Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRY CREEK MINOR SUB - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31PARSONS & a ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DRY CREEK DESCRIPTION OF OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD International Boulevard will be extended within existing right-of-way as shown on the Plat of Industrial Business Park International P.U.D. The improvements will begin with connection to existing improvements at the intersection with Munich Way. The new portion of International Boulevard will be a divided road with 20' flow line to flow line width on each side of a 40 median island (the existing road will remain at 17' flow line to flow line with a 48' median). These improvements will continue to the east property line of the Dry Creek Project with the culmination of International Boulevard inside the project limits. These improvements will occur simultaneously with the project construction and be completed prior to homes being placed. It should be noted that a five foot bike lane will be striped on each side of International Boulevard from the project's east boundary to Summit View Drive. Improvement plans are currently being reviewed by Larimer County Engineering Department. INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD AT SUMMIT VIEW DRIVE Based upon the traffic report a southbound right -turn deceleration lane and a northbound left -turn deceleration/storage lane would be required on Summit View Drive approaching International Boulevard. The right turn deceleration lane is anticipated to be 235 feet long plus a 12.5:1 taper. The northbound deceleration/storage lane is anticipated to be 310 feet long plus a 12.5:1 taper. It is expected that the Timberline Extension project will construct these lane improvements; however if not, the Dry Creek project will build them prior to full occupancy. • 432 ;Link Lane Plaza • Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 • [9701 221-2400 Section 3.13. Wetlands of the ordinance states that a map of all existing wetland and habitat areas located on the subject property shall be provided to the City. Also, prior to submission of subdivision documents, the developer will provide the City with a soils, and geological engineering report, including a groundwater hydrology report, evalivating the geohydrologic impact of the development on on -site and off - site wetlands. The Director of CPES, in consultation with the Natural Resources Division, shall review the reports and shall determine whether the geohydrologic impact from the development will significantly affect existing wetlands; and no development application shall be approved unless the Director of CPES has determined that the geohydrologic impact from the development will not significantly affect existing wetlands. Section 3.1C. Sketch Plan/Landscape Plan states that prior to submission of subdivision documents, the developer shall submit a sketch plan and landscape plan as required by Section 18-3(4)(g) of the City Code. The landscape plan shall additionally, include the following: a wooden perimeter fence along the north, south, and east boundaries of the development; a multi -purpose building at least 2,000 square feet in area with facilities for a laundry, meeting room and recreational area, restrooms, office and a maintenance area; and - playground and mini -park area of at least 30,000 square feet. The Director of CPES shall review the landscape plan using All Development Criterion A-2.13 in the LDGS as a guideline and shall take action to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove any such plan. No development application shall be approved unless the Director of CPES has approved or approved with conditions such sketch/landscape plans. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the Director of CPES shall, not less than 10 working days prior to the date of making the determinations required in Section 3, mail notice of the existence of any site specific studies which will form the basis of such determinations to the owner and developer of the subject property, and to the owners of all real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the property lines of the subject property. In making such determinations the Director shall consider an comments received from such parties and/or other members of the public prior to the date that the determinations are to be made. The aforementioned documents are available for you to review in the Current Planning office located at 281 North College Avenue. Your comments are welcome and should be provided to the Current Planning Department no later than September 20, 1996. The Director of CPES will make a determination on the results of the studies on or after September 20th. Within 5 days after making the determination, the Director will mail a notice to the owner/developer of the property and to the owners of real property within a 1,000 foot radius. The list of affected property owners for this public notification is derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occupancy and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this pending meeting so all neighbors may have the opportunity to attend. If you are unable to attend this meeting, written comments are welcome. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Current Planning office at 221-6750. J 4tC lt, Current Planning Department SO/gjd cc: Greg Byrne, Director of CPES Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Dickson Robin, City Planner Tom Shoemaker and Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Division Bob Smith and Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility Mike Herzig and Ward Stanford, Engineering Department Don Parsons, Parsons & Associates Comm ity Planning and Environment?'-ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins October 9, 1996 Don Parsons Parsons and Associates 432 Link Lane Plaza Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Don, P n. City staff has reviewed the material that you submitted regarding the proposed Dry Creek Mobile Home Project. The documentation was submitted on August 13, 1996, and included a traffic analysis, conceptual wetlands mitigation plan, and a set of plans containing a site plan (2 options), conceptual cul-de-sac layout, conceptual landscape plan, and a Dry Creek enhancement plan. Ordinance No. 1,43,1995 requires that City staff review your submittal documentation using All Development Criteria A-1.3, A-1.9, A-2.1, A-2.3, A-2.5, A-2.13, A-3.2, and A- 3.4 of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS): A-1.3 Wildlife Habitat There is no indication, either in the consultants' reports that have been reviewed or in the data maintained by the Natural Resources Department, that the site sustains wildlife species covered by this criterion. A-1.9 Water Quality Conceptually, the water quality effects on existing on -site and off -site wetlands are acceptable. Water quality must be addressed in detail with the site/landscape plan, drainage report and drainage plan, and erosion control plan that are required to be submitted with the subdivision plat. A-2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation The vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by this development can be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems with the addition of auxiliary drive lanes at the intersection of International Boulevard and Summit View Drive. The design of the intersection improvements must be included on the utility plans that are required to be submitted with the subdivision plat. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 22.1-6002 A-2.3 Natural Features . Conceptually, the layout of the development as proposed adapts well to the physical characteristics of the site and does minimize the disturbance of the existing topography and Dry Creek drainageway. There are, however, existing wetlands in the southeast portion of the site that are proposed to be eliminated, with mitigation to be provided with enhancement of the Dry Creek drainageway on the property. A-2.5 Emergency Access The development proposal provides adequate access for emergency vehicles and the ability to render fire protection and emergency services with the extension of the divided International Boulevard. Auxiliary drive lanes are to be added at the intersection of International Boulevard and Summit View Drive. The design of the intersection improvements must be included on the utility plans that are required to be submitted with the subdivision plat. A-2.13 Landscape The conceptual landscape plan provides for a screening fence (must be wooden, in compliance with the Sketch Plan/Landscape Plan condition of Ordinance No. 143, 1995) along the north and east property boundaries. The ordinance states that this wooden perimeter fence should also be provided along the south boundary line, which the conceptual plan does not provide for. Adequate visual buffer must be provided along this boundary. Earthen berming and appropriate plant materials (emphasis on evergreen materials) are a possible solution. This will be evaluated with the detailed site/landscape plan that must be included in the subdivision plat submittal. The conceptual plan also provides for seven mini -park areas totaling approximately 37,000 square feet of playground/park area and a 2,400 square foot multi -purpose building. This is in compliance with the Sketch Plan/Landscape Plan condition in Ordinance No. 143, 1995. The specifics of these facilities will be evaluated with the detailed site/landscape plan that must be included in the subdivision plat submittal. A-3.2 Design Standards The condition in Ordinance No. 143, 1995, pertaining to the requirement for a traffic study, states that the study will examine access to the development, trip generation of the development, distribution of traffic generated, and a level of service analysis. The study that has been reviewed indicates that vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by this development can be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems; however, the addition of auxiliary drive lanes at the intersection of International Boulevard and Summit View Drive must be provided. Eric Bracke of the Streets Department should be contacted for information about the required design standards. The design of the intersection improvements must be included on the utility plans that are required to be submitted with the subdivision plat. A-3.4 Geologic Hazards The information submitted reveals no known areas of natural or geologic hazard. There are areas of high groundwater that must be taken into account in the design of any on -site structures and utilities. This will be reviewed with the utility and drainage plans that must be included in the subdivision plat submittal. Staff has determined that the documentation submitted is adequate for a conceptual level of evaluation of the proposed development and is in compliance with the conditions of Ordinance No. 143, 1995. There are still concerns about the International Boulevard design and construction and the potential impacts to the wetlands in the area, the Dry Creek floodway and 100-year floodplain boundary designations, and required natural -transition area along the stream corridor (a copy of a memorandum from Rob Wilkinson of the Natural Resources Department is attached). The next step in your development process is to submit the subdivision plat and required supporting documentation for review. The City's review of the detailed plans may necessitate changes to the plans based on further evaluation of the proposed developments' compliance with the aforementioned All Development Criteria in the LDGS. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have any questions concerning the City's evaluation of the documentation that was submitted for review. Sincerely, Z Robert Blanchard Current Planning Director xc: Greg Byrne, Director of CPES Stephen Olt, City Planner Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Department Eric Bracke, Streets Mike Herzig, Engineering Project File Comn►..pity Planning and Environment._ Services Current Planning City of Fort Collins October 11, 1996 Dear Resident: City Council passed and adopted the Dry Creek Annexation and Zoning request on November 21, 1995 (Ordinances No. 142, 1995 and No. 143, 1995), annexing 52.5 acres and placing the property in the MM - Medium Density Mobile Home District. The property is located northeast of the Fort Collins Downtown Airport, south of East Vine Drive, and west of Summit View Drive (see vicinity map). Section 3 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the zoning granted is conditioned upon a traffic study, wetlands study, and sketch plan/landscape plan being provided to the City for review and approval prior to submission of a subdivision plat and supporting documentation that would allow construction of the development. The owner/developer of the property, now known as the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, submitted the following documents to the City's Current Planning Department on August 13, 1996, for development review: 1. The Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Matt Delich (dated August 8, 1996). 2. A Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (no date). 3. The Creek Plans containing Site Plan (Option A). Site Plan (Option B), Conceptual Cul-De-Sac Layout, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Dry Creek Enhancement Plan; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (dated August 12, 1996). Section 4 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the Director of Community Planning and Environmental 'Services (CPES) shall, not less than 10 working days prior to the date of making the determinations required in Section 3, mail notice of the existence of any site specific studies which will form the basis of such determinations to the owner and developer of the subject property, and to the owners of all real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the property lines of the subject property. In making such determinations the Director shall consider any comments received from such parties and/or other members of the public prior to the date that the determinations are to be made. Studies and plans relating to the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park had been submitted to the City for review on August 13, 1996 and a letter was sent out on September 3, 1996 to notify property owners within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the proposed development that a determination would be made on or 281 North College Avenge • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (1970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002 after September 20, 1996. The Director, after staff review, has determined that the documentation submitted is adequate for a conceptual level of evaluation of the proposed development and is in compliance with the conditions of the ordinance. The owner/applicant may now submit a subdivision plat and the required supporting documentation to the City for review. The date of the Director's determination on this matter is October 9, 1996. As a requirement of the ordinance, within 5 days after making the determination, the Director will mail a notice to the owner/developer of the property and to the owners of real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject property for the purpose of the filing of any appeal under Section 5, below. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that, notwithstanding any provision in Section 29-41(b) of the City Code to the contrary, the determinations to be made by the Director of CPES under Section 3 may be appealed by the owner or developer of the property and by any owner to whom notice was required to be sent pursuant to Section 4 directly to the City Council upon the filing of a notice of appeal with the office of the City Clerk no more than twenty (20) days after the date of determination (10/09/96). Upon the filing of any such notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify the owners of all real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject property of the time and place of the hearing of the appeal. The hearing before the Council on any appeal shall be a de novo hearing. The list of affected property owners for this public notification is derived from official records of the L_arimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occupancy and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this pending meeting so all neighbors may have the opportunity to attend. If you are unable to attend this meeting, written comments are welcome. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Current Planning office at 221-6750. Sin erely, &�� S ephe Olt, Current Planning Department SO/gjd CC' Greg Byrne, Director of CPES Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Tom Shoemaker and Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Department Bob Smith and Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility Mike Herzig and Ward Stanford, Engineering Department Dickson Robin, City Planner Don Parsons, Parsons & Associates t.JLT�MATEa� October 29, 1996 Ms. Wanda Krajicek City Clerk City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ms, Krajicek: OCT 2 9 1996 CITY CLERK This letter has been prepared to appeal the October 9th, 1996 administrative determination that conditions Of Ordinance 143, 1995 pertaining to the Dry Creek Annexation, Zoning, and proposed mobile home park have been satisfied and that the owner/applicant may now submit a subdivision plat, f a►n joined in this appeal by the parties in interest shown on attachment L We have received conflicting information regarding appeal requirements for this specific appeal from various city staff are presenting this appeal in what we believe to be compliance with Section 2-48 of the City's Code. The October 9, 1996 administrative determination was made based on the following three documents. 1. The Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home park, pr 1996). epared by Malt Delich (dated August 8, 2. A conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (no date). 3. The Dry Creek Plans containing Site Plan Option A, Site Plan Option B, Conceptual Cul-de-sac Lavou(, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Dry Creek Enhancement Plan, prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (dated August 12, 1996). Based on our review of these documents and independent investigations, we believe that staff failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the_ Code and Charter in accepting these documents as with Ordinance 143. satisf<�ctory co►nplia►ice Specifically, file traffic study does not adequately estimate and evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed project. Further, Land Development Guidance Systems (LDGS) criteria A-2.1 pertaining (o vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle transportation and safety has not been satisfied in that access to the proposed Project, or pedestrian and bicycle traffic -related needs and facilities have not been addressed. LDGS criteria A-3.2 has not been addressed with respect to walks/bikeways and streets/pedestrians. In fact, no conlPl►ance with design standards in any area has been demonstrated as no designs or specifications were included as the basis for this administrative determination. 'file wetlands mitigation plan and map do not adequately define and evaluate on -site wetlands and habitat areas. Compliance wi(h LDGS criteria A-1.3, A-1.9, and A-2.3 has not been demonstrated in the documents cited as the basis for (he administrative determination. There is no indication that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been consulted with regard to jurisdictional wetlands or potential existence of endangered species of concern. We believe that the Ultimate Support Systems, Inc. 2506 Zurich Drive • P.O. Box 470 Fort Collins, CO 80522-4700 FAX (970) 221-2274 • (970)493-4488 conclusions represented by the administrative determination concerning «ellands and potential habitat for endangered species are not valid and are not appropriate without federal paiticipation. The various site plans (described in no. 3 above) do not satisfy the conditions slated in Section 3.0 of Ordinance 143. Specifically, the fencing requirement has not been met. The administrative determination misrepresents the square footage proposed for parks and the multi -purpose building and compliance with these conditions is debatable. Compliance with LDGS criteria A-2.13 regarding landscaping has not been demonstrated. In addition to the above substantive concerns, we question whether the administrative determination was made by the appropriately authorized party. Ordinance 143 places this responsibility with the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services. The letter of administrative determination (dated October 9, 1996) to Don Parsons was from the Current Planning Director and cited "stall" as the party making the determination. The appellants listed on attachment 1 own and occupy property in the International Boulevard Industrial Park or adjacent to the International Boulevard Industrial Park and all were on the list of property owners to be notified of actions pertaining to the proposed mobile home park. Please notify me if you have questions or concerns regarding this appeal Thank you for your assistance. Si ely, Jan A. Dismore PresidenUCEO JAD/dm cc: A. J. Glaser Ed and Jean Laudick Gene Barker Attachment Commui Planning and Environmental 'IF Current Planning City of Fort Collins December 6, 1996 Don Parsons Parsons and Associates 432 Link Lane Plaza Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Don: vices This letter is a follow-up to yesterday's phone conversation regarding the Minor Subdivision submittal for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park. As we discussed, there are a couple of issues surrounding your submittal of November 26th that, in my opinion, warrant a resubmittal. First, additional information is needed from you for us to efficiently and completely review your submittal. Second, we made some errors in our initial routing of your project: the routing of the plat and utility plans was done separately (we usually route them simultaneously and it was not routed as an affordable housing project with expedited review). Resubmittal will allow us to reroute a complete submittal and review it in an efficient manner. As you know, I will refer the decision on the minor subdivision to the Planning and Zoning Board. As long as the resubmittal of materials occurs by December, 16th and adequate and timely responses are provided to staff comments on the submitted materials, I see no problems with getting your project on the February 24th Planning and Zoning Board agenda. As part of your submittal we would request the following additional information or products: • A completed standard application form for a minor subdivision submittal • 12 sets of utility plans instead 10 • 2 additional copies of the traffic study • 3 additional copies of the drainage report • 25 copies of the subdivision plat instead of 21 • 25 copies of the proposed site plan 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002 fr3 PARSONS) & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEER January 4, 1995 Mr. Mike Herzig Development Engineering Manager Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Off -Site Street Improvements for Dry Creek Project. Dear Mike: I am routing this letter to support our understanding of the need for off -mite street improvements for the Dry Creek project. Our conversations have referenced Section 29-678 of the City Code, specifically #6 - Streets and Alleys. That section states that all development projects in the City of Fort Collins must connect to an arterial street or to a street which is funded as an arterial street. You said the Timberline Extension project is funded by Choices 95. I checked the preliminary plans for Timberline Extension and found improvements ale- proposed to go north to the intersection of International Boulevard and Summitview Drive. on the :oasis of that information it is both your and my understanding that. iniptovements to Summitview will not have to be made to satisfy Section 29-678 of the City Code. I would appreciate it very much if you would write me a short letter confirming this understanding. I do e.