Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Town of Timnath Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 AT 6:00 p.m.
Meeting will be held at the Timnath Administration Building, 4800 Goodman Street, Timnath, Colorado
1. REGULAR MEETING Call to Order
a. Roll Call Chairperson Philip Goldstein
Vice Chairperson Scott Taylor Commissioner Kristen Seidel Commissioner Scott Roys
Commissioner Dick Weiderspon Alternate Kristie Raymond Leave of Absence Donald Risden
2. Amendments to the Agenda
3. Administrative
a. Overview of meeting rules of order b. Determination of Alternate voting (if necessary)
4. Public Comments
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. Business and Discussion Items a. Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Revised Sketch Plan, Public Hearing b. Timnath Community Park Public Hearing c. Weitzel Access Discussion
7. Reports (if available)
a. Commissioner Reports b. Town Manager c. Town Planner d. Town Engineer
8. Adjournment
Town of Timnath Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2014 AT 6:00 p.m.
Meeting will be held at the Timnath Administration Building, 4800 Goodman Street, Timnath, Colorado
1. Call to Order Chairperson Goldstein called to order the meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 7, 2014, at 6:00 p.m.
Present
Chairperson Philip Goldstein Vice-Chairperson Scott Taylor Commissioner Dick Weiderspon Commissioner Kristen Seidel Alternate Kristie Raymond
Others in attendance April Getchius, Town Manager Matt Blakely, Town Planner Brian Williamson, Town Planner Don Taranto, Public Works Director Steve Humann, Town Engineer Robert Rogers, Town Attorney Jesse McDowell, Resource Land Holdings Mark Goldstein, Resource Land Holdings Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Mark Siffring, Timnath RE Cathy Mathis, The Birdsall Group Andy Reese, Northern Engineering Bill Neil, Timnath Town Council Brian Voronin, Timnath Town Council Tamie Baggett Deborah Cape Cheri Nichols Steve Pachero Steve Olt John Baker Pam Branham Barb Farrell Beth Biehl Carol Fulkrod
Jason Legg Richard Dunn Darrell Hoyer Donna Webb Pat Webb Don Simpson Kathy Simpson Debi Bade Don Bade Brandon Roeder Donna Grush William Grush Carolyn Hee-Lendway Jim Hebbeln Sandy Edwards Zickrick Raymond Wright John Kiefer Jesslyn Dennis Gary Kephard Mike McSherry
Absent Commissioner Scott Roys Alternate Donald Risden (Leave of Absence)
2. Amendments to the Agenda a. Addition of 3c – Planning Commission purview and authority. b. Chairperson Goldstein stated the need for a protocol and decorum for the
meeting, and referred to the Rules for Public Meetings information.
3. Administrative a. Overview of meeting rules of order b. Determination of Alternate voting
i. Kristie Raymond to vote in place of Scott Roys c. Planning Commission purview and authority
i. Chairperson Goldstein stated that the Planning Commission can only act in an unbiased way in the interpretation of the Land Use Code and, at times, the Comprehensive Plan.
ii. He stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body and does not make final decision on most applications.
iii. Chairperson Goldstein also stated they are not elected and have no constituency.
4. Public Comments None
5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of the August 5, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Weiderspon moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Commissioner Seidel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
6. Business and Discussion Items
a. Freddy’s Frozen Custard and Steakburgers Restaurant Site Plan i. Town Planner Matt Blakely introduced the applicant (Mark Siffring) and
development team. He also provided application information including site location, parcel acreage, building square footage, zoning, owner, and applicant. He stated that staff comments have been addressed and that only minor technical comments remain. He also stated the existence of a PD Overlay for development, which adds zoning criteria.
ii. Cathy Mathis, with the Birsdall Group, presented project information such as landscaping, parking layout, and other specifics. She also demonstrated perspective views of the building demonstrating architecture.
iii. Town Planner Matt Blakely stated that the application was processed and reviewed as a site plan application. He stated all major criteria are addressed and that the site plan be approved with the condition that the applicant be allowed to continue to work with the applicant to resolve minor technical issues prior to issuance of the building permit.
iv. Commissioner Taylor asked what technical comments were remaining. Mr Blakely stated that they are minor items such as signature blocks and dimensions within the plan set, and nothing that would affect the general design and layout of the site.
v. Commissioner Seidel asked for a bit more information on the PD Overlay. Mr Blakely stated that the PD Overlay amends the criteria for the underlying C-2 zoning, such as open space, setbacks, and landscape requirements. He stated that the PD Overlay adds criteria, but does not reduce them. He also stated the PD Overlay application was approved with the Costco development, as part of the annexation and rezoning of the Gateway Timnath South Subdivision.
vi. Chairperson Goldstein asked if there would be additional public input opportunities. Mr Blakely stated that that the rest of the process is done administratively, per code.
Commissioner Seidel moved to approve the Freddy’s Site Plan as presented. Commissioner Weiderspon seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (5-0) by voice vote.
b. Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan, Public Hearing
i. Chairperson Goldstein and Commissioner Taylor requested all those wishing to speak sign in on the provided sign in sheets. He then turned it over to the Town Planner.
ii. Mr. Blakely provided application background information, such as density, lot sizes, and location. He also stated that a Public Meeting was held on August 5, per code, to get public and Planning Commission feedback.
iii. Mr. Blakely covered the review approach for Sketch Plans, which includes conformance to the Comprehensive plan, PROST Plan, and zoning code.
iv. He provided annexation, zoning, and initial concept plan specifics for the initial application. He also stated the apparent conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, which states very low density residential for the parcel. Mr. Blakely then stated the approved zoning is R-2, which allows for higher density, and that the Comprehensive Plan is a guiding document, but the Land Use Code is a legal document. He also stated that the proposals are reviewed against other requirements outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and other quantitative criteria,
but also qualitative criteria such as proximity to existing homes, spatial relationships, buffering, etc. He then turned the presentation over to the applicant and owner.
v. Mark Goldstein, Serratoga Falls LLC, stated property acquisition specifics and other background information. He also stated there were numerous existing issues with the property, such as degraded landscaping, general infrastructure problems, and unresolved conflicts with Town of Timnath. Mr. Goldstein also stated that several neighborhood meetings have been held to solicit neighborhood input and to refine the sketch Plan concept.
