HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAK VIEW - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 26-00B - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONWe, the undersigned, are asking the City of Fort Collins Council Members to please hold
to the original development plans at Peak View Estates. We do not approve of the revision
which includes replacing three single family homes with eight single family attached (townhomes)
dwelling units.
NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS PHONE
2. ri (c ww,',)& rY SUl 21y21 cLr��� lifS4 LI lD
4. f E� I cl 1 1 Uj([ ( ) t(-( t)) S 7- S JS
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18
19. / / /
a
-
9
We, the undersigned, are asking the City of Fort Collins Council Members to please hold
to the original development plans at Peak View Estates. We do not approve of the revision
which includes replacing three single family homes with eight single family attached (townhomes)
dwelling units.
NAME Sl NAT RE ADDRESS PH
LZ)6t'id Holl-en / /a7732 lirrir�cl�2 / �f�i �f3�
2.
3lei / / ?7ix,.c�t ��./ 2?4-99a7
N
a.'
s.Ali ,c�� � / /' l�i56 � ,,D�l y7 L- 990 i
7.
8. PA tic sczz r j!:t4 /.
/ rs;� -?AkA"C-T PR / y 93—;;Y') -?
9 ;ekh otl d / z-?l u A-UAierh 71LI
21
/ IC IS NAW (-A OS
G R'/
nn u� Yt, zvr
Z721 40,rra4 r)g-1 eJ1 a, — CSgiq
16. l ..f �"�" l Lb; L �i / ZZ tY Z L
19
6 .J �i P n Ht.rT 1.2 /l 2 %2 B6Z
- c
e✓n,ME : �q.yoaFs,�^
�S
* * * PROJECT TITLE: Peeakview Sub lf-t��" "
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 2
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25
Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET
LONGITUDINAL
SLOPE (%) =
1.00
STREET
CROSS SLOPE
(%) =
2.00
STREET
MANNING N
=
0.016
GUTTER
DEPRESSION
(inch)=
1.50
GUTTER
WIDTH
(ft) =
2.00
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 20.13
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.53/
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.96
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 4.18
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 23.70
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.50
FLOW. INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.50
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.50
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.50
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00
7
00'y
yrolow r)
-FbcrL`s
D •P 2-
---------------1---------FW_vl-n�-pfmaD ---------------
-
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZ NG 'D6-A;riA¢E
DEVELOPED BY VV
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IJSER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO................. ... .......
ON DATE 01-28-2002 AT TIME 12:05:09
** PROJECT TITLE: Design Pt 2 07
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
i INLET ID NUMBER: 2
F-2
r
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
r
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
10.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
0.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.25
Note: The sump depth is additional
depth to flow depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
r .
j
r I
4
r 11
L I
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M =
STREET CROSS SLOPE (o) =
STREET MANNING N =
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) =
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) =
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)=
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)=
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (_)=
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(o)=
1.00
2.00
0.016
1.50
2.00
19.19
0.51
3.85
3.81
50.00
20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
FLOW INTERCEPTED
CARRY-OVER FLOW
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
FLOW INTERCEPTED
CARRY-OVER FLOW
23.42
(cfs)=
14.53
(cfs) =
14.53
(cfs)=
0.00
(cfs)=
14.53
(cfs)=
14.53
(cfs)=
0.00
Peak View Sub - Fort Collins
Time To Concentration - Post -development
fay `l _t�.� y ,0 zCCq_
2-yr
100-yr
Number
Sub -basin
Acres
Flow Path Length
Basin Slope
Tc
Tc
Rational
2-YR Intensity
100-YR Intensity
2-yr
100-yr
Name
(minutes) (minutes)
"C"
(inches/hour)
(inches/hour)
Cf
Cf
1
A
1.11
245
1
12.29
7.32
0.68
2
8.6
1
1.25
2
B
0.01
83
1.1
3.30
3.20
0.9
2.95
9.95
1
1.29-
3
C
1.25
325
0.9
8.73
6.30
0.85
2.4
7.5
1
1.�.
