HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89D - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 8
MEETING DATE 8/26/91
STAFF Sherry Albertson -Clark
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,D
APPLICANT: Dr. William M. Musslewhite
c/o Jack Johnson Company
1910 Prospector Ave., Suite 200
Park City, Utah 84060
OWNER: Dr. William M. Musslewhite
5001 S. Shields
Fort Collins, CO 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for preliminary approval
for 9 single family homes on 6.4 acres, located west of Shields
Street, 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road. The site is zoned R-L-P,
Low Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes 9 single family homes on
this site. The proposed preliminary plan is in conformance with
the approved Master Plan for the South Shields Veterinary Clinic
PUD. The applicant has requested a variance to the minimum
required density of 3 DU/acre. Staff supports the requested
density variance. With these conditions implemented, staff
believes the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS will
be addressed. Conditions relating to conservation easement
language, deletion of Lot 7, building envelope limitations on Lots
8 and 9, erosion control and revegetation plans, rip rap for
erosion control and culvert stabilization are being recommended
with preliminary approval.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
•
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background•
- #44-89,C
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; vacant
S: RLP; existing single family residences (The Ridge PUD)
E: RP; vacant (South Shields Vet Clinic PUD - proposed vet
clinic)
W: RLP; existing single family residences (The Ridge PUD)
The site is a portion of the area annexed in 1989 as The Ridge
Annexation and was zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential.
There is no PUD condition attached to the zoning of this area;
therefore, single family homes are considered a "use -by -right" in
this zoning designation. The applicant could pursue subdividing
the property for single family homes, rather than using the PUD
option. Staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a planned unit
development due to the unique characteristics of the site and
because the PUD process provides for a comprehensive review
process.
The site is also a portion of the South Shields Veterinary PUD
Master Plan. This plan was approved by the Board at the November
20, 1989 Board meeting with a condition that wording regarding a
potential for vehicular access from Hepplewhite Court be removed
from the Master Plan. The Master Plan consisted of a veterinary
clinic and nine single family lots. The final PUD plan for the
veterinary clinic was approved May 7, 1990.
2. Land Use•
The proposed land use consists of 9 single family lots on 6.4
acres. The preliminary site plan was evaluated under the
Residential Density Chart. The proposed density of 1.4 DU/acre is
supported by the 29% achieved on the Density Chart. Points were
awarded for proximity to a neighborhood park (Clarendon Hills
park), energy conservation (achieving an energy rating on the
Energy Score System that exceeds the minimum required score by 10
points) and for the use of automatic fire extinguishing systems on
4 of the 9 lots.
The proposed density does not meet the minimum required density of
3 DU/acre and the applicant has requested a variance to this
requirement. Staff believes that this site serves as a logical
•
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
transition between the Shields Street frontage of this area
(location of the approved veterinary clinic) and the lower
densities of The Ridge PUD. Furthermore, given the topographic
nature of this site, development at a density lower than the
required 3 DU/acre is logical, to further minimize impacts on the
site. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested
density variance.
The proposed single family lots are compatible with surrounding
land uses, which consist primarily of large, single family lots
ranging in size from .5 acre to 1.2 acres. The gross density
(including open space areas) of The Ridge PUD is 1.6 DU/acre, with
net density at 1.1 DU/acre (excluding open space areas).
3. Design:
Previous Proposal:
Laurie Subdivision PUD was originally submitted to the Planning
Department in July of 1990, consisting of nine single family lots,
with a local street providing access across a ravine which splits
the property from north to south. Four lots were proposed on the
west side of the ravine. The Laurie ravine is a unique natural
area within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. It was identified
as an area of "high sensitivity" on the wildlife habitat maps
endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1988 and is identified
as a high priority area in the Draft Natural Areas Policy Plan.
The site consists of a small intermittent stream channel,
surrounded by native riparian vegetation, intermixed with scattered
small pockets of wetland. Away from the stream channel, the site
is classified as native cottonwood upland forest and contains a
variety of native shrubs, as well as native wildflowers and
grasses. The ravine serves as a movement corridor for a herd of
about 10 mule deer. It also provides habitat for various birds of
prey, including wintering bald eagles and red-tailed hawks. Based
on plant species composition and coverage, the site may provide
habitat for a high diversity of migratory and resident songbirds,
although no surveys have been conducted.
The staff review and analysis of this proposal resulted in a staff
recommendation for denial, on the basis that LDGS All Development
Criteria #13 and #28 (dealing with preservation of significant
existing vegetation and designing the site in favorable
relationship to existing topography) were not met by the proposed
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
plan. The applicant chose to continue the project indefinitely, so
there has been no previous Planning and Zoning Board review of this
development.
Current Proposal:
After several discussions with staff, the applicant resubmitted the
development plans with a new design for accessing the western
portion of the site. The proposed plan consists of nine single
family homes, with lot sizes ranging from .38 acre to .81 acres.
Access to the western portion of the site consists of a 20' wide
hard -surfaced private drive. This drive crosses the ravine near
the northern edge of the site. Two culvert crossings (48" and 18"
in size) are proposed through the ravine. The only connection
planned to Hepplewhite Court is for utilities to serve this site.
Approximately 1.02 acres of the existing ravine is proposed to be
retained as open space, with a conservation easement attached to
it. Maintenance and ownership of this area would be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association. The specific
language of the proposed conservation easement, as well as
provisions for maintenance of this natural area, is of concern to
staff, to assure that adequate protection of this natural area is
provided for. Staff is recommending that the language of the
proposed conservation easement, including maintenance, be reviewed
and approved by City staff during final review.
In the current submittal, the driveway access to the western
portion of the site has been designed to be sensitive to the
existing topography and significant vegetation of the ravine.
Staff remains concerned about the extent of encroachment into the
ravine by Lots 7, 8, and 9. At issue are the extent of vegetation
to be removed and the amount of topographic alteration required to
build on the steep slopes of these lots.
Staff believes that Lot 7 creates a significant encroachment into
the natural area and should be deleted from the proposed plan and
added to the designated open space. The opportunity may exist for
modification of Lots 1 and 2 to retain a total of nine lots. Staff
is recommending a condition that Lot 7 be deleted from the final
plans and this area be added to the designated open space.
While the applicant has indicated an intent to maintain existing
vegetation on remaining lots, staff is concerned about the extent
of vegetative disturbance and topographic modification associated
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
with the large building envelopes on Lots 8 and 9. The applicant
has indicated to staff that areas of blue grass lawn would be
limited to front lawn areas (between the street and front of
building envelope) and that disturbance on these lots would be
minimized through reducing building envelopes and maximizing the
use of native plant materials. Staff recommends that building
envelope lines on Lots 8 and 9 be reduced to restrict disturbance
below the 5084 foot contour line. Staff is also recommending a
condition that tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for
approval for Lots 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Lots 3, 6, 8 and 9 are adjacent to or within the boundaries of the
sensitive area and therefore, pose the most threat of erosion that
could impact this natural area. Care during construction to
prevent and minimize the potential for erosion, as well as plans to
revegetate disturbed areas are particularly critical for these
lots. Therefore, staff recommends that individual erosion control
and revegetation plans be required for Lots 3, 6, 8 and 9 prior to
the issuance of a building permit, to ensure adequate treatment
during construction and revegetation with compatible plant
materials. On -site inspection, by City staff, throughout the
construction process will be required, to ensure these plans are
adhered to.
The applicant proposes to use native plant materials to revegetate
areas of the site that are disturbed by construction, to mitigate
the visual impact of disturbed areas and to replace significant
existing vegetation. The revegetation plantings will have a
natural appearance by being placed in tree and shrub groupings
scattered throughout the disturbed areas. Native grasses will be
used for ground cover. In addition to erosion control through the
use of plant materials, soil tackifiers will be used in the grass
seeding process to limit wind and water erosion. Erosion control
blankets may also be used on steep slopes to ensure the
establishment of grasses.