vi. Jim Birdsall, the Birdsall Group, stated that the applicant team has been refining the concept to consider input from the Planning Commission Public Meeting and neighborhood meetings. This includes a diverse product, access to Kitchel Reservoir, a complex trail network, and sensitivity to the existing 1st filing lots. He discussed how they comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sketch Plan criteria. Mr. Birdsall stated that they have held several meetings outside of the requirements to solicit input in order to revise the concept.
vii. Mr. Birdsall then presented the proposal, including the number of lots, the constraints of the site, and the 1st filing lots. He also stated internal trails were added throughout the project. The plan shows both internal and PROST/regional trails.
viii. Mr. Birdsall addressed traffic concerns, and stated that traffic calming and other mechanisms for traffic and speed control have been included in the design of the site.
ix. Mr. Birdsall described the amenities of the project and the lot size diversity. He also presented graphics demonstrating the variety of lot sizes distributed across the development. Mr Birdsall described the park amenities included in the design of the development, and the parks include passive and active recreation, as well as a variety of shelters, gardens, pool, clubhouse, amphitheater, etc.
x. Mr Birdsall then talked about the classification of Prospect Road and how the street classification affects the site design. The road was re-classified as a 2-lane major arterial, which provided flexibility in the design. This allows for more open space and a better site layout.
xi. Jesse McDowell, Serratoga Falls LLC, further discussed the history of the project. He talked about the number of lots they have sold over the past two years, which included a total of 12 lots. He also discussed the Comprehensive Plan goals as a driving factor in the types of housing needed for the Town. Mr McDowell spoke about the development of agricultural land and how they researched the site and context of the development to arrive at the concept. He also stated they own 14 of the 22 shares for Kitchel Reservoir. Mr McDowell mentioned they are considerably over open space requirements at approximately 40%. He also mentioned that Kitchel Reservoir is an amenity and will remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Lastly, Mr McDowell discussed the zoning of the property (R-2) and what types of densities and housing are allowed, which would allow up to 4 units per acre. They are currently under 1.82 units/acre.
xii. Chairperson Goldstein asked if there was any other information to be presented. Town Planner Matt Blakely stated there was a number of residents who provided input and provided a list to Planning Commission. This includes Jan Gress, Gina Kim, Gary Kephart, Fritz Knopf, Mayo Sommermeyer, Steve Olt, Greg and Beth Biehl, Angela Diodoti, Jesslyn Dennis, Lyn Stevens, and Nancy Greenlee. He also stated Carol Fulkrod left a voicemail regarding concerns with the ditch supply. Mr. Blakely also mentioned the referral review and comments for the
Sketch Plan, and that they were of a minor nature and have been satisfied. He also stated that the Sketch Plan has met all town and referral review criteria. Mr. Blakely discussed the Sketch Plan Review Criteria and that they feel the plan as presented has satisfied the criteria. He stated staff recommends approval of the Sketch Plan, with conditions as presented in the staff report.
xiii. Town Manager April Getchius added that there was additional supplemental information for the Planning Commission and wanted to verify that those were provided.
xiv. Chairperson Goldstein opened the floor to public comment. Vice Chairperson Scott Taylor asked if there was anyone who would like to speak who was not already listed.
xv. Carol Fulkrod, 15205 CR 3, stated concerns over the density of the plan and how it relates to her property. She stated traffic concerns and irrigation water concerns. She also stated concerns for the access of the park along Prospect and parking concerns.
xvi. Richard Dunn,5021 Kitchell Way, stated concerns over the density of the proposal as it relates to small-town rural character. He also stated traffic concerns for County Road 5 and Prospect.
xvii. Don Taranto, Public Works Director, stated that a traffic study has been provided for the development. He stated improvements are required prior to homes being built. He stated the approach is proactive with relation to traffic.
xviii. Darrell Hoyer, 800 Skipping Stone Ct, stated he feels that the initial proposal is not being honored with the high density of the new proposal. He also stated that the housing supply proposed is plentiful in the region.
xix. William Grush, 1120 Terrace View St, stated concerns over the conflict in the Comprehensive Plan and approved zoning for the property. He stated he feels that the proposal does not coincide with the values of the Town and the rural character. He also stated he feels the density is too high for the area and higher than that allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grush indicated this impact will carry over to Old Town as well as the immediate area. He stated appreciation for the development teams’ willingness to work and refine the proposal.
xx. Carolyn Hess-Lendway, Lot 4 Terrace View, questioned the open space calculations. She expressed dissatisfaction over the higher density and less-rural presentation of the proposal. She stated the proposal is tract housing. She also stated concerns over the traffic and population increase. She then asked if the three minute limitation applied if there is a spokesperson for a group. Chairperson Goldstein stated they will allot additional time if there is a spokesperson.
xxi. Cheri Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire Dr, stated concerns over the traffic. She stated that the Planning Commission should consider input from adjacent residents and not only Town residents. She stated that the Prospect/I-25 interchange is rated as functionally obsolete by CDOT, and that the proposal would make that status worse. Ms. Nichols stated concerns over safety related to traffic.
xxii. Steve Olt, 605 Boulder Circle, stated concerns over the density and number of houses. He expressed concerns over the preservation of the rural character of the area. He also discussed building massing, structure height, and the visual appearance of the housing. He mentioned building articulation as important to the development. He also expressed concerns over the night sky and light pollution. Mr. Olt also stated concerns over the traffic impacts of the proposal.
xxiii. John Baker, stated he works with applicant as a real estate broker. He stated he feels the plan is well modeled and well-planned, and less dense that what the zoning will allow.
xxiv. Jesslyn Dennis, 884 Signal Ct, presented a letter on behalf of the residents. Opposition points include increased density, housing types and styles, Comprehensive Plan conflicts, traffic, school capacity, and open space. She also stated there is concern over degradation of the rural character of the existing area.
xxv. Jim Hebbeln, 1647 Enchantment Dr, expressed concerns over traffic. He is the acting treasurer of the Timnath Meadows HOA and that they have concerns over traffic as well.
xxvi. Raymond Wright, 5250 4th Ave, reiterated concerns over the plan he had at the Public Meeting. He stated support over the communication and feels it is beneficial.
