HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89D - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27
DATE: October 15, 1991
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF• Albertson -Clark
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the August 26, 1991 Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving the Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either uphold,
overturn, or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, or remand the
matter to the board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 26, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Laurie
Subdivision PUD, Preliminary Plan.
On September 9, 1991, an appeal of that final decision was made by Ginger L.
HitZ.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Laurie Subdivision PUD is a preliminary plan consisting of nine single family
lots on 6.4 acres. The site is located west of Shields Street, 1/2 mile south
of Harmony Road. The site is a portion of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic
PUD Master Plan, which consisted of a veterinary clinic and nine single family
lots.
The proposed PUD plan was evaluated against the "Residential Density Chart" and
the "All Development Chart" of the Land Development Guidance System. The
proposed density of 1.4 DU/acre is supported by the 29% achieved on the Density
Chart and the Planning and Zoning Board approved the applicant's requested
variance for a density of less than 3 DU/acre, as required in the LDGS.
Planning staff found that the proposed project was in conformance with the
approved South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD Master Plan. Planning staff also
found that the proposed plan would not conform with LDGS All Development Criteria
#13 and #28 which deal with preservation of significant existing vegetation and
designing the site in favorable relationship to existing topography without
modifications and conditions. On this basis, staff recommended approval with
eight conditions.
In voting to approve this proposal, Planning and Zoning Board members believed
that the applicant had done a good job of integratiing the natural area into the
plan. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Laurie Subdivision
PUD, Preliminary Plan with the following conditions:
The language of the proposed conservation easement, including maintenance
be reviewed by City staff during final review.
DATE: 0( 1 ohor 15, 1991 -2- ITEM NUMBER: /
2. Tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for approval for Lots 8 and 9
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Detailed plans and specifications regarding rip rap materials, placement,
size, etc. and other erosion control methods be submitted for final review.
6. 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.
1. The applicant redesign the east side of the ravine to no more than 4 dots
and that building sites on Lots 7 and 8 be pulled back further from the
ravine.
ME APPEAL
The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that:
I. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the code.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows:
1. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing by:
a. considering evidence which was substantially false or grossly misleading?
Developlwt. Services •
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DT: October 1, 1991
TO: Mayor and City uncil Members
TH: Diane Jone cting Director of Development Services
>6
Tom Peters ctor of Planning
FM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Plannerav(�
RE: Staff Response to Appeal of Laurie Subdivision PUD,
Preliminary Plan
The following is a response to the issues specified in the Notice
of Appeal filed on September 9, 1991 by Ginger L. Hitz. Please
note the items that are direct citations from the Notice of Appeal.
The staff response to each item is underlined.
The appellant alleges the following:
"This appeal alleges that the P & Z Board failed to conduct a fair
hearing in that the board considered evidence relevant to its
findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading."
"During the P & Z meeting, the Laurie PUD applicant, Dr.
Musselwhite, claimed that the Ridge Homeowner's Association and the
surrounding homeowners would not work with him to grant access to
his property. No one from the Ridge Homeowner Association was
asked by the P & Z Board to respond to this claim and the claim
was taken as unrefuted truth. The Ridge Homeowner president states
that the Ridge Homeowner Association was never formally contacted
by Dr. Musselwhite. The P & Z Board ruling was based on the
assumption that Dr. Musselwhite's statement was correct, when in
fact it was not."
Staff Response: Dr. Musselwhite stated in his presentation that
one of his attorneys had contacted The Ridge Homeowner's
Association regardincr access for Laurie Subdivision PUD off of
Hepplewhite Court but that the association had been "inflexible"
in allowing such access Access was not raised as an issue by
residents of The Ridge during the public participation portion of
the August 26 Board meeting.
281 North Colle,,e Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
Staff Response to Appeal of Laurie Subdivision PUD
October 1, 1991
Page 2
"Furthermore, the P & Z Board was unwilling [to] postpone a
decision on this development to investigate information pursuant to
the Natural Resource Department's directive by the City Council to
acquire this area as part of an open space plan. The P & Z Board
failed to consider all the relevant information in this case.
First, the Natural Resource Department's report on this area is not
complete. Also, the P & Z Board stated that access to this area
was not possible for open space, therefore the applicant's plans
were the best possible alternative. Again, the issue of access has
not been fully resolved. In fact, during the P & Z meeting, both
Brian Fromme and Nona Thayer stated that they were willing to
discuss access to this property as open space. I would also be
willing to discuss the possibility of public pedestrian access from
my property. Clearly, not all relevant information was pursued and
the information which the Board assumed from Dr. Musselwhite's
statements was grossly misleading."
Staff Response: The Planning and Zoning Board did not postpone a
decision on the Laurie Subdivision PUD because the applicant had
met all necessary submittal and review requirements for a
preliminary PUD plan review. The Board considered the issue of
Develooent Services •
g P
Planning Department
:�•
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DT: October 3, 1991
TO: Mayor and City ouncil Members
TH: Tom Peter n r of Planning
FM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner
RE: Videotapes for Laurie Subdivision PUD Appeal Scheduled for
October 15 Council Meeting
Attached is a videotape of the August 26, 1991 Planning and Zoning
Board meeting, during which the Laurie Subdivision PUD was heard by
the Board. This item was first on the discussion agenda. Each
tape is set at approximately the beginning of this item.
Please return tapes to the Manager's Office at your convenience.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
5_>[ f t I ErT- D
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEEOEMENTS
Documents required for submittal should be delivered to Nordic
f Moan• 309 Y. Haraony Rd. Fort Collins, Co. 80526 226-2266
1. Conceptual Review
• Submit one set. Conceptual review Is not mandatory but Is
details a to prospective purchasers In advance of preparing
detailed ;obsittal requirements.
A. Elevatlons
D. Plot Plan (With Aq, ftg. of all floors finished and
unfinished.
II. Final submittal
Submit 2 complete sets of plans. One W111 be returned to
You after approval. All the following requirements must bm
set. All plans must be prepared by an Architect or
architectural Previously pquality docuaent3.proved capable of preparing
A. Site plan
- 1. Owner's name, address, phone number a
Signature.
- 2. North arrow
- 3. Scale of 1'w20' or larger
- 4. Lot dimensions
- 5. 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 f. stoops
as well as decks and other outdoor structures
wether to be built Initially or In the
future.
S. 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. Bullders name, address and phone R.
B. Landscape plan
1. 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
5. Plant material and sizes
Shrubs ■ln. 5 gal.
Trees min. 3 shade of 1 3/4• callper, 2 - 4'
conifer.
Front yard sod
6. Location of sod and seed
7. Edging and mulch type
8. 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
Is 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 speciflcations of all
materials
1. Trim, siding, windows, doors, roof, rali
-Ings, shade structures, ornaAentation,
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, shoring the
exterior materials that will be Incorporated
In the building.
0. Samples
Submit one set.
1. Siding with color painted/stalned on actual
Piece of siding (aln. 12' long)
2. Trim with color painted/stained on actual
Piece tf trim (min. 12' long)
3. Masonry (actual board from brick or stone
supplier, 12' x i2')
4. Typed list of materials with owner's name,
lot number. manufactures name, color number,
• style number etc.
5. 9tlr sticks of the Slding and of the trim
color with the mfg. name. number of the
color, lot number and owners no.e on the
back.
No approvals will be given until all the requirements have been
met.
No partial approvals will be given.
No construction can start until final approval is given
All changes and comments from the Architectural Control Comm, Itee
regarding submittal will be signed by the owner and contractor.
any dreiatlon will result in leg&; action ritn all attorney and
covert Costs assumed by the owner and,or contractor.
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
1 x 10 at the floor changes
1 x 4 to 1 x 10 at the top of siding adjacent
to the soffit
1 x 10 at the bottom of the siding above the
foundation
Fascia I x 10 with I 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 In color scheme, RV, boat,
additional vehicle parking.
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 In color scheme, RV, boat,
additional vehicle parking.
Sec 09,1991 05:09PM W SESD Marketing TO016329 P.01
Notice of Appeal to City Council
Re: Planning & Zoning Board meeting of 9/26191
Concerning: Laurie PUD
Appellant:
Ginger L Hitz
1208 Hepplewhite Ct
Ft Collins, CO 80526
223-0074
Relationship to issue:
Residant of Ridge. Homeowner adjacent to Southeast corner of Laurie PUD. Spoke
before P&Z Board at the 8/26191 meeting.
This appeal alleges that the P&Z Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board con-
sidered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
During the P&Z meeting, the Laurie PUD applicant, Dr. Musselwhite, claimed that the Ridge
Homeowner's Association and the surrounding homeowners would not work with him to grant
access to his property. No one from the Ridge Homeowner Association was asked by the P&Z
Board to respond to this claim and the claim was taken as unrefuted truth. The Ridge Homeowner
president states that the Ridge Homeowner Association was never formally contacted by Dr. Mus-
selwhite. The P&Z Board ruling was based on the assumption that Dr. Musselwhite's statement
was correct, when in fact it was not.
Furthermore, the P&Z Board was unwilling postpone a decision on this development to inves-
tigate information pursuant to the Natural Resource Department's directive by the City Council
to acquire this area as part of an open space plan. The P&Z Board failed to consider all the relevant
information in this case. First, the Natural Resource Department's report on this area is not com-
plete. Also, the P&Z Board stated that access to this area was not possible for open space, there-
fore the applicant's plans were the best passible alternative. Again, the issue of access has not
been fully resolved. In fact, during the P&Z meeting, both Brian Fromme and Nona Thayer stated
that they were willing to discuss access to this property as open space. I would alto be willing to
discuss the possibility of public pedestrian access from my property. Clearly, not all relevant
information was pursued and the information which the Board assumed from Dr. Musselwhite's
statements was grossly misleading.
During the meeting of August 26, the P&Z Board referred to the residents of the Ridge as "self-
serving" and "unwilling to compromise." This statement shows how the P&Z Board opinion was
dictated by several unsubstantiated statements of the applicant. I can appealing this decision under
Sec. 2-48., paragraph (3c.). I represent several other area residents in expressing my dissatisfac-
tion with the P&Z Board ruling, based on grossly misleading information.