Based on current plans, it is not clear if the rip rap areas needed
to stabilize the proposed culverts would be designed to allow shrub
and tree placement and revegetation with native grasses. Staff
recommends that rip rap areas be designed to allow revegetation and
that detailed plans for these sites be submitted for approval at
the time of final review.
During the past year, staff has discussed several alternatives for
access to the western portion of this site with the applicant. The
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
logical way to access this portion of the site would appear to be
via a connection to Hepplewhite Court in The Ridge PUD. The
applicant apparently pursued this alternative via The Ridge
Homeowner's Association, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a
Hepplewhite connection. There are other potential alternatives for
access to the western portion of this site that would not require
crossing the sensitive natural area. These include (a) through
property to the north of The Ridge (pasture land) from Shields
Street; (b) via a private drive connection to The Ridge PUD (north
and west of this site); or (c) via The Ridge open space corridor to
the west of the site. It appears that none of the owners of these
properties are interested in providing for such an alternative
access.
Acquisition of the ravine and the western portion of the site
(about 4-5 acres) was also proposed as a combined public -private
effort, involving adjacent property owners, The Ridge Homeowner's
Association and the City. This option was explored, but the
property owner's asking price and the City's Right -of -Way Agent's
estimated value of the site were too far apart and the acquisition
effort did not proceed further.
At the August 20, 1991 Council meeting, the City Council directed
staff to explore the feasibility of acquisition of the natural
areas of this site and provide further information to Council at
the September 3 Council meeting. The Natural Resources Division
will be providing this information to Council.
Throughout the lengthy history of this proposal, staff has been
very concerned about the sensitive natural characteristics of the
area. Staff has worked hard to achieve significant changes in the
plan from the original proposal. Based on the inventory work done
by the Natural Resources Division and the proposed Natural Areas
Policy Plan, it would be staff's preference to retain the entire
ravine as a natural area in private or public ownership; however,
given the present lack of alternatives for access for property west
of the ravine, staff believes that the applicant has done the best
job possible in attempting to minimize and mitigate impacts
associated with the ravine crossing. As previously noted, several
conditions are recommended by staff to minimize and mitigate
impacts related to building placement and construction on this
site.
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 23, 1990 and again on
June 26, 1990 (see attached minutes). Since that time, staff has
remained in contact with area residents and representatives of The
Ridge HOA. Concerns expressed at the neighborhood meetings were
generally related to the proposed density, covenant restrictions,
drainage/erosion concerns and environmental concerns related to
crossing/filling the existing ravine.
Density proposed for this site (1.4 DU/acre) is consistent and
compatible with the existing density for The Ridge PUD (1.6
DU/acre). The Ridge contains a variety of lot sizes, ranging from
.5 acres to 1.2 acres, which are generally compatible in size with
the proposed lots on the Laurie Subdivision PUD.
The applicant is proposing several covenant restrictions addressing
fencing, roof materials, building size and height to address
residents' concerns regarding covenants restrictions. These
restrictions are not being required by staff, but rather, represent
the applicant's efforts at providing a development in character
with The Ridge and other area development.
Staff believes that the proposed single family lots are compatible
with surrounding land uses, which consist primarily of large,
single family lots.
5. Transportation:
The proposed nine single family homes will generate minimal
traffic. This traffic will use the same street (Wooded Creek
Court) as the veterinary clinic to access Shields Street.
There was a potential street connection with the property to the
north shown on the approved Master Plan for the South Shields
Veterinary PUD. The property owner to the north did not want a
street connection provided and therefore, the applicant has not
shown a connection on the site plan.
6. Storm Drainage:
Drainage and erosion concerns exist for this site, due to its
significant variety in topography and due to the nature of the
existing vegetation. The applicant has met the preliminary PUD plan
submittal requirements, in terms of the amount of information
necessary for utility and drainage plans at a preliminary stage;
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
however, there will be a number of items, from a storm drainage
standpoint, that must be addressed at final review. Staff is
recommending that a detailed analysis, along with plans and
specifications for rip -rap materials, placement, size, etc. and
other erosion control methods proposed to stabilize the ravine be
submitted for final review.
There is an existing irrigation ditch through this site that
provides irrigation water to the Applewood Estates Subdivision,
east of Shields Street. Representatives of the Applewood Estates
Homeowner's Association have been in contact with the applicant's
consultants regarding this ditch. An easement for the irrigation
ditch will be provided by the applicant and the two parties are
currently discussing the specifics of piping this irrigation water
through the site. This easement crosses Lots 1, 2 and 9 and may be
increased in width to 201, as requested by Applewood Estates.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary is in
conformance with the approved South Shields Veterinary Clinic
Master Plan and that the requested density variance is justified.
Staff further finds that, as submitted, the proposed plan would not
conform with LDGS All Development Criteria #13 and Criteria #28
which deal with preservation of significant existing vegetation and
designing the site in favorable relationship to existing
topography. Staff believes that modifications can be made to the
proposed plan to address these concerns. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary #44-89D,
with the following conditions:
1. The language of the proposed conservation easement, including
maintenance be reviewed by City staff during final review.
2. Lot 7 be deleted from the final plans and this area be added
to the open space.
3. Building envelope lines on Lots 8 and 9 be reduced to restrict
disturbance below the 5084 foot contour line.
4. Tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for approval for
Lots 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,C
August 26, 1991 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
5. Individual erosion control and revegetation plans be required
for Lots 3, 6, 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building
permit, to ensure adequate treatment during construction and
revegetation with compatible plant materials. On -site
inspection, by City staff, throughout the construction process
will be required, to ensure these plans are adhered to.
6. Rip rap areas be designed to allow revegetation and that
detailed plans for these sites be submitted for approval at
the time of final review.
7. Detailed plans and specifications regarding rip -rap materials,
placement, size, etc. and other erosion control methods be
submitted for final review.
8. A detailed analysis, along with plans and specifications for
rip -rap materials, placement, size, etc. and other erosion
control methods proposed to stabilize the ravine be submitted
for final review.
—Snge Fw* Pe5[Intce
\J/
— \ W 21 The P..W KO I � liM 23 Tha FWp. PiD
AL
Statement of Planning Objectives
.. ay..u.. .. _ .. . .......... ....e t..d
e e... ........w.
w.°"..•°9: •t°`°",`.ta.�,....,a., .`.o:u keYt.m.......,u :� w ..ate.a,,... ®t.a �w tt... t w .. m
o. .fu a.,w.•nc. � ,� °:•: rv.ereu.w�q�Yw�.�
•tt., icm tY • .,,. a .,t,a. •e `M e.v.y .. m, aa,e• wuaa .wa to ..euc. m .o.. ... .
Owner Certification
7��
I
D
�
Fuiue
ve,«.u,y
I
wspnal
vLi
i)
—6 r�T
e.rYS1G`ir
/
—
gep.mad
NII9 PoaO
17`
North \L/
Scale: T=50'
Tabuiations
e:f.tlny rm,l 1. etp.
mi>u. >nual.n n.line to w .p
Parcel Size, Cross
. IWaatrlen cllto Il aea¢ up
Parcel Stze, Net
If 4— lid,aid—laevalka elotg each
.tee If vooam cr..x co„rc.
Total Sioe Famiy Lots
. Pnee4,g o[ tlevelopaent to coeuiat of
ReaderYbal Dam"
q— It :5[ivet. ar —y..
we Yote 1, 4, am [[e to
1N e:iaenclal
Cel rage
qulppM . iq+twea
ln p intle[ coaynaatxuct ion to contorn
Pilveaa.v
lDawmaeyw
.N ca ntlam..
i.t.a iN
Pubic street nOw
. .. :a.in. wtalae
entla�n `� lop.. ov Iota ), e, 4B
en'i � o.mi.t,..c.a aoa in
Open Space
. MIn[manw a[ Ne p[lvata tlrlve ana
culvarta a axlatW viN the private
ad.e c. a Na e.ponsieufcy of Ne
novaevnere esaxietion.