xxvii. John Kiefer, 2842 Legby Rd, Roxbury NC, stated concerns over the traffic impacts of the proposal. He also stated concern over the watershed and irrigation, as well as safety and trespassing concerns.
xxviii. Tamie Baggett, 942 Hawkshead St, stated concerns over conformance with the previously approved proposal. This includes approved covenants, density, median lot size, the number of builders, phasing of the project, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if there had been an environmental impact report, and a school resources assessment. She indicated in talking with someone at the Poudre School District that the schools are currently over capacity.
xxix. Chairperson Goldstein then closed public comment at 7:36 PM and thanked everyone for their input. He opened up the floor to Commissioner and Staff comments.
xxx. Commissioner Seidel asked a question about the lot sizes in relation to the color coded exhibit provided. Jim Birdsall provided a breakdown of the lot sizes, percentages, and overall lot distribution. She also asked how these sizes relate to the first filing. Mr. Birdsall stated that approximately 67% of the proposed lot sizes are similar in size to the existing first filing lots.
xxxi. Alternate Raymond asked what the long-term plan for the lots east of the ditch was. The applicant indicated that the Sketch Plan will set the requirements for the future filings and platting process.
xxxii. Commissioner Seidel asked staff how this project compares to other projects with regard to density. Town Planner Matt Blakely stated that staff has not run the analysis, but did have numbers on some development. He stated the recently approved Brunner Farm Subdivision has similar size lots. Commissioner Seidel expanded on the Sketch Plan criteria requirement for housing diversity and requested clarification that the proposal satisfies this requirement. Mr. Blakely also stated that Harmony, Timnath South, and other subdivisions had similar lot size configurations.
xxxiii. Mr. Birdsall expanded on the lot size distribution and open space of the Sketch Plan. He provided lot densities for local and regional developments. He also discussed the range of price points for Serratoga Falls Filing 2 of between $300,000 to $1,000,000 per home of these developments based on the exhibit presented.
xxxiv. Alternate Raymond stated her question was answered. Mr. Birdsall stated there is a lot of diversity throughout the community and that this plan contributes to furthering those goals.
xxxv. Vice Chairperson Taylor requested clarification for the apparent discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and the underlying zoning for the parcel. Robert Rogers, Town Attorney, stated that the Comprehensive plan is subordinate to the zoning code. The zoning designation of R-2 was previously approved in 2005.
xxxvi. Chairperson Goldstein asked for clarification on the conflict. He asked how common these discrepancies are. Mr. Rogers stated that the conflict would often be resolved prior to approval of the zoning for the parcel. He also noted that the conflict is considered a minor conflict and would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If a substantial conflict occurs, an amendment is required. Chairperson Goldstein followed up with a question regarding real estates purchases adjacent to undeveloped parcels, and the inherent perceived risks of such purchases. Mr. Rogers stated that zoning entitlements are recorded when a property is closed on. He states that this conveys the encumbrances and risks associated with the purchase of a property.
xxxvii. Commissioner Seidel asked a question regarding the environmental impact of the proposal. She asked if in the staff review resolved any conflicts, particularly with water rights and other issues. Mr. Blakely stated the applicant provided a report stated the wetlands are non-jurisdictional and small in size. He also stated the code allows removal and mitigation of such wetlands. Regarding water rights, Mr. Blakely stated that the adjacent owners hold rights to water conveyance through the property, and that those rights must be preserved. He stated the ownership group is working with those property owners to resolve these issues.
xxxviii. Vice Chairperson Taylor expanded on this question by seeking clarification on the water rights. Public Works Director Don Taranto stated that there will be further discussion with the Preliminary and Final Plat and that approval will be contingent upon those rights being preserved.
xxxix. Vice Chairperson Scott Taylor asked a question regarding the first filing zoning and density. Mr. Blakely stated the density for the first filing does exceed one (1) unit per acre.
xl. Mr. Blakely stated that several questions remain unresolved. He stated that the requirement for a block diversity plan and 7’ side yard setbacks will help alleviate building massing, as well as color, building articulation, orientation, and other factors. He stated that all builders would be subject to these requirements.
xli. Mr. Blakely also stated that the Town meets regularly with the school district to ensure that growth is managed within the schools. He stated that they are aware of the ebbs and flows of capacity and have accounted for anticipated Timnath developments.
xlii. Mr. Blakely also stated that lighting requirements will need to conform with Town code, which requires full cutoff fixtures which help alleviate any light pollution, but that also more housing will result in more light.
xliii. Regarding traffic, Mr. Blakely stated that the traffic is being reviewed throughout the process, and that the infrastructure will be sized accordingly. Public Works director Taranto stated that there will be increased traffic, but that the appropriate mechanisms will be provided to ensure proper traffic flow. Mr. Blakely stated that Prospect Road will be able to hold traffic volumes at a classification of a two-lane arterial.
xliv. Town Engineer Steve Humann stated that an in-depth review will occur at the subsequent preliminary and final plat proposals. He also stated that traffic is projected out 20 years. Mr. Humann stated that the traffic on the roads adjacent
to the development is generated regionally and not just by local residents. He added that roads are improved with development to accommodate anticipated traffic for approximately 20 years into the future.
xlv. Chairperson Goldstein asked about the sizes of the roads. Mr. Humann provided information on the lane layout and anticipated sizing.
xlvi. Chairperson Goldstein reiterated the roles of the commissioners to consider conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. He also stated that they are a recommending body.
xlvii. Mr. Blakely expanded on the process for recommendation to Town Council. He said that they can recommend denial, approval, or approval with conditions, to Town Council. He said that Town Council will take action on the proposal at the scheduled meeting. Approval would result in subsequent submittals, such as the Preliminary Plat. A denial by Town Council would result in the applicant needing to redesign the proposal and a possible appeal by the applicant. He also stated that further public input can be provided at the Town Council Hearing as it is a public hearing, but that their action is the final action on the proposal.
xlviii. Commissioner Seidel stated that she is not convinced that the Sketch Plan criteria is met, and that the previous plan coincided with the Comprehensive Plan, but that the proposal does not. She also stated an obligation to preserve the small-town rural character of the Town of Timnath and diversity of housing supply. She also stated that the desire or need for the development in the community, Sketch Plan criteria #5, is not met. She stated the lot sizes are not different in size from other proposals and does not satisfy the Sketch Plan Criteria. She stated she is voting against the proposal.
xlix. Chairperson Goldstein stated that he understands the position of the applicant and the inherent risks of real estate purchases, and that the commission must objectively act on the proposal as presented.