Sincerely,
Ginger L. Hitz
TOTAL P.01
SEP 9 191 17:09 303 229 21eo PAGE.001
Develoosent Seri'ices
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
August 28, 1991
Dr. William M. Musslewhite
3041 North Taft
Loveland, Co 80537
RE: Laurie Subdivision PUD, Preliminary - #44-89,D
Dear Dr. Musslewhite:
On August 26, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins
approved the above referenced project with the following conditions:
1. The language of the proposed conservation easement, including maintenance
be reviewed by City staff during final review.
2. Tree and shrub removal plans be submitted for approval for Lots 8 and 9
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Detailed plans and specifications regarding rip -rap materials, placement,
size, etc. and other erosion control methods be submitted for final
review.
6. 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.
7. The applicant redesign the east side of the ravine to no more than 4 lots.
If you have any questions, please call our office at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Sherry Alb(ttson-Clark
Chief Planner
SAC/gjt
281 ` 1, College Avenue - P.O. Boy 580 - i-ort Collins, CO 80522-0380 - (303) 221-6750
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
August 26, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City }call West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataskc, Bernic Strom, Jan Cotticr, Laurie O'Dell,
Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker and Rene Clements -Cooney.
Staf f members present included Tom Peterson, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt,
Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, and Georgiana Taylor.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item I - Westbrooke at Platt Properties PUD - Final, #3-90D; Item 2 -
Sunstone Village Subdivision PUD, 6th Filing - Preliminary and Final #57-86J; Item 3 -
Raintree Extension, #146-79B; Item 4 - Resolution PZ91-11 Vacation of Utility Easement at
Foothills Apartments PUD; Item 5 - Resolution PZ91-12 Utility Easement Vacation, Lot 15,
Clarendon Hills. Discussion Items; Item 6 - Poudre Valley Hospital PUD - Preliminary Plan
Continued until September 23 meeting; Item 7 - Laurie Subdivision PUD - Preliminary, #44-89D;
Item 8 - Fairbrooke PUD, 5th Filing - Amended Final, Continued until September 23 meeting.
Member Strom moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY #44-89D.
Sherry Albertson Clark, Chief Planner, stated that this request was for preliminary approval
for 9 lots on 6.4 acres. The property is zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential and was
located west of Shields Street approximately 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road. The site is part
of the approved South Shields Veterinary PUD Master Plan that was approved by the Board
approximately 2 years ago. The project was evaluated by the Land Development Guidance
System as a single family Planned Unit Development. The density proposed was less than the
minimum required 3 dwelling units per acres as required under the Land Development
Guidance System. The applicant has requested a variance to the density requirement, which
Staff was recommending that the Board approve. Staff believes that the lower density was
consistent with the surrounding development occurring primarily to the north and west of the
property and that the lower density was appropriate given some of the topographical
constraints of the site. Staff has evaluated this project under the All Development Criteria of
the Land Development Guidance System and Staff does believe that the project meets all of the
applicable criteria in that section of the Guidance System. Staff believes the applicant has
done the best job possible given the limited alternatives or seemingly limited alternatives for
access to the property, particularly the western portion of the site. While it is Staff's
preference not to cross a ravine that exists on the site that is an area of high sensitivity, a very
sensitive environmental area, Staff believes that given no other alternatives at the present time
to access the western portion of the site, that the applicant has done the best job possible. Staff
is recommending approval of this request with a series of conditions:
1. That the language of the proposed conservation easement, including maintenance be
reviewed by City staff during final review. (This conservation easement is proposed for
the natural area that is primarily includes the environmentally sensitive area on the site
that runs from north to south through the central portion of the site).
Lot 7 be deleted from the final plans and this area be added to the open space. (That
lot is located just to the east edge of the natural area).
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.
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.
Ms. Clark stated that Staff's recommendation for approval was contingent on these conditions.
Staff feels that these conditions were necessary in order to protect the unique qualities and
characteristics of the site.
Ms. Clark ran through a series of slides, pointing out the lots that were stated in the conditions,
also highlighting the ravine and the private drive to access the lots, the approved Master Plan,
the existing approved veterinary clinic, the Ridge Subdivision located next to the proposed
development, and site shots from all directions on the property.
Bill Musslewhitc, developer of the property, stated that 18 months ago they proposed the
development of the land. The first time he saw this property he fell in love with it and he
wanted to build his house and his animal hospital that they were expanding into Fort Collins.
Finding out that it was annexed into the City, therefore, development would have to occur and
the horse raising opportunity they were looking at was basically nullified. In doing so, they
had several proposals they looked at as far as trying to develop the property as they thought
would maintain the environmental consistency with the way the property now existed, which
was with tree cover and a lot of the naturalness that the ravine presented, including the water
flow itself. They looked at several opportunities, one of which would have been to acquire
access across private property coming off of Hepplewhite Court and develop those four homes
through a private drive or similar situation through an easement that they would have at the
time been able to acquire with the efforts of one of my lawyers approachingthe homeowner's
association. They were inflexible as far as allowing us to achieve such easement and their
building codes are such that they would not allow us to build something like that without a
lengthy court battle. Therefore we are unable to approach the property at such an angle, which
of course would have avoided crossing the ravine at all. And so, with that I would have
assumed that they were more concerned with not allowing this development than the true
environmental statutes and that was one of our arguments. If in fact the homeowner's
association was concerned with the environment why not allow us the simple access. Their only
statement to the effect was that it would increase traffic patterns and realistically how much
traffic is four homes going to create. So, we are left no other alternative other than to cross
the creek and in doing so we have proposed several plans, of which we felt was the best
considering again the wildlife situation and the topographical lay of the land. We approached
the Corps of Engineers to make sure that our crossing into the wetlands did not create any type
of a problem as far as they're concerned. They had no problems at all as far as significant
impact and they approved our program. We approached the Colorado Wildlife Department to
see what type of impact this would be and try to mitigate that. They mentioned the wildlife
migration through the area including deer, but by staying with a private drive following the
topographical high of that hill they felt that it would have very little impact if any. We also
approached another biologist from the State Wildlife Department to comment on possible
endangerment of bird species in the area. He did an on -site survey finding that the only
raptors that were on the property were sparrowhawks and that they live quite easily with city
limits and with people. There was no nesting. There was possible migration, but one of the
arguments we have heard in the past was the bald eagle sighting which I rather doubt and he
rather doubted too. Bald eagles require a large body of water in which to feed because they
eat fish so if there was a true sighting, it was a touch down. He said that this area was not
considered wildlife sensitive by either the State Wildlife Department or the Federal Wildlife
Department. So, basically what we are then working upon since we had mitigated the problems
with the wildlife migration, etc., we are trying to appease the environmental department of the
City. Basically their concerns have been the tree cover and also erosion and also the vegetation
in general. By presenting this as a private driveway we have eliminated basically any tree
destruction at all. To be specific, there's six total trees, only two of which are above 8 inches
in diameter, both of those being wild willows and with our revegetation plan as it sits, we arc
replacing those trees three to one. As far as the brush, we are mitigating three bushes as we
pass over the ditch area and again replacing those with a multitude of more brush in different
areas that are actually environmentally sensitive. If you look at the map you'll see where the
road crosses. Those are natural tree openings and we do with the fill disturb those two willows
that 1 mentioned and at the very top of lot seven there, if you see where the road hits that one
drainage area, we remove three trees in that particular area and one in the next area and so
thus the six trees. Anyway, we've tried to alleviate basically the environmental department's
concern with tree damage. As far as again, touching then on the lot delineations, we tried to
design the lots such that the lot lines themselves were within the trees and the building
envelopes were within the natural openings that now exist. And, so as you can sec lots seven,
eight, and nine mainly are the ones that are in discussion even with the trees appearing as they
now do, there is going to be little or no tree removal depending on where they build the house
and I might make comment these are building envelopes of course, not how large the house is
going to be and realistically this is not going to cover the entire building envelope. The
building envelopes themselves on lot seven, there is one tree on the border and we went with
great lengths with the City Forester to prepare a map of all trees, brush, identification of such
trees and brush, of where they now exist and how they would fit upon the property and
building envelopes. So we are looking at one tree within the building envelope on lot seven,
two touching the edge of the building envelop edge of lot eight, no significant trees on lot nine.
There is one apple tree that is small and kind of roughed in there in the corner as you can see
and that is an apple tree and not considered environmentally sensitive. Basically the way we
designed this, we were looking at developing an executive home type of development, leaving
the lots rather large, leaving especially the sensitive lots and environmentally stable basically
not disturbing the environment at all. All access for these lots for the general construction
stage is planned to come off the road of course. We have proposed that all the area not adjacent
to the road be left in the same environmental state that it now exists, in other words including
the natural grasses, brush, yucca plants, etc. _Basically the open space that we now have on our
map is a little over one acre which is one sixth of the entire property that we are trying to
develop, 16% if you will. That is probably much more than most of the open space on
subdivisions that pass across your desk. What the Planning Department is proposing is that we
donate another acre of land by eliminating lot seven and in reality, basically eliminating lot
eight, too. Their proposal of the five -zero -eight four topographical will eliminate the building
envelope on lot eight down to twenty by forty or twenty-five by forty, excuse me. So in other
words, you could only build a house on one thousand square feet and that includes the garage.
