HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD - 94-88A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (2)ITEM NO, 12
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF Marc-h 27. 19tf9
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Fossil Creek Design Center (formerly Carpet Exchange) P.U.D.
- Final, #94-88A
APPLICANT Hunter Architectural Group, Ltd.
5378 Sterling Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
OWNER: Denny Odette
1133 South Platte River Dr.
Denver, CO 80223
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clark
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a final request for 64,596 square feet of
retail uses on 3.6 acres located on the east side of South College Avenue, south
of the Fred Schmid Appliance Center. The property is zoned B-L Limited
Business with a planned unit development condition.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting final approval for a
retail sales complex for home improvement merchandise. The proposed
development will include approximately 64,000 square feet of floor area. The
purpose of the project is to provide space for the sale of home improvement
items to the public at discount prices. The complex will include a 20,000 square
foot furniture store, an 18,000 square foot carpet store and other smaller stores
featuring paint, wallpaper, draperies and other home improvement merchandise.
The preliminary plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board
December 19, 1988, with two conditions:
1. The applicant hold a second neighborhood meeting in order to address
neighborhood concerns.
2. Storm drainage problems and natural resource questions be addressed.
The applicant has met these two conditions and the proposed final plan is in
substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan.
DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221.6750
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D., Final - #94-88A
P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: BL - retail; (Fred Schmid Appliance Center)
S: BP - undeveloped; (proposed retail/office in the West Fossil Creek
Master Plan)
E: BL - undeveloped
W: BP - Mill Brothers Landscape & Nursery, Cameron Office Park
This property was annexed into the City as part of the Fossil Creek First
Annexation in June, 1984. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the
preliminary plan December 19, 1988 with two conditions. These conditions
were that a second neighborhood meeting be held to address neighborhood
concerns and that storm drainage issues and natural resource concerns be
resolved to the satisfaction of City staff.
This item was continued from the February 27 Board meeting so that several
issues could be resolved.
2. Land Use:
The proposed final plan is in substantial compliance with the approved
preliminary plan. Changes that have been made to the approved preliminary
plan consist of reducing the proposed building height and an increase of .25
acre in the site's size, to accommodate an adjustment in the alignment of Snead
Drive along the site's eastern boundary. Both conditions of preliminary
approval, holding a second neighborhood meeting and the resolution of storm
drainage and natural resources concerns have been accomplished.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility
A neighborhood meeting was held October 26, 1988. Issues raised included
truck traffic on Snead Drive, storm drainage concerns and signage. At the
request of the Planning and Zoning Board, a second neighborhood meeting was
held January 18, 1989. Issues raised at this meeting included architectural
design, the project's interface with Fossil Creek Parkway and storm drainage
concerns. Summary reports of both neighborhood meetings are attached.
Two other meetings have been held with representatives of the neighborhood
on this project. An informal meeting on February 22 was held with area
representatives to discuss an extension of Snead Drive south of this site to
connect with Fossil Creek Parkway and a third neighborhood meeting was held
on March 14, also to discuss this future street connection. Issues raised at
these meetings included street alignment, buffering and storm drainage (see
attached summaries).
Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D., Final - #94-88A
P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989
Page 3
4. Design
There is significant topography on the site ranging from elevation 4980 at the
northwest corner to elevation 4942 at the southeast corner of the site, resulting
in an average slope of 6% across the property. The building complex is a
combination of one and two-story spaces, stepped in two places to accommodate
the sloping site. Building materials are a combination of patterned and polished
concrete block, with a standing seam metal roof. Generous amounts of glass,
interesting architectural detail, a combination of sloped and flat roofs, and
canvas awnings combine to make the complex unique and visually interesting
on all sides. In response to the neighborhood's concern about the building
height on the south end, the applicant has redesigned the structure to reduce
the height by approximately six feet.
The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase one consists of
the northern -most half of the complex and the parking and landscaping areas
to support this portion of the site. A 6' cedar fence will be used as a
screening fence to screen the service area from the residential areas to the
south. This fence would be removed when the remainder of the building is
constructed in phase two.
The landscape plan provides street trees along College Avenue, a
well -landscaped parking lot, foundation plantings and substantial screening of
loading dock areas. Several existing trees on -site will be removed and the
applicant is providing 3" caliper street trees to replace these existing trees. The
applicant proposes one free-standing project identity sign located along College
Avenue. All other signage will occur on the sign band portion of the awnings.
Lighting in parking areas would be down -directional and is concentrated in the
College Avenue area of the parking lot.
5. Transportation
Access to the project is planned to be a "right in/right out" only at the north
end of the site. This access is temporary and would be removed at the time
of the re -alignment of Fossil Creek Parkway, as proposed in the South College
Access Control Plan. Future access to the project will be provided by a single
"right in/right out" shared with the property to the south. The other access to
the property will be from a temporary access to the south to Fossil Creek
Parkway and via Snead Drive. The proposed access is in conformance with the
South College Access Control Plan.
The temporary access to Fossil Creek Parkway would be constructed across the
adjacent property to the south. Approval for the placement and location of
this access has been obtained from the property owner. This access would be
removed when the re -alignment of Fossil Creek Parkway occurs. Improvements
required with the temporary access point will include an asphalt overlay of
Fossil Creek Parkway, from College Avenue to this access point, provision of a
left -turn bay for traffic turning south onto College Avenue and removal of a
portion of the existing median in Fossil Creek Parkway. Landscaping and an
irrigation system have been installed in this median by the Fossil Creek
Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D., Final - #94-88A
P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989
Page 4
Homeowners' Association; however, the median is part of the public
right-of-way and therefore, under City ownership. The applicant has agreed to
make any necessary repairs to the irrigation system and would relocate median
landscaping, based on an evaluation and recommendations of the City Forester.
The extension of Snead Drive south of this site was implied on the approved
preliminary plan. The applicant's discussions with the adjacent property owner
to the south resulted in shifting the location of Snead Drive farther to the
east, so that the street's eventual alignment would have less of an impact on
the configuration of the adjacent property. This shift in alignment along the
site's eastern boundary has occurred through the addition of .25 acre to this
site. The proposed location of Snead Drive along this site is also the
approximate location of a connecting street that was identified on the approved
West Fossil Creek Master Plan.