Commissioner Seidel moved to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan proposal as outlined in the staff report. Alternate Raymond seconded the motion. The motion was denied (3-2) by voice vote, with Chairperson Goldstein and Commissioner Weiderspon voting for.
l. Town Manager Getchius clarified that the intent was to be a recommendation of denial to the Timnath Town Council.
7. Reports (if available)
a. Commissioner Reports b. Town Planner
i. Mr. Blakely presented the monthly Community Development Staff Report and Building Statistics.
c. Town Engineer d. Town Manager – the Town Manager distributed portfolios to the Planning Commission.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Seidel moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Raymond seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (5-0) by voice vote.
Chairperson Goldstein adjourned the October 7, 2014, Planning Commission meeting at 8:16 p.m. TOWN OF TIMNATH
PLANNING COMMISSION ___________________________________ Philip Goldstein, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Brian Williamson
SERRATOGA FALLS OCTOBER 2014
LOT SUMMARY:
WEST OF DITCH 292
EAST OF DITCH 304
TOTAL LOTS 596
PROJECT OVERALL ACREAGE 328.33 ACRES
OVERALL SKETCH PLAN DENSITY 1.82 UNITS/ACRE
0 100 200 400 FEET
DEADMAN LAKE
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE
LAR
IME
R C
OU
NTY
RO
AD
3
PARK
FUTURE COMMERCIAL
PROSPECT ROAD
PARK
TRAFFICCALMING
PARK
1ST FILING
CLUBHOUSE/PARK
KITCHEL LAKE
LAR
IME
R C
OU
NTY
RO
AD
5
NORTH
LARIMER AND WELD CANAL
COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY TRACT MAY BE PROPOSED WITH FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
BERM
BERM
PROSPECT ROAD
FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE SUMMARY:
WEST OF DITCH 34.7 ACRES
EAST OF DITCH 53.7 ACRES
TOTAL 92.0 ACRES
(28% OF SITE IS FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE)
OVERALL MASTER PLAN
SERRATOGA FALLS OCTOBER 2014
LOT SUMMARY:
WEST OF DITCH 292
EAST OF DITCH 304
TOTAL LOTS 596
PROJECT OVERALL ACREAGE 328.33 ACRES
OVERALL SKETCH PLAN DENSITY 1.82 UNITS/ACRE
0 100 200 400 FEET
DEADMAN LAKE
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE
LAR
IME
R C
OU
NTY
RO
AD
3
PARK
FUTURE COMMERCIAL
PROSPECT ROAD
PARK
TRAFFICCALMING
PARK
1ST FILING
CLUBHOUSE/PARK
KITCHEL LAKE
LAR
IME
R C
OU
NTY
RO
AD
5
NORTH
LARIMER AND WELD CANAL
COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY TRACT MAY BE PROPOSED
WITH FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
BERM
BERM
PROSPECT ROAD
FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE SUMMARY:
WEST OF DITCH 34.7 ACRES
EAST OF DITCH 53.7 ACRES
TOTAL 92.0 ACRES
(28% OF SITE IS FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE)
OVERALL MASTER PLAN
08-21-2014
EXISTING
PON
D
PEDESTR
IAN
CR
OSSIN
G
DR
OU
GH
T TOLER
AN
TTU
RF B
LEND
TUR
F
BO
CC
E
CO
MM
UN
ITYG
AR
DEN
BER
M
TUR
F
TUR
F
TUR
F(150’X350’)
STOR
MIN
LET
STOR
MO
UTLET
050
100200 FEET
PLAYA
REA
(YOU
NG
ER)
PLAYA
REA
(OLD
ER)
OR
CH
AR
D
PICN
IC G
LAD
E
SHELTER
DO
CK
AN
D
SHELTER
BO
AR
DW
ALK
PICN
ICSTATIO
N
NATU
RA
LSEATIN
G
AR
EA
SE
RR
ATO
GA
|CE
NTR
AL C
OM
MU
NITY PA
RK
08-21-2014S
ER
RA
TOG
A|C
OM
MU
NITY B
EA
CH
PAR
K
GR
EAT LAWN
POO
LC
AB
AN
A
CO
NC
ESSION
S
SPATER
RA
CE
TERR
AC
E
MEA
DO
WPLA
NTIN
G
OR
CH
AR
DPLA
NTIN
G
PAR
KIN
G (20 C
AR
S)
DR
OPO
FF
OPENA
IRSTR
UC
TUR
E
POO
L
MA
RIN
A
FISHIN
G PIER
OPEN
SHELTER
WATER TRAIL
FLOATIN
G D
OC
K
BEA
CH
SHELTER
AM
D B
BQ
BO
NFIR
E CIR
CLE
TRELLIS
TRELLIS
KID
S POO
L
AM
PITHEATER
050
100200 FEET
08-21-2014S
ER
RA
TOG
A|C
OM
MU
NITY N
ATUR
E PA
RK
PLAYA
REA
(OLD
ER)
NATU
RA
L HIG
H
WATER
ZON
E
NATU
RA
L HIG
H
WATER
ZON
E
WATER
TRA
IL
FISHIN
GPIER
SHELTER
PICN
ICSTATIO
N
TUR
FG
RO
VE
TUR
FG
RO
VE
NATU
RA
LSEED
ED
NATU
RA
LSEED
EDTU
RF
GR
OVE
PICN
ICSTATIO
N
PICN
ICSTATIO
N
TRA
IL CO
NTIN
UES
TRA
IL CO
NTIN
UES
PON
D
050
100200 FEET
Serratoga Falls Density and Open Space Comparison
Sketch Plan 2nd Filing Future Filings 1st Filing
Acres 328.33 ac. 151.6 ac. 176.7 ac.* 57.8 ac.
Lots 596 292 304 83
Density 1.82 d.u. /ac. 1.93 d.u./ac. 1.72 d.u./ac. 1.44 d.u./ac.
Smallest Lot 6,050 sq. ft. *** 9,256 sq. ft.