4
D
1.44
185
0.8
8.77
7.73
0.78
2.3
8.8
1
1.25
5
E
0.52
80
1.1
5.02
4.30
0.79
2.85
9.95
1
1.25
6
F
1.61
160
1.2
7.10
4.10
0 82
2.8
10
1
1.25 _
7
G
0.81
125
0.8
19.14
17.73
0.25
1.7
6.1
1
1.25
8
H
0.26
65
1.3
11.74
10.88
0.25
2.86
7.42
1
1.25
9
1
1.06
110
1
6.67
2.94
0.76
2.55
9.95
1
1.25
10
J
0.62
110
2.3
5.05
2.23
0.76
2.55
9.95
1
1.25
11
K
0.22
320
1.8
8.25
2.75
0.8
2.35
9.95
1
1.25
12
L
0.12
140
1.8
5.46
1.80
0.8
2.75
9.95
1
1.25
13
M
0.24
60
3
8.54
7.91
0.25
2.35
8.38
1
1.25
14
N
0.21
60
3
8.54
7.91
0.25
2.35
8.38
1
1.25
17C05eD
Rational Method Calculations - Postdevelopment
Peak View sub - Fort Collins
Janus , 002 7tvL� you 20O7-
Number
Sub -basin
Acres
2-YR Intensity 100-YR Intensity Rational
Rational
Product
Q2
Name
(inches/hour)
(inches/hour)
"C"
"CfI
"C*Cf'
(cfs)
1
A
1.11
2
8.6
0.68
1.25
0.85
1.51
2
B
0.01
2.95
9.95
0.9
1.25
1.13
0.03
3
C
1.25
2.4
7.5
0.85
1.25
1.06
2.55
4
D
1.44
2.3
8.8
0.78
1.25
0.98
2.58
5
E
0.52
2.85
9.95
0.79
1.25
0.99
1.17
7
G
0.81
1.7
6.1
0.25
1.25
0.31
0.34
8
H
0.26
2.86
7.42
0.25
1.25
0.31
0.19
9
1
1.06
2.55
9.95
0.76
1.25
0.95
2.05
10
J
0.62
2.55
9.95
0.76
1.25
0.95
1.20
11
K
0.22
2.35
9.95
0.8
1.25
1.00
0.41
12
L
0.12
2.75
9.95
0.8
1.25
1.00
0.26
13
M
0.24
2.35
8.38
0.25
1.25
0.31
0.14
14
N
0.21
2.35
8.38
0.25
1.25
0.31
0.12
15
OS1
0.5
2.85
7.42
0.76
1.25
0.95
1.08
16
OS2
0.24
2.85
7.42
0.87
1.25
1.09
0.60
Estimated 100-yr developed flow from I, J. K, and L =
Estimated 2 -yr undeveloped undetained flow is = 3.97
Q100
Remarks
(cfs)
8.11
D.P.
1
0.11
into
sub -basin F
9.96
D.P.
3
12.36
D.P.
5
5.11
D.P.
6
16.50
D.P.
2 "�-
1.54
D.P. 4
0.60
into ditch
10.02
D. P. 7
5.86
D. P. 8
2.19
D.P. 9
1.19
D.P. 10
0.63
Offsite trib
0.55
Offsite trib
3.52
1.94
19.26
F'e-v iLe�_z
'IA�iw
Te-oey--
�i-" -Om S,��
A l l -.. _,;��--_� ail
KIE
8.88
• 9
2 2
. Iva IT io�
21
a
I.
In summary the proposed siteplan change increases the flow slightly and thus the depth of flow
increases at the catch basin design (point 2) about 1/4 of an inch. The increase in the flow depth
meets the city criteria.
Please call after your review so we may discuss the steps needed to get final approval for the
proposed siteplan change.
Sincerely,
traij C. HgludeAiell, P.E.
President /
cc: Design Development
Loonan and Associates
Vicki Wagner
enclosure
M
DESIGN &RPORATION
July 31, 2002
Mr. Glenn Schlueter
Citv of Fort Collins, Utilities Department
700 West Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521 COPY
RE: Drainage Revisions
Peakview Subdivision
Dear Glenn:
Attached for your review are revised hydrology calculations needed due to proposed revisions of
the subject site. The City approved siteplan had single family homes that are proposed to be .
replaced with five town homes. Thus, the amount of imperious area has slightly increased. The
purpose of this letter is to show that the approved drainage collection system is capable of
conveying and containing the slight increase in discharge.