-_pect to build a portion of International Boulevard in order to a_A, :7 -M7 U L.I..C.7.� •.11C L�lY t-GC�A r�'�J^_.L. _ �'_• = ".r•v :.. .« '__�...�t_ _. ..y indicate the need for intersection improvement:., at Summitview and International Boulevard foi traffic safety reasons. Thank you for your help with this issue. Sincerely, Parsons S Associates, Inc. Donald M. Parsons, P.E. DMP/gbl c:\don\gen\9518mob.1tr Don Parsons Dry Creek Mobile Home Park December 6, 1996 16 copies of the proposed landscape plan A description of what offsite improvements you as the developer will construct and when construction would likely occur. This should include the required turn lanes at the intersection of International Boulevard and Summit View Drive and any improvements to be made to International Boulevard • Fence details for the screening fence to occur on the perimeter of the property. Ordinance No. 143, 1995 requires that wooden fencing be provided on the north, east, and south perimeter property boundaries • Detail landscaping plans for the proposed project perimeter, project entry, mini -park facilities and clubhouse area • 4 copies of a detailed lighting plan for the proposed mobile home park • A copy of the letter from Dickson Robin certifying this project as an affordable housing project eligible for expedited processing. In addition, you need to respond to the conditions stated from the Natural Resources Department in the August 30, 1996 determination letter. Obviously, you should work closely with Rob Wilkinson to determine any additional information that will be required. Note that some of these information requirements are from Chapter 18 of the City Code that deals with mobile home parks. Chapter 18 also includes an additional fee that you will have to pay before construction begins. The fee will be based on the value of all the on -site work including all physical infrastructure, utility service connections, pads, landscaping, parking areas, lighting, permanent buildings and related facilities. It will be calculated according to the current building permit schedule. Questions related to this fee should be directed to Felix Lee. Don Parsons Dry Creek Mobile Home Park December 6, 19,96 Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Blanchard Current Planning Director CC' Greg Byrne, CPES Director Kerrie Ashbeck Steve Olt Peter Barnes Lucia Liley docfiI\outsideldrycreek.wpd / 07 1 r0Aol .)XI I iry c /aWe r S " ^ � S6 R T DRY CREEK MINOR SUBDIVISION - First Phase /INTERNATIONAL_ BOULEVARD PLANS • The County has reviewed and approved the International Boulevard plans. The only piece of the roadway that is in the City is the far west end and the cul-de- sac. It has been agreed to allow them to drain into the center median and construct mid -block crosspans. • Talked with Rex Burns - there are some brief notes in the file. The County is trying to work with a group being set up by the business owners in the industrial park and the developer to pool funds for the improvements so that the street can be brought up to County standards and taken over for maintenance by the County. It is my understanding that If attempts to fund this project are unsuccessful, then the street will be patched, overlaid, etc. but the mobile home park and the industrial park will continue to be obligated for maintenance until International Boulevard is brought up to standards. It is my belief that even if the City annexes the r.o.w., the street would not be taken over for maintenance until it is brought up to standards structurally. The development agreement needs to define what arrangements are agreed to in the end. Be sure both Gary Diede and Rex aclree with what is stated in the development agreement regarding short-term and long-term obligations for maintenance of International Boulevard (i.e. if it is not being brought up to structural City/County standards now, then it must be in -the future if the mobile home park and business owners want the City/County to take it over.) • Also, the developer is obligated for certain improvements to the intersection of Timberline and Summitview as described in the traffic study. At this point, it is assumed that the City will be constructing those improvements with the Timberline project. However, provisions must be included in the development agreement for reimbursement to the City from the developer if there is any required (discuss with Keith and Mark Sears). In other words, if the City would have been constructing those improvements with or without the mobile home park going in , then they are City at -large improvements. However, if a portion of the improvements are triggered by this development, then there should be a repay. Also, in the event the Timberline project would stop short of International Boulevard or be delayed, the developer must be obligated to complete the auxiliary lanes himself. The problem with triggering the improvements for this project is that, as a mobile home park, the Code specifies that only one building permit is issued for the whole site so we can't do our usual 25% of the permits thing for improvements and drainage certification. Suggest having the developer post a letter of credit for the off -site street improvements and auxiliary lanes at the time of building permit. Release upon completion of the off -sites by x number of c.o.s for units (Peter Barnes can help define what kind of permits or c.o.s. are required for placing mobile homes on site) and release for auxiliary lanes when the City has constructed or agreed to completion of the improvements. • Rex has worked closely with the developer's soils engineer to identify the areas for patching, overlay, and subgrade stabilization provisions. I have requested a copy of the soils engineer's report for our records and information. • Through arrangements with Bob Smith, the County has agreed that no off -site easements are necessary for drainage since the project drains to facilities identified in the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan which Rex and Bob have been working on with property owners in the Basin. • Everything besides the west end of International Boulevard is on private property, so although I reviewed what they were doing, I did not have formal comments since it is not public. The site is very flat and the drainage patterns and facilities are not very desirable, but it is all private as are the driveways. • I commented on providing a curb around the cul-de-sac to define the public street from the private drive, but with the number of vehicle trips, it is not very desirable to have people driving up over a rollover curb every trip out of the mobile home park. So I talked to Rob at Parsons about defining the edge with concrete since they have to construct concrete to the property line anyway and they will also sign the entrance as a Private Drive. Include this in the development agreement that they must sign the entrance as private and are obligated to maintain the sign as well as all of their internal streets, drainage facilities, etc. • If our comments on the last plan set which were fairly minor have been addressed and we get a copy of the soils/pavement info, we are ready for mylars. April 7, 1997 Hs. Wanda (ira j icek City Clerk t" i. t of F i, : t C: l 1.1 n 5 Avenue Fort. Col I ns, CO a0521 Hear Ms. l%ra.j icek : APR - 71997 CITY CLERK This letter repreEents an appeal of the March 24, 1997 Planri.ing and :'or,ing Bciarddec.isiuri to .,pprove the 'Dry Creek Phase I Minor Subdivision. It is my contention that the Planning and Zoning Board failed tce IlropGr ly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the C11--y's subdivision code found in Article V. Divisions 2, 3, and 4, arid the provisions Of Ordinarlc:e 143, 1995. It-. is rily cor,tentior, that the Planning arid Zonil,g Boa d cunsider G_d evid�-rlce which was substantially false cis grossly misleading. Some exarnple•s include: - that the subdivision requirernents had been met; - that conditions of Ordinance 143 had been met; - that Corps of Engineers approval had been given; - that city standards did no'. have to be Met for streets; - th;-iL sLaf_( cumrnents didr,' t have l o be con=_:iclered. I further contend that the. Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by me specifically relating to staff car;lrnerlts on the subdivisicur, propos al. that had riot been cllld] r��+c;nl_l ;�Ild conditions of Ordinance 143 Lh�.it, had riot been I am a pear' y- in - i;(tei eE;L fur tl,_i.s Fjrc.ject. I have spoken at all P.l.ar-Ireing and Zoning Board arid City Council hearings where this p:rojecL has been considered.I am on the mailing list arrc( have received numerous notices of meetings and information relating to this prcjec:.t. Tlictri . you Iur receiving this ::Ilrpeal. the .filing fee :ic, enclosed. Sinker Ply, JG�- S4ktVdvtl._ CafNcv ..JHti Shepard Cui-tier 31.7 Nclrth US 287 Flirt Collins, CO 80524 Phalle: 2`21-3953 My c}leck for 5.100 for 09�. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director DATE: May 1, 1997 RE: Referral of the Request for the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision - Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the March 24, 1997 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Referral of the Request for the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal: Appellant Jan Shepard Cottier Grounds for Appeal: (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document) I. It is my contention that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City's subdivision code found in Article V. Divisions 2, 3, and 4, and the provisions of Ordinance 143, 1995. At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, I explained how the proposed project did/ not comply with the subdivision code Sections 29-644(c)(3), 29- 644(e), 29-656(f), and 29-677. 1 offered comments from agencies or offices that had reviewed the subdivision submittal pursuant to Section 29-642(b)(4). The Board was advised by City staff and the applicant's attorney that compliance with Ordinance No. 143, 1995 was not relevant, and the Board chose to not let me address how the proposed project fails to conform to the conditions of Ordinance No. 143, 1995. Staff Response: A. Section 29-644(c)(3) of the Subdivision Code states: If the Director of Planning determines that the subdivision as proposed may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or does not qualify as a minor subdivision, or involves factors which should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning board, he/she shall treat the application as a standard submission and refer the subdivision to the Planning and Zoning Board, unless the applicant withdraws the application. Upon withdrawal, the applicant shall forfeit any application fees previously paid. If the applicant does not withdraw the application, the applicant shall pay such additional fees as may be required for processing plats under the standard preliminary and final plat procedures and shall receive credit for all fees paid pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section. The proposal was initially submitted to the City as a Minor Subdivision. The Planning Director made a determination to refer the request to the Planning and Zoning Board because of the historical controversial nature of the proposed land use. The intent of the referral was to ensure adequate notification and the opportunity for public input on the request. However, the project was still being processed and reviewed as a minor subdivision. B. Section 29-644(e) of the Subdivision Code states: Design standards and improvements. The design standards and construction requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all minor subdivisions. No minor subdivision may be approved until the plans are complete, the plat, landscape covenants (if applicable) and development agreement are executed by the developer and other necessary parties and such other documents as may be applicable to the subdivision have been submitted in proper form and fully executed. The City has been addressing the issue of the completion and execution of the development agreement and approval of utility plans through a standard condition attached to all final plans that states: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the fourth meeting (fill in appropriate date) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the City staff, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. The intent was for this condition (modified to be specific to subdivisions) to be placed on the approval of the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision, if that were to be the action taken by the Board. The motion to approve this item failed to include the condition. City Council has the ability to place this condition on the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision if they vote to uphold the Board's decision. C. Section 29-656(f) does not exist in the City's Subdivision Code. Staff assumes that the Appellant is referring to Section 29-656(c) of the Code that states: If any part of a residential subdivision borders a railroad right-of-way, either a parallel street adjacent to said railway or a landscaped fifty -foot buffer strip adjacent to such railway shall be required or the lots adjacent to such right- of-way shall have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. [Staffs assumption regarding the Code citation is based on the fact that the Appellant cited this section of the Subdivision Code as not being met by the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision during testimony at the March 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing.] The Burlington Northern Railroad does own several parcels of land to the north of the Dry Creek property; however, the actual railroad right-of-way is directly south of East Vine Drive right-of-way and is 150 feet in width. There is a parcel of land owned by Burlington Northern Railroad that is 350 feet wide between the actual railroad right-of-way and the north property line of Dry Creek. This property could be sold and developed as land uses other than railroad - related. By virtue of ownership, this parcel is considered to be part of a "transportation area" but not the actual railroad right-of-way. Therefore, the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision does not border the railroad right-of-way (see Exhibit 1, attached). D. Section 29-677 of the Subdivision Code states: At the time the plans, profiles and specifications required in Section 29- 676(b) are approved, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement providing for the installation of all improvements in the subdivision required by this Article. Such agreement shall establish and set forth the amount in which the city its to participate in the cost of construction of any collector or arterial street. No final subdivision plat shall be finally approved by the city or recorded until such agreement has been entered into. Such agreement shall further provide that the subdivider will fully account to the city for all costs incurred in the construction