Largest Lot 16,021 sq. ft. 23,408 sq. ft.
Average Lot Size 9,277 sq. ft. 8,250 8,800 sq. ft.** 11,966 sq. ft.
Functional Open Space 92.0 ac.(28%) 34.7 ac. (23%) 57.3 ac. (31%)
Total Open Space 132.8 ac. (40%) 53.2 ac. (35%) 75.5 ac. (41%) 16.7 ac. (29%)
Open Space with Kitchell 186.1 ac. (57%)
* Acreage includes Tract Q of 2nd Filing plus existing Prospect Road right of way and Tract E of the 1st Filing (Deadman Lake)
** Approximate average per Sketch Plan
***1 lot is 6,050 sq. ft. 28 lots are less than 7,000 sq. ft. All other lots are larger
Serratoga Falls Density Comparison
Community
UnitsPerAcre Acres
TotalUnits Price Point Product
Harmony Club 0.80 640 515 $600,000 $2,000,000+ Estate
Wild Wing 1.00 300 300 $400,000 $2,000,000+ Estate
Serratoga Falls Filing 1 1.44 58 83 $450,000 $1,000,000+ Estate
Serratoga Falls Sketch Plan 1.82 328 596 $300,000 $1,000,000+ Single Family and Estate
Water Valley 2.00 1500 3000 $180,000 $2,000,000+ Condo, Town home, Single Family, Estate
Timnath Ranch South 2.10 281 590 $225,000 $650,000 Single Family
Timnath Landing 2.24 490 1100 TBD Townhome, Patio, Single Family, Estate
Kechter Crossing 2.57 29 74 $400,000 $650,000 Single Family
Timnath Ranch North 2.76 200 551 $300,000 $500,000 Alley Load, Single Family
Lakes at Centerra 3.45 192 663 $275,000 $1,000,000+ Townhome, Patio, Single Family, Estate
McClelland's Creek 4.65 30 138 $375,000 $650,000 Single Family
Phone: (970) 224-3211 FAX: (970) 224-3217 www.TimnathGov.com 4800 Goodman St. Timnath, CO 80547
MEMORANDUM Date: 10.07.2014 RE: Resident Emails regarding Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan The following represents the resident input staff received on the Sketch Plan proposal. The following items are informational for applicant consideration: Hello Mr. Blakely, Mayor Grossman-Belisle, Mr. Voronin, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Steinway. I apologize that I inadvertently sent an email a few minutes ago that was not finished, so please disregard that email from me if you received it. This is the finished version. I am a resident of Serratoga Falls subdivision and am extremely worried about the future of our neighborhood. A lot of people will be writing to you about the traffic, safety, and school capacity concerns with the prospect of a high density development being built at our location. I am very concerned about these issues as well. However, I want to emphasize other issues that are of extreme importance to me and my husband. People move to Timnath for the open space. That was a big reason we bought our home last year in Serratoga Falls. We bought into the original plan for Serratoga Falls, not this one. The original plan included 363 lots that all backed to open space. It is such a beautiful and unique layout, I truly believed that there would be no reason to diverge from it appreciably, if at all, and to do so would even be unwise. I was truly not worried about the layout changing because it just didn't make sense to change it. There is no other community in the area that has every lot backing to open space. What they are proposing would turn Serratoga Falls into every other high density community around. That is not what we want. We originally looked only in Fort Collins for a new home. It took us 3 years to find our current home because there simply wasn't this type of community in Fort Collins. The current proposed layout for the subdivision would increase the number of lots behind our home than originally planned. It even increases the number of lots behind our home than the last layout recently presented. This will affect our property value negatively. Behind our home, there was to be open space with a lot to either side, both catecorner to our lot rather than directly behind our lot. One of the deciding factors in buying our home was the lot location. It was to have such a wide open space to the side as well as behind us. The proposed layout takes that away from us. In the proposed layout, the lots around the reservoir that were to be the estate lots would not be as desirable since they no longer extend to the water. Control of the vegetation, views, and activity behind those lots would be out of the lot owners' hands. Less desirable waterfront lots means lower values. Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that whoever drew up this version of the proposed layout put a lot of green in the picture, perhaps to trick the eye into the appearance of open space by coloring the proposed lots green and adding a green dot in front of each lot. I assume these green dots are to represent a bush or tree, however they could not be placed as such right in the middle of the entrance to each lot off of the street. The people who care about this neighborhood and the Town of Timnath are the people who live here, not the owners of this subdivision. Our impression is that the owners of Serratoga Falls became the
Page 2 of 9
owners of Serratoga Falls because they seized an opportunity to make a lot of money. This company is not usually in the business of developing homes, let alone communities. Timnath has enough high density subdivisions. So does Fort Collins. Low density makes this area desirable. Thank you so much for your consideration and time. Sincerely, Gina Kim, M.D. Sent from my iPhone
Dear Matt, I am a resident in the Jackson Heights subdivision just north of Serratoga Falls. I am aware of the new proposal for building on land adjacent to Serratoga Falls and am concerned about the extreme density of this proposal. It is no surprise that a developer would want to maximize the number of homes that could be built on such acreage, but it does surprise me that anyone currently living in Timnath and in this region of Colorado would favor such an expansion to the originally proposed plans for Serratoga Falls. The impact on existing homeowners in this area would be negatively impacted on many levels. Most folks who chose to live on the east side of I-25 wanted the location for its openness and reduced traffic. A densely constructed housing development would distastefully negate our desires to be away from a more urban area and would be a direct deviation from the original plans for Serratoga a Falls that enticed people to locate there. In addition to the loss of rural space, my concerns are also centered around wanting to be environmentally responsible for our area and state. We live in a semi arid region. This means our water availability is never guaranteed. How can a conscientious planner not take this into account? Wanting to bring people to our area is understandable, but at what cost? In addition to concerns about our limited resources, the building of such a densely populated subdivision would create a huge increase in waste and contribute to an already difficult issue of how we handle waste and still remain environmentally responsible. More houses mean more cars, traffic and auto emissions in our community. Air pollution is another concern for our area and state. It stands to reason that auto traffic will rise on our neighborhood streets. Since there currently is not a safe route for bicyclists to go from east of I-25 to the west side, the traffic increase will negatively affect an already unsafe commute for bicyclists. The traffic increase will tax the limited infrastructure that is currently in place in this area. Driving accidents will likely increase and traffic snarls will ensue. The views we once enjoyed from our windows have already been changed, from open space and cattle grazing in the fields, to roof tops from homes in Serratoga Falls. We accepted the original development reluctantly at first, but are appreciative of the quality of the homes that are nearby. The original plans for Serratoga Falls preserved the charm and the beauty of this area by incorporating green space and custom built homes. The new proposal is an extreme deviation of that plan and would most likely devalue the homes that are already in the area, as well as have a negative environmental impact. Thank you for reading this letter of concern. I do believe I speak for many concerned citizens in this area on this subject. Sincerely, Jan Gress Council Members of the Town of Timnath,