In an executive home situation, that is totally unrealistic. You are not going to find an
executive home in fact on the original code that we tried to draw up for the homeowners, we're
suggesting a minimum of 1400 square feet for the first level, so therefore lot eight is being
eliminated, too by their unrealistic view of the property. My understanding when we
approached the environmental department on this was that when this was set aside and again
there is a great deal of discussion on how this was proposed as an environmentally sensitive
area, that it was to not stop development of the area, but rather limit development in a manner
so that we take into consideration the natural aspects of the property. I feel that we have
accomplished that quite well. I personally am involved with lot seven and I will make this as
kind of an emotional statement here, this was the place that my wife and I had picked when
we purchased the property to build our home because of the view, because of the fact that it
nestles into the side of the mountain, because it sits within the trees, not disturbing the trees,
but easily sitting on a natural plateau as the one slide was able to demonstrate and also the way
our three-d model demonstrates. Lot seven does not interfere with the natural area to speak
of at all. In fact, it is higher elevation wise, higher than lot three. It is or I should say it does
not dip down as deep as lot three into the ravine, nor does it come as close to the creek as lot
three, but the only reason that lot three does not come into question is the fact that it sits on
a dry land grass area rather than the trees. I might bring out one other point here and that is
that the trees are created from natural water drainage that now exists. It's a very poor ditch,
it has flooded out several times and been rebuilt. It has natural seepage and thus these
cottonwoods have grown in that particular area and you can tell that by now well you can
almost pin point where the ditch has leaked by the way that the flow of the trees come down
off of that hillside. The thought that this is a naturally created area is pretty bogus, it is all
created simply from wastewater coming out of the irrigation ditch and if that irrigation ditch
was for whatever reason to be removed, shut down or otherwise, it's only natural to assume that
once the water stops these trees will die back naturally. In fact that is one of our arguments
that we pressed the environmental department suggesting that in reality, privately owned lots
in those particular areas would maintain those trees regardless of whether the water flow still
exists or not. Also we are being required by the irrigation company to move that irrigation
ditch and you can see that kind of half circle up there by the cul-de-sac and put that under
ground. So in fact, when this land is developed whether the water flows through the property
or not, the majority of the seepage is going to be eliminated and thus the trees will be dying
off unless they are protected. Now one other thing that has kind of clouded this entire issue
4
has been the fact that the City Council has voted on possibly acquiring this property as part
of the City. In fact, one of the reasons that we have been so late in coming to the board is that
this was proposed in December of last year and we delayed this project six months so that the
environmental engineering department could look into that exact avenue. In doing so they
found that the parks department was not interested because of limited access to the property
as well as limited use simply due to the topographical lay of the area. Also the appraiser for
the City evaluated the property at five to ten thousand dollars per acre which in reality is
considerably less than what I purchased the property at, but the reason why he appraised this
is again because of limited public need or public want. In other words, if the public cannot use
it then it is not worth that much to the public. So those avenues have already been expressed.
Also, when we were approached with the open space and with the concern that the City may
feel uncomfortable with loosing control of an environmentally sensitive area, I have offered
to donate that ravine area to the City and Mr. Shoemaker's response was that the City was more
than likely not interested in a donation for they felt that it would be better maintained by the
landowners themselves leaving it as a private entity and now they're asking us to donate
another acre of land so that the remaining six or seven property owners would be maintaining
more land left open for whatever reason he can self -justify. So our feelings here arc that we
looked at this project in a realistic manner as far as development, trying to keep the density
low so that it blends in with the neighborhoods that now exist, both Clarendon and The Ridge.
Being realistic as far as the size of the lots, trying to change the size of the lots from large to
small as it approached Shields, trying to formulate plans so that the natural areas will be
private land and houses built within the trees and join that natural area and yet not destroying
or damaging significantly that natural area and allowing, I think, one of the nicest subdivisions
within the City limits of Fort Collins today, given the type of area that exists as far as views,
vegetation and the size of the lots. I think that realistically these lots are going to attract the
type of people that will probably build homes of equal caliber if not better quality than The
Ridge or the Clarendon area put together. Yet they will not have the ability to be side by side
or totally destroy the environment as Clarendon has done with their green grass overlay of the
entire area. And so I think that as we have proposed, we are looking for approval as it is now,
rather than deleting any lots making it unfeasible for us to continue to develop. Thank you.
Member Walker asked if there was going to be covenants on these lots and could he elaborate
on that.
Dr. Musslewhite replied that there should be a list of tentative covenants already in there, but
basically they took the covenants as far as the size, the type of shingles used and the outer
decor similar to what Clarendon did, because they felt as though they fit into their class of
houses or executive type homes they were dealing with. They also took into consideration The
Ridge's covenants, one of which he knew they expressed concern with as far as fences. He was
not any more a fence advocate than they are and frankly he did not care for their three rail
fences. What they have proposed to do, and this was in the final stages, was to only allow
fences within the building envelopes themselves and not any fences on lots 3, 7, 8, 9 and 2. In
other words, the only fences and the privacy fence that will probably exist will be between the
hospital and lot 1 realistically. He could not imagine anyone wanting to fence any of 4, 5, 6,
at all because of the size of the lot. They were flexible on that, if they wanted to eliminate all
fencing all together, they definitely would discuss that with them, but again they were leaving
a good 30 foot buffer on the east side of the property which is adjacent to The Ridge open
space so their open space would be 40 or 50 feet, in reality, the closest any fence could come
to a property would be about 100 feet from their building sites. If in fact someone decides to
build a fence, they were going to put restraints on how much area is actually fenced. More
than likely we were looking at a small area fenced around a patio or possibly a dog run or
something of that nature. As far as other ordinances are concerned, they have suggested that
once these lots were purchased that any tree disturbed and they would consult with the City
Forester, they would replace those trees two fold. If in fact they decide on lot 8 or lot 7, that
particular tree just did not fit into the architectural plan, then they have to be realistic and
replace that tree with a similar type of tree within their property. In reality, those types of
additions to the homeowner was irrelevant. These types of people that were going to be
building on here more than likely will be putting up .10 times more trees than required,
especially on the western hill. Once this develops there will be more tree cover than now exists
and that was true of any urban development.
Member Walker asked given the site is adjacent to the ravine, was there any consideration of
any sorts of covenants regarding what could be done in landscape treatments, particularly
abutting the ravine.
Dr. Musslewhite replied other than the land between the road and the house, not the building
envelope but the house, they cannot disturb the property whatsoever. The only area they could
grass or if they want to leave it in a natural state by putting in landscaping, would be between
the house and the road. Between the lots and into the ravine area or to the southeast will go
totally undisturbed, they will not be able to touch that. The same way with lot 2 as it goes
down the hill out of the building envelope and the same way with lot 3.
Member Walker asked if they were going to have to down cut the road to get to the ravine so
there was a reasonable slope on the road, just east of the ravine, there will be a cut to
accommodate the road elevation.
Dr. Musslewhite replied it would be from 4 to 8 feet and would be rounded off. The largest
cut would be at the irrigation ditch, which in reality, was built up at least two feet to allow the
irrigation ditch to flow where it is at. They could accomplish that without changing and they
were talking about right between lot 2 where the small bushes are just south of that. We
accomplish that with very little change to the general overlay of the land just by rounding that
off mainly toward lot two where it is the high point.
Member Walker asked on lot 7 it appears to have alot of slope and what was it going to take to
build a house within that envelope.
Dr. Musslewhite replied that their engineer from Utah sent out a possible plan of what the
house would look like on lot 7 and they had the three dimensional map made up that you could
get a better idea at the topographical lay of the land. Lot 7 is less steep than lot 3 and there
is a natural flatness to the plateau. There has been some changes on the model because they
had it made up during with the normal proposal when they were running a public street all the
way through, so there has been some recent cuts and they tried to show it as close as possible.
It shows the contour in red that they are suggesting they cut it back to and you could see how
it eliminates 7, basically eliminates 8 and it does touch into lot 9, too. The line is totally
arbitrary, he did not know where they came up with this particular topographical, which is
extended over on the west end of the property. You can see that it would destroy all 3 lots and
most of the building envelope of the other. As far as the steepness of the slope, both engineers
and architects alike have been consulted and basically it is an excellent lot for a walk out
basement. Depending on the width of the house you were looking at walking out at the existing
ground level. It drops something like 8 to 10 feet in a 35 to 40 foot span and thus basically an
8 to 9 foot difference in beams allowing single level on the top and double level on the back.
One of the concerns that was expressed was a tree that was on the building envelope was in the
drainage area just to the north of lot 7 and they have suggested to the City that they could
narrow that building envelope and probably eliminate that tree loss, or that interference with
that drainage area thus somewhat limits the architect's ability to fit it into the hillside but none
the less he did not think restrict it to any significant amount.
Chairman Klataske asked what was proposed on building heights.
Dr. Musslewhite replied that it was suggested to keep the roof levels low so that they would not
have two and a half story buildings blocking the view and mainly concerned with along the
hill blocking lots 1 and 2 and 1 and 2 blocking the houses that at sometime might exist
sometime to the north of those. Lot 4, 5 and 6 are basically going to be ground level homes and
so allowing just two story development, no more than two story development on those
properties. The same way with lot 3. The concern there was with the property owner to the
north, though the house that now exists, the trees actually block their view of any of the
building pads on the western hill and they have no windows to the southeast and the only view
out that side would be their eight foot satellite dish. They have tried to take into consideration
their views and at the same time they were more concerned with the views from the particular
lots they were developing. Taking into consideration that these were going to be executive
homes and they are going to want a view of the mountains. They have limited the lower hill
lots down to a minimal size.
Member Walker asked what was to be done with the fact that there will no longer be the ditch
water seepage to water these trees.
Dr. Musslewhite replied that the trees they were talking about there are due to seepage from
the tributary that runs from the crest of the hill. Those particular seepage areas will be almost
mainly on private property. They would have to maintain those themselves, then again, the
kind of people that were going to be attracted to home lots would definitely make sure that was
taken care of. The seepage area on the main ravine and also the small ravine coming from the
north will not be interfered within their subdivision. These are ditch seepages or drainages and
at the present time they have no idea whether the ditch company has an easement on the
ravine, and they have no control over how much water or whether they would allow any water
to cross there or not, but it is a pass between the ditch company, it is not a natural drainage,
it is a pass between the ditch itself and Fossil Creek. It is one of the easiest ways to get water
from one part of their irrigation system to another and that was to let it run into Fossil Creek
and thus into Fossil Creek reservoir. He would assume that water would continue to run at
least in a sporadic fashion through the years He could not speak for the irrigation company
and what they were going to do and beyond that he could not speculate. They plan on clearing
the ditch of considerable debris that now exists that flows downstream from the northern
properties, both of natural tree debris and garbage. That was the type of maintenance that
they assumed as well as erosion control.
Brian Fromme, 1308 Hepplewhite Court, stated he lived just south of the proposed Laurie PUD.