of any street in which the city is participating, and the books and records of the subdivider relating to such street shall be open to the city at all reasonable times for the purpose of auditing or verifying such costs. Refer to the staff discussion of Section 29-644(e), above. II. It is my contention that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Some examples include: - that the subdivision requirements had been met; - that conditions of Ordinance 143 had been met; - that Corps of Engineers approval had been given; - that city standards did not have to be met for streets; - that staff comments didn't have to be considered. Staff Response: A. "That the subdivision requirements had been met" All of the above allegations (Sections I. - A through D of this staff memo) relate to the City's Subdivision Code and regulations. Please refer to the staff responses to those sections for the response to this allegation. B. "That conditions of Ordinance 143 had been met" City Council passed and adopted the Dry Creek Annexation and Zoning request on November 21, 1995 (Ordinances No. 142, 1995 and No. 143, 1995), annexing 52.5 acres and placing the property in the MM - Medium Density Mobile Home District. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the zoning granted is conditioned upon a traffic study, wetlands study, and sketch plan/landscape plan being provided to the City for review, so that certain determinations can be made prior to the approval of any subdivision plat for the property. The owner/developer of the property, now known as the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, submitted the following documents to the City's Current Planning Department on August 13, 1996, for review: The Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Matt Delich (dated August 8, 1996). 2. A Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (no date). 3. The Dry Creek Plans containing Site Plan (Option A), Site Plan (Option B), Conceptual Cul-De-Park Layout, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Dry Creek Enhancement Plan; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (dated August 12, -1996). Transp, ation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins January 11, 1995 Mr. Don Parsons Parsons and Associates, Inc. 432 Link Lane Plaza Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Off -Site Street Improvements for Dry Creek Project Dear Don: I received your letter on the above titled subject and, I agree basically with what you stated as reasons for your not having to do off -site street improvements to Summitview Drive. However, my interpretation of Timberline Road being a funded project is different. Since Timberline Road is a Choices 95 project approved by the voters of Fort Collins, with sufficient funds are in the Choices 95 account and it appears that Timberline Road Extension will be funded and built, I have interpreted that these conditions satisfy the requirements of Section 29-678 of the City Code. Therefore, I do not believe off -site improvements are required for Summitview Drive, which will be replaced with Timberline Road to access Harmony Road. Let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, �� Michael R. Herzig; Development Engineering Manager avenue • P.O. Box 7RO • Fart Calling, ;y Section 4 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services (CPES) shall, not less than 10 working days prior to the date of making the determinations required in Section 3, mail notice of the existence of any site specific studies which will form the basis of such determinations to the owner and developer of the subject property, and to the owners of all real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the property lines of the subject property. In making such determinations the Director shall consider any comments received from such parties and/or other members of the public prior to the date that the determinations are to be made. Studies and plans relating to the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park had been submitted to the City for review on August 13, 1996 and a letter was sent out on September 3, 1996 to notify property owners within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the proposed development that a determination would be made on or after September 20, 1996. The Current Planning Director, after staff review, has determined that the documentation submitted is adequate for a conceptual level of evaluation of the proposed development and is in compliance with the conditions of the ordinance. The owner/applicant may now submit a subdivision plat and the required supporting documentation to the City for review. The date of the Director's determination on this matter was October 9. 1996. As a requirement of the ordinance, within working 5 days after making the determination, the Director of CPES was to mail a notice to the owner/developer of the property and to the owners of real property within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject property for the purpose of the filing of any appeal under Section 5 of the ordinance. A letter (dated October 11, 1996) was sent out on October 14, 1996 to notify property owners within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the proposed development that a determination on the documentation had been made on October 9, 1996. This letter outlined the appeal rights and responsibilities as set forth in the ordinance (note that the appeal period for this ordinance expired on October 29, 1996, 20 days after the date of determination). In conclusion, staff determined that the documentation submitted was adequate for an evaluation of the proposed development and was in compliance with the conditions of Ordinance No. 143, 1995. The documents were of sufficient detail to provide initial indication that the impacts of the proposed development could be mitigated through the normal review process. The next step in the development review process was for the applicant to submit the subdivision plat and required supporting documentation for review. On December 16, 1996, the applicant did make a formal submittal to the Current Planning Department for review of the minor subdivision (being a one lot subdivision). Included in the submittal package were utility plans, a traffic study, a drainage report, a site plan, a landscape plan, description of off -site improvements, a lighting plan, and wetland mitigation design. This documentation was reviewed by staff and determined to be acceptable before the proposal was placed on the Planning and Zoning Board's March 24, 1997 public hearing agenda. C. "That Corps. of Engineers approval had been given" Currently, the record shows that the applicant has conditional approval from the Corps. Of Engineers to disturb wetlands on the site, with appropriate additional studies and mitigation (see attached letters dated December 16, 1996, February 24, 1997, and April 18, 1997). Once their conditions have been met, the applicant will have full Federal approval. The Natural Resources Department has reviewed the proposed mitigation plan and finds it satisfactory. The plan has been reviewed by the Stormwater Utility, and they find that it is compatible with their requirements. Through the observations of the appellant and the Army Corps of Engineers, staff became aware of a wetland area less than '/Z acre in size along the north property boundary which had been missed during the initial review and evaluation. The wetland conditions, which were applied to the project approval, fully allowed for the City to require needed additional wetland studies. The applicant was notified of the omission, and revised the maps and mitigation plans. D. "That City standards did not have to be met for streets" There are two aspects related to streets concerning this project, one being "on -site" streets and the other being "off -site" streets. The developer has chosen to use private