insure that the critical areas of the embankment and
storm drainage facilities remain intact and in good condition
over time we are proposing to dedicate a portion of the site to
the city as a drainage tract. We do not wish this area to become
a parkland tract or public recreational area because of its
fragile nature and the future residents of Laurie Subdivision's
desire for privacy. In this way once ownership of the lots passes
• to the eventual residents and the city's and architectural
control committee's reviews are done (as to the improvements) the
most critical portion of the site will be subject to city
control.
NATURAL RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
-----------------------------------------
The general goal statements involving natural resource
environmental issues are fairly well summarized in the staff
report issued by Bob Wilkenson on October 11, 1988.
The first five goal statements are as follows:
1. "Encourage all waterways, including irrigation canals, in
areas to be developed be incorporated imaginatively and skill-
fully into a satisfactory environmental design." We believe that
the proposal as provided will satisfy this requirement.
• 2. "Encourage developers to utilize natural contours, topo-
graphical features, and existing trees where possible in
no
S
•
9
• accordance with the proposed use of the site." The proposed
embankment creates the loss of approximately 6 cottonwood trees
of 6 inch diameter or larger. We have proposed through the
protective covenants and landscape plan to replace any lost trees
with the addition of a minimum of fifty new trees of various
species. In addition, the proposed embankment will be sculpted
into the existing contours on the site and once revegitated
will not appear obstrusive.
3. "Encourage joint use of drainage facilities, such as open
channels and detention ponds, for open space purposes." The
solution proposed for storm water utilities access to the head-
wall of the channel also provides for pedestrian access to the
• lower part of the ravine. This area will be accessible through a
public right-of-way street for the benefit of all.
4. "Insure that the type, design, and location of new
development be compatible with environmental considerations." We
have proposed that the development be a very low density of 1.5
units per acre. Only three housing envelopes encroach in a wooded
area and there would be requirements to communicate with the city
forester prior to any development on these sites. In addition
specific recommendations and remedies will be provided •:luring
construction to protect the existing trees during the construc-
tion period.
5. "Encourage developers to provide protection and mainten-
ance of the environment." The owner of this subdivision has in-
0 corporated many different mechanisms to insure the protection of
the environment. The primary mechanism is through the creation of
protective covenants that require the lot owner to plant trees in
a ratio of 1 tree per one tenth of an acre. Also, the plat will
provide that before a building permit can be issued the City
Forester must -)De consulted to determine the disposition of any
trees that may be damaged or removed during the construction of
housing.
An additional and important consideration in regard to
environmental concern is general in nature in that homes on this
subdivision will be required to be more energy efficient than the
average production home. The covenants will require that each
home obtain an energy rating of G 80 or above prior to construc-
tion of the home through the city's new energy score program.
• This rating will insure in a small way that less energy is
consumed in the subdivision over time than in other types of
similar housing.
We are proposing that the embankment be completely land-
scaped and revegitated. The slopes will be temporarily covered
and maintained with landscape fabric until full growth is
achieved. A complete landscape plan will be provided with the
final approval documents at the appropriate time.
SUMMARY
It is the intent of the developer to create a unique, low
density cutom home environment in Laurie Subdivision. To achieve
this end the protective covenants will be firm and architectural
• review controls thorough. Included as exhibits D & E are the
proposed architectural guidelines and submittal requirements.
They are very similar to those used in The Landings and
8
• Clarendon Hills subdivisions. The covenants will require a
minimum finished floor area of 2500 square feet. Building
envelopes are specified with building height limitations and
controls will be in place requiring the City Forester to review
and approve tree disposition before any construction on the lots.
Only three of the nine lots have significant trees that may be
affected by house construction. The street has been located far
enough away from them so that assuming a normal 30 foot front set
back very few will actually be affected. The proposed embankment
will require that several trees be removed but over time as the
subdivision builds out these will be replaced ten fold.
After extensively reviewing numerous alternatives we feel
• that our pr.oposal of a sculpted and landscaped earthen embankment
to be the most compatible and sensitive development solution. The
issues of architectural design, scale, bulk and building height
and orientation will be determined over time as the subdivision
builds out and have to be entrusted to the architectural control
committee. We feel that we have adequately addressed the various
access, engineering, storm drainage and environmental issues and
that Laurie Subdivision can become one of Fort Collins' finest
neighborhoods that we all can be proud of.
Exhibit F is an enlarged scale plan of the fill area
discussed in this report. This plan is the concluding recommend-
ation in preliminary form of concerns expressed for access, storm
drainage and environmental criteria in the planning of Laurie
0 Subdivision P.U.D. We believe the specific measures contained in
this report regarding controls set forth in covenants,
9
• architectural control and plat statement requirements will both
•
mitigate environmental damage to the drainage way and even
enhance other areas or the site.