The actual connection and construction of Snead Drive south of this site is not
part of the proposed final plan. Although the location and eventual connection
is implied by this plan, the street would not be constructed until the property
to the south develops. An agreement between the adjacent property owner and
this developer specifies responsibility for construction, timing of construction
(when adjacent site develops) and establishment of a 25' landscape buffer
between the street and existing homes in Fossil Creek Meadows. Further
review of the street alignment and details of the proposed buffer would occur
at the time PUD site plans are submitted for the adjacent property.
Preliminary design work on the proposed street extension alignment has been
provided for review. Staff has been able to determine that the proposed
alignment and intersection with Fossil Creek Parkway would provide a safe
intersection. Discussions have been held with the neighborhood to determine
the potential impacts of this street connection on the surrounding neighborhood.
6. Storm Drainage
A condition of preliminary approval required that the applicant address storm
drainage concerns at the time of final review. These concerns have also been
raised at the neighborhood meetings on this project. The Fossil Creek Drainage
Basin Master Drainageway Planning Study, produced in 1980, uses 100-year
developed flows for determining the floodplain for Fossil Creek. This is
primarily due to the fact that floodplain limits vary little from historic flow
to developed, due to the fact that Fossil Creek is generally contained in
defined stream corridors, existing soil conditions differ little from developed
conditions as it relates to storm runoff, and the Fossil Creek Basin is traversed
by roadway and railroad embankments that temporarily store storm runoff
waters which will reduce peak flows. However, because of a project's (Fred
Schmid, State Farm, Congregation of the Living G d, Providence Town)
location in the basin, detention may be necessary to mitigate down stream
impacts. It is standard practice in the City to not require stormwater
detention for these developments located adjacent to stream corridors unless site
conditions dictate otherwise.
Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D., Final - #94-88A
P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989
Page 5
The applicant has met City design criteria and standards for stormwater.
Stormwater will be piped from an inlet at the southeast corner of the site to
Snead Drive, where it will enter an open swale across the adjacent property to
the south. Stormwater will then be directed into a pipe at the north side of
Fossil Creek Parkway, which will convey storm flows under the street and into
Fossil Creek. This pipe has been sized to accommodate the developed flows
from this site, as well as the adjacent site to the south. At the point flows
enter the Creek from this pipe, energy dissipation is being provided as a means
of reducing the potential for erosion, which is a concern of area residents.
The provision of this type of energy dissipater is not a City requirement;
however, the applicant is willing to provide this additional feature to reduce
potential erosion of Fossil Creek.
A further concern expressed by area residents relates to water quality. The
Stormwater Utility is beginning to look at water quality issues and has
identified sediment as the greatest problem with respect to water quality. In
response to staff recommendations, the applicant has agreed to the design and
installation of a stormwater treatment facility (eg. sediment trap and oil/water
separator), to be located at the outlet in the southeast corner of the site. The
use of a sediment/grease trap is intended to filter sediment, as well as other
substances commonly found in parking lots (grease, oil), from stormwater before
the water is released from the site into a drainage system. This facility is
being considered a "pilot project", since there are no City requirements for such
a feature. The applicant would be responsible for the design and installation
of this facility and the City would reimburse such costs and monitor the
facility's effectiveness.
Many of the concerns that have been raised by area residents regarding storm
drainage deal with issues that are basin -wide, rather than those that are site
specific. Area residents believe that existing problems (erosion, lack of
adequate existing drainage facilities and water quality) should be resolved as
part of the development review process. Staff believes these issues are
basin -wide in nature and therefore, should not be required of specific
development projects. The City has initiated activities in regard to water
quality and proposes to address this issue on a City-wide basis. In this case,
however, the applicant is willing to work with staff to introduce several
features (energy dissipater, a stormwater treatment facility) designed to address
specific water quality issues.
7. Resource Protection
The City Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat Map shows no significant areas located
on this site. There are several existing trees on the site that will be removed.
Two existing elms near the north property line will be retained. As a means
of mitigating the loss of existing trees, the applicant has agreed to provide 3"
caliper trees along the College Avenue frontage of the site.
Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D., Final - #94-88A
P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION:
The Fossil Creek Design Center (formerly The Carpet Exchange) final plan is
in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plan and the
conditions of preliminary approval have been met. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of Fossil Creek Design Center P.U.D. - Final, #94-88A.
ITEM Fossil Creek Design Center
NUMBER 94-88a
Fi>® OQe� ARLINLE4 a_�
I I
IInI` I ICI I I I nI I I
U I I I I U
I I
I
I I
a• Pr. »• TRAra »• Twrlr_ e• PAST t
I
I
FICAO CF*M SECTION
I
EXISTING
1
s
T`I
VICINITY_ NAP
Y ,
I
OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
am os ioo ��rx
G, REAL
IXISTIFG OFFICE
J
AND
si�on�xue� mice IET PTnn+ w
w
I
I
_
_ dTam o.re
G»R
oTIEA®1 nTE
I
-
INNER
PLAlIIING AND ZONING
I
1
_
CERTIFICATION
I
G, THE r THE.G AND, SOn.e WL•U
G, FOR,INRCGLEFAGG, CH
•
HO ZOE
• 4
..6liARr 6 0.uH2N6 A.D EOQW EDAM
1
I
LEGAL OE56NIPTI014 OF GARRET EXCHANGE P.U.O.
...e SW FORT 6�4CISw f. YM9.IP e�
THE Cm .es* LINE a T.e sAm nrtlrsT
OF s ow o_ THE
D. .PbT I/ wmrDi At0 RTe T4.� S ASe S
I..LUO RVTO TIIE LEFT A �o9 lP 33
IT lGI
I3 TENIFPOTHT ON
FOSSIL CREEK PARKWAY �0`Y LT> '''F'��i„0°, TWIT E` N BY GAm w�.G-
HiIW COrt OR LT3,
®TOPOGRAPHIC AND EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN
SCALE I - w -D
Nm FT— PLAN
KiLL T DD
v o.MiNmmc OMNSNOG.