The following table summarizes the approved condition and the newly proposed condition. The
"approved" condition parameters listed below are from the project's final drainage report as
approved by the City.
SUMMARY TABLE OF HYDROLOGIC
AND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS
PARAMETER
APPROVED
PROPOSED
Impervious Ratio
0.72/1.25
0.83/1.25
2-year design discharge
2.67
3.7
100-year design discharge
14.42
16.5
Depth of gutter flow (100,yr)
0.51
0.53
Attached to this letter is:
1) Revised Time to concentration for sub -basin F
2) Revised post -development hydrology for sub -basin F
3) Approved inlet capacity calculations for curb inlet
4) Revised inlet calculation for additional flow
303-873-6603 • Fax — 303-873-6604
2280 South Xanadu Way • Suite 350 • Aurora, Colorado 80014
Peak View Estates PDP Major Amendment
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
December 12, 2002
Page 6
C. The Peak View Estates Project Development Plan Major Amendment complies
with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the
Land Use Code.
DECISION
The Peak View Estates Project Development Plan Major Amendment #26-00B, is
hereby approved by the Hearing Officer without condition.
Dated this 17th day of December 2002, per authority granted by Sections
1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code.
d�row
ameron Gloss
Current Plannin Director
Peak View Estates PDP Major Amendment
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
December 12, 2002
Page 5
Transportation Level of Service Requirements
Section 3.6 of the LUC imposes standards for all modes of transportation. The
Staff Report indicates that the Project is in compliance with Section 3.6 of the
LUC.
An issue raised by an opponent during the hearing involved adverse traffic
conditions generated by the additional residential density, and a perceived lack of
pedestrian safety.
A Transportation Impact Study was prepared in conjunction with the P.D.P. West
Elizabeth Street is classified as a minor arterial street. Andrews Peak Drive and
Pleasant Valley Road are classified as local streets, with on -street bike lanes.
Three intersections were analyzed, Elizabeth and Overland Trail; Elizabeth and
Taft Hill Road; and Elizabeth and Andrews Peak Drive. The net increase of five
dwelling units does not change the Level of Service for these intersections.
The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that public testimony has
questioned compliance with the standards for traffic generated by the
development; however, the weight of evidence presented by the Applicant and
corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding of compliance with the
Transportation Level of Service Requirements for all modes.
Although the Hearing Officer finds that concerns raised by opponents might
potentially improve the acceptance of the PDP Major Amendment by the
neighboring landowners, the PDP must be judged under the existing applicable
regulations of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The regulations provide sufficient
specificity to determine that the Applicant and Owner have designed the PDP
Major Amendment in conformance with the applicable regulations. There is no
authority for the Hearing Officer to mandate that the Applicant or Owner exceed
the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code in designing the development.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
A. The Peak View Estates Project Development Plan Major Amendment is subject
to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC).
B. The Peak View Estates Project Development Plan Major Amendment complies
with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN)
Low Density Residential Mixed Use zone district.
Peak View Estates PDP Major Amendment
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
December 12, 2002
Page 4
there is no basis in Article 4 of the City's LUC upon which the Hearing Officer
could prohibit replacement of three single family lots with eight multi -family
dwelling units (condos).
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development
Standards
The project development plan complies with all applicable sections of Article 3 of
the LUC as explained below.
Landscaping and Tree Protection. The staff report outlines the Project's
compliance with Section 3.2.1 concerning landscaping and tree protection and
there was no evidence introduced at the hearing to contradict the Staff Report.
Street trees on 40-foot centers will continue to be provided along Andrews Peak
Drive
Access, Circulation and Parking. The staff report outlines the Project's
compliance with Section 3.2.2 concerning access, circulation and parking. The
Applicant and City staff testified at the hearing that the street connection,
Pleasant Valley Road, would continue to connect to both abutting neighborhoods
to the east and west as approved under the original PDP. Also, the Project
provides residential off-street parking spaces exceeding the number required
under the LUC. Guest parking is also available on the two internal public streets.