�%ol Vnae pe.cel alie ehwvn
i %
m
O
Q U
11 U
lL
O
CO
Cj)m
6.46 ac 281,651 sf
6.14 ac 267,507 st
9
1.4 Isms/acre
PrekNnary
15,475 sf 5%' Site Plan/Plat
14,144 sf 5%'
aa,2ae sf 16%e
c 31 Mey 1991
7-SkqO
c .r 4 tys, 2j �M/ A"-- f+ PM a/ f coin'- vu+o
1
•
F
1
0
cLL
O
A Cz
General
Landscaping
Plan
0 31 Mey 1981
K 3 ;::]
\ /-jlnlaye1✓'
\ �oTeN_I lo�l
Acce55
Tk e ` \/
Po-F,.-o+ia1
Access �t . �av�v�e No�Iv�rAl Rv�ee�
1 �.. u��
-------------
18
�'evtt-ial 1
cress
I,
� ep --
PPI -�
e,n ;Ql
Access
I
I
I
-- LACA-R I-f L S5-U Yls I0N
PLAD
Pvoje Cl- 5ii@� I-T _ice.
1
F.
1
0
Z
2:
451 1
Private Driveway
m
i b14T r_� YyPr r
Wooded Creek Court
Street Cross Sections
Laurie Subdivision PIED
Ft. Collins, Colorado
31 May 1991
%yk"&,-X
I,L �DPsc>
I uk '
evJACK JOHNSON
COMPANY
land Planning • Architecture • Civil Engineering
1910 Prospector Ave., SUite 200 • Park City, Utah 84060
801-645-9000 • FAX 801-649-1620
•
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: 44-89C SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINC, 2nd FILING PUD
DESCRIPTION: 9 sf residences on 6.44 acres
DENSITY: 1.4 du/acre
General Population
9 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 31.5
School Age Population
Elementary - 9 (units) x .450(pupiIs/units) = 4.05
Junior High - 9 (units) x .210(pupils/unit) = 1.89
Senior High - 9 (units) x .185(pupils/unit) = 1.67
Affected Schools Design Enrollment
Capacity
Johnson Elementary 546 660
Blevins Junior High 900 908
Rocky Mountain Senior High 1250 1150
Ah
- )t)h . Pub
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
is the criterion oaoiicoole?
wilt the crn!enon
toe sovstZ?
If no, please explain
,e�'F�'°°a
Yes No
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatability
2. Neighborhood Character
3. Land Use Conflicts
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
X
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Standards
9. Emergency Access
10. Security Lighting
=#
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13. Significant Vegetation
* I
V C tandifiens
14. Wildlife Habitat
X
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
X
}t
20. Water Quality
21. Noise
x
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
24. Exterior Lighting
25. Sewages & Wastes
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
27. Site Organization
28. Natural Features
-` CwVti'Itw
29. Energy Conservation
30. Shadows
tx
31. Solar Access
32. Privacy
y
33. Open Space Arrangement
X
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
36. Vehicular Design
37, Parking
38. Active Recreational Areas
39. Private Outdoor Areas
40. Pedestrian Convenience
41. Pedestrian Conflicts
I x
42. LandscapinglOpen Areas
43. LandscapinglButidings
44. Landscaping/Screening
45. Public Access
46 Signs
-12-
urs5c)!�)dtv61M �u
ACTIVITY: Residentia
DEFINITION:
Uses I I H
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings,
townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group
homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing
homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec-
reational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places
for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIAEach of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment plan.
Yes No
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the
average residential density in the
project at least three (3) dwelling
units per acre (calculated for
residential portion of the site only)? ❑ `®yy b
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON
THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI-
DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED
CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ® ❑
SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 6-7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE.
—29—
•
1 krtp*v Ti i T)
pv air Fv vvvf y- ..w
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earner
Criterion
Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Crec t
a
200,0
2000 feet of on existing or Ooorovec neignoornaaa Snopo,,Q Center
b
100,0
o50 feel of on existing transit stop
C
10 %
4000 feet or an existing or copravea regional snooping Center
d
20%
3500 feet of an existing or reserved netgnbornooa oat community Dan or cCrnmspxfy foalrly
�' ✓'.
e
10 %
1000 feet of a scnoor. rtneetvng all me reautrernenis or me comouuory eaucanon lows of the SYate of C,.oroao.
f
20%
3000feet ofam K'xemoK7vrnentcenter
�`
9
5%
1000 feet of a cM.1a core Center
h
20%
Tlorm-Pori Collins
I
20%
The Central l5usrnessptst.rc.
A proteCT whose bounaory is Cdnfngl.ola to exntmg urban aevetaprt,artf. Creaf may be gamea as tallows.
0% — For protects vmose property OaundOry hall 0 to 10% cont Qurty.
j
0
30 /0
10 to 15% — For protects whose orooem aounaory nos 10 to 20% con"Qurty
15 to 20% — For praecn -nose arooertv pax oary nos 20 to 30% corn+quty.
20 to 25% — For protects -nose orooerry oounic ary nos 30 to 40% cornputry.
25 to 30%— For protecf wnos oro0eny bourlaory has 40 to 5o% axmguty
k
1 rtcan pe demonstrcrea mrn me protect vnu reauCe non-renewaae energy useoge er•tner mrougn iris dDotK:anon of altartnarrve energy
systems ormrough Committer energy conservation r amures cewna mnC normatry reau;rea by City Coos. c 5% bonus may oe ecmec
fa every 5%reduCTOn'n energy use,
l
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres incfuaec in me OrOleCt.
m
Cacuate me percentage of me total OC, es in me om,ect mat are aevotea to recreOnpn a use. enter V2 of that percentage m a OOnuL
rt me ODOICOnt COrnmrts TO OreservinQ permanent OMLte open space MOT rnaefsl the CMS minimum reautrernam calculate the percentage
n
Of mts Open SDOCe acreage to me total aeyelOpr' 1 acreage. enter tna pefaentOge as a barium
If can or me total deveroDment ouOQet is to be scent On netgntlornooa Dubkc TTOn.W tOCdrttes wntCn are not Orwwwme reaurred by City Coca.
O
enter 2% bonus for every $100 per oweldng unit invesrea.
It part Ofthe total 0",oiprnen1 buaQet is to be spent On netQhbOrhopa focWhes anal Services Avcn alee not OMse reaUlrea by CM Coale.
P
enter a 1%bonus to every S100 per owelltng unit invesrea
11 a cammmnent is petng mane to deverpo a spell. tier percentage of me to= rxrrner of aK.ei" usury forn low pane ta� milenter that
Q
percentage as a onu& up to a manmum of 30%.
b
Z
If a cOnmmnenr t3 oetng mpoe to develop a spec(ea percentage of The tea rx,hOer of cl ety,g IJYh fa Type'A7 aria Type $ handicapped
nouwQ m aefKneo by the ON of For Cakru calculate the radio m fo i
OType
-A"-. Smm,es TT a urxts al urv"
co
Type Ir — to vrom Type I" units
Total
In no cme shall me COmanea bonus be greater man 30%.
it me we or palocent oroclerty conrans an nrstortc budang or brace. a Dorm may ale earnea for me foftowtrnq
3% — For preventing or mmgattng outpoe influences l e.g. envtroM*w"m aria use. o ssmetnc eco narnic aria social tOCtbn) aaverse to its
preservation,
5
3% — Far cssunng mar new srructures w ll pen keeping wmn the cnapcw o try oudang or otpce wade crvaang Iota units
3 - — Fof or000vng odoorrve use or the owairg pr place mat w i bola -c rrs oonnrx,mce. oreservartOn ona improvement in an
appropriate monner
rr c oomon oral of the recuwrea ocrkrng to me mumote famdv protect is orov+oed unowgrounxi vnttxn the DuKLrtQ or in an etevarea parking
st ucture as an accessory use to me onmary structure a bonus racy be earnad m fatows
t
o% — For provtang 75% or more of me parking in a structure.