Page 3 of 9
I am a resident of Serratoga Falls and I have many concerns about the possible further development of our neighborhood with a high density proposal. I am a mother of a school age child and am becoming increasingly concerned about the impact such a development would have on the current state of our already over-stressed school populations. My research is not complete, but these are some key facts I have thus far uncovered: -PSD updates Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan every 7-10 yr. -There is no immediate plan. A committee is being set up now. The plan could take up to 2 years complete for recommendations. -Long range planning process includes: -Larimer county Demographics -School capacity needs/data -Facility Construction, Renovation, Additions -Real estate available -Intergovernmental agreements -Capital construction agreements -School Boundaries -The current Facilities Master plan Update Includes: -Demographic study -School capacity study -Community engagement regarding changes to the Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan -Final recommendation to the Superintendent And Board of Education -The Schools that the Students from the town of Timanth are currently zoned for are at or over capacity. They are full and many are using portable classrooms to help accommodate their bursting seems. - Students from the Town of Timnath at the middle school and high school grade levels must be bused into Fort Collins schools. There is at least a 30-45 minute bus ride, with school age children ages 11 to 18 riding the same bus. If a parent chooses to drive their child to school they will further impact the traffic problem at peak traffic times. Busing all these students will further burden the roads and finances of the PSD. - There are no middle schools or high schools East of I-25 in the PSD. - The two elementary schools are at capacity. Bethke elementary already uses two portable classrooms and the school was just opened in fall 2008. -Fossil Ridge High School is over capacity, no longer accepting school of choice students. -Preston Middle School Has 1115 students with three portable classrooms. -Kinnared Middle School is a school of choice that is at capacity with 810 students, they are not accepting anymore students. - Lesher Junior High School would be the next closest middle school. It is over capacity with several teachers working out of carts. - The Second closest High School Fort Collins High School is also at capacity.
Page 4 of 9
-Both Fort Collins High School and Lesher Junior High are already bursting at the seems trying to accommodate the new high density neighborhoods at Timberline and Drake. -Traut Core Knowledge Elementary School is the next closest elementary school and is at capacity with a long waiting list. As we see the Town of Timnath grow, I feel it is important to ensure that the schools capacity to educate and nurture our children at the current high level is maintained. When our family moved here just over a year ago one of the factors in our decision to make our home in the Town of Timnath was the excellent reputation the Poudre School District has. This is one very important fact that drew us to your community. Before moving here, I used greatschools.org to help determine which neighborhoods to look for homes. At that time the schools zoned for the Town of Timnath rated 8-10, on a 0-10 scale. This is a very important feature that many families consider when they move to a community. As the Town of Timnath grows this must be considered with high importance into the planning process. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns regarding the proposal of a high density neighborhood and how it will impact the current schools' capacities. Jesslyn Dennis 884 Signal Ct. Timnath Co 80547 Hello Matt, I am a resident at Serratoga Falls, and am writing you to voice my deep concerns with the proposal to significantly increase the density of homes in Serratoga. When my wife and I purchased our lot and built our home, we were happy to leave a neighborhood that consisted of high density and all the traffic that came with it. This new proposal is my fear that Serratoga will just be another housing development to see how many houses you cram in. The original plan of 363 will be doubled to 713 homes. The Timnath Comprehensive Plan of 2013 has Serratoga Falls classified as Very Low Density Residential stated as: "This is the lowest residential density that occurs within the Town limits. Intended for single family estate size lots, smaller lots could occur if developed as part of a large master planned development under a Planned Development overlay. Residential densities are equal to or less than one dwelling unit per acre." Therefore, the proposed development is in direct contradiction to the Town's vision for Serratoga Falls. The character of Serratoga Falls will be destroyed due to the replacement of quality green space with rows of homes that back up to each other. The original proposed density prior to the RLH purchase was 0.87 homes per acre. RLH is proposing to increase that density to 1.62 homes per acre which is double over what we bought into and what RLH knew they were purchasing in 2012. Serratogo Falls and Timnath is where I want to live and raise my children to give them the “ small town feel”. I hope that the Town will protect what me and my neighbors bought into the vision that was sold to us, and not houses on top of each other. Thank you, Gary Kephart 873 Signal CT
Page 5 of 9
Timnath Co 80547 October 6, 2014 Town of Timnath Planning Commission Timnath Administration Building 4800 Goodman Street Timnath, CO. Re: Serratoga Falls, Second Filing – Sketch Plan From: Stephen Olt 605 Boulder Circle Jackson Heights Subdivision As a neighbor just to the north of the proposed Serratoga Falls, Second Filing development currently being reviewed by the Town of Timnath, I would like to offer the following comments:
The proposed plan currently before the Planning Commission is dramatically different than the
original plan that residents of Jackson Heights Subdivision reviewed approximately 10 years
ago. There is an almost two-fold increase in the proposed number of single-family residential
dwelling units, from about 360 – 375 du’s to now about 675 – 700 du’s. Obviously, adjacent
neighbors’ expectations are being changed significantly.
The actual net residential density for the development will be closer to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Kitchel Lake is not a (functional) part of the development, the parcel of land on the south side of
East Prospect Road at the southeast corner of the development should be netted out because it
is separated from the residential development by an arterial street, making it a useable and
functional part Serratoga Falls impractical, and the proposed commercial parcel should be
netted out of the residential density.
The increased residential density creates more smaller lots, with the possibility of a significant
intensification of building massing and a more walled effect by homes having to be closer
together on the smaller sized lots. Of concern will be the height of the structures and the finish
grade elevation under them, potentially affecting the overall visual appearance of the
development and how it relates to surrounding neighborhoods.