A
. 1 'ems" •'••-.: �ilrl��
E�Tsi,:�Emarsr.T�
rnwr. r.ava:nHa: unma..: mH:.Ae�.:�
FAOTINY FSTATESt
.S O.U./AGE
•oN.se• s Na 3R•a• E
F K COUNTY FOR
,
A
\
\
„
1 hl ZONE
` HA wn
GO�TM�REED
— TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD
TO BE REMOVED WHEN FOSSIL
CREEK S RELOCATED
BP ZONE
N CMT
TURN LANE -STRIPE PER CITY REQUIREMENT
MOVE EXISTING LANDSCAPING PER CITT
REQUIREMENTS
STORE HOURS LIMITED TO 10.00 PM \
GENERAL PARKING LOT LIGHTING TO BE TURNED OFF AT 10.00PM
PROPOSED RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTER
a SNTDe2,Y RETA:L SUCH AS CARET N.RE„QUSE, FURNITURE AND RELATED— G<Q.s
SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ® G�
Z O Y
¢� m
II-- Q 17
UA id V
m7m IF
in m
k `.
m
W
W Q ❑
U
z � O
O
Cn c) U
Lo
W J
L) 3 U
J ❑
'H M Q
v J Q LL
C U
O
LL.
FINAL
SITE AND
LANDSCAPE PLAT
.ANP LI57
���
^'�
;c'YDti IiAMti
�P�O'Ar,IGA�
NAME 51ZE
Ara
•L`
P.'.n =�2°.E P��N
BRAY N+-'• aMLKIGANA 6Ji�M ?uR°tE L'/ti' BA6
G�'
E..ors6PN MOJNTAIN A6N
'�3¢At HONE�,9L,s�
�KB%� AYLJPARIA L% 04d
6�401's�A 1LIALPNTAOS. x04M1G L MP ERIby'
-�11's SAf , M1
t
"Pe��ALcs �'°s Ssa sr-
TltolA LOQOATA L" BOB
'R0Y 1 s— , MA¢SHP10- 10t0 sue' +i' .40
r a
r. r.
9
'1
>uKOPEAN NHITE�Pi.2Ca
V6iLLLA ALdP 15/4 6.0
-
AP
16
15
L.E'� Pw PINE
P`' N4
PINUs b' Bn0
pIN•� = /a' BYB
pr
•.
.. .<: -P =,.E
V�NJ=_ - .�osP �0' BeOB.B
-
L.a
DJROPSVA�
E2A GOi.OLP WNSIS 50P1
•
..
•.. p
A
__ _—
f. r�EKNP
lmPt.�t4o.c
1 (yAL. a_y4a.c
.f
=o KTU N6!
KIZONTALIs 'WI L'foNl'
gvAL "50,L.
1DKO 69'W
•.6 '
LO%, B,.S "aedsS
�0 % 5M00'w BLOMA
6ESi .Ktns A �r tAF Gf
6ts^/Io00 s
i
WTFS:
1. lant eelerlsis Nell to to scco.dmw otN A.P.Y. sppl(teattwn
far nWsr en 9rtle.
2 Ittr
fore tollinagsw`crtr11N ds.11 pspt .t+p b to Eo�w b tl
3. All sssestl Wrf srtss NPII d tlpuslsly I..pgsttl for estsEilsisnt
toe al prnua.
.. All --
A
ll 4es still G r1cM xrtn 2 tvM1 Mu pf xslxe .act
wx .l:� of lsr.sbwtl a s+.risr Ireuspe fsMlc.
s. s n`Msupe suss Nell M +n+gsttl 4Y sstaslic uitleprwM
6. f.+st+p tmsste d rttsl�we sM1sll } Aorta to [tty of fort [elite
tt.na.ree.
1. seee.a In IMenigi+e xt Usturf esbs a Nls Olson Nesl Ee
x. ere pl.n"t.e: `orpnw
ppf 1P
TM1e eneerslgr2e. belnq tM Isxful armors Ne proprietors of Me property
eescrlpee on tM1is 1pescepe pisn� tl IlereGY certl lY Net tlleY accept
tie <aneltfons sntl rtstrl[tlant set Iorq on saltl latls<apa plan.
gigxa
Detect
W
i
W
a
W I- MA —
w
J
O L.
Lo—
U
r I- MA —
N I'Lo
I- PB —
I-MP-
TUef
LANDSCAPE PLAN ® ��
0
NORTH END
yy C
��i EJATf:N I IMF
PROJECT SIGN
SOUTH END
WEST ELEVATION
9
SOUTH END
MATCH LINE
EAST ELEVATION
9
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
m
d
a m
°m
d
Q
w
0 ¢ a
a D R
0 H JO
u
w a.
�a
m w
�
p mJ0
m
LLJ
Nm0
L °a
Q J
U o
LWZ
~ J
r oU
a o ir
U o
U
IL
nl�e�i ii
CHARACTER
ELEVATIONS
D.N.
GRIFFITH, BEACH & ALLIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
315 WEST OAK - SUITE 102
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
TELEPHONE (303) 484-7991
March 27, 1989
Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE FOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD/FINAL HEARING
NO. 94-88A
MICHAEL L. GRIFFITH
OTIS W. BEACH
BRADFORD L. ALLIN
Dear Members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board:
This is to advise that I have been retained by the Fossil
Creek Meadows Homeowners Association to represent and protect its
interests arising out of the proposed Fossil Creek Design Center
PUD project.
In that this project is being processed pursuant to the
guidelines established by the ordinances of the City of Fort
Collins, 118-3, the Land Development Guidance System for Planned
Unit Developments, and consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Policies, it is mandatory that all aspects of the development of
this property be reviewed consistent with the requirements and
guidelines established above. While the Fort Collins Planning
staff has reviewed this project intensively, and recognizing that
at least four public hearings have been held to discuss this
project and the issues created by the project, and further
recognizing that the developer has made numerous changes to the
design, specifications, and specifics of the project in an effort
to respond to the concerns expressed by both the City staff and
impacted area residents, it is my opinion and belief that upon
close inspection of the project against the requirements of the
Land Development Guidance System (F) there are deficits and
deficiencies in the project design, location, classification,
and specifics, all of which require a vote by you to deny the
project at this final hearing.
I In making your review, examination, study, and inspection of
N' the plans submitted and the evidence presented, you must consider
J ' the fact that the staff has recommended, processed, and
categorized this project under the LDGS as a Community/Regional
I� Shopping Center (see memorandum from Linda Ripley to the Planning
and Zoning Board, a
L�
copy of which is attached). In measuring the
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 2
March 27, 1989
final plans submitted against the 46 mandatory requirements in
the LDGS guidelines for All Development and the three mandatory
requirements on the Community/Regional Shopping Center point
chart, Point chart C, (including the nine subitems under point 3
of that chart), the project fails to achieve a "yes" response to
several of those points and therefore requires a denial. I
direct your attention to the following points which I believe
support the above -stated position. These points are and have
been raised at the public meetings and relate to architectural
issues, storm drainage and pollution issues, traffic and safety
issues, and procedural issues will be grouped in that order and
cross-referenced against various requirements under the LDGS All
Development section as follows:
I. ALL DEVELOPMENT SECTION
A. Architectural and Design Issues
Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria 2. Is the project compatible to the neighborhood
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, and building
height and visual integrity?