He and other homeowners in The Ridge wanted to voice some of their concerns about the
negative impacts of the proposed PUD. He wanted to state that he found it presumptuous that
the would be developer said to the Board that the City of Fort Collins and the citizens of Fort
Collins were not interested in open space. He wanted to state that he was one of the citizens
of Fort Collins that was very interested in open space and in fact have spoken with other
homeowners and The Ridge HOA in acquiring this land for open space. One of the concerns
he has with this PUD is in regards to the LDGS in Section A, Paragraph 14 under resource
protection. That paragraph states that "the sites designated significant by the Colorado Division
of Wildlife should have adequate protection". The applicant has said that as proposed this PUD
would really have no disturbance at all to the existing landscape and yet there is a proposed
70 foot fill of the ravine. Certainly it did not seem to him that no disturbance what so ever in
this area. Another aspect that concerned him was the road variance. When the developer first
discussed with the City Staff and at the Homeowners town meeting was brought up, the
original discussion was to have a full City street, a legal City street that would have been a 170
foot coverage across the ditch. As the driveway variance is set today; that was really a
compromise to allow as the City Staff mentioned earlier tonight, admittedly limited access to
the western slope of this area. Again, he did not feel that addresses a few critical issues,
particularly emergency vehicles. He did not believe this driveway adequately covers access for
emergency vehicles given some of the situations that might occur in the four units that would
be on the western slope of the PUD. It has come to his attention that sprinklers would have to
be installed on these four lots to cover protection for fire. He was concerned that proposed a
particular danger, not only to those homes but to surrounding area and particular in The Ridge
and the,open space to the west and to his home. He was concerned about the drainage from
that site onto the property just to the south. The developer stated that The Ridge has open
space to the west of the site , which is true, but The Ridge does not have open space directly
south of the western four units on this proposed PUD. He was concerned that as stated, for the
moment, there was no protection for the landowners south of that for any possible erosion and
water drainage that might occur. Finally, he was concerned about the property just to the
south and there was a little wedge of property now for sale by Wheeler Real Estate that also
crosses that ravine and if the Board allows this developer to cross the ravine to get access to the
western side, then what was the next landowner going to want to do with the property and how
were they going to get access to that. He did not think any of this had been addressed in this
particular proposal. It was his opinion that the applicant has made a bad decision to develop
on the western side of this ravine. He thought it should be acceptable for the P & Z Board to
specify that an applicant had made an inappropriate use for a specific site of land and in
particular, if that goes against some of the policies set in the LDGS. He believed that the
Planning and Zoningshould take environmental issues into concern as strongly as the voice of
the developer when revealing these PUD's.
Sanford Thayer, property owner to the north, registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Colorado and happened to be a former member of the Storm Drainage Board of the City of Fort
Collins, stated he noticed that there was no provision on this plan for storm drainage. No site
plotted. One of the earlier plans did show a site, however, the new road was now where that
particular plan was. The requirements as they knew them was to mitigate the damages to the
downstream property owners. It was going to be impossible if you look at that topographical
map that the developer has provided for the lots on the west and mitigate the damage that Mr.
Fromme has pointed out to those downstream people, that is down slope people. There was no
way they were going to put a storm detention pond in. The only storm detention pond they
could put in under this plan was from the existing drainage way of the Fossil Creek irrigation
ditch. He has cleaned that ditch many times and it always gets alot of debris. The more the
City develops, the more debris gets in there. A 4 ft. culvert is going to plug and it was going
to overtop the road.The City Attorney, at the time he was on the Board, was cautioning the
Board constantly about doing man made structures and the damages that manmade structures
can cause in the liability the City has and the liability the developers and others have. He
thought that the storm drainage needed to be addressed and unfortunately the developer has
provided them with plans and commentary from people who are not professional engineers,
although the Storm Drainage Board will eventually require that. These concepts and ideas that
are presented, were not presented by professional engineers as they should be in this situation.
If you look in regard to the road, if you look at the contours, you see that it is going to be a
very steep road that was going to cut down there. He thought Member Walker asked the
question and he got the response to a different question. He got the response to the slope across
the road and not the slope from a high point down to the low spot and back up. He thought one
needs to carefully consider the slope that the roads are going to have, particularly in winter
conditions and again they are faced with broad brush discussion by non professional engineers
that are making grandious schemes and comments and people including the developer were
relying on those and it is incumbent on the developer to have professionals who meet the legal
requirements of the State of Colorado to provide that information.
Nona Thayer, also involved with the property to the north, wanted to emphasize to the Board
the steepness of these slopes. They could see from the slides how steep the property really is
along by the ravine. She doubted very much if what was being proposed can fully mitigate the
erosion that was going to be opened up by this development. She wanted the Board to think
about the City's adopted plans, they were very specific when it comes to protecting sensitive
areas such as this. "Land should be developed utilizing its natural contours", certainly is not
in this case. "Trees should be retained", we earlier did not have, when they had a neighborhood
meeting, a detailed plan of the trees and she was not able to get it and really go out and get a
good idea of whether it was adequate now, she was not sure. There is alot of wildlife in this
area, this has been put in the record in the neighborhood meetings. The wetlands are important
to the south and should be taken into account. The proposal doesn't really deal with the erosion
plans and apparently we don't see them until the final plan. She thought that was a mistake.
She also wonders if the developer gets part way through and makes these grades and fills and
so forth and then the project is not completed. Unfortunately, the City doesn't seem to have
adequate collateral plans to make sure that the neighbors don't have to live with something of
that type. The County attorney advised the County Commissioners that man made hazards had
a much different liability, opening up not only the public body but the homeowner's
association in the future and the developer. In the information that she read in the packet and
was sure the Board read to, it said that if the culvert becomes plugged, it will overflow a dip
in the road. That means that they were really opening up the liabilities if there was an injury
instead of an act of God situation. She thought that the safety factors of such a narrow road
was something that the Board should think carefully about, it opens up much greater liability
problems. We at the neighborhood meeting expressed a concern about low profile dwellings if
this project should be approved. She did not understand what Dr. Musslewhite said about what
the limitations were on each lot. She was particularly concerned about lot 3 and 4, she wants
low profile buildings if there was to be buildings there. As she reads on copies of the plans,
it says in point 5 under F, there would be a maximum height specified on each lot to restrict
buildings, but in no case should it exceed 40 feet. She did not know what it is and she would
like that as part of the record that there be a single family normal height on those lots. She
would also ask that the building envelope be as narrow at the north end of lot 3 as it is on lot
4, it looks like it is 50 feet on lot 4 and she did not see why it should not be the same on lot 3,
the terrain is essentially the same at the top of the bluff, let's get that changed. She thinks that
Planning Commission members and elected policy makers have a concern that a property owner
has a reasonable use of his property. They made an offer to purchase this property, they would
make an offer again to purchase this property and add to their agricultural use property. She
did not think the Board needed to be concerned about no reasonable use.
Ginger Hitz, 1208 Hepplewhite, directly south of lot 6. She felt like if you look at this margin,
she was closest to the development. She and her husband have a company and were solicited
by Ft. Collins, Inc. to come here. They read our planning guide before coming here and they
believed it and would like to still believe that those policies were going to be enforced. They
were moving considerable families from California here and they were moving because they
G1
did not like the way people have not listened and followed guidelines in Los Angeles. She
would like to see Ft. Collins maintain its identity and its characteristics and not become a Los
Angeles area. She was concerned about the area because of the wildlife habitat. She thought
it was interesting that Dr. Musslewhite kind of glossed over the fact that there was no proof,
he doubted a bald eagle. Her neighbors have pictures. Her children have seen the foxes. What
about the deer. There are song birds in there all the time. She has seen hawks herself. She was
offended that he would negate that. Maybe someone came out and spent a few hours, but what
about the people that have spent days watching that. She thought that in an area like Ft.
Collins, when this is one of the last remaining wildlife habitat areas in the area that it should
be preserved and not defiled. She commended the staff for the recommendations that they
recommended, however, she did not think it was enough because she did not think that the
western slope ever was intended to be developed by crossing over the ravine. It was going to
destroy that area. She could not believe that their provisions for revegetation and erosion were
going to stop the natural wildlife from being disturbed. They will be disturbed. Someone made
the comment that well it won't bother them that much, they will come back. She did not agree
with that. She also did not agree with the fact that the trees are based on the drainage ditch.
That may be true, however, 50 years or 20 years of that, they are enormous trees. They have
been there a long time and to go and destroy that, really offends her. She feels that Ft. Collins
is a forward, aggressive area and that we need to be able to have that balance in areas where
there is a unique special place in the City like this, it needs to be fought for and preserved. She
also thinks that when Dr. Musslewhite found the area and fell in love with it, he knew about
the uniqueness of the area, and because of that uniqueness he has a social responsibility to
protect that and preserve that and if that means losing lot 7 or whatever that means, based on
what the experts say to protect that area, or whatever it takes to preserve the wildlife, then
that's what it should take. She was a business person and understands profit margin and
understands all the things that people should have a reasonable use of their property and by
the same token, there has to be the balance of what one person wants and what could be lost
forever. She did not think once they started chipping away at it, they can ever go back and
replace it, and once you start chipping away a little piece, then it all starts to fall down. She
was concerned about what Mr. Fromme brought up, the property directly south of that
envelope. How will that be affected and the other thing was the on -site water retention and
how was that going to affect her property. Someone today asked her if it wasn't her property
would it still bother her. She replied yes it would. She has weighed this decision very heavily,
whether she really wanted to speak out about it. The long and short of it is there is a unique
diamond in the rough sitting there, there were no more like this anywhere in the City. To take
it and just wipe it away or to not take it as seriously as it needs to be was not right and not fair.
She was very strongly opposed to the area that will be destroyed.
Member Carroll asked Ms. Hitz about a plan Dr. Musslewhite had that attached these 4 lots to
Hepplewhite, they had that before them before in conceptual form. Could she address that.
Ms. Hitz replied that she could not address that because she has only been here one month. She
was not even aware of an easement on her property until two weeks ago and it was not a very
happy situation for her. She did not have enough details for him.
Kevin LaMoore, husband of property owner to the north, stated he spent the afternoon walking
down through the ravine and his concern was he did not believe the plans or the elevation of
the property show the character of the ravine. The closest they got to that tonight was looking
at the pictures, especially the picture that looks right down into the ravine. It was easy to look
at the plans and see how a road goes up the side of the ravine and he thought if you went out
there and stand there and look and realize that the bottom 25 feet of the ravine was going to
ON
be filled, then you arc going to come across the 25 foot fill and run a driveway down the side
of the ravine, you are going to see the character of that piece of the ravine was going to be
completely destroyed.