Building articulation as it relates to wall planes and roof lines is important in that deviation in
those two elements of the structure will help break up potential large square or rectangular
building masses.
With the added number of lots there is potential for adverse impacts to the night sky, depending
on the nature of street and on-lot outside lighting within the development. The street lighting in
Serratoga Falls, First Filing is muted and non-intrusive to the surrounding area.
Movement to and from the development for thousands of daily vehicle end trips would be
dependent on one point of access from County Road 5, two points of access from East Prospect
Road, and one point of access from County Road 3. It would seem that the internal traffic
associated with about 700 homes could not be adequately accommodated with the proposed
street network.
The traffic impacts on surrounding streets and intersections will be significant. Traffic will be
dispersed primarily in three different directions:
Page 6 of 9
- To the southeast to Windsor and Greeley … for work, shopping and play.
- To the southwest to Timnath and Loveland … for work and shopping.
- To the west to Fort Collins … for work, shopping and play.
The following intersections are of primary concern:
- East Prospect Road & County Road 5. This intersection has been very dangerous for many
years, having been only a 2-way stop. With the addition of the 4-way stop it has increased
the safety of the intersection somewhat. However, will that accommodate the increased
density?
- East Mulberry Street & County Road 5. The delays at this intersection, especially making
westbound turns, are constantly increasing. The addition 600 – 700 homes will almost
certainly necessitate a stoplight at this intersection.
- East Mulberry Street & County Road 3. Being nearly adjacent to the proposed Serratoga
Falls, Second Filing there will certainly be substantially more traffic using this intersection
in the future. Visibility for vehicles entering Mulberry from County Road 3 at this
intersection is poor.
- East Prospect Road and County Line Road (County Road 13) about one mile east of
Serratoga Falls will be additionally impacted and its design is already poor. There is an
offset between the sections of County Line Road north and south of East Prospect Road.
Also, there is an existing subpar bridge across the major irrigation ditch in that location.
- Prospect Road & Interstate 25. With the amount of traffic already using the interchange to
enter and exit Fort Collins, and the combination of stoplights at the interchange, there are
significant rush hour delays both eastbound and westbound.
- East Prospect Road & County Road 3. The existing curves around Deadman Lake create
serious sight visibility concerns and the proposed realignment of Prospect Road on the west
side of County Road 3 will not remedy the situation on the east side of the intersection.
- The residents of Jackson Heights Subdivision are already experiencing increasingly longer
delays trying to get from Boulder Avenue/Circle out onto East Mulberry Street, especially
making a westbound movement.
It has been stated by the Serratoga Falls, Second Filing development team that this development
proposal is similar to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. With the proposed
significant increase in density by about doubling the number of single-family residential lots,
most to be about 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in size, that statement can be easily challenged.
Also, in Timnath’s Sketch Plan Review Criteria it states that “The proposed development
promotes Timnath’s small town, rural character”. That would not appear to be the case with
about 600 new lots ranging in size from 6,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
Thank you for the opportunity to express and provide concerns about the Serratoga Falls, Second Filing development proposal. From: Fritz Knopf ([email protected]) Sent: Tue 9/30/14 4:06PM To: Thanks Steve for soliciting inputs to carry forward. Obviously we don't want another -360 homes added to what was already a dense-pack development. Those additional 360 homes translate to an additional
Page 7 of 9
1440 people in this half section of land--that's beyond the 1680 already in the approved development plan for a total of over 3,000 in the "quaint little town" of Timnath. Secondly, I am very concerned about how the developer will assure that the Larimer-Weld Ditch company property will be secured against vandalism and liability. I sure hope the Ditch folks are a player in this process. If a child drowns, they get sued. If someone(s) access one or more Jackson Height's properties to commit a crime or vandalize property, I personally am looking for a lawyer. Then there is the traffic issue--specifically relative to development's proposed access from CR 3. This will further increase rush-hour traffic on Highway 14, which at present virtually precludes timely exodus from Boulder Ave. daily. I would ask the developer to work with the county to assure a traffic light at Boulder Ave (and then again at CR 5, which will also see a rise in traffic volume). I wasn't here then but Tom Boylan informed me that JH got guarantees that the outdoor lighting in the initial proposal was assured to be downward projection to not preclude seeing the night sky. I'd like to see that restriction retained. Obviously, I will not be attending the meeting, Thanks again for carrying the neighborhood thoughts forward. I hope that it is OK that I copy these thoughts to Mike given his ongoing leadership in Jackson Heights HOA. fritz I am a resident of Clydesdale Park subdivision, which is a neighboring subdivision of Saratoga Falls. When my husband and I were looking for homes three-four years ago, we were disappointed that Saratoga Falls was not an option, as there was no construction of homes occurring at that time. We really liked the concept and development plans of Saratoga Falls. While there were still a lot of homes, it was a tastefully designed so that there was "breathing room" between the houses and had very appealing amenities including open spaces, walking trails, a clubhouse and lake. Also, the plans and housing numbers were compatible with the surrounding developments and current infrastructure. Because there was no new construction in the near future at Saratoga Falls due to the bankruptcy status of the subdivision, we instead purchased a new-construction home in the neighboring Clydesdale Park subdivision. Our thoughts were that we could purchase a home in Saratoga Falls when it pulled out of bankruptcy and the remaining phases of the subdivision began development. While we are glad that Saratoga Falls has finally been purchased by a new developer, we are not in favor of the new proposed plans for the remaining phases of Saratoga Falls. The proposal is not just a minor adjustment, but rather a complete and inappropriate density re-zoning of the remaining phases of the subdivision. I have included Town of Timnath's home page statement: We are proud to be a vibrant, historic community whose many trails are: Connected to our history with over 125 years of serving as an historical crossroads for fur traders, farmers and residents looking to get away, but not too far away; Connected to our land with our first settlers attracted to the fertile soil and where our current residents capitalize on Timnath’s geological bounty with over 20 percent of new developments focused planned open space, parks and recreation and a goal of never being more than a quarter-mile walk from a park; Connected to sustainable planning with recently opened Bethke Elementary, the first ever school awarded the LEED gold standard, where historic farms are now becoming thoughtfully planned