Criteria 3. Have land use conflicts been effectively
mitigated?
Criteria 5, (Appendix C). Architectural compatibility
relating to materials, color, scale, and prominence of the
buildings compared with adjacent land uses.
Site Design
Criteria 29. Does the design and arrangements of the
elements of the site plan and building construction contribute to
the overall reduction of energy use by the project?
Criteria 31. Are the elements of the site plan including
buildings, landscaping, and locations designed and oriented for
solar energy systems and/or solar collectors?
Criteria 34. Even after recent lowerings of building
heights, is any building in the project, whether phase I or phase
II, greater than 40 feet in height above grade, and, if so, does
it comply with building height review criteria?
Is this project compatible with the announced policy,
interest, and goal of the City of Fort Collins to facilitate,
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 3
March 27, 1989
promote, and enhance a development in the downtown area of Fort
Collins?
B. Storm Drainage and Pollution
Safety and Services
Criteria 7. Have arrangements been made for the extension
of or augmentation of an appropriate storm drainage system?
Criteria 8. Does the project comply with design
standards, requirements, and specifications for the affected
flood hazard areas and storm drainage?
Criteria 20, Environmental Standards. Does the project
conform to applicable local, state, and federal water quality
standards including erosion and sedimentation, runoff control,
solid waste, and hazardous substances?
These criteria relate to the problems created by
the project in the area of storm drainage, runoff
control, sedimentation, pollutant control, and erosion
of the affected Fossil Creek basin. While the final
plans do contain the provision for an energy
dissipation device at the end of the piping where the
runoff drains into Fossil Creek, it is clear from the
plans that in the long run, and to a lesser extent in
the short run, there are no provisions for the
allowance of any of the storm drainage water to be
detained to soak into the natural water table and
eliminate some portion of the effluence from the
project into this creek. A minimal amount of this may
occur during the period of the project when the
temporary swale is used to connect the southeast end of
the project to the funneling of the water through pipes
under Fossil Creek Parkway to Fossil Creek itself, but
ultimately the fully developed plan for this area calls
for the deletion of the temporary swale and its
replacement by piping. Consequently, the water from
the project site will be collected, funneled to the
southeast corner of the project, put into piping and
will run directly to Fossil Creek, dropping in
elevation 25 to 30 feet, without detention and into
Fossil Creek.
C. Traffic and Safety Issues
Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria 4. Is the project designed so that additional
traffic generated does not have adverse impact on the surrounding
development?
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 4
March 27, 1989
Site Design
Criteria 26. Are the elements of the site plan including
buildings, circulation, and open space areas arranged and located
so as to be integrated with the organizational scheme of the
neighborhood and community?
Criteria 40. Is the pedestrian circulation system designed
to insure pedestrian safety and ease both on site and between
properties and activities within the neighborhood and site?
The final project plans as submitted for your review and
passage contain no details on the connection of Snead Drive to
Fossil Creek Parkway. While this connection is not required of
this development, it is clear that it is part of the master plan,
that it is part of the projected plans for the development of the
site, and that it has been used in the consideration of the
traffic flows for this particular property. Consequently, by its
failure to delineate the particulars of that connection, there
are no measures provided for safety and methods of traffic flow
and traffic patterns for determining the safety and propriety of
that aspect of this project.
It is further clear from the plans submitted that access to
South College Avenue is a vital and critical part of this
project. Not only do the plans call for a "temporary" right in -
right out access on the north end of the project property, but
also calls for a right in -right out access at the south end of
the property, in joint use with the property abutting to the
south. At such time as that property is developed, the access to
South College Avenue would move to that permanent location with a
closure of the temporary access at the north end of the property.
Since there will be no medians on South College Avenue at this
location, the design for the right in -right out access points
(whether temporary or permanent) are inadequate to restrict
traffic from entering the project when approaching it from the
north on College Avenue. Such cross -over traffic will create a
tremendous hazard, as will traffic slowing to turn into the
project while in the traffic lane (no turn lane provided).
II. SATISFACTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITY CHARTS
A. Community/Regional Shopping
Consistent with the memorandum from Linda Ripley to the
Planning and Zoning Board indicating the staff's conclusion that
the Community/Regional Shopping Center Point Chart would be the
"most appropriate chart to use in evaluating this project given
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 5
March 27, 1989
the community shopping nature of the proposed land uses," I would
ask the Board to focus on the scope and specifics of that chart.
The definition for a community/regional shopping center as
found in the LDGS is as follows:
Cluster of retail and service establishments designed
to serve consumer demands from the community as a whole
or a larger area. The primary functional offering is
at least one full line department store. The center
also includes associated support shops which provide a
variety of shopping_ goods including general
merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, as well as a
variety of services and perhaps entertainment and
recreational facilities.
An examination of the current staff report for the final
hearing discloses that the proposed project is a retail sales
complex for home improvement merchandise containing a furniture
store, a carpet store, and other smaller stores featuring paint,
wallpaper, draperies, and other home improvement merchandise,
however, this project, Phases I, only contains a single user and
provides no commitment for the devleopment of Phase II. This
does not satisfy the requirement of a primary functional full -
line department store with associated support shops including a
variety of shopping goods.
If you can adopt this project to that definition, the
activity point chart for a community/regional shopping center,
has three required criteria which must each be answered "yes" to
approve the plan. It is my opinion that the project's final
plans do not satisfy and obtain a "yes" decision as it relates to
criteria 1 and criteria 3.
Criteria 1. " Does the project gain its primary vehicular
access from a street other than South College Avenue? Yes or
No." The definition of primary in this respect is "first in
importance; chief; principal. Something first in order, quality,
or importance." It is clear from the project plans and its
requirements for access to South College Avenue, both in
temporary and permanent form, that the chief focus of access to
the property is from South College Avenue. I direct the Planning
and Zoning Board members' attention to the Colorado State Highway
Department's Highway and Traffic Report and categorization of
properties relative to access. In obtaining the temporary and
permanent access for this project, application was made to the
Colorado Department of Highways who must approve the access. The
Department of Highways has classified the subject property as a
Category 3 property (as opposed to category 1 which is an
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 6
March 27, 1989
interstate -type property where there is no direct access except
at the interchanges, versus a category 5 property which is a
frontage road -type property where there is access by each
property to the frontage road). A category 3 designated property
is one in which there is no other reasonable access to the street
system and/or one in which the city and state would feel that it
would be unwarranted to deny direct access to the principal
street and/or would cause problems to do so. The classification
of this project location as a category 3 property clearly
destroys any argument that the access to the property vis a vis
Fairway Lane to Snead Drive is reasonable and/or would not create
unwarranted problems for the property. With the primary
vehicular access being from South College Avenue, criteria 1
under Activity Chart C, Community/Regional Shopping Center, must
be answered "no," requiring a denial of the project.
Criteria 3, Point Chart C, requires that the project earn at
least 50 percent of the maximum points calculated on the point
chart based upon subcriteria a through i. Taking that point
chart and reviewing the scoring given by the staff, the major
deficit and error in the scoring relates to subcriteria 3-e, Non -
Arterial Access. That is a required subrequirement and the staff
has scored it as very well done, being two points with a
multiplier of two having awarded the project four points out of a
possible four points. Given the classification of this property
by the Department of Highways and the clear importance of the
access to South College Avenue, requirement 3-e cannot be
answered "yes" as it requires "Does the project gain its primary
vehicular access from a non -arterial street?" If those four
points are deleted from the points earned, the project scores
only 18 points out of a possible 42 points, which results in a
percentage earned of maximum applicable points of only 42.9
percent. Achieving only 42.9 percent requires a "no" answer on
requirement 3, Point Chart C, and such a "no" answer requires a
denial of the project plans.
Given the nature, projected makeup, and consistency of the
proposed project, it may be argued, at this late date, over the
objection of my client, that a different point chart should be
considered for the project. While not conceding to that argument
and insisting that the selected chart be the one against which
the project is measured, I believe an examination of the LDGS for
another "appropriate point chart" and the examination of the
requirements under a different chart would still call for a
denial of the project. The only other point chart that is the
closest in nature to the project proposed is point chart J for
Neighborhood Convenient Shopping Center. Point chart J has two
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 7
March 27, 1989
basic criteria, the first of which could be answered "yes" and
the second of which requires at least 65 percent of maximum
points as calculated on the point chart must be answered "no" for
the following reasons (the following subnumbers are taken from
point chart A, criteria 2):
Subcriteria a
- the center is not contiguous to an existing
transit route.
Subcriteria b
- the center is not located at an
intersection of a neighborhood
collector and arterial with
primary access off
the collector.
Subcriteria c
- the center does contain two or more
different uses.
Subcriteria d
- I believe it is on at least three gross
acres of land.
Subcriteria e
- the center is not located at least three-
quarters of a mile
from any existing or approved neighborhood
convenience center.
Subcriteria f
- the center is not contiguous and
functionally a part
of an existing neighborhood shopping center,
office or industrial
park, or multi -family development.
Subcriteria g
- the property has, I believe, at least one -
sixth of its property boundary contiguous to existing
development.
Subcriteria h
- the property is not located within north
Fort Collins.
Taking those answers, the points earned would be a total of
22 points out of a total possible of 54 points, making a scoring
criteria of 40.7 percent and falling far short of the required 65
percent and requiring a "no" answer which again would require a
denial of the project.
Finally, an examination of point chart E for Business
Service Uses, the first chart for this project before changed by
staff, again against the standards and criteria set forth above,
would require a denial of the project for failure to satisfy the
criteria of the point chart. The point chart contains two
criteria neither of which can be satisfied by a "yes" vote. The
first criteria requires that the project gain its primary
vehicular access from a street other than South College Avenue
and for the reasons stated above that would have to be answered
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 8
March 27, 1989
"no." The second criteria requires at least a 50 percent score
on the maximum points calculated on subcriteria a through i,
inclusive. An examination of the project plans against those
subcriteria would award the project a score of 22 points out of a
possible 50 points, earning it only a 44 percent score, requiring
a no and a denial vote. The scoring on those subcriteria is as
follows:
Subcriteria a - Contiguous to an existing transit route - no
Subcriteria b - Project located outside South College Avenue
corridor - no
Subcriteria c - Contiguous to and functionally a part of a
neighborhood community/regional shopping center, an office or
industrial park, or located in a central business district - no
Subcriteria d - Project on at least two acres of land - yes
Subcriteria e - Does the project contain two or more
significant uses - no. There is no commitment to build Phase II
and consequently Phase I is one principal user.
Subcriteria f - Direct vehicular and pedestrian access
between on site parking areas - yes
Subcriteria g - Does activity reduce nonrenewable energy
source, etc. - no
Subcriteria h - Is the project located with at least one -
sixth of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban
development - yes
Subcriteria i - Historic - not applicable.
On behalf of the Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowners
Association and the homeowners it represents in the Fossil Creek
Meadows Subdivision, I would ask that the Planning and Zoning
Board critically review the final plans submitted for the Fossil
Creek Design Center against all of the required criteria in the
LDGS. Based upon this critical review, we would urge that the
Planning and Zoning Board not approve the final plans submitted
for the Fossil Creek Design Center and turn down this project
development. Considering the deficits of the plan against the
required criteria, considering the philosophies and goals of the
LDGS in assuring neighborhood compatibility and compliance with
adopted official plans, environmental standards, engineering and
public service requirements, and site design standards, the final
plans as submitted are deficient. The project property being
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Page 9
March 27, 1989
classified as a Category 3 property by the Colorado State Highway
Department puts it in a group of properties where there is no
other reasonable access to the principal street against which it
is located and/or it would be unwarranted and/or cause problems
to deny a direct access to that principal street. This
classification alone requires a conclusion that the property
itself does not have reasonable access, vis a vis Fairway Lane
and Snead Drive, and requires access to South College Avenue to
give it viability and to avoid problems. Considering the fact
that the developer and the affected neighborhoods have had four
public meetings to review the concerns of the neighborhood
against the proposed development of the project site, we would
urge the denial of the final plans. The potential impacts
created by this development, and the development of the master
plan in the overall aspect, should be tested against the LDGS
requirements so as to assure that the development will be safe,
provide for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage,
erosion, and sedimentation control in the affected drainage
basin, provide for adequate storm drainage, minimize adverse
environmental impacts, protect existing neighborhood from harmful
encroachment or obtrusive or disruptive development, and foster a
more rational pattern of relationship between residential and
commercial uses. In your reasonable consideration and prudent
study of the final plan's specifications against the 46 required
criteria in the All Development Section and the required criteria
under Point Chart C, your inability to answer "yes" to all of the
required criteria and the failure of the project to satisfy the
required point chart percentages mandate a "no" vote on the
plans.
gss
pc: Planning and
Board Staff
Fossil Creek
Zoning
Meadows HOA
Very tr y yo rs,
4
L �, L ,
Michael L. Griffi-
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Tuesday, March 14, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. at the Council Information Center,
New Municipal Building, a neighborhood meeting was held on the extension of
Snead Drive, in conjunction with the Fossil Creek Design Center project. In
attendance at this meeting was Ken Goff, Hunter Architectural Group; Dick
Rutherford, Stewarts and Associates and Sherry Albertson -Clark, Project Planner
for the City Planning Department. Approximately 17 residents/property owners
attended the meeting.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the
purpose of the meeting. Ken Goff then provided an overview of the proposed
street connection, after which, questions and comments on the proposed project
were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the
architect and/or staff, as well as comments made by the residents.
Question : Why is the temporary access back as part of the project?
Response: This was approved with the preliminary plan and are not proposing
to build Snead Drive now. It would be built when Paul Heffron's land
develops.
uestion: What will happen to the median in Fossil Creek Parkway?
Response: Would be relocating any landscaping, as per City Forester. Would be
doing any necessary work to repair irrigation system.
Question: Would improvements be needed at the College/Fossil Creek
intersection?
Response: Would be left -turn bay and overlay required.
Comment: Concerned about left -turns into the property and how would be
mitigated.
Comment: Paul Heffron (adjacent owner) emphasized that access would be
temporary, not a final situation.
Comment: Concerned that temporary access will delay and further impact
safety issues of area. Would there be a signal at Fossil Creek?
Response: South College Access Plan designates a signal at the re -aligned
location of Fossil Creek Parkway. Signal would be installed when warranted.
Comment: Concerned that Snead Drive may never go in. Why even talk about
it.
uestion: Is the buffer a minimum of 25"?
9 •
Response: Would be a minimum of 25' from property line to flow line. As
road heads north, would curve to the west, increasing this buffer area.
Comment: Resident of house adjacent to proposed street. Would rather have
street and buffer strip next to home, than a building.
uestion: What does master plan with road location mean?
Response: Staff replied that there is an approved master plan that indicates a
road connection through the Heffron property in a general location. This plan
is approved, but it does not specifically locate or pin -down the street location.
uestion: Could berms be used in the buffer strip to provide better buffering?
Response: Yes. Paul Heffron intends to provide 2-3 3" caliper trees to each
property owner for their lots, as buffering. Also intends to provide
landscaping in the buffer strip itself. Could look at berms, if could be
adequately designed to hold plant material.
Comment: Concerned that 25' buffer may not be adequate. Maybe 50' is
needed.
Question : Why does Snead Drive need to go through?
Response: Developer would like to see it, but it is not necessary for the Fossil
Creek Design Center. Paul Heffron added that it is not critical to the
development of his property. Staff replied that City has seen value of this
connection (at some point in the future) as means of providing re -circulation in
north/south fashion without traffic being forced on College Avenue. Will
further discussion with engineering staff on this item.
Comment: Concerned that location of this access on College would interfere
with existing accel lane.
Comment: Paul Heffron suggested that the Snead Drive connection not be
made and suggested other alternatives to a true street (ie. pedestrian access,
emergency access).
Comment: Concerned that street would encourage traffic through a residential
area.
uestion: Could off -premises signage be used to direct customers to this site?
Response: Could be possibility, but expect many customers to be repeat
customers who would learn way to the project.
uestion: What is separation between Snead Drive and Fossil Ridge Drive?
Response: About 200' separation.
Comment: Street in this location might provide a buffer to buildings that
might be placed on Heffron property.
-2-
uestion: What is status of storm drainage? How can City approve a project
without specifics on storm drainage, energy dissipater and sediment trap?
Response: Storm drainage information has been submitted to City and is being
reviewed. Design for energy dissipater is also completed. No design is done
for the sediment trap. Staff added that City cannot require additional items
Ge. energy dissipater, sediment trap), but developer is willing to work with
City on these items. Since they are not a requirement, City will not delay
final review if these designs are not finished. All required storm drainage
items/information must be completed prior to final Board review.
uestion: Will drainage pipe be adequate for drainage from Heffron property?
Response: Yes.
Comment: Concerned that when other properties in basin develop, impacts on
Fossil Creek will be too great.
Comment: Concerned that flows coming from property west of College are also
impacting Fossil Creek.
Response: Project is required to address own storm drainage flows and will
improve existing situation, including flows from west of College.
uestion: Could berming help flood problems along Snead Drive?
Response: Yes, but if project had been built, water from water line break
probably would not have impacted residences along Fossil Ridge Drive.
Question : Why a swale versus a pipe for drainage flows?
Response: Using pipe. Is sized large enough that debris shouldn't be a
problem. Swales are easier to clean.
Question : Has back-up of drainage at Fossil Creek been considered?
Response: Yes, pipe should not become clogged, due to size. Energy dissipater
would slow energy of water flow as it enters the creek.
uestion: Why aren't ponds or on -site detention being used here? Works in
other areas.
Response: Staff replied that Fossil Creek Basin does not require on -site
detention like other basins.
Comment: Concerned that water in basin and volumes must go somewhere in
basin.
uestion: Would buffer remain at 25' or could it be reduced?
Response: Would have to be reviewed as part of Heffron property
development, which also requires the PUD process.
uestion: What will be under review at March 27 Board meeting?
-3-
0
•
Response: Final plan, showing Snead Drive ending at the south property line
of Fossil Creek Design Center. Street connection is implied by the proposed
final plan.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
-4-
PROJECT: SI
TYPE OF MEETING: /V { Mi
DATE: 3-1q- bq
NAME ADDRESS
WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION
YES/NO
OWNER
RENTE
`� 1���3✓W V � ` � l..a-1 T ��iTDv'V •
l�� / 1
� /T
/ �/%
Z" 115C1,41
rod fit, ut�.soll 3/k 1z kG✓ar C3,- lV /= C'A-i
�-- -
W j ! I - And pj 5 d -y? .52 0 G, �e �•�v, Dr,v�e r-cn,
_
-
� • ��� boo .���� �^ •
�.
AL4
Sv
n� j l« tf ZV s 3-73 %osse- Cret. 'D�,VE
PR. AC.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
ITEM: Fossil Creek Design Center
(formerly Carpet Exchange)
DATE: January 18, 1989
LOCATION: Werner School
APPLICANT: Denny Odette
CONSULTANT: Dan Hunter Architectural Group
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS:
1. The neighborhood expressed the following concerns about the architectural
design of the building:
The portico feature is out of scale with the rest of the building.
The building is too tall at the south end.
What does the south elevation look like prior to phase two being con-
structed?
The loading dock area needs to be screened from the south side prior to
phase two.
2. Would the developer agree not to use Fossil Creek Parkway to access the
property?
3. Would the connection to Fossil Creek Parkway be aligned with a break in
the median to allow left turns?
4. If a new cut in the median is proposed how will the Homeowner's Associa-
tion be compensated for landscaping?
5. Will there be a stop sign at this intersection for traffic on the connecting
street?
6. How much truck traffic will be using Fossil Creek Parkway?
7. How will storm drainage from the site be conveyed to Fossil Creek?
D
D(,B(k MoVer
wa VA
6?UOL
A
GI�41� Mur�roK.io
Vag
�i %i'iusoOt
--)1- 4e wa,,� A,r'J'oc,
:cr..
fof C I G
1�
PC. m.,,�
�c,f,T
f=cM f
CO&,&(Ws
F i - 411Ms
Fe 14 4A
/f/ a t I'tt / A---70& e C L-S
so
00
INFORMATION MEETING
Fossil Creek Design Center PUD (formerly Carpet Exchange)
February 22, 1989
Engineering Conference Room
An information meeting was held on February 22, 1989 on the
Fossil Creek Design Center PUD to discuss the extension of Snead Drive to
Fossil Creek Parkway. In attendance were: Dan Hunter and Ken Goff,
Hunter Architectural Group; Mike Lohz, Stewart Associates; Mike Herzig,
Development Coordinator; Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director; Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Project Planner and ten residents of the Fossil Creek Meadows
area.
The following summarizes the discussion that took place and the questions and
comments made by residents:
Ken Goff discussed the changes that have been made on the plan since the last
neighborhood meeting. Included, is the building height reduction (4-6') and
provision of a 6' cedar fence to screen the service area until the remainder of
the building is completed.
1. How would parking be phased? What would happen to the turf area until
the rest of the building were built? Concerned about erosion.
2. What would happen to the sandstone outcropping on the site? Suggest it be
used for landscaping site.
3. What is the square footage for phase 1? phase 2?
4. What is the elevation of the building, with respect to the street elevation
(Snead Drive)?
5. How many trees are being saved? What is the size of proposed trees?
6. How is loading area being screened? How large is service area?
7. Could there be a sketch done to show the building, with respect to existing
site contours?
8. Where are the closest houses to the proposed connection of Snead Drive?
9. Are the same type of uses still proposed (ie. home improvement)?
10. What are building colors?
M
Page 2
11. How large is the parking area (in square footage)? Where are tree
loca-
tions in the parking area?
12. What is planned signage?
13. How would lighting be handled? How long would lights be on?
14. Can you control hours of operation (especially closing)?
15. What is the separation between the access point on College and Fossil
Creek
Parkway? Concerned about safety with accel/decel occurring in same area, up
a hill.
16. Why does Snead Drive need to be extended south?
17. How is drainage being handled? Concerned that drainage volumes
from
this site would affect Fossil Creek channel.
18. Can anything be done to detain on -site?
19. What is impact on Fossil Creek Parkway, with Snead connection?
Con-
cerned that more traffic would be using the only access into Fossil
Creek
Meadows.
20. Could final plan be approved without Snead connection? Seems
to be
integral part of plan.
21. How many access points are on College? Concerned about safety.
22. What about drains under College? Is this drainage being handled with
this
project?
23. What would happen in buffer strip along Snead Drive extended?
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
ors,
2-64 F65s); Ir. -r4,
my 5t4 .S3zfy rzsd Oy'e;
VlutA Ua� i% I sc 3 1
�t..� S 3 2; A"a4 r b z .
N 44olli
4iRc . -sr.
Oe ��
Utility 11tvices
Stormwater
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22, 1989
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Manager itfll
RE: Review Items in Fossil Creek and Mail Creek
In recent months the Planning and Zoning Board has considered development
proposals along College Avenue near Fossil Creek and Mail Creek.
Neighboring property owners have raised several issues in regard to these
development proposals. Specifically, the Homeowners Associations have
raised concerns regarding detention requirements in the Fossil Creek basin,
and the quality of stormwater runoff. I propose to address each of these
concerns.
Basin Master Planning
The City currently has master plans for nine drainage basins. Two of these
plans are being revised to reflect conditions that have changed since the
initial master plans were prepared. In addition, one new basin is currently
being studied.
Basin master planning is based on the balancing of general assumptions and
conditions that reflect the specific basin's condition and stormwater
management needs. Master plans review the entire basin and make
recommendations that address stormwater management issues on a basin wide
basis. These master plans are not site specific, but address issues common
to the basin and recommend improvements that are tailored to the basin. The
recommended improvements address current problems and prevent future
problems areas from being created in the most cost effective manner. The
improvements are financed through drainage fees paid by developed properties
in that basin. Properties outside the City limits do not pay drainage fees.
Due to financial constraints, these master plans are not considered all
encompassing. Revisions are anticipated as more information is available.
Both the Fossil Creek and Mail Creek master plans are no exception to this.
We are proposing at this time to revise these master plans to reflect the
stability concerns of Mail Creek and Fossil Creek as well as updated
hydrological and hydraulic information.
The McClellands-Mail Creek drainage basin was studied in 1980 and was one of
the first basins in which fees were adopted. The master plan has been
updated since its inception in 1980 but did not address the stability
concerns. The Fossil Creek master plan was completed in 1982 and was the
235 Mathews • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6589
first master plan in the City to consider stream or bank stability in its
scope. This is reflected in the proposal of improvements such as drop
structures to control the stream gradient or slope. These facilities and
other improvements in the Fossil Creek basin have been incorporated into the
current financing plan of Fossil Creek. The developments of Fossil Creek
Meadows and Fairway Estates are currently in the County and pay no City
drainage fees.
Detention Storaqe
An issue raised by the property owners in the area is that no detention
storage of runoff water is required in the Fossil Creek basin. The Fossil
Creek basin master plan recommends that the detention of runoff does not
have a basin wide benefit. There are several factors on which this
recommendation is based. Soil conditions in Fossil Creek are such that
runoff from undeveloped sites vs developed sites is largely the same. Soils
of the basin, in their natural state, allow little infiltration into the
soil substructure. Another factor is that several roadway or railroad
embankments traverse or dissect the basin. These embankments restrict the
flow and cause ponding, in essence acting as regional detention facilities
for the basin. Any increase in flows due to development activities is
stored upstream of these embankments. Where embankments are identified as
overtopping, improvements are proposed in the master plan to eliminate this
overtopping and prevent the possible failure of the embankment.
Though the master plan recommends no detention storage in the Fossil Creek
basin, some developments have been required to provide detention given the
conditions of that specific site. These developed areas are located off the
stream corridor and the release of undetained flows would have been
detrimental to the downstream property owner located between the site and
Fossil Creek. Developments in the Fossil Creek basin that have provided
detention storage are Fred Schmid, State Farm, Congregation of Living G-D,
and Provincetown/Waterchase.
It is standard practice for developments along stream corridors to not
detain storm runoff, based on the philosophy that it is better to release
these waters before upstream runoff reaches the site so flows are not
combined, resulting in higher flows. This philosophy of releasing waters
from stream side developments is consistent with historic conditions.
Water Quality
In the area of water quality, two concerns have been raised by the property
owners. One is erosion caused by increased flows due to development, and
the other is the contaminants that are generated from developed properties.
Generally, these are new issues for the Stormwater Utility, but we have
begun to address these issues.
Recently, EPA published draft regulations in regard to stormwater quality.
These draft regulations were published to solicit comments, and EPA is now
reviewing those comments and proposes to publish final regulations in the
spring of 1990. Currently, the targeted municipalities are those with
populations of 100,000 or more. Fort Collins will not be required to
officially enter the program until 1992, however, we foresee taking a
proactive role and enacting some of the requirements before that time.
City staff is very involved in this issue and is on a state wide task force
that was created to develop an effective water quality plan for the state of
Colorado. The proposed EPA regulations are not centered on an end -of -pipe
treatment process like wastewater, but concentrate on addressing the
contaminant source by initiating programs called Best Management Practice
(BMP's). A good example of a BMP is the enactment of erosion control
standards, while another is the identification and elimination of illicit
connections to the drainage system, such as swimming pool discharges and
illicit sanitary sewer connections.
In the area of erosion control, staff has developed a brochure identifying
erosion control practices to mitigate the impacts of land disturbance
activities. The Board has received a copy of this brochure, but a copy is
also attached for reference. This year, 1989, is slated as a year of
education and awareness of erosion control principles and mitigation
measures, with formal enactment and enforcement of the criteria slates ;o►=
1990.
Another aspect of erosion, streambank erosion, is a concern of the property
owners. They would like to delay development in this area until the impacts
of development on the erosion of Mail Creek and Fossil Creek can be
addressed. We disagree with this approach and propose to address the
stability of Fossil Creek and Mail Creek on a basin wide basis rather than a
site specific basis. It is not appropriate to only address the immediate
area of concern, we must look at the stream both upstream and downstream of
the site to evaluate all impacts. The stability and instability of the
stream is a very complicated issue and needs to be addressed on a well
thoughtout and systematic basis. Ideally we would like to: identify
historic erosion patterns, evaluate the present situation, predict future
erosion problems, and identify what is necessary to mitigate any problem.
We will accomplish this through the update of the basin master plan. Areas
in agreement with the property owners development will cause base flows to
increase over time. This will offset the current flows in Fossil Creek that
currently are comprised of storm runoff from developed and undeveloped
properties and irrigation flows. Again it is important to address these
changing flow patterns.
In regard to the contaminants in the runoff, I would like to offer the
following. Various testing has taken place in the City, with the most
detailed testing taking place on Spring Creek. These test results show that
sediment, and nitrates, were the major contaminants of stormwater runoff.
Some metals are present but not in large quantities. However, more data is
needed in this area. We plan to look into the overall stormwater water
quality issue and initiate the steps as are necessary to address it on a
City wide basis.
Attached for your information is a summary of a runoff study that was in the
Denver metro area that was completed in 1983. This three year study cost
some $1.4 million and still did not address the total picture of urban
runoff and its impact on streams and stream corridors.
At the local level, we are proposing two (2) pilot projects with the Carpet
Exchange and Gateway at Harmony Road projects involving the installation
water quality enhancement facilities and monitoring their success. We see
these projects as benefiting the community as a whole and answering
questions regarding future needs, and requirements that will be practical
and cost effective.
A side issue of water quality that
combined efforts of the Stormwater
Department to incorporate wetland
see these areas as having a water
this is a relatively new idea for
needed that addresses the benefits
coast, where large amounts of data
the drier west.
Summary
the Board should be aware of is the
Utility and the Natural Resources
areas into storm drainage facilities. We
quality enhancement features. However,
the front range and more information is
and impacts. What works on the east
and water are available, may not apply to
I have attempted to give you a brief overview of very technical topics. The
topics are very complicated and admittedly so we at this time don't have all
the answers. Overall the Homeowners have raised very good concerns with
these proposed developments and which there are no clean cut answers and are
issues the City will have to address. Fort Collins has been a leader in the
area of stormwater management thru its master planning process and its
financial system of paying for needed facilities. We will continue to
strive in that proactive role and take the next step to further enhance our
stormwater management program by addressing the issues of water quality and
stream stability.
Deg Sent. Services
Planning Department
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Linda Ripley
RE: Item #6 - The Carpet Exchange PUD - Preliminary
Please find attached revised point charts for the Carpet Exchange PUD. Aftcr
reviewing the Business Service point chart submitted by the applicant, staff has
come to the conclusion that the Community/Regional Shopping Centcr point
chart would be the most appropriate chart to use in evaluating this project
given the community shopping nature of the proposed land uses.
Using the Community/Regional Shopping Center chart eliminates the need for
the applicant to earn points for energy conservation. Therefore staff is
recommending approval of the project without the condition outlined in the
staff report regarding verification of energy conservation.
xc: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director
300 LaPorte Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6750