Natural Habitat/Features Buffer Zones. The staff report indicates that the Major
Amendment does not impact the 50 —foot wide buffer along the north bank, and
20-foot wide buffer along the south bank, of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal.
Relationship of Dwellings to the Street and Parking. This requirement is met, in
that the proposed three-plex units directly face Andrews Peak Drive, and the five-
plex is significantly closer than the maximum allowable distance.
Residential Building Setbacks. The staff report indicates the building setbacks
exceed the minimum 15 feet required.
Garage Door Design Standards. Since all 8 new multi -family units have garages
facing private drives, not public streets, this standard is satisfied.
Streets
The staff report outlines the Project's conformance with Section 3.6.2 concerning
streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements. All streets are dedicated to the
public; the remaining public ways are private drives serving garage access.
Peak View Estates PDP Major Amendment
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
December 12, 2002
Page 3
Written Comments:
Petition signed by 24 area residents opposing the request
FACTS AND FINDINGS
1. Site Context/Background Information
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: L-M-N; Existing residential
S: R-L; Existing Overland Park
E: R-L; Existing residential (Sienna P.U.D.)
W: L-M-N; Existing residential (Lory Ann Estates)
The property was annexed as part of a larger parcel in 1970. Peak View Estates
P.D.P. was approved in December of 2001 by the Planning and Zoning Board
and included three modifications.
2. Compliance with Article 4 and the LMN — Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood Zoning District Standards:
The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of
Article 4 and the LMN zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's
compliance with these standards and no specific evidence was presented to
contradict or otherwise refute the compliance with Article 4 or the LMN District
Standards. In particular, the proposed multi -family residential uses, with eight or
fewer units per building, are permitted within the LMN zdne district subject to an
administrative review. According to the staff report, the Project is also in
conformance with Section 4A(D)(1)(b) standards relating to maximum residential
density, and Section 4.4(E)(3) that sets a maximum residential building height
While there was no direct testimony or evidence presented at the public hearing
to contradict the Project's compliance with these standards, the testimony of
Daniel Banuelos (owner of property within the Sienna development, abutting to
the east), identified concern over the replacement of single family detached units,
approved under the original PDP application, with multiple family units. Mr.
Banuelos submitted a petition into the public record with the names and
addresses of neighbors opposed to the requested increase in density and
change in unit type.
The Hearing Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with the use standards
specified in Article 4. While the previously approved PDP plan, that included
fewer attached residential units, may be desired by neighboring property owners,
Peak View Estates PDP Major Amendment
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
December 12, 2002
Page 2
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval
ZONING DISTRICT: L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established
no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice
published.
The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the
hearing at approximately 6:35 p.m. on December 12, 2002 in the CIC Room at 300 La
Porte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning
Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents
submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins;
(3) public testimony provided during the hearing; and (4) a petition signed by 24 area
residents opposing the request. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan),
and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence
considered by the Hearing Officer.
The following is a list of those who attended the meeting:
From the City:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Sherri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer
From the Applicant:
Don Leffler, Design Development Consultants
Vicki Wagner, BLS Development
From the Public:
Daniel Banuelos, 2714 Arancia Drive
City of Fort Collins
Commuj,._,y Planning and Environmental _rvices
Current Planning
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
HEARING OFFICER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
December 12, 2002
Peak View Estates Project Development
Plan Major Amendment
#26-00B
Mrs. Vicki Wagner/BLS Development
C/o Design Development Consultants
2627 Redwing Dr. #350
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Mrs. Vicki Wagner/BLS Development
2402 Cedarwood Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
The Applicant has submitted a Major Amendment to replace three single-family lots with
eight multi -family dwelling units (condos). The multi -family units would be divided
between one three-plex structure and one five-plex structure. As originally approved,
there was a total of 58 dwelling units divided between 48 multi -family units and ten
single family houses. With the Major Amendment, there would be a total of 63 dwelling
units divided between 56 multi -family units and seven single family houses for a net
gain of five dwelling units.
This project is located on the south side of West Elizabeth Street, between Sienna and
Lory Ann Estates. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs through the southern
portion of the property.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020