Steve Hitz, 1208 Hepplewhite, stated he was opposed to the project. The developer, when asked
about the seepage water into the ravine from the upper ditches that will be on private property,
said he assumed the homeowners would maintain them. He assumed that because of the type
of people that would be building here and so forth and felt that was a grand assumption. He
thought those kind of details need to be clarified. He was also concerned about the building
height and commented upon how the developer seemed to address that as to the lots within the
development not blocking each other's view. Their view directly at the Horsetooth mountains
which is one of the reasons they purchased that property, could be blocked if the homes are
built too high and he thought that it really needed to be specific. He mentioned in terms of it
being a natural wildlife habitat, his word was that was probably bogus. He wondered why it
has been designated as such by the City and many others who are professionals in that field,
if it is indeed bogus. He mentioned that the cottonwood trees were a result of not the water
from the ravine, but seepage water. He was not a horticulturist, but those trees have to be 100
feet high and he did not know how long waste water has been running down that hill, but that
statement could well be incorrect. The reason we were here was for fairness and there needed
to be a balance. He thought if nothing else comes of these discussions tonight, they had learned
that this project, the facts that have been presented, were inadequate and if they are approved
based on the facts that are present, that would be a real injustice and fairness would not be
dealt to any party and he would urge that more details are submitted and this project get a
closer look.
Randy Wick, Applewood Homeowner's Association, stated that they wrote a letter to a Mr. Price
and stated that in the past H & S Irrigation Company in Greeley designed and installed their
underground pipeline. This irrigation ditch serves Applewood Estates, all the water from that
and it also serves the Orchard and a few other individuals that are north of Applewood Estates.
Their president wrote him a letter and he did not get any reply from him at all, the engineer
on this thing and he decided, requesting only the flow rate of the pipe. The matter is that they
need to know that when this gets developed that the underground pipeline needs to be done by
an engineer that is qualified and they feel that H & S Irrigation is qualified since they have
put all the pipeline under Clarendon and all of Applewood Estates. The underground pipeline
and it is all designed by an irrigation company so that the flow rate is consistent. The ditch
has been there over 100 years and when somebody comes in and decides that they want to put
a flow rate that they feel will work, he did not think that was fair to them because if
something happens after the fact, then it is too late and he feels that it should be totally
engineered by H & S Irrigation Company whether they do the work or not. They should do all
the design for it underneath the area. They have a 20 foot easement on all of their ditchs all
the way to Clarendon Hills, all the way through Applewood a 20 foot easement and he thought
they had said they were only going to give them a 12 foot easement here. That was not
acceptable to them because they have to do maintenance on it and did they need the full 20
foot easement on this ditch. They need to have complete detai'. on the whole pipeline as shown
as a package, not piece meal. From the beginning to the end because if you do put it on the
ground at the end of the pipeline, whatever property it ends up to be there, there would be a
total erosion process going on there, so there would be some sort of diversion structure or
something designed by an engineer to handle it all so everything can work correctly along here.
The people at Applewood feel that it is very important that this is correctly done by an
engineer to design the whole system before this project is approved so their water keeps coming
as it has for the past 100 years.
11
Mr. Bob Browning, homeowner at The Ridge, stated he had been involved with this project
since the beginning. He has attended some of the neighborhood awareness meetings both in the
capacity of a private citizen and a former member of the Board of Directors. They have
expressed concerns in the past that have not been ameliorated. He has talked to City Planners
one on one and expressed the same concerns and the concerns have not been taken care of.
Listening to his neighbors tonight, the concerns were still there. He did not want to get into
a discussion of the aesthitcs of the open areas and did not want to get into a discussion on the
aesthetics of the wildlife area. What he was concerned with was the drainage area. He is not
a water engineer, what he was saying tonight was from observations not from any formal
schooling at all. At the current time, the lots at the base of the hill, toward the western most
slope are not adversely affected by run off water. They do not have a problem at all down
there, which tells him the natural water runoff drainage situation, act of God or whatever is
working. They know when it rains the water hits the hill and some of it is absorbed until the
ground achieves saturation, at which point it puddles and runs down the hill with the force of
gravity, it either runs toward Brian Fromme's house, toward his house, toward lot 23 or it could
go down the ditch. They know this is a relatively slow process as it percolates down because
there is an awful lot of natural impediments to its flow coming down the hill. He could attest
to that, he broke his leg two years ago when he stepped in a chuck hole out there. If things like
that go ahead and impede the water flow. Since they know in some point in time they were
going to have to address the Board on this issue, he has gone down and observed the ditch
filling up in relatively violent rain storms. The ditch does not fill up in a surge, it was not like
turning on a faucet. It initially gets wet when the water hits it. If fills up as the runoff from
the east side comes and the upper lands and it continues to bubble and run after the rain
stopped. This reinforced his thought that the water is percolating through slowly either from
the upper area or as it gets past the natural impediments coming down. What were we going
to do when we put the Laurie PUD in, if he reads the blueprints properly, they were going to
put roughly 30,000 s.f. of hard surface concrete or driveway up there. He will tell you that
what they have created up there is a collecting pool. One of the things you do when you build
a road is to crown it as such, so the water leaves it immediately so we don't have hydroplaning
and things like that so they were taking away the impediments to the slowing process of the
water. Certainly no water is going to be absorbed in the concrete, at that point it has to go
somewhere, it has to go quickly because they were going to design it that way. When they
design houses, we don't store water on the roof, we have peaked roofs. The water is conveyed
off the roof and goes horizontally off the gutters. It goes vertically down either out the front
of the houses into the street area for run off, or it goes on to the property. We design our
houses to get water away from the structures, we don't want seepage in our own basement and
we don't want standing water in our yards. That's the way we do things, the way we landscape.
One of the other things they do up there because the land up there is not suitable for having
kids on it running around and playing, they are going to get metals in their feet, they are going
to break their legs, they were going to go ahead and landscape that and put grass in and further
go ahead and take away the impediments to the water flow. You can't tell his as they get closer
to his house, Brian Fromme's house and other people's houses you can't tell him that eliminating
these impediments are going to keep the water from going into their basements or crawl spaces.
When the water drains off the ditch or comes off the front of the houses a little bit, it is going
to go down to not a storage system, it is going to go down and be dumped directly into the
ditch. Effectively as the storm surge comes and passes, they were going to turn on a spigot
down there. Is the spigot going to overflow the ditch. It certainly was a concern if it needs the
cleaning that Mr. Thayer says it does. Is the Hepplewhite bridge culvert system designed to
take a surge of a turned on faucet? Is the Fossil Cteck runoff area designed to take surges, but
if you look at this whole thing on here, you are talking about number one, destroying the
aesthetics of The Ridge; two, destroying a wildlife area; three, setting a precedence by saying
12
this wonderful planning document, which he believed they won an award for, is not going to
be followed and when the next guy wants to put a 7-11 in the middle of a housing area, they
say you didn't do it for the Laurie PUD; and four, you have the potential liability of what is
happening in the flood areas. He did not see the potential good that could come out of Laurie
PUD out weighs the potential damage it could do to you. He disagrees completely with the
project and he was not at ease with just knocking out lot 7. He felt that it was an inappropriate
use of the land and he fully agrees with what his neighbors have said. In close, just say no.
Richard Lea, resident of lot 26 of The Ridge, it is not one of the adjacent lots to the proposed
Laurie PUD, but it is close enough to him to have paid particular attention to this proposal
from its very inception. He was in attendance at the very first neighborhood meeting that was
so many months ago he could not tell them what year it was in. He has watched his mail box
and have watched the developments of this proposal come and go in the mail. He has watched
the proposals be put on the agenda and stricken off the agenda for almost 20 months. He
thought it would die from its own poor design. He still thinks it will die of its own poor design.
He has had conversations very early on with the developer, Dr. Musslewhite. It was quite
apparent that his planning processes both personally and professionally having to do with the
subdivision were ill conceived. He bought this lot, he admitted on this stand a few moments
ago, that he bought this lot without even knowing what governmental jurisdiction it was
within. He will tell you that the owner of the lot he bought it from, the seller, didn't even
know what jurisdiction it was in. He will tell you that the real estate agents involved in the
sale did not know what jurisdiction it was in. It was part of the annexed land to the City in
1989 and it was well known for three years prior to that by all people interested in these
matters and by all homeowners and property owners in the area that the City intended to annex
all of the area known as The Ridge PUD subdivision three years prior to 1989, which it was
annexed on schedule. All of the arguments about poor Dr. Musslewhite bought this and did not
know what he was getting into, wanting to build his home on it, wanted to have a horse farm,
can't have a horse farm, so now he wants to profit by selling nine expensive executive size lots
on a piece of land that is ill prepared to hold anything near that kind of homes. He has walked
this land many times, he has viewed it from the air, he has viewed it on the ground, he has
viewed it from every direction . It cannot be developed properly, safely, aesthetically into
9 single family lots, it could not even be properly, aesthetically and safely and environmentally
developed into 8 lots or 7 lots all of which have been proposed at one time or another. If it can
be developed at all, it could only be developed, in his opinion, to the east of the ravine, to the
east of the open space which we have all been talking about tonight, to the east of the ditch,
which despite the lovely slides we saw, do not adequately convey how deep this ditch is, how
steep the sides are or how erosion conscious this land will be and how much wildlife inhabits
there. He has lived in The Ridge Subdivision for 5 years and they have seen wildlife that has
not even been mentioned in these reports. He is not a wildlife expert, he is simply an observer
of the environment in which he lives. There is a significant amount of wildlife in this area.
There is a significant amount of drainage issues that have never been addressed and they are
not likely addressed by the kind of plan and the kind of process that Dr. Musslewhite has
employed. The Board was probably aware that when previous plans have come to them for the
Laurie PUD, they have been represented by other engineering firms. Now a new plan comes
to them, this time by out of state, a firm out of Utah. Perhaps it has credentials, perhaps he
had to go that far away to find anybody who would dare represent that this land could be
developed properly west of the ravine, it simply cannot. That is why it has never been
developed, that is why the people who sold it, sold it for a song and now he would have us all
believe that he will lose money if he doesn't get 9 lots on this. The fact of the matter is the
only reason Dr. Musslewhite wants to develop this land is so he can finance and afford
construction of a massive animal clinic that was approved earlier, a plan he has no problem
13
with. He has significant concerns about whether Dr. Musslewhite, who is simply an individual
citizen, much as all of us are and is not a well financed developer, can handle either
financially or the professionally or the engineering ends of his whole proposal. He is a
veterinarian, he is a doctor of veterinary medicine. He is not an engineer, he is not a building
contractor, he is not a land use attorney, he is not an environmental expert, he is simply a
private citizen who bought a small piece of land thinking it was in the County, hoping he could
throw up an animal clinic in his own time and his own way without alot of governmental
interference. He didn't even know that the government he would be dealing with was the City
of Fort Collins instead of Larimer County. He has hired one consultant after another and
every time someone throws a question at him he brings in another expert and he continues to
modify his plan and come up with, essentially a botched up, cobbled up continually modified
plan that still has no merit. He has gone as far away as Salt Lake City or Park City, Utah to
try to present it to them this time. He imagined the reason Staff had recommended approval,
with restrictions and reservations, was to get him out of their hair. It was simply a bad plan.