For provtarng 50-74% of the parking in a strucnxe.
3% — Fo pra.,atng 25-4C%of me parking in a structure.
U!
a commmnent is pemq mane ro a�ovrae aporavea automatic nra emnSvuninQ systen',s tar me aweo�ng uniti enter c txnus or 10%
TOTAL
Laurie Subdivision 8/05/91
Second Filing
Statement of Planning Objectives
A, The objective of the clan is to effectively utilize the 6.44
acre site for low density residential development while
maintainina the environmental qualities of the site.
E. All portions of the site will be maintained by individual
owners or the home owners association.
C. There are no businesses or employees proposed for the second
filing.
D, The site design is is intended to mitigate the impact of the
access road accross the irrigation runoff revine that is located
on the site. The relocation of the access road is the most
feasible location for the road and allows the development of the
site without destruction of the treeline hillsiie. The access
road will not appear intrusive to the site from the lower visible
locations in The Ridge subdivision. Building envelopes will be
selected that create the least disruption to the site. A height
restriction will be imposed based on terrain characteristics of
the site that insure that both on and off site property owners
have an unrestricted view accross the site.
E. The master plan for the property was approved at a density of
1.5 dwelling ..inits an acre. This density was 1/2 the lowest
recommended density of the land development guidance system, but
was selected to achieve a conformity with a surrounding land use
in The Ridge subdivision. The enclosed point chart indicates
that the residential portion of the project can achieve an earned
credit of 35% if each dwelling unit is required to have in their
Energy Score Rating of 80 versus the city minimum requirement of
G-70 for homes heated with gas fuel.
F. Conflicts between land uses are being mitigated by using
similar densities as the subdivision to the west. Other elements
that will be incorporated in the Laurie subdivision to mitigate
land use conflicts are the following:
1. Shake shingles will be required on all residences
2. No clearing of trees will be allowed unless approved by
the home owners association and the city forester, as stated on
the plat of the subdivision.
3. There will be minimum of 1400 square feet required for a
single level home and a minimum total of 2200 square feet
required on multi floors of a structure.
4. The finish of the exterior on the homes is required to
be earth tone with all exterior features approved prior to
construction.
i
•
5. There will be a maximum height specified on each building
envelope to restrict the height of buildings.
G. The method used to reduce energy consumption will be a
requirement that each residence prior to construction be
designed using City of Ft. Collins Energy Score System. A rating
of G-80 or above will be required on each residence. This is 10
points higher than a G-70 rating. The total annual energy
savings for the nine residential units is estimated at
approximately $150.00/dwelling unit or a total of approximately
$1400.00 annually.
Development Phasing Schedule
This project will be completed in one phase with the start of
construction estimated in the spring of 1992.
70 60 To 00
150
FF7E
sue
0 \�
.. ff16
i
v I .
� $IIILDING EN�F�Pc
r-- % WT NuMSfP
la // aceEAGFi
FF r*T. F I WT rIC012
L A
/Lx RL�F f1F Ar-
ALE.
if� _M GP�AGf 2%y GAR
MIN W' 4ZfAR,YAFP
f--5p90 _-------
10
I'Nxl.aJ _ \\ \� M I16 Z HOtl7TAA.
M126 I IQ N I
Hs _ DED C4,REEK CT
FKgO f Y of r AAi-Or A -----
.06 A
L
S I 5 M94 I \ 5�\W Ss2.-73
w
/I col
za RItY.TL Puy
FF qi'.
Ex1 14a
2 / ENO
ice
Zo pp/ROPP
,�CEs4'-irpt''
119�41 -
4° so �
PArbTIN G 60
I
it ICII11IOND ASSOCIATES
F
URIE SUBDIVS1 O NArchitects/Pla.ffiners
OND FILING, A P.U.D. 420 WEST OAK STREET
liminary Plan/Plat I FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 (303) 224-3140
I � Dpufy6sN(
I,
. If
B MAxt NLIG'('h: 71Jp g FY mp,,gm^ wrT)I f Kct T•
1 uF P1 a,- F; I-Ar tll
I - 11 a•bHle aN ivT'S 3,4,9, b qa1PC- rlt lrf km,�L
9yCINKLE7= fY`•tFM
hit �KI�fiNa z�iJlea[y: (z� D ZVwiNe
fm4U6 F lave
A. The obiective of the plan is to effectively utilize the 6.44
acre site for lox density rem idential development while
maintaining the environmental qualities of the site.
B. All portion, of the site will be maintained by individual
owner. of the site.
C. There are, no businesses or employee. proposed for the second
filing.
D. The site design is the result of trying to mitigate the
impact of the access road accroaa the irrigation runoff revive
that is located on the site. The relocation of the access road
is the most feaa ib le local Lo. for
the road and allows the
development of the site without destruction of the treeline
hillside. The accesa road will not appear intrusive to the site
from the lower visible location. to The Ridge subdivision.
Building envelope. will be selected that create the least
d isruptinn to the site. A height restriction will be imposed
based on terrain cbaracteriatics of the site that insure that
both on and off mite property owners have an u.... tricted view
.tern.. the site.
B. The easier plan for the property was approved at a density of
I.5 dwelling unit. an act.. This density was I/2 the Invest
recommended density of the land development guidance system, but
was selected to achieve a conformity rith a s..rou.di.q land use
in The Ridge subdivision. The e.c losed point chat, in icates
that the residential portion of the project can achieve an earned
credit of 35% if each dwelling unit I. required to have in their
... ae ..t.ua the city minimum requirement of
IN NR�
NLING
Site Data
Sheet
1 of
1 of
1 of
2 of
3 of
4 of
r ^f
PLAT
CER'
Approve
of tr
r—
S.cret
OWN
the u
d..—i
aitepp
VI
N TBrs r.
19
BFP F.N
OF RECI
1913,
• Total Acreage
4 al
• Lot Total
.76 al
• Public R.O.W. Total
.68 a
• Density: 9 D.U. @ 1.4
DU/acre
• Approximately 3.5 Bedrooms pe
• Building Coverage
6.4%
• Driveway Coverage
3.2%
• Public R.O.W.
11.0%
• Off Street Parking
3.5 pe
• Open Area
79.4%
6. The finish of the exterior on the home. will i
to be earth tone with all exterior features approve
construction.
1. an addition landscape buffer will be pl•
southwest portion of the site.
B. There will be a maxima. height apec it ied on ea.
envelope to [eatrict the height of building..
3
RLP
sladamin
W
Q
� � A
yo
S5
i
.7 fl G 39
W
J Ya4
CIR / r 5
•
p�D
n ..
Lk
V l izy 1 Z3 ZZ
l8 f1EPpLEWNir6 cT
!9 Zo
Zl
0
0
August 6, 1990
4coWEST OAK STREET FT COLLINS, CO noou
Fort Collins Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Request for Variance to the Minimum Regulation Density of 3
Dwellings per Acre, Laurie Subdivision P.U.D.
Dear Sherry:
We request a variance from the three dwelling units an acre to
the proposed density of approximately 1.5 dwelling units per
acre. This variance is requested to develop a subdivision that
wiIl more closely resemble the density of the adjacent Ridge
Subdivision. The 1.5 units an acre density was also approved as
part of the Master Plan for the property.
Sincerely,
L. Richm,
Architect ^
0 0
DEPARTMENT F O THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 121
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901
REPLY TO 29 October 1990
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Donald Richmond
Richmond Associates
420 West Oak Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Nationwide Permit No. CO-90-184
Dear Mr. Richmond:
Your proposed development project which will require the
filling of approximately 0.2 acres of wetland drainages as
shown on the enclosed map and located in Section 3, T-6-N,
R-69-W, Larimer County, Colorado has been reviewed by this
office.
