Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 33-01D1 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)2. Site Planning: The County provides, and the promotional report cites, Bonus Density based on open space, environmental sensitivity, and multi -modal circulation connections, all presumably with efficiency as the desired result. The following comments are to improve the progress toward that result. See the notes marked on the enclosed plan. A. Circulation. Parts of the plan as submitted have disconnections and excessive distances in the street and circulation layout, with blocks of 1,000-2,000 feet between connections. Suggested linkages are shown. B. Open Space and Habitat. Much of the common open space is in leftover back yard and perimeter areas that will apparently function more as private back yards than as common open space or environmental enhancement. This space should not be cited as rationale for public support for the development or its density. Similarly, cohesive architectural elements are a laudable consideration of the report, but it appears that a real estate marketing theme may be confused with enhancing the high plains ecosystem. (Bottom of p. 5,top of p. 6 of the report). Under Community Planning Objectives, (p. 6 of the applicant's report) an objective could be added to shift development, not just density, out of sensitive areas and into areas that are more suitable for development. Lower density development with manicured lawns, dogs, grills, etc. is not clearly better for the inhabitants of a sensitive area than denser, more compact development which is simply further away. The most significant sensitive area is clearly the reservoir. We acknowledge that the ecological functions of its edge are under study by others with the objective of quantifying just what is needed for wildlife. But in any case, good urban design principles are in concert with conservation principles, suggesting more consolidated open space to leave more significant, larger and connected habitat areas for wildlife. The plan has positive features that are responsive to community design purposes, notably the center and the mix of housing types. It appears that further refinement can reduce disconnections and land consumption, improve the multi -modal circulation system, and protect more of the high plains ecosystem that is indicative of the region. DATE: July 15, 1997 TO: Project Planner and Applicants FM: Clark Mapes, City Advance Planning Department RE: Fossil Lake Non -Contiguous PUD 1. Additional background regarding the density: The transfer of 200 dwelling units off of the property in the critical zone is not clearly consistent with the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. I do not know the land parcel in detail, but I generally understand that it is part of a low-lying complex of ponds, wetlands, and ditches, in the broad flat area that separates the Poudre and St. Vrain watersheds, and it is right in the airport critical zone. Based on these factors, plus the fact that this vicinity does not have relatively wide open scenic values of lands further west, the implementation techniques listed in the table for Subarea 18 DID NOT INCLUDE TRANSFER OF THE FULL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. The promotional report accompanying the development proposal refers to the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE APPLICABLE EXCERPT FROM SUBAREA 18 (p. 31). I believe the proposal is reasonable as presented, but to be fair as evaluation of the proposal continues, thismissing information should be kept in mind, and approval should not be based on consistency with the Plan without noting this inconsistency. To effectively serve the public purposes, the transferred "development rights" must be based on the development potential of land. The whole concept collapses if a developer can select undesirable land that probably wouldn't or shouldn't develop anyway, calculate units based on zoning, and then send the full development rights to a desirable location. It is impossible for me to comment on whether this is the case with this proposal, given the vagueness in the AP zone. I acknowledge that the developer has explained the rationale behind the proposed density well. I do not see any good purpose in reducing the density. The possible improvement would be to shift development off of more land or more threatened land.