He has nothing to gain whether this plan succeeds or fails. He simply could not believe, having
watched it closely for over a year and a half, having followed these proceedings and having
addressed this Board before in the very early stages that anybody still believes that any of this
has merit. He did not think the issue was whether or not he has a 20 foot private driveway and
sprinkled homes, or he has a major 60 foot concrete bridge across the rave or whether he gets
access from north, south, east or west. He believed that he bought a piece of land that could
not be adequately or properly, safely or environmentally developed on the west side of the
ravine and he recommended that they disapprove this plan and any such plan until he comes
up with one that has development possibilities only on the cast side of the ravine, thereby,
protecting a valuable piece of openspace, drainage, ditch area, wildlife habitat and other
environmentally parts of the properly until the City of Fort Collins can property determine
through its own studies and its own time whether it wants to make any part of this property
official open space. It was his opinion that the open space that the City of Fort Collins should
be looking at is not just the ditch and the ravine as described on this map, but the whole 5 acres
or 4-1/2 acres west of the ravine. It contains lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. That should be the City of Fort
Collins open space or it should be left open and natural as is it under private ownership.
Chairman Klataske clarified that the area under consideration was the ravine and the area
west of that because of the limited access. So at this point that is what the Natural Resources
Board has been directed to look at.
Mr. Lea replied that he truly hoped that was right. He was out of town when the City Council
asked the Staff to look into this. He just returned yesterday and has not had a chance to look
into the specifics of what they were asked to study and so if that is the case, he was very
pleased about that. He would again reiterate that because the City Council has asked Natural
Resources to look into this and present a thorough plan and proposal and recommendation in
early September and this Board should not act in any way tonight on this plan until we have
learned what the recommendation and proposal analysis are and digest them and then
incorporate them into a severely modified plan, if there was to be any development at all with
the Laurie PUD.
Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Peterson if he had anything to add on the review of this.
Mr. Peterson replied that he was not present at the meeting and asked Ms. Clark to answer that.
Ms. Clark replied that Council's motion was to direct Staff to look at the feasibility of
acquisition of the natural areas or the ravine of the site. Based on that direction, Staff would
14
be looking at both the ravine and the properties west of that because as is presently, there was
no other alternative for access in the western portion of the site and if the ravine were not to
be crossed, then obviously we would need to look at the western portion of the property, lots
3 through 6 as well. Two things that were not defined by Council and Staff will provide
several alternatives, was how far east could the City look for acquisition of the property and
if the property were to be acquired for public open space, there would need to be some
mechanism providing public access to this side as well.
Chairman Klataske stated that as far as whether or not they should be considering this until
the City makes a decision on it, they have been presented with a proposal that meets the
criteria and the developer has a right to a hearing and a decision. At this point we will not
postpone it merely to see what the City Council might or might not do.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Shoemaker, Department of Natural Resources, his opinion on the quality
of the habitat and what a road across the ravine and the development of this would do.
Mr. Shoemaker replied that there had been a couple of statements made tonight about the
relative merit of this habitat and the opinions of various agencies on that habitat. It was
important to remember that they are speaking of wildlife habitat in the context of Fort Collins
and the Urban Growth Area. It was stated earlier tonight that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has not designated a critical habitat in this area. Critical habitat is a legal term that
related to an officially recognized area under the Federal Endangered Species Act. There are,
in fact, very few critical habitats and this was not one of them, nor is there any in the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area. With respect to the designation by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, that also relates to habitats of State wide concern. The Colorado Division of Wildlife
does provide maps of areas of State wide concern within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
Those include winter range along the foothills west of Fort Collins, they include some sections
but not all of the Poudre River and some limited portions of some of the larger reservoirs
within the City of Fort Collins. Beyond that, City Council and City programs over the years
have looked at wildlife habitat and natural areas as they relate to the context of Fort Collins
and he could provide some comments related to that. This area of the Natural Resources
Division was supported by two inventory methods. One was a previous method conducted in
the mid 80's in which a citizen review panel of wildlife experts mapped and identified areas
of importance within the cities Urban Growth Area. This area was identified as an area of
high sensitivity by that panel and those criteria and these maps were endorsed by this Planning
and Zoning Board in 1988. The recent effort with respect to the Natural Areas Policy Plan, we
are basically consistent with those past maps, except they have endeavored to do additional
field checking to learn what was out there. He could say, without hesitation, this area is a
unique site within the context of Fort Collins, meaning it is different than other areas within
Fort Collins. It's a combination of topographic and vegetational circumstances that makes it
really unlike other places within Fort Collins. Is it critical in terns of endangered species, no
it is not, there are certainly bald eagles that do stop and perch on large trees in that area from
time to time. The areas, based on their knowledge that are most critical to bald eagles in the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area are the large reservoirs and large areas of open prairie, such
as the Seven Springs Ranch to the west or the areas of the Fossil Creek drainage to the south.
Does the area have wildlife value, it certainly does in terms of its diversity. The overall site
is about 9 acres, of which 2.3 or so are sensitive areas located on Dr. Musslewhite's property.
The area certainly has vegetational diversity that would attract a wide variety of song birds.
Other species that have been mentioned are fox, deer. They understand from the Division of
Wildlife that there was a small herd of about 10 deer that frequent this area. With respect to
the question of the road crossing and the concern to wildlife habitat there are a number of
IF
issues that one would look at and evaluating impacts on wildlife related to a development of
this type and he was speaking specifically of the road at this point in time. One would be the
potential to form a movement barrier for deer and other animals moving up and down. The
previous proposal which had a very large amount of fill crossing the entire ravine would have
constituted a barrier to wildlife movements. In their view, this particular relocation of the
road would not constitute a wildlife barrier. You are looking at the actual loss of habitat
which is fairly small and the disturbance area adjacent to the road would be revegetated with
species of grasses, shrubs and trees that would be consistent with the wildlife habitat of the
area. Other potential impacts from the road would relate to potential collisions with wildlife
species. The traffic speeds are not likely to be significant on that road, and the general nature
of human disturbance and its impact on wildlife from the road per say, those are likely to be
minimal. It is the view, albeit an unpopular view, of the Natural Resources Division, that the
road per se, with respect to wildlife habitat, that the developer has basically done what he
could to minimize those impacts. It is important to state for the record that they believe an
alternative access would be much preferable.
Member Walker asked if this was to be acquired by the City, the ravine and the area to the
west, in general terms based on how Natural Resources would handle such an open area, what
kinds of things would you have to do if the City were to purchase, to make it accessible to the
citizens.
Mr. Shoemaker replied that they would want to be looking at the entire 9 acre site which would
include areas to the north and south. Perhaps in terms of conservation easements, leaving them
in private ownership, but perhaps in terms of public acquisition as well. In conversations, it
has been since April, both with Dr. Musslewhite and The Ridge homeowners, the concept that
they were exploring was a joint venture between The Ridge Homeowners and the City of Fort
Collins, with the City targeting the acquisition of the ravine per se, or the wooded areas of the
site and the Homeowner's Association acquiring the area to the west but insuring some
provision for public access would be provided. He would not want to conjecture too much on
what type of activities would be projected in this area, except to say they would be minimal.
Perhaps some trail activity, but they want to be very careful about the design and management
approach to this area because of its sensitivity and two, because there are some very significant
steep slopes associated with the ravine and question of liabilities have come up a number of
times. There are certain issues that need to be worked out.
Member Strom asked Mr. Shoemaker if he did say that roughly 2.3 acres of this site was
considered by him to be sensitive.
Mr. Shoemaker replied yes.
Member Strom asked him to generally outline what portion of the site he included in the 2.3
acres.
Mr. Shoemaker replied that it was basically the area that includes the wooded vegetation, the
association of natural grasses and other plants occurs and it's basically down grade from the
existing irrigation ditch. Mr. Shoemaker pointed out for the Board and the audience the area
on the map.
Member Strom asked if it precluded the City from in some way obtaining protection for that
property if the narrow roadway is put across the ravine and the knob on the west side is
developed.
16
Mr. Shoemaker replied they have not explored that option. In the Staff report there were a
number of recommendations related to building envelopes on lots 7, 8 and 9. Those
recommendations relate to that concern of how that sensitive natural area would be treated
assuming the proposal went through and the road was constructed across.
Member Strom asked if they should approve this with or without lot 7 and parts of 8, were they
blocking the City from protecting the sensitive area.
Mr. Shoemaker replied no, not necessarily, and to an extent, he would certainly want to
acknowledge the efforts that Dr. Musslewhite has taken in setting aside some of the ravine and
in some of the considerations they have put into their plans in terms of resource sensitivity .
They believe they have added to those in a necessary manner in terms of the Staff
recommendations. He thought the bottom line was that they would continue to pursue
protection to the extent feasible, under existing law, on areas to the north and areas to the
south even with this proposal. He thought it was important to stress that there is a draft
Natural Areas Policy Plan that is with going extensive public review and part of that lengthy
process was evaluating criteria and evaluating relative priorities with respect to public
acquisition. That was the question they had to address with Council.
Member Strom asked about the 5084 contour line and was Mr. Shoemaker involved in where the
line should be.
Mr. Shoemaker replied yes he was. He and Mr. Peterson went onto the site and basically did
what one of the gentlemen speaking did tonight and that was to spend some time on the site and
walk it and get a picture of the whole development and basically what he was looking at when
they were coming up with that line and it was not necessarily a magic line, it is their best
estimate where that line should be and he will confess to being a wildlife biologist not an
engineer. Their thinking on the line was the sensitive area as defined by our mapping basically
comes along this area. Our concern was not just with the trees, Dr. Musslewhite and his
consultants have avoided most of the trees on the site, but with the overall vegetative
community and the characteristics of the site. They were looking at concerns with respect to
the LDGS criteria about blending the development into the existing topography and whether
significant existing vegetation had been avoided to the extent practical. They were looking at
the extent practical question. What they were trying to achieve was to pull the building
envelopes basically back up onto the flatter land before the ravine begins to drop off. They
are not proposing to be right in the middle of the steepest part, but it is fairly steep terrain out
there and their concern was related to the extent of disturbance that would be required to put
a house and associated amenities into that area. The other concern was the extent particularly
on lot 7 and how far it encroaches into the ravine itself. This was approximately the narrowest
part of the ravine, it is about 250 feet in width and the outer edge of the envelope was
approximately 125 feet or half way into the ravine. We are trying to minimize the
encroachment, also pull the building envelopes up onto the relatively flat area of the ravine
and in their judgement, in the field, there was not room for a building envelope on lot 7.
Member Strom asked what kind of assumption were they using in terms of building disturbance
when he said there was no room for a building envelope.
Mr. Shoemaker replied they were looking basically at a 50 to 60 foot wide area and the concern
was with the road coming off there, was it feasible to work a building in there. He understands
that Dr. Musslewhite's consultants have presented an alternative that shows a way a house
could be worked in there and he just saw that tonight and has not been able to evaluate it.
17
Chairman Klataske asked if the same criteria was used on the west side for the heights or was
that considered.
Mr. Shoemaker replied no it wasn't because their definition of the boundaries of that sensitive
natural area are based primarily on a vegetational delineation and the same vegetation does not
extend to the same elevation on the west side.
Member Strom asked if it was his judgement that the water that supports that vegetation is
coming out of the irrigation ditch or did he have any sense for that.
Mr. Shoemaker replied that it was partly true and his sense and their judgement, and they have
talked to the City Forester, that those trees and shrubs were well established and likely have
deep roots and will maintain whether or not this particular area would have formed in the
absence of the irrigation ditch in the past. He thought that the hypothesis that it is associated
with the ditch is likely correct.
Member Strom asked that assuming that the ditch is moved and piped so the seepage is no
longer there but the bulk of the vegetation was well enough established to maintain itself
without the constant summer seepage, why would the disturbance on this side of the slope give
any greater concern than disturbance on the west side of the ravine where the vegetation is not
there. Are we concerned about inadvertently knocking down trees or are we concerned about
some of the smaller vegetation communities in there.
Mr. Shoemaker replied both of those things and also there was a concern and it relates to the
definition that we have used for the natural area and the type of vegetational community that
occurs in there and that is defined by basically the tree shrub, grass community in there which
is quite different on the west side. On the west side it is a more short grass prairie type of
situation which is decreasing in the Urban Growth Area, but there is still some very large
expanses of it. In contrast, a Riparian Woodlands situation is not so common and one in
particular the very small ravine and within an upland situation on the sides of it are not
commonly found in Fort Collins.
Member Walker asked Mike Herzig, Engineering Department to address the adequacy of the
roads, also the issue of storm drainage off the site to the south and also the question of the
easement for the ditch.
Mr. Herzig, replied it will be an adequate road, it is proposed to be 20 feet wide in response to
the fire department that needs a 20 foot access. The design grade which normally doesn't come
in at preliminary is on the plan at 8% maximum slope. The turn around at the end of the cul-
de-sac is also an 80 foot turn -around for what the fire department needs for their
specifications. In that light it does provide for all the emergency services that would be
anticipated.
Member Walker asked Mr. Herzig about the storm drainage and the runoff on the property.
Mr. Herzig replied that the applicant does have an engineer he has hired. He is from Utah. He
has satisfied the conditions for the preliminary submittal. He can't give him the specifics on
that; however, in the final design phase they do have to go through a much more extensive
review of the drainage and come up with the specific designs that address erosion control as
well as the storm drainage handling of the water.
18
Member Walker asked about the 12 foot instead of the 20 foot easement for the ditch.
Mr. Herzig replied he did not know what was proposed, all he knew was that the ditch
company, where there is an irrigation ditch involved in a project, is required to sign off on the
public improvement plans to assure they are getting what they need for their ditch to
accommodate their maintenance as well as their operation.
Member Walker stated that what they heard tonight was it was proposed at 12 feet and it
seemed that it would not be sufficient from their stand point and there needed to be a
resolution to this issue.
Mr. Herzig replied that it would be resolved, normally during the final phase of a project. We
usually don't get into the specifics of easement widths at the preliminary.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Herzig that it seemed the Staff conditions with respect to storm
drainage primarily deal with erosion into the ravine, that that was the concern of Staff.
Because the Staff conditions do not address erosion or drainage off of lots 4 and 5 that would
be going down hill onto properties in The Ridge. From his perspective was that type of
drainage not a problem or potential problem in this area.
Mr. Herzig replied that it was still a consideration as a part of the drainage and grading plan
that would have to be.developed at final. Normally the drainage has to be distributed over a
historic configuration or else if it is concentrated, then that has to be accounted for. The
development on the lots will create some drainage and that will have to be handled. Those
specifics have not been looked at at the preliminary phase. The concentrated effort has been
with the ravine. Also, there was mention about the concern about the drainage going over the
road if the pipe should plug. That is a normal consideration that we think of with most
drainage systems. Where is the water going to go if the pipe should plug up especially in a
sump area. That is something they will address with the fill area.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the issues brought up about drainage into Fossil Creek
would be addressed at final.
Mr. Herzig replied he did not know how that will be handled as far south as that is but for the
capacity of the pipe that goes under Hepplewhite Court, that has to be considered in the
drainage runoff study. He did know it had to go that far.
Mr. Peterson clarified that the irrigation ditch that runs through there is a private ditch that
serves the Applewood development, it is not a ditch company ditch in the traditional sense that
they are aware of. The ditch, however, has been there a considerable amount of time, probably
enough time that there is a prescriptive easement by use for the property and obviously we
expect that issue is going to be settled between the applicant and the Homeowner's Association
that has that prescriptive right, but it is not, the rights are not the same you would have with
the normal irrigation ditch company.
Mr. Peterson also clarified that the drainage master plan requirements that the Storm Drainage
Utility has for Fossil Creek is that the drainage master plan does not require basins as you
would see in most other drainage basins in the City to be built in Fossil Creek, rather the idea
is to get the water there without slowing the water down other that through what ever velocity
dissipators and that sort of thing the Storm Drainage Utility would do, but there would not be
any requirement for an on -site detention type of thing. That was how he understands that
M41
•
•
Fossil Creek has been designed to be used by the Storm Drainage Utility.
Mr. Herzig added that would be unless the runoff created by the development causes a
downstream structure to be over taxed, then there could be some upstream detention that is
necessary.
Member O'Dell asked if the terrain on lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 is similar to what The Ridge was
before it was developed.
Ms. Clark replied that it was somewhat similar although it is one of the higher points in that
area and probably at least higher that most of the surrounding lots in The Ridge to the south.
Member O'Dell asked if the reason it was not included in the original development was that
because of ownership or because of the pecularity of the terrain.
Ms. Clark replied she could only speculate that it was something due to ownership.
Member Cottier asked about the parcel immediately to the south of lots 7, 8, and 9 and was that
within City limits now.
Ms. Clark replied that it was and at one time in the past there were some discussions between
that property owner and Dr. Musslewhite about potentially including that parcel into the
Laurie PUD. That seemed to make sense at the time and perhaps still does because of the
configuration of the property and it does face similar environmental issues and concerns
because of the topography and the heavy vegetation on the rear of the property. It does have
an existing home on the Shields frontage and probably does have some development capabilities
near that frontage. About a year ago that discussion took place between the two owners and
for what ever reason, that property was not included in this development plan.
Member Cottier asked when you stand on the site looking south from about lot 8, where the
little structure with the roof is, you see a very large home, is that lot 22 of The Ridge.
Ms. Clark replied that was lot 22, that would be the home at the north edge of the cul-de-sac
on Hepplewhite Court.
Member Cottier asked that it looked like it was in the lower end of the ravine.
Ms. Clark replied it was in that general vicinity, yes.
Member Cotter asked if that was built in the County and now is in the City and so we never
would have allowed that house to be built in the ravine given our concerns about the wildlife
habitat and the natural resource concerns we have for the ravine now.
Ms. Clark replied speculation.
Member Carroll asked about the 5,084 foot barrier. He stated Mr. Shoemaker answered the
question but other than simply adding to the open space so to speak, why that demarkation at
that particular point as well.
Ms. Clark replied that was based on walking the site and doing some field work. She was not
involved with that particular visit to the site but went several days after that and also looked
20
at lots 7, 8 and 9. She has been doing some drawing on the site plan since the applicant's
response on the 5084 elevation. We would want to maintain a minimum of 20 feet front
setback, 20 feet behind the sidewalk so that it allows an adequate size driveway to allow cars
to be parking in the driveway, to cue there and not overhang the driveway. It looks possible
to shift that envelope somewhat closer to Wooded Creek Court and maintain that 20 feet. She
thought that would still provide an envelope that may be useablc and may not be ultimately
what is desirable for the applicant and thought Staff's sense on this lot is that it still is a
buildable lot. Lot 8, she thought we would like to see the envelope reduced over what it is now
because it is fairly large and that has been a concern from early on in the project, and thought
they perhaps could live with something that might not be as restrictive as the 5,084 foot
contour but again we were looking at something that would reduce the size or the extent of the
envelope to the south. Also if they would note on their plan, there was also a cross hatched
area in between that envelope and lot 9, that was a wetlands area, too, that was an area that
needs to be precluded from the building envelope, so she thought that and some of the other
topo constraints could still allow the applicant to come up with a workable envelope. It may
not be cut off at the 5,084 ft contour but she thought they could be somewhat flexible in
looking at several alternatives to still allow lot 8 to be built on.
Member Strom asked if it was still her judgement that lot 7 could not be built on reasonably.
Ms. Clark replied that based on what they have looked at so far, Mr. Shoemaker and herself
have looked at alternatives to down size an envelope there. At least from their perspective to
still get a useable envelope and to try to retain what we feel are the fairly severe topographic
constraints on that site, we feel that that lot becomes essentially very difficult to develop and
again the concerns are related to the amount of terrain change on that site. The lot depth is
approximately 90 feet from the street to the rear lot line and you have anywhere from 20 to
24 feet of elevation change on that site. Staff feels that was fairly significant and felt that
was probably the one lot when you look at the overall site design that does encroach, has the
largest encroachment into the natural area and Staff feels because of that, has the greatest
potential for erosion control, erosion problems on the ravine itself.