Based on the information provided, this office has de-
termined that the proposed work is authorized by the Depart-
ment of the Army Nationwide Permit found at 33 CFR Part
330.5(a)(26). Enclosed is a fact sheet which fully describes
this Nationwide Permit and lists the Special Conditions which
must be adhered to for this authorization to remain valid.
Although an Individual Department of the Army Permit
will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate
the requirement that other applicable Federal, State, or Lo-
cal Permits be obtained as required. Please note that de-
viations from the original plans and specifications of the
project could require additional authorization from this of-
fice.
Should at any time it becomes evident that either an en-
dangered species or its critical habitat exist within the
project area, this office must be immediately notified.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide
permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All the nationwide
permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked
prior to 13 January 1992. It is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue
a public notice announcing the changes when they occur. Fur-
thermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence
this activity before the date the nationwide permit is
Page 2 Permit No. CO-90-184
modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the
date of the modification or revocation to complete the activ-
ity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide
permit.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact this office or me at 303-979-4120 or
4121 and reference Nationwide Permit Number CO-90-184.
Sincerely,
TERRY McKEE
Environmental Resource Specialist
cc:
Permit Files
Omaha Permits Branch
Colorado Department of Health
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Division of Wildlife
-0 0 0 FACT SHEET 126
33 CFR Section 330.5 Nationwide Permits
(a) Authorized Activities.
(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into non -tidal rivers, streams,
and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located
above the headwaters; and other non -tidal waters of the United States, including
adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate
waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e., isolated waters), except
those discharges which cause the loss of substantital adverse modification of
10 acres or more of such waters of the United States. For discharges which cause
the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres of such waters,
including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is required in accordance
with 33 CFR Section 330.7.
(b) Conditions: The following special conditions where applicable must be complied
with for the Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid:
(1) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the
proximity of a public water supply intake.
(2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas
of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related
to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by 33 CFR Part 330.5(a)(4).
(3) That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species
as identified under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species.
(4) That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose
of the fill is to impound water).
(5) That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable
material free from toxic pollutants (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act) in
toxic amounts.
(6) That any structure for fill authorized shall be properly maintained.
(7) That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild
and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a
"study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an
official study status.
(8) That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation.
(9) That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which
the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing on,
the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the district
engineer. Furthermore, that, if the permittee before or during prosecution of
the work authorized, encounters a historic property that has not been listed or
determined eligible for listing on the National Register, he shall immediately
notify the district engineer.
•
•
(10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair
reserved tribal rights, included, but not limited to, reserved water rights and
treaty fishing and hunting rights.
33 CFB Section 330.6 management Practices
(a) In addition to the conditions specified above, the following management
practices shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize
the adverse effect of these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to
comply with these practices may be cause for the district engineer to recommend,
or the division engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity
on an individual or regional basis pursuant to 33 CFB 330.8.
(1) Discharges or dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical
alternatives.
(2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning season shall be avoided-
(3) Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic
species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows
or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is
to impound waters).
(4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts
on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the
restriction of its flow shall be minimized.
avoided.
(5) Discharges in wetland areas shall be avoided.
(6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats-
(7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be
(8) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety.
OGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMM
On Tuesday, January 23, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. in the Media Center of Johnson
Elementary, a neighborhood meeting was held on the proposed South Shields
Vet Clinic PUD, Phase 2. In attendance at this meeting was Don Richmond,
Project Architect; Dr. Bill Musselwhite and Laurie Walker, property owners of
the proposed development; and Sherry Albertson -Clark of the Planning Depart-
ment. Ten area property owners attended the meeting.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the
purpose of the meeting. Don Richmond provided a presentation on the pro-
posed project. After this presentation, questions and comments were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked by area property owners and
responses given by the applicants, as well as comments made by the property
owners.
uestion: What is really proposed for the site? Concerned that the number of
lots is changing. Project started as a vet clinic, then the existing residence was
remaining and then the number of lots is changing.
Response: The adjacent property to the south was going to be included in the
residential portion, which would have been 12 lots on 8 acres. Since this
property is no longer included, project is 9 lots on 6 acres.
uestion: What is the road width?
Response: City local street, which is 54' r-o-w and 36' pavement with curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
uestion: Are there building envelopes for the lots?
Response: Applicant indicated where homes might be constructed. Staff added
that the PUD requires that envelopes be designated on the site plan.
uestion: What setbacks would be used? PUD doesn't have any specific
setbacks.
Response: Would probably use the standard 20' rear and 7' sideyard (standard
in RL Zone).
uestion: What would lots sell for?
Response: Not sure at this time, may be similar to Clarendon Hills.
uestion: Would there be covenants?
Response: Yes, may be similar to Clarendon Hills covenants. Would have an
architectural review control committee.
uestion: The plan shows lot sizes on the larger lots. What is the lot size of
Lots 1, 2 and 9 (smallest lots)?
Response: Don't have scale to measure, but believe they are in 15,000-17,000
square foot range.
Question: Is there any separation planned between this area and The Ridge?
•
•
Response: No buffer area, but may fence for privacy.
Comment: Don't like fencing, would rather see open space on back of lots.
The Ridge has specific fencing restrictions/requirements in the covenants.
Comment: Concerned that this project may set precedent for density for the
area to the north.
Comment: Concerned that City information is not consistent (9 lots or 12
lots?).
Comment: Concerned about the density transition between The Ridge and this
site.
uestion: Who would develop/build the homes?
Response: Developer would sell lots and covenants would control housing built
on lots.
uestion: Would the developer consider using The Ridge covenants? What
about becoming part of The Ridge? Using The Ridge for architectural review
control?
Response: Haven't looked at The Ridge covenants. Used Clarendon Hills since
the architect is familiar with those covenants. Would like to review The Ridge
covenants. Doesn't want to become part of The Ridge. Wants to retain the
natural character of the area.
uestion: What is the slope on Lots 5 and 6?
Response: 5% slope.
Comment: Concerned about the amount of fill proposed. The gully is a
sensitive area and there are erosion problems associated with the gully.
Concerned about the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and debris at headgate
of canal. Keeps debris out of canal, which helps avoid flooding problems
when storms occur.
Comment: Concerned that filling of gully does not fit in with Land Develop-
ment Guidance System policies and requirements. Also concerned about preser-
vation of existing vegetation and erosion control. Should be building away
from natural water bodies. Stated various criteria of the LDGS that this
proposal does not appear to meet.
Comment: Concerned that the project isn't compatible with The Ridge.
Development of lots would create an eyesore. Terrain shouldn't be changed.
Proposal is in conflict with City policies.
Question : Is there adequate space on Lot 3 to accomplish the amount of fill
and still have a buildable lot?
Response: Yes.
Comment: Area is a wildlife corridor and shouldn't be destroyed.
uestion: Where would construction access come from?
-2-
a
Response: From Shields Street.
•
uestion: Have utility locations been established?
the south secured?
Is the utility easement to
Response: Yes. Have a 20' easement from the lot owner to the south, on
Hepplewhite Court.
uestion: What would be selling price of lots or homes?
Response: Not sure, but would expect a $150,000 minimum for homes on lots.
Question : Will a 404 Permit be obtained (filling streams)?
Response: Not sure if it is required.
uestion: Are there any wetlands on the site?
Response: Not sure. Staff added that the City's Natural Resources Division
would have to determine.
uestion: Are there any ditches to be relocated?
Response: Relocating one irrigation lateral.
Comment: Project conflicts with City policies if open drainage channels are
not used.
Comment: Concerned that the natural terrain is not being used.
Comment: Concerned about building height on Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Question : When would covenants be available for review?
Response: End of February.
Comment: Concerned about the potential for the developer to begin the project
and not complete. City should have financial commitments, at a minimum, to
address natural resource areas.
Sherry Albertson -Clark provided a summary of the major issues and concerns
that were identified by area property owners. These are as follows:
1. Density transition between this site and The Ridge.
2. Fencing, setbacks, covenants.
3. Storm drainage/erosion concerns.
4. Filling the gully.
5. Environmental concerns.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
-3-
W
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. at the Fort Collins Christian Center,
a neighborhood meeting was held on the residential portion of South Shields
Veterinary Clinic PUD. In attendance at this meeting was Dr. Bill Mussel -
white, owner/developer; Don Richmond of Richmond Associates (project
architect/planner) and Sherry Albertson -Clark, Project Planner for the City
Planning Department. Three property owners attended the meeting.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the
purpose of the meeting. Don Richmond then provided an overview of the pro-
posed project, after which, questions and comments on the proposed project
were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the
architect and/or staff, as well as comments made by the residents.
uestion: Would house on Lot 3 obstruct views from the Thayer property?
Response: No, this building envelope would be approximately 200' from the
Thayer property.
Question : Does the city require that drainage be handled?
Response: Yes. Drainage must be handled with all development projects. Can
only release at the historic runoff rate.
Question: How many lots are proposed - 8 or 9?
i
Response: Plan is back to 9 lots, as per the approved master plan. 6
s
uestion: Would a bridge or culvert be used to cross the ravine?
Response: A culvert is planned. There would be less cut and fill with the
culvert, than would be needed for a bridge.
uestion: What type of lighting would be used?
Response: Street lighting would be city standard, which is a decorative 18'
pole with 100-watt bulb. Spacing of these lights is 375' per pole, with lights
staggered. Also place a light at every intersection and on curves.
Question : Why aren't there street lights in The Ridge?
Response: Area was annexed in 1989. City would install street \lights (if
requested) at property owner's expense. At time of annexation, city 'agreed to
cover cost of minor street repairs and major improvements would be responsi-
bility of property owners.
uestion: Would grading be required with the building envelope?
0 0 0
Response: Building envelope would identify where building sites would be on
each lot. Will preserve trees, natural features. Building envelopes would be
designed to fit house on each lot, with minimal disturbance.
Question : Would there be covenants?
Response: Yes. Will be drafting. Would like to incorporate The Ridge
covenants, to extent possible. Would like to blend The Ridge and Clarendon
Hills covenants.
Comment: The Ridge covenants restrict fencing, set minimum main floor area
of 1,700 square feet, address setbacks, require shake shingles.
uestion: Would building height be restricted?
Response: May be a maximum height of 36'. Not over two stories. Would
project building height with model. Would look at building height restrictions
on some lots.
Question: What about wetlands area/environmentally sensitive area?
Response: Staff responded that this is of concern to city. Would be
evaluating impacts on sensitive area and how developer proposes to mitigate
impacts. City is currently studying issue of sensitive areas in the environmen-
tal management plan process.
uestion: Will development of the site affect drainage off -site?
Response: No. Must do storm drainage report to address.
Comment: There is an existing drainage problem on Fromme property.
Response: Drainage from this site can not impact off -site. Existing problem
may not be caused by this property and therefore, may not be solved by this
developer.
Question: Any water rights with this property? Do not want increasing
drainage problems.
Response: Yes, Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal water.
Question: Will sensitive area be in open space or on lots?
Response: Would be on private lots. Nine lots not enough to support a HOA.
Would require use of native plant materials for landscaping.
Question: What impact would there be on wildlife?
Response:
Keeping trees, which is
where most
of habitat
is. Minimal impact.
Developer
stated that Division of
Wildlife says
there are
no nesting eagles on
this site or
in the area. Roaming
neighborhood
dogs keep
wildlife away.
uestion: If there is no HOA, who would enforce covenants?
-2-
•
Response: Would have architectural review control committee. No HOA for
open space area. Membership of committee would consist of developer and
one future homeowner.
uestion: How would building on the site be controlled?
Response: Staff responded that the city can enforce the site plan restrictions,
such as building envelope violations. Requires an administrative change review
and approval by city to build outside building envelope.
uestion: When would covenants be ready for neighborhood to see?
Response: In several weeks.
uestion: Would the easement to Hepplewhite be used for utilities?
Response: Yes, to serve sewer for the 4 western -most lots.
uestion: What is the waiver for a 28' wide street?
Response:
Staff responded that
the developer could request a variance to allow
a 28' wide
street, rather than a
36' wide
street. Request must be submitted by
a licensed
engineer and needs to
address
safety and design issues. City would
evaluate.
Variances have been
approved
for use in large lot developments in
past. Of concern is safety and
ability to
have adequate fire equipment access.
uestion:
What is the
length of the
culvert?
Response:
Twenty-two
feet from the
inverts.
uestion:
Would there
be any Corps
of Engineers study required?
Response:
Only required if there
are wetlands more than one acre in size.
This area
has not been
identified as
a wetlands.
uestion:
What measures does city take
to identify/protect wildlife habitat?
Response: City has identified wildlife habitat areas for mapping purposes. Is
undertaking an environmental management plan to address such issues. Staff
encourages the retention/enhancement of wildlife habitat areas.
Question: Who would install the sewer main in the easement to Hepplewhite?
Response: Developer would install, with inspections on line done by Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District. City construction inspectors inspect work done
in the right-of-way (ie. right-of-way of Hepplewhite Court).
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
-3-
08/21/91 14:49 FAX 80 49 1620 JACK JOHNSON CO. Q1001
DVJACK JOHNSON
COMPANY
%llna ccn left
FruSEmUvr Avenue
Suite Two Hundred
Nark City, Utah 84WO
801 .645 . 4000
TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
Please deliver the forthcoming pages to:
�: .
��. ram,■ ,
From -
M[ l
Jack Johnson Company
Suite 200 - 1910 Prospector Avenue
Park City, Utah 84060
Telecopier; (801) 549-1620
This transmission includes this page plus 'Z—__ pages.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (801) 645-9000
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Commentsor r- • l A
tL.. . i
JJC Project No.
Land Piannim
Archaccrure
. Cavil Enemrrrink
I
0
�t
Residence
1 Fin. Floor Elev.
Main 5082`
L•o�� 597fl
a
r
\
L taepa).aorer
C kn
Lu.a ',ual"u "1i
cnIra, �aw
2-ug 19 �f
2F- VDl[ H
1.64W F.W 41
0
•
FiCib0cm
OF
cec 00
.... :LtLop
)e
to
.-
I
CO
--�
E ingeg die
)B
CD
0000
00-
51 f
m
- —Ide--
— �}
2 Aga IE
a
U
a
•
10
off6lb9Z
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Summary
Develol lent Services ecycredu�oe
Natural Resources Division
M E M O R A N D U M
August 30, 1991
Mayor Kirkpatrick and Councilmembers
Steven C. Burkett, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager.,,,%)
u
Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Administrator),-/'
Potential Acquisition of the "Laurie Ravine" Natural
Area
At its August 20 meeting, Counc requested additional information
on the potential for City acquisition of a sensitive natural area,
known as the "Laurie Ravine." This memo provides a brief overview
of the natural values of the ravine, alternatives for conserving
the ravine, the process being used to evaluate potential
acquisition sites, and the relative priority of the Laurie site
compared to other opportunities.
The Laurie Ravine is a unique and sensitive natural area within
Fort Collins. Based on the evaluation conducted by the Natural
Resources Division, the site ranks among the top nine priorities
for the acquisition of natural areas.
Based on recent conversations with some of the property owners of
the Ridge Subdivision, there appears to be renewed interest in
exploring opportunities to acquire the site and provide public
access in a joint venture with neighboring landowners. The
principal drawback to the site is its comparitively high asking
price. Staff recommends that further work be completed to
determine if an agreement in principle can be reached between the
landowner, the City, and interested private participants.
Staff recommends that a final decision on the potential acquisition
be delayed pending the outcome of the negotiations noted above and
ongoing negotiations on two additional natural area sites. Both of
these sites, the Seven Springs Ranch and the Hahn Property, are
also high priority properties which are available for purchase from
the Resolution Trust Corporation.
Background on Laurie Ravine
The natural area known as the Laurie Ravine is located in South
Fort Collins on the eastern edge of The Ridge Subdivision. The
112 N. Howes • P.O. Bur 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80:;224)-;80 • (303) 221-6600
Laurie Ravine Page 2
ravine is a small tributary to the Burns Tributary of Fossil Creek.
The 9-acre site consists of a small intermittent stream channel
surrounded by native riparian vegetation, intermixed with scattered
small pockets of wetland. Away from the stream channel, the site
is classified as native cottonwood upland forest and contains a
variety of native shrubs, as well as native wildflowers and
grasses. The mix of topography and native vegetation on the site
is unique within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
Based on available inventory data, the Laurie Ravine does not
provide habitat for endangered, threatened, or rare species, nor is
it an area of special concern to the Colorado Division of Wildlife
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, within the context
of Fort Collins, the ravine is important wildlife habitat. It
serves as a movement corridor for a herd of about 10 mule deer. It
also provides perch sites for various birds of prey, including
wintering bald eagles and red-tailed hawks. Based on plant species
composition and coverage, the site probably provides habitat for a
high diversity of migratory and resident songbirds and for a
variety of mammals.
The 9-acre site is owned by several private parties. Approximately
2.3 acres of the ravine is included in the Laurie Subdivision PUD
which received preliminary approval from the Planning and Zoning
Board on August 26. The Board's decision corresponded with the
staff recommendation and included several conditions to minimize
the impact of the development on the ravine. With the conditions
attached by the Board, physical disturbance to the ravine is
expected to be between 0.5 and 0.75 acres. This includes a 20-foot
wide private driveway which crosses the ravine to reach a 3-acre
parcel west of the ravine. This 3-acre parcel consists of native
short -grass vegetation and has some natural areas value, but was
not included within the natural areas inventory because of its
small size.
Conservation Alternatives
As outlined in a previous memo from Diane Jones on this subject,
the Laurie Subdivision PUD has been controversial for several
reasons, including concerns about adverse impacts to the sensitive
natural area. The proposal approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board reflected staff efforts to require the developer to minimize
impacts on the ravine, and to restore disturbed areas to the extent
feasible. As outlined in the previous memo, an alternative means
of accessing the western portion of the site would be desirable,
but past attempts by the developer to obtain such access were
unsuccessful. Acquisition of approximately 5.1 acres (the 2.3 acre
portion of the ravine and 2.8 acre parcel west of the ravine) was
explored previously, but the asking price for the property ($15,000
to $20,000 per acre) seemed excessive to staff and negotiations
were dropped.
Laurie Ravine Page 3
Although the Planning and Zoning Board decision to grant
preliminary approval to the Laurie Subdivision PUD was
controversial, the developer and several homeowners within The
Ridge remain open to exploring other alternatives that would
achieve greater protection of the sensitive natural area. These
include both alternative access to the western portion of the
property and acquisition of the ravine and western parcel.
Not surprisingly, Ridge homeowners are most interested in the
acquisition alternative. Several have expressed willingness to
contribute to this alternative in the following ways.
o Granting a public access easement.
o Donating portions of the ravine to the City.
o Sharing in,the cost of acquisition.
o Assisting with long-term maintenance.
While we remain concerned about the relative cost of the land in
the Laurie PUD, circumstances have changed significantly since the
previous conceptual discussions of both acquisition and access
alternatives. Staff believes that additional discussions between
the City, the developer, and adjacent landowners should be pursued
to determine if a more desirable proposal can be negotiated.
Comparison With Other Sites
As -part of our continuing work on an Action Plan for implementing
the Natural Areas Policy Plan, the Natural Resources Division is
evaluating relative priorities among potential acquisition sites.
This work is ongoing and subject to change based on further staff
review, comment from boards and commissions, and public review.
The process being used to evaluate acquisition priorities involves
several steps. First, all sites included in the natural areas
inventory (8,120 acres total) were screened to determine candidate
sites for acquisition. Excluded from consideration were sites
which are already protected because they are in public ownership or
platted as private open space and sites which can be reasonably
protected through cooperative agreements or through the land use
planning and review process. This initial screening resulted in a
list of 26 sites (2,400 acres total) which are judged to be
potential candidates for acquisition.
The 26 candidate sites were further evaluated against the following
criteria: relative resource value; relative threat that area will
be lost; value for public access for recreation, education, or
other use; and consistency with other city plans and priorities.
This evaluation was used to place sites in three groups of relative
priority, with 9 sites considered highest priority, 7 sites
Laurie Ravine Page 4
considered moderate priority, and 9 sites of lower priority.
Based on this preliminary evaluation, staff ranks the Laurie Ravine
among the 9 highest priority acquisition sites. Other sites
included within this group include the 320 acre Seven Springs Ranch
site at the headwaters of Fossil Creek, the 300 acre Hahn Property
encompassing Fossil Creek and Burns Tributary between Taft and
Shields, and wetland and riparian habitats along the Poudre, Fossil
Creek, and Spring Creek. The Seven Springs and Hahn properties are
both held by the Resolution Trust Corporation.
While a priority system gives useful direction to the City's
efforts, decisions about the sequence of individual acquisitions
are expected to be based on several factors, including: relative
priority, seller interest, cost, and available resources. Based on
these factors, staff believes that highest priority should be given
at this point in time to the two large parcels held by the
Resolution Trust Corporation. We are currently working to
determine the feasibility of acquiring all or part of both parcels.
This includes negotiations on purchase price and attempts to
identify possible partners in these open space acquisitions.
Once the potential for acquisition of these large tracts of land is
determined, more informed decisions regarding other high priority
sites can be made.
Recommendations
Staff seeks Council direction regarding the next steps to take on
the Laurie Ravine. Staff recommendations regarding future
direction are as follows:
1. Complete research on the feasibility of acquiring all
or part of the Seven Springs (320 acres) and Hahn (300
acres) properties held by the Resolution Trust
corporation.
2. Actively work with the developer and adjacent
landowners to determine the feasibility of acquiring the
Laurie Ravine, or obtaining alternative access to the
western portion of the Laurie Subdivision PUD.
3. Report back to Council within 30 days on the outcome
of these investigations.
ALLEN, ROGERS, METCALF & VAHRENWALD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. BOX 608
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
GARTH W. ROGERS WILLIAM H. ALLEN
THOMAS W. METCALF OF COUNSEL
JACK D.VAHRENWALD
DONALD E. JOHNSON. JR. April 26, 1990 125 SHOME FEDERAL
FED EERAAL BUILDING
SUITE DING
J. BRIAN MCMAHILL
RUSSELL B. SANFORD TELEPHONE (303) 482-5058
City Planning Department TELECOPIER (303) 482-5175
300 Laporte
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
ATTN: SHERRY ALBERTSON-CLARK
Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark:
As you are aware, this office represents Dr. William
Musslewhite. Russell Sanford, the attorney principally
representing Dr. Musslewhite in the development of his vet
clinic and the acreage to the west, is not available this
week and has asked that I contact board members with the
Home Owner's Association in the Ridge and obtain their reac-
tion to any request by Dr. Musslewhite for approval to
construct a road access off Hepplewhite Drive. It is my
understanding that you requested Dr. Musslewhite solicit the
reaction of three board members. Please be advised I have
contacted the following board members:
Del Howard - 4917 Chippendale, Ft. Collins, CO
Brian Fromme - 1308 Hepplewhite Court, Ft. Collins, CO
Chris Rithner - 4725 Regency Drive, Ft. Collins, CO
In speaking with each of the board members, each indi-
cated they would be opposed to providing such access to Dr.
Musslewhite's proposed development, and each believed that
if the matter were taken to a vote of the individual lot
owners in the Ridge subdivision, that any such proposal
would be resoundingly defeated. Mr. Rithner stated the
covenants of the Ridge would require that construction of a
road across any lot off Hepplewhite would require 2/3 appro-
val of the individual home owner's in the Ridge to amend the
covenants and bylaws. The reasons given me for the board's
objection to permitting road access included a general
objection to the proposed development, the unaesthetic
appearance of the road itself, and the possibility of an
increase of traffic. Most members felt that the development
proposed by Dr. Musslewhite was not in character with the
Ridge subdivision.
I hope that this letter satisfies your requirement and
should you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact me.
Very truly yours,
J: Brian McMahill
JBM:jIf
REVISED DRAINAGE & EROSION REPORT
Submitted for
Preliminary Approval
of
LAURIE SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING
6.4 ACRES LOCATED IN THE
NE 1/4, S3, T 6 N, R 69 W
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER
STATE OF COLORADO
Prepared for
Dr. William Musslewhite
5001 S. Shields Street
Fort Collins, CO 80526
August 5, 1991
Jack Johnson Company
1910 Prospector Avenue
Suite 200
Park City, Utah 84060
(801) 645-9000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
DRAINAGE
Scope and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Applewood Estates Irrigation Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Culvert Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EROSION
Erosion Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Erosion Control During Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Revegetation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
i
0
SCOPE and REFERENCES
This report references the Preliminary Drainage Report already
completed by Foundation Engineering, Loveland Co., and submitted
to the City of Fort Collins. A copy of the aforementioned report
is attached. Amendments to this report are in response to Planning
Department letter of July 17, 1991 which comments on the necessary
revisions to be made for preliminary approval. A revegetation
methodology is also outlined. This preliminary drainage report and
revegetation methodology along with the Erosion Control and Grading
Plan and General Landscape Plan identify the erosion control
methods to be used in establishing and maintaining a natural open
space within the project site.
APPLEWOOD ESTATES IRRIGATION DITCH
The Applewood Estates irrigation ditch will be piped through the
project and under Wooded Creek Court. Flow rates provided by the
Applewood Estates Irrigation Company indicated a maximum flow rate
of 2.5 cfs. As shown on the grading plan the slope of the 18 inch
pipe is 1.5%, and with outlet control the pipe has a flow capacity
of approximately 4.5 cfs thus providing adequate capacity.
CULVERT SIZING
CULVERT #1
Culvert #1 has flows following the ravine which are supplied by
Offsite Area "C" and Onsite area 11311. These flows plus the
irrigation overflow are calculated at 42.86 cfs for a 100 year
storm as shown on page 8. A 48" diameter culvert is recommended.
01
0
With an available 10' HW (before the flow goes over the private
drive) the maximum capacity of the culvert is approximately 185
cfs. This largely oversized pipe is used to minimize velocity and
to reduce chances of any plugging. If plugging does occur, the
private road has been designed with a low point at the ravine,
allowing flows to pass over the road back into the ravine. At the
time of final construction drawings, a stilling pond will be
identified at the outlet of this culvert.
CULVERT #2
Culvert #2 has flows which are supplied by Offsite Area "B" and
Onsite area 112". The flows are calculated at 7.87 cfs for a 100
year storm as shown on page 8. An 18" diameter culvert is
recommended. It has a flow capacity of 12 cfs using inlet
control.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Final design and construction are to be performed in
accordance with City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design
Criteria and Construction Standards.
2. Onsite detention of stormwater is not warranted.
CALCULATIONS
Rational Factors "C"
Existing Conditions
0.20 = Offsite irrigated
0.25 = Offsite steep non -irrigated
0.25 = Onsite irrigated areas
0.30 = Onsite steep non -irrigated
2
0
Post Developed Conditions
0.45 = Estate Residential
See pages 7 and 8 for Hydrology Calculations.
See page 9 for culvert calculations.
EROSION HAZARD
The greatest erosion potential is within the existing ravine
through the center of the project. The area which has the most
active erosion will be stabilized by the placement of fill for the
road across the ravine at this location. Prior to construction,
erosion will be minimized along the ravine by pre -placement of
straw bales near the ravine and the smaller drainage to the east.
(See Erosion Control and Grading Plan) After construction is
complete, additional erosion along the ravine will be controlled
by riprap, rock and revegetation. (See Revegetation Methodology
below)
Other new possible erosion areas will be exposed by the cuts and
fills of the private road which will be controlled by strategic
placement of bales until revegetation and permanent erosion control
takes place.
EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION
As shown on the Erosion Control and Grading Plan straw bales will
be placed to minimize erosion during construction. The 48" culvert
placed in the ravine should be constructed during a low flow period
to reduce erosion. Riprap will also be placed as shown on the
Erosion Control and Grading Plan to reduce erosion at both the
inlet and outlet of both the Culvert #1 and the Culbert #2. All
construction will conform to The City of Fort Collins Erosion
Control Reference Manual.
3
REVEGETATION METHODOLOGY
1. General
The area of the site that will be disturbed by the construction of
the private drive and by other utility construction, i.e.,
culverts, will be revegetated. (See the General Landscape Plan for
the extent of this area.) This revegetation will mitigate the
visual impact of the disturbed areas and will provide erosion
control. The revegetated plantings will have a natural appearance
by being placed in tree and shrub groupings scattered randomly
throughout the disturbed area. Grasses will be utilized to cover
the ground plane. This revegetation process will use native plant
material to fit with the existing plant material on the site.
In addition to erosion control though plantings of native plant
material, soil tackifiers will be used in the grass seeding process
to halt wind and water erosion. Also, erosion control blankets
will be used as necessary on steep slopes to ensure establishment
of grass seeding.
2. Process
Earthwork
In the initial cutting of the road grade, all topsoil will be
stripped and stockpiled to be used in the final grading as an
over layer for planting. Placement of topsoil will be laid
at a minimum depth of 4 inches.
Soil Stabilization Method
Soil Tackifier
Soil tackifier should be placed on disturbed areas with the
hydroseed grass mixture as recommended by the tackifier
manufacturer.
4
Erosion Control Blankets
Erosion control blankets should be used where required and
installed as recommended by the manufacturer.
Bank Stabilization
The stream bank is to be stabilized at points of inlet and
outlet of culverts and other existing areas requiring
stabilization. This stabilization is to be accomplished by
placing boulders of varying sizes in unstable areas and by
placing riprap at the inlet and outlet points of culverts.
Extent and amount of riprap and boulder placement to be
determined at the time of final design.
Revegetation
Plant Relocation
Existing plant material identified as being in areas to
be disturbed are to be tagged. Of the trees and shrubs
tagged, those which are of a size and condition suited
for transplanting are to be transplanted to a location
identified on site by the project landscape architect in
coordination with City Forester. Trees too large to
transplant will be placed on site in the open space as
deadfall for wildlife habitat.
Proposed Trees and Shrubs
Existing plant material will be enhanced by proposed tree
and shrub plantings. The proposed plant material to be
used is identified on the general landscape plan. The
proposed plant material will be native to the site and
located in such a manner to create a natural appearance.
5
•
Grasses
All areas disturbed by construction shall be seeded by
a grass mixture as recommended by the City of Fort
Collins. The seed mixture shall be as specified on the
General Landscape Plan. The method of seed planting
shall be the Hydroseed Method.
3. Maintenance
The maintenance of the areas of revegetation will be performed by
the contractor during construction and until accepted as complete
by the owner and City officials. The contractor is to guarantee
all planting for the period of one year after substantial
completion. The contractor whenever notified by the owner of City
official shall immediately place in satisfactory condition in every
instance any of such guaranteed work. After substantial completion
and acceptance, maintenance of the revegetated area shall be by the
homeowner's association.
N.