10
Ba
-
X
� � 1 •
u 4
CAv�Jm'\O�Pjosl�,b--
.__
%4 6 ► A
0
•
V - � F
/Ac-FeT2 VC,- F1 TY--,--
I r�
F L
G. L
.................. 111,1.....M
14VI
-7
61P-AID or- PIPS- -- ----
lwv cw_
34
0
0
G�
40
PEI
Hf�,AD wA—i, � fo55
G�
IZ:- --
�y
- —
' � II
k
VLATrOPH j�►-, sa
m
I
I
�. 31
PIA {zz p
41 41 - -
Al Cy
W���fl �� K GoV jZT
of/6/oj o
i
J
e)� tiI p
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RO EMENTS
Documents required for submittal should be delivered to Nordic
Homes 309 W. Harmony Rd. Fort Collins, Co. 00526 226-2266
I. Conceptual Review
• Submit one set. Conceptual review Is not mandatory but Is
available to prospective purchasers In ♦dvance of preparing
dotal 1.d submittal requirements.
A. Elevations
B. Plot Plan (with sq. ftg, of all floors finished and
unfinished.
I1. Final submittal
Submit 2 complete sets of plans. One will be returned to
you after approval. All the following requirements must be
met. All plans must be prepared by an Architect or
previously approved professional capable of preparing
architectural quality documents.
A. Site plan
w 1. Owner's name, address, phone number i
signature.
2. North arrow
3. Scale of 1'-20' or larger
4. Lot dimensions
S. Lot number
6. Street names and number
7. Building location with dimensions to property
lines, location of setbacks, easements, all
paved areas such as drives, patios L stoops
as well as decks and other outdoor structures
wether to be built initially or In the
future.
0. Existing and future grades at 2' Intervals
and lot corner elevations.
9. Elevations of top of foundation and elevation
of the first floor level relating to the
contours of the site and a lot corner
elevation.
10. Builders name, address and phone R.
B. Landscape plan
I. To be prepared by a landscape professional
2. Scale to match the site plan
3. Location of fence, type of fence (see
approved designs)
• 4. All planting beds locations
S. Plant ■aterfal and sizes
Shrubs sin. 9 gal.
Trees sin. 3 shade of 1 3/4' caliper, 2 - 4'
conifer.
Front yard sod
6. Location of sod and seed
7. Edging and mulch type
a. Location of storage, play areas, decks, etc.
9. Completion dates and any phasing
C. Architectural plans
1. Complete working drawings Including floor
plans (all floors), elevations (all sides)
building sections, etc. The first floor plan
13 to show the square footage of each floor,
both finished and unfinished sq. ftg. plus a
total of all.
2. Engineered foundation plan.
3. Elevations shoving specifications of all
materials
1. Trim, siding, windows. doors, roof, rail
-Ing$. shade structures, ornamentation,
garage doors etc. (see guidelines)
2. Show the height of the building from the
lowest point along the front lot line and
from grade at the front door.
4. Exterior perspective shoving the street view
of the building to be built, showing the
exterior ■aterl^ls that will be Incorporated
In the building.
D. Samples
Submit one set.
1. Siding with color painted/stained on actual
piece of siding (sin. 12' long)
2. Trim with color painted/stained on ar.tuwl
piece of trim (min. 12* long)
3. Masonry (actual board from brick or stone
supplier. 12' x 12')
4. Typed list of materials with owner's name,
lot number. manufactures name, color number.
• style number
tir setc.
S. Sticks of the siding and of the trim
color with the afg. name. number of the
color, lot number and owner+ name on the
back.
No approval& will be given until all the requirements newt been
met.
No partial approval& will be given.
No construction can start until final approval is given
All changes and comments from the Architectural Control committee
regarding Submittal will be signed by the owner and contractor.
any dewiatlon will result In legal action -'in all attorney and
Court costs assuaed by the owner and,Or ContraCtor.
01
9 xti I'81T �F-- 0
Note: This outline is to be used as a guide for the Committee
and homeowners.
Covenants require all items to be submitted to
the Committee for
specific approval.
Item
Guideline
Design scheme
Traditional
Roof materials
Wood shingles, shakes (#2 or better), tile
Roof slope
Min. 6/12 (no exceptions)
Overhangs
Min. 12'
Masonry
Stone or brick, no artificial brick or stone,
wrap outside corners an min. of 4' on lower
and upper walls. A minimum of 30: of the
street facing elevation walls including doors
and windows excluding roof area shall be
masonry.
Siding
6' Masonite or wood lap siding with a max. 5'
exposure.
Trim
1 x 4 min. at the windows (all around)
1 x 6 min. at the corners
is
1 x 10 at the floor changes
1 x 4 to 1 x 10 at the top of siding adjacent
to the soffit
I x 10 at the bottom of the siding above the
foundation
Fascia i x 10 with l x 4 trim or gutter
Exterior vents To fit exterior design
Furnace, Plumbing
vents Located on the back side of the ridge facing
the street
Colors Subtle, traditional colors to blend with the
character of the neighborhood. All exterior
railings, wood, trim etc. to match trim
color. No clear finish!
Windows Double hung/ Casement clad or painted with
color to match trim color, window grills
outside face to be painted to match trim.
Fences See approved designs
Landscaping See submittal requirements
Antennas, Dishes Antennas to be locate in the attic space and
satellite dishes are not allowed.
Items that need
approval Storm doors, basketball hoops, play houses,
dog houses, swing sets, signs, house numbers,
clothes lines, site lighting, windows air
conditioners, swamp coolers, firewood
storage, change 1n color scheme, RV, boat,
additional vehicle parking.
L6h•TINc
x
Sh
r-- 1.0T Mv MBEF
70 sa LO To Bo
10
Alan
t 41'
7,0' w r nor
F4w
l
A.
-711
II M11�
'D
AC t-V A6 F-
5a90
�677 Fiusr rf6vR f6i•
I M Ax R4VF PEs+IK ELL. 1
GPVL Z%j. CA* 2
F I'- 15QJ ql A �
/�p,TrM l— MIN no so'arn R.D 3
90
�-+ zel
�~ -� ' r —— j-----FR"T PIUNa II
I S .
I Fl 11
; I? �ErCRINMT Ha+E*W I
��AL
= I pt
a, I —
/ E� Ems., •T� o,, �.. YT►�i t -
1OLTM Iyt -1
11,
44-75 ]SO
4' I 5 M94 a W sG2,7
N �1 G 32 .41 I
ul
fA RltYjt PIN
1� d
[uxlHc
_ I
fu
WOODED CREEK CT
�^.OL A
yI F.HfE: �iEC GT'1PNC
h v.- -z' CQJIJTtiuRS
Lux!W PITft1
�,!_'
o \ \ N\ l
w.
�
g_ r=- I
,z�.41 _. 1 --
- -- 40
� O Es rbT1N c 7p
I
Un 26 F141j1 o. w.-PRELIMINARY /91C[f1110NU ASSOCfdTCS
LAU A I E SUBDIVS I O N ArelaitecLa/111"noters
SECOND FILING, A RU.D. 420 WEST OAK STReeT
1 Preliminary Plan/Plat FT. COLLINS, Co80521 . [7031224-9140
l dots-fts. --- - - - --------
The obleotlr. of the plam 1. to .ff.ct Lvelr utilise the 6.44
�•. .- .ere .Its for for de osltr ruldantlsl d.w lop.eot whll.
ulnta In tng e . ......nuntal gwlltle. of the .1to.
!. All portion@ of the site will be maintained by individual
owner. of the site.
1
- C. Thew. ar. no bun lno.as or oDloy.m■ propou, !or she ..cone
flung.
d. The a N daalgn le the result of trylog to ■lt lq ate the
_ Impact of the sccu. road accrou the lrr lgat loo rvoolf twine
that I.
located on tM site. The nlocat ion of the acc... road
Is the moat Hulble beat lob for the road abd allows the
.,,a.�,� developean' o! the .f" rlthout dut ruction of the tree.loe
HNf ttL1UTH. -� • Y H#,v11'I,%M, WM Va ir+'- hl ll. ids. The .cceaa road rill at appur /otrva re to the .Its
OF p,ri.�• pvr fih'�CMCNT from the lower visible locations In The III,. .ubdlrl1lon.
Build log sous. op.a will be •elect., that c...te 04,e Iea.t
1..to. to the .1 to. a h./ght reetr lct ion rlll_bIspo..d
FbHPh 04 WTTIp, 3{,1916 g6VIM I InF 1,88041901 n t.rrslo chaNcterl.tlas of the site that losure that
g�u k A �r M both on and off site property owners have an unrestricted view
I r'F accrou the -it-.
..�..�� ��.w.... rJ. v-, • ,%lrtu _ _. .__ _. __ ........ .. . a... n. .,.
Site Data a
* Total Acreage
6.44
a Lot Total
5.76
a Public R.O.W. Total
.68
: Density: 9 D.U. p 1.4
DU/acr
• Approximately 3.5 Bedrooms p
s Building Coverage
6.4%
• Driveway Coverage
3.2%
it Public R.O.W.
11.0%
s Off Street Parking
3.5 p
m Open Area
79.4%