drives throughout the on -site area of this development instead of dedicating public right-of-way for public streets. The only on -site exception being the approximate 120 linear feet of public access road (International Boulevard) and public turn -a -round entering the site at the south end of the property. There are no provisions in the City Code mandating that a developer provide public right-of-way in a development, only that the developer is required to have access to an improved arterial street as required under Section 29- 677 of the City Code (in effect at the time of project submittal), and International Boulevard fulfils that requirement. The City does not have design standards for private streets other than the requirement to provide unobstructed emergency access for fire vehicles throughout the project. The City does request that the private drive be described as a tract or parcel so responsibility for the drive is determined and that entity has control over the drive (i.e., homeowner's association or land owner, etc.). The City will not accept responsibility nor maintenance of the private drives until such time as the private drive is dedicated as public right-of-way and is brought up to City street standards current at that future time. The off -site street aspect is related to International Boulevard, which is an existing County right-of-way. The boulevard is partially constructed, serving the existing businesses, and this development is completing the boulevard to serve the development. This is categorized as an off -site street requirement and as such is regulated by paragraph 6, Section 29-678 of the City Code (in effect at the time of project submittal), which states off -site streets must be, as a minimum, 36 feet in paved width. This provides two 12 foot travel lanes and two 6 foot paved shoulders / bike lanes. The Code does not require sidewalks, curbs, gutters or other facilities. This development has proposed a street section for International Boulevard that is two 20 foot wide paved, separated travel lanes with curb, gutter and a 4 foot attached sidewalk on the north side, exceeding the City's off -site minimum requirements. The traffic study estimates the daily volume of traffic which would require a "Connector" street to adequately handle. The proposed street section is larger than the City's "Collector" street standard, which is capable of handling three times the volume of traffic estimated on International Boulevard. This off -situ street is in the UGA and, according to the UGA agreement, should be subject to the County's street standards. The County street standards do not mandate curb, gutter and sidewalks as the City standards do. They do provide standards for sidewalks used for each type of street, if a sidewalk is deemed desirable. Even though the agreement exists between the two entities, the County has ultimate jurisdiction over the area and ultimate decision over what is designed in a County area. The County (and the City staff agree) that a sidewalk on the north side of International Boulevard is beneficial but not on the south side. The south side is undeveloped land, zoned for commercial use, and the existing businesses do not have sidewalks with one exception. The existing businesses are not necessarily consumer oriented and therefore the sidewalks would only see limited use. The County believes, based on conversation with existing businesses, that future businesses would not desire sidewalk in the area and if they do, can provide the sidewalk at time of development. The sidewalk along the north will provide walking access to any of the existing businesses and to Summit View Drive as well as any future development to the north where more consumer oriented business and services are speculated to occur. The existing businesses are responsible for the maintenance of the existing International Boulevard and have expressed concern over responsibility for any further street facilities to maintain. This development has reached an agreement with the existing businesses and the County covering the maintenance of the existing portion of International Boulevard and will be fully responsible for the new portion of International Boulevard. E. "That staff comments didn't have to be considered" Staff comments are always considered during the formal development review process. After the applicant's initial submittal to the City is received the documentation is routed to City departments and affected outside reviewing agencies, to be reviewed against the City's policies and regulations. Their comments are forwarded to the Project Planner, who then forwards the comments and concerns to the applicant. The applicant then revises the plans in accordance with the review comments or responds to staff as to why some of their comments may be inappropriate. Staff reviews the revised plans and applicant responses to determine if the project meets the City's policies and regulations. III. I further contend that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by me specifically relating to staff comments on the subdivision proposal that had not been addressed and conditions of Ordinance 143 that had not been met. Staff Response: Please see the response in Section II. E. of this staff memo that addresses the allegation regarding staff comments. Please see the response in Section II. B. of this staff memo that addresses the allegation regarding Ordinance No. 143, 1995. By acting on a motion to approve the Referral of the Request for the Dry Creek Minor Subdivision, the Planning and Zoning Board had received all relevant information necessary to make their decision. ward 1,W - 5 1997 CITY CLERK May 5, 1997 Ms. Wanda Krajicek City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ms. Krajicek: This letter represents lily amended appeal of the March 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve the Dry Creek Phase I Minor Subdivision. It is my contention that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the CitVs subdivision code foetid in Article V., Divisions 2, 3, and 4, and the provisions of Ordinance 143, 1995. At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. I explained how the proposed project did not comply with the subdivision code Sections 29-644(c)(3), 29-644(e), 29-656(f), and 29-677. 1 offered comments from agencies or offices that had reviewed the subdivision submittal pursuant to Section 29-642(b)(4). The Board was advised by City staffand the applicant's attor-ney that compliance with Ordinance 143 was not relevant, and the Board chose to not let me address ]row the proposed project fails to conform to the conditions of Ordinance 1,13. It is illy contention that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing ill that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Some examples include: - that the subdivision requirements had been met; - that conditions of Ordinance 143 had been met, - that Corps of Engineers approval had been given; - that city standards did not have to be met for streets; - that staffcomments did not have to be considered. I further contend that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by me specifically relating to staff comments on the subdivision proposal that had not been addressed and conditions of Ordinance 143 that had not been met. Ms. Wanda Krajicek May 5, 1997 Page 2 I am a paity-in-interest for this project. I Dave spoken at all Planning and Zoning Board and City Council hearings where this project has been considered. I am on the mailing list and have received numerous notices of meetings and information relating to this project. Thank you for receiving this amended appeal. Sincerely, Jan Shepard Cottier 317 North US 287 Port Collins, CO 80524 phone: 221-39,53 Transpoi cation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins April 3, 1996 Mr. Don Parsons Parsons & Associates 432 S. Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: International Boulevard Dear Mr. Parsons: City staff has met to discuss the need to construct an International Boulevard from Summitview to Lemay Avenue. Based on the preliminary traffic study that was submitted by Matt Dellich, the following has been determined: 1. Based on the proposed use of approximately 250 mobile homes, International Boulevard does not have to be constructed as a through street. 2. If the proposed use changes, the need for International Boulevard will be re-evaluated. 3. Acceptable bicycle and pedestrian connections from Summitview to the east edge of your development will need to be included as part of your project. These improvements will allow for future extension east of your development. Please call this office at 221-6340 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, 40a-yiede, Group Leader Transportation Operations & Projects GD/gcd xc: Steve Olt, Project Planner 281 North College AvenUe • PO. Box 7,g[) • Fort Collin, CCU fc)7)) 2 1_i,6f); Commu_.tty Planning and Environmenta> >ervices Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: August 15, 1996 TO: Distribution List FROM: Dickson Robin, City Planner Ci A THRU: Joe Frank, Director, Advance Planni i RE: Priority Processing for Qualified Affordable Housing Projects ISSUE: Application for Priority Processing - Dry Creek Mobile Home Project BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: The proposed Dry Creek Mobile Home Park Project has been identified as being eligible for priority processing as outlined in a February 29, 1996 memorandum from the City Manager regarding Priority Processing for Qualified Affordable Housing projects. This project is viewed as an affordable long-term relocation alternative for households displaced from Pioneer Mobile Home Park. Please facilitate priority processing for this project. If you have any questions regarding the Dry Creek project please: call me at (970) 221-6342. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 TDD (970) 224-6002 Commu,. _,y Planning and Environmental - _rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: August 15, 1996 Project: Dry Creek Mobile Home Project From: Steve Olt, Project Planner 6ev To: Greg Byrne, CPES Director Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Manager Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Mike Herzig, Development Review Manager Re: Zonina Conditions as set forth in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 (Classifying for zoning purposes the Property included in the Dry Creek Annexation to the City) Attached are copies of the documentation required by the ordinance to be submitted at time of review of a development proposal and prior to submission of subdivision documents: 1. A Traffic Study: Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Matt Delic:h and dated August 8, 1996. Copies to Greg Byrne, Eric Bracke, Mike Herzig 2. A Wetlands Study: Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Parsons & Associates (no date). Copies to Greg Byrne, Tom Shoemaker, Bob Smith, Mike Herzig 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002 3. A Sketch (Site)/Landscape Plan of the development proposal identifying: Dry Creek Plans containing Site Plan (Option A), Site Plan (Option B), Conceptual Cul-De-Sac Layout, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Dry Creek Enhancement Plan; prepared by Parsons & Associates and dated August 12, 1996. Copies to Greg Byrne, Tom Shoemaker, Bob Smith This documentation was submitted to the Current Planning Department on August 13, 1996. Also attached to this memo are: A copy of Ordinance No. 143, 1995. A copy of a memorandum from Dickson Robin (dated August 15, 1996) stating that this project has been identified as being eligible for priority processing as a Qualified Affordable Housing Project. cc of olt memo (8/15), ordinance (#143, 1995), robin memo (8/15): Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Dickson Robin, Advance Planning/Affordable Housing John Duval, City Attorney's Office Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Dry Creek Project File Comm iity Planning and Environment; ` Iervices c recYdedpaper Natural Resources Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 1996 TO: Steve Olt, Planner FROM: Rob Wilkinson, Environmental Planner le-AJ CC: Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resource Director RE: Dry Creek Mobile Home Park Mitigation Tom and I have reviewed the proposed mitigation, and offer the following comments: 1. In general the intent represented by the submitted plans and report look O.K. Ultimately, however (supposedly now, as revisions), we need a more specific plan which spells out grass mixtures and other proposed vegetation (in other words, we need to review and approve a detailed plan and design, including seed mixtures, etc.). 2. The submitted plans do not address the entrance road design and construction, nor the impacts to wetlands resulting from the construction of that roadway. These need to be submitted for review, and if wetlands are to be disturbed or removed, the mitigation plan needs to also address these impacts. 3. The site plans and mitigation plans need to clearly depict the floodway and 100 year floodplain boundaries. 4. The plans have a line labeled "proposed building setback from Dry Creek". We are not certain what was intended, but we believe changing this wording to "project construction setback" to be more in line with our expectations. In addition, the 100 foot area should be labeled "natural transition area: area to be retained in native vegetation as a natural stream corridor transition and buffer area". We need to be sure we do not imply any approval of a future phase of development with any wording on this portion of the plan. 281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80�;22-0-580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 221-6378 Commu y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins September 3, 1996 Dear Resident: City Council passed and adopted the Dry Creek Annexation and Zoning request on November 21, 1995 (Ordinances No. 142, 1995 and No. 143, 1995), annexing 52.5 acres and placing the property in the MM - Medium Density Mobile Home District. The property is located northeast of the Fort Collins Downtown Airport, south of East Vine Drive, and west of Summit View Drive (see vicinity map). The owner/developer of the property, now known as the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, submitted the following documents to the City's Current Planning Department on August 13, 1996, for development review.- 1 The Traffic Analysis for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Matt Delich (dated August 8, 1996). 2. A Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (no date). 3. The Dry Creek Plans containing Site Plan (Option A) Site Plan (Option BL Conceptual Cul-De-Sac Layout Conceptual Landscape Plan Dry Creek Enhancement Plan; prepared by Parsons & Associates, Inc. (dated August 12, 1996). Section 3 of Ordinance No. 143, 1995 states that the zoning as granted is expressly conditioned upon the following: Section 3.A. Traffic of the ordinance states that a traffic study shall be provided which will examine access to the development, trip generation of the development, distribution of traffic generated, and level of service analysis. The study will be reviewed against All Development Criteria A-2.1, A-2.5, and A-3.2 of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) for Planned Unit Developments and no development application shall be approved unless the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services (CPES), in consultation with the City's traffic engineer, determines that the development conforms to said criteria. The traffic study will be provided to the City by the developer prior to submission of subdivision documents for review. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002