Member Cottier asked about juggling the building envelope for lot 8 and the sidewalk, is the
sidewalk required on Wooded Creek Court because it would be a public street.
Ms. Clark replied that was correct, we were working with a 4 foot concrete sidewalk and the
idea then would be to maintain that 20 foot setback behind the edge of the sidewalk to prevent
any cars from hanging over the sidewalk while parked in the drive.
Ms. Clark added that 20 feet was typically a standard setback for single family development
in Fort Collins and that would also maintain a fairly similar streetscape to what people are
used to seeing in the City with a 20 foot setback.
Member Cottier asked if there was no sidewalk required for the private drive extension
heading out to the west.
Ms. Clark replied that was correct.
Member O'Dell asked about the height on the homes on the western lots.
Ms. Clark replied that there was the general note that talks about the maximum height of 40
feet. That was typically the note that was on most site plans in Fort Collins since that is the
21
maximum building height. She knew the applicant has discussed over the past year and a half
various alternatives or ideas for limiting building height on different lots. We don't have
anything at this point. We would be interested in seeing that if the applicant is still interested
in putting some height restrictions on some of these lots. We typically would not require that
information or require that commitment, we tend to leave building height in single family
developments up to the individual developer. When you get into the whole issue of blocked
views it becomes a very sensitive topic and it is also a sensitive issue for the City to be in the
business of determining whether someone's view is or should or shouldn't be blocked.
Chairman Klataske asked on the lots with potential for walk out basements, are we talking
about 40 foot from grade level. In the front might be a single level and in the back you get 2
or 3 stories, where is the 40 foot measured from.
Ms. Clark replied it is typically measured at grade and there's a distance that the Zoning Code
defines how far you are from the structure to where you measure the maximum building height
and how you measure that up to the pitch of the roof. Forty feet is a typical height of a two
and a half story apartment building in Fort Collins. You do not see most single family homes
building near that height, you might see something at 28 or 30 or 32 feet and even that begins
to be in a single family design to be perceived as fairly tall. Typically we do not see a 40 foot
home in Fort Collins.
Chairman Klataske asked on a walk out basement would the 40 foot go from the ground of the
lowest level to the peak of the roof.
Ms. Clark replied that they would still measure that from the front of the structure or from the
defined distance from the building. We would measure that from the front facade of the
structure versus looking at grade, so what that would tell you is you could have up to a
maximum of 40 feet of the structure exposed above grade. On a walkout basement that 40 feet
would be measured from the front of the structure. Then from the rear elevation you could
conceivably have something that was appearing a little higher.
Member Walker stated that basically what they have heard and what they have on the plan, we
were dealing with a very difficult site and he was somewhat concerned at the way the plan is
designed in the fact that crossing the wildlife area and the ravine. He was also a little
concerned by what he has heard by some of the public that talked here because it seemed to
him alot of what he heard was very self serving. Primarily the fact that Dr. Musslewhite has
attempted to approach members of The Ridge to come up with a different solution for the west
side rather than crossing the ravine and he was stonewalled by that. To him that would seem
like an obvious solution. He has not heard a good argument as to why that shouldn't be done.
The argument that would increase traffic, he can't accept that. Granted it is a difficult site but
if he has heard all the environmental pleas, he has not seen any effort on the part of the
homeowners to deal with the issue, rather they have kind of obstructed it and now are
complaining about the fact that where is the environmental sensitivity. He was concerned
about the fact that lot 7 does seem to encroach and with the irrigation ditch going behind lot
2 and some unresolved question there, it seemed to him that there might be too much trying to
be done on that side of it and he thought that if one lot out of five were pulled out of the cast
side, the road could be realigned and still have an area where lot 7 is platted that would meet
some of the issues but yet pull it back up the hill. Perhaps what he was saying was maybe
eliminating lot 2 and curving the road back further to the north it would curve to the north
in a more easterly location. His best solution would be to see that we did not have to bridge
the ravine, but yet this was a good solution, the best solution that could be done given you are
22
bridging it and the fact that there is an easement that will be maintained so the ravine will
remain in its wild character, so he felt that given the fact of the constraints on the site, there
was a reasonable solution here. Some of the technical issues as far as the road, storm drainage,
things like this could be worked out at final. The 5084 thing he has some concerns with. It
seems like lots 8 and 9, he did not feel like were going to be much of a problem so that was sort
of where his thinking is at the moment.
Member O'Dell agreed with Member Walker, it was troubling that the land to the west is
essentially like the land in The Ridge and probably it could have been developed at the same
time as The Ridge if it had been in the same ownership. At least viewing the property, looking
at the topographical map, it did not seem that it was a special piece that should not be
developed, so therefore if we operate under the assumption that it was a developable piece of
land suitable for housing, then we need to talk about access and the logical access was through
The Ridge. Since that has been closed down, Dr. Musslewhite has a right to some kind of use
for that property. It is a reasonable use of the property and having heard the Natural Resources
Department testify tonight she thought that the amount of disturbance that the road being put
in though it will indeed disturb the land, it is a small disturbance and she thought it was a
tolerable disturbance considering that there is no other access and she agreed with Member
Walker in that there was a possibility of moving the street slightly to the north, eliminating one
of the northern most lots and moving back 7 and 8 since those are the desirable places for lots
and it seemed to make sense to her.
Member Carroll stated that they on the Board have to rely on the Staff and other experts which
have been brought in front of them tonight. The only person that he has heard with expertise
in the area was Mr. Shoemaker from Natural Resources Division, other people have had
comments or have repeated what other people have told them and he has to accept his comments
at face value that this crossing of the ravine would not be of great damage to the natural
elements in the easements. Reiterating again he was here, too and heard the comments when
it first came in about coming up from Hepplewhite which would have alleviated the problems
in the ravine. Thats not possible, so to simply tell Dr. Musslewhite that he has bought a piece
of land that could not be reached, he did not think was a reasonable thing to say especially
when the Natural Resource Division and Planning Staff has indicated that this would not be
against City policies, so the comments that they were not following City policies he could not
accept. These are always judgement calls, they were required to make the judgements and he
felt in approving this they were following City policies. By the same token the same staff has
recommended an envelope or non developable area below 5084 feet and he would be somewhat
hypocritical if he said he accepted the Staffs comments regarding crossing the ravine, but he
did not accept Staff's comments concerning the 5084 elevation. He was somewhat bound to
accept that to some degree, although Sherry did indicate that possibly on lot 8 it could be
moved down somewhat to make lot 8 developable. He thought Member Walker made an
excellent suggestion about moving the road to the north which would eliminate lot 2, he
suspected by looking at it. It would allow lot 7 to move up and he thought that would be Dr.
Musslewhite's choice. He would like to see that come back on final if that is what he wanted
to do but he was not going to sit there and say that he did not accept 5080 but he did accept
5020 or 5000. Again he has to take Staff's advice on that and he sees no reason to disagree with
it, with the possible exception in lot 8 which Sherry indicated and he would accept that.
Member Strom stated he is in general agreement with what was said. He was a little concerned
with suggesting moving the road to the north because it appears to him that they would
increase the grade on the street if they do that. He was not trying to belittle of the Staff's
judgement on the topo line, he just has spent enough time walking the hills to know it is
23
difficult to figure out where a topo line is unless you survey it and so he would suggest that
if they're going to approve this, that they figure out some way to take a closer look at that
before the final and figure out what actually is appropriate to be built on and what needs to
be protected. Just from his briefly walking on site, there are some areas there that are very
steep and would certainly be very difficult to build on, although he would not say impossible.
Difficult to build on without causing some problems down below and also some of the
vegetation would probably be affected. In general he thought this plan was far and away much
better than they saw the last time it came to them. He thought the designers have worked very
hard to work with a difficult site and preserve the sensitive features of it. He just did not
know how to go about protecting the steep area, whether we need to say delete lot 7 or whether
we need to say this area needs a closer look for design purposes.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that her line of thinking on this was going along with the
Board. She thought it was a travesty that we have to put a road through this area, although
that given the developer has explored other alternatives and there are no other alternatives, she
felt that this was best given what he has to work with, although she does have serious concerns
about potential erosion and the storm water drainage of this plan which will come back on
final should this plan be approved and that is where she would like to see her concerns
addressed.
Member Carroll stated that dealing with basically a flat area in Fort Collins, we have storm
drainage problems, but erosion is usually not an issue and he expects this, if passed, fully
addressed at final with the lots, all the lots to the satisfaction of the Storm Drainage Utility
that there won't be any problems, that someone will suffer the consequences in the future.
Member Walker moved for approval of this proposal with the conditions to be satisfied at final.
Staff has indicated a number of conditions and he thought some of them he would consider to
be important, particularly number 1 talking about the conservation easement, item number 4
about tree and shrub removal, item 5 about erosion control plans, item 6 about rip rap areas,
item 7 about materials and placement for erosion control and number 8 a detailed analysis for
rip rap materials, etc. The other condition he would add would be the east side of the property,
east of the ravine be replatted into no more than 4 building sites, with the intention of pulling
back building site 7 and 8 further away from the ravine and these identified sensitive areas,
again 5084 would be a starting place, he did not want to impose that as an absolute but that was
the intent of what he was trying to get at by his suggestion.
Member Carroll asked if the other condition was taking the place of 2 and 3.
Member Walker replied yes.
Member Cottier seconded the motion. She was struggling and holding back on her comments
because she was going to incorporate them into a motion. She pretty much agrees with what
the other Board Members have said and she did feel that given the environmental concerns of
this particular site, that the developer has done a good job integrating the natural area into the
plan. She thought the road as proposed minimizes the impact on the ravine. She did not think
that the proposed use would have as little impact as potential public use, in terms of impact on
the natural area and the wildlife habitat there. In terms of some of the technical questions
that have been raised, at this point they have satisfied preliminary requirements and what she
is going on is that more detail will be required at final and will be submitted or they will not
be seeing a final plan until that level of detail regarding storm drainage, erosion and until that
level of detail is provided. She thought those concerns will be addressed later and she was
24
comfortable with that.
Member Walker stated that the reason he suggested the reduction of the number of lots was
because while he feels this is a difficult site to work with, he thought putting five lots on the
east side was trying to go just a little far and that was the intent of reducing the number of
lots, and that will lessen the intensity so that some of these issues can be addressed
satisfactorily.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
25