Page 8 of 9
neighborhoods, where we are focused on uniting Old and New Timnath; Connected to our community by our progressive partnerships with developers and retailers, our plan for a thriving commercial/retail/dining district that will reflect Timnath’s dedication to great living; Connected to each other by our single zip code, by our open, not gated, welcoming neighborhoods attracting professionals looking to call Northern Colorado home; Connected by our identity as one Timnath. The higher density proposal is not only out of line with the original plans, but is also out of line with the Town of Timnath's mission statements of open space and sustainable, thoughtful planning. Also, the homes in the area surrounding Saratoga Falls are lower density and rural acreage properties. The new proposal is too dense and is not beneficial to the surrounding area. Most importantly, there is no current infrastructure to support the density proposed, including proper roads, walking and bicycle access, especially to convenient stores and grocery stores. These improvements to the infrastructure will most likely not happen in the near future. Also, the middle and high schools in the area are already overcrowded. Building of new schools in the area, again, will most likely not happen in the near future. These issues have been a concern for many years to the subdivisions that already exist in this area. To prove a point, Fox Grove, a newly proposed subdivision located within a quarter of a mile of Saratoga Falls, has been rezoned from a mixed density subdivision which included apartments to a lower density single family residence subdivision with more open space, parks, and walking trails. This was done by the City of Fort Collins, as the City of Fort Collins recognized that this area of Larimer County does not have the infrastructure to support higher density housing. Therefore, I hope that Timnath follows Fort Collins lead and recognizes that this area of Larimer County does not have the infrastructure at this time to support the high density of single family homes the developer is proposing. I also hope that Timnath upholds the current plan that is already submitted and supported by the current Saratoga Falls residence and surrounding subdivisions. Angela Diodati-Houchin Hi Matt, There is another issue that the subject plan will need to address. There is an Osprey nest on the power pole adjacent to the pump house near the reservoir. The nest has been occupied in the spring and early summer for the last two years. (I'll be happy to show you some photographs.) In addition, the large cottonwood tree just to the south of the pump house has been used (virtually year round) as a Hunting Perch by Bald Eagles, Osprey, Red-tailed Hawks, Swainson's Hawks and others. The State of Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife has guidelines for raptor buffering available at the following link: <http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines2008.pdf> I am sure that experts at the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program (RMRP) will be willing to help you understand the legal restrictions that the guidelines represent.
Page 9 of 9
Mark Goldstein should be aware of this issue. During the LLC's "cleanup" of the property June 26, 2013, his people destroyed an occupied American Kestrel nest. I believe that he was contacted by personnel from the RMRP at that time. Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the Town of Timnath and the Serratoga Falls neighborhood. Best regards, -- Bill
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 11/04/2014 Presented By: Matt Blakely
Item: Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Subdivision Sketch Plan, Revised
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Revised Sketch Plan proposal for 596 lots on approximately 328.33 acres at 1.82 dwelling units per acre for the remainder of the Serratoga development. Proposed lot sizes will range from 6,050 square feet to 16,000 square feet. This plan encompasses the balance of the Serratoga property, and is anticipated to include multiple filings at a total of 596 single family lots as well as neighborhood commercial lots. The residential portion of the proposal meets the standards for R-2 zoning, which the property currently holds. The Sketch Plan also includes park and trail amenities per the PROST Plan. Changes made to the current Sketch Plan from the plan presented at the October 7, 2014 Public Meeting include the following:
1. The creation of five distinct neighborhoods within the overall development. These are based on natural boundaries and features. Separate naming and identification will occur, such as distinct signage, landscaping, and design guidelines.
2. Four (4) lots adjacent to Filing 1 have been relocated to the development east of the ditch. This resulted in larger lots adjacent to Filing 1 than were previously proposed.
3. A lot breakdown by size and location has been provided. This graphically depicts lot ranges, general locations, and percentages of overall lot stock.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON 10/7/14: Planning Commission made a motion to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan with conditions to the Timnath Town Council on 10/7/14. That motion failed by a vote of 2 in favor and 3 against. Commissioners Seidel, Taylor, and Raymond voted against. Commissioner Seidel stated that the proposed Sketch Plan did not meet the following Sketch Plan Review Criteria:
1. The land use mix within the project conforms to Town’s Zoning District Map and Land Use Map and furthers the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan including: a. The proposed development promotes Timnath’s small town, rural character; b. Proposed residential development adds diversity to the Town’s housing supply;
5. There is a need or desirability within the community for the applicant’s development and the development will help achieve a balance of land use and/or housing types within Timnath according to Town goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the Sketch Plan, with conditions, to the Timnath Town Council. KEY POINTS/SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Owner: Mark Goldstein, Serratoga Falls, LLC Applicant: Mark Goldstein, Serratoga Falls, LLC Location: Parcel(s) of land located at the northeast corner of Prospect Road and CR 5 (Main Street)
Application Type: Sketch Plan Case Number: SP-2014-003 Parcel Size (Acres): Approximately 328.33 acres Process Schedule
Task Description Date Application Submitted 06/23/2014
Acceptance of Application 06/23/2014
Referral Agency Notification Referral comments were due by 07/18/2014 06/30/2014
Comments Issued Comments submitted to applicant on 07/25/2014 07/25/2014
Notifications Notices mailed to adjacent property owners 07/25/2014
Planning Commission Public Meeting 08/05/2014
Resubmittal Revised plan submittal to Town staff 08/25/2014 Comment Review
Meeting Meet with Applicant to review Town staff referral comments 09/11/2014
Notifications Notices mailed to adjacent property owners 09/28/2014
Planning Commission Public Hearing - (Denied by 3-2 vote) 10/07/2014
Resubmittal Revised plan submitted 10/21/2014
Notifications Notices mailed to adjacent property owners 10/24/2014
Planning Commission Public Hearing 11/04/2014
Town Council Public Hearing - Scheduled 11/11/2014 SERVICES:
Water: ELCO Sewer: Boxelder Sanitation District Fire: Poudre Fire Authority Special Districts: Serratoga Falls Metropolitan Districts 1-3
Adjacent Zoning/Land Uses:
Direction Zoning Land Use North FA-1 Unincorporated Larimer
County; R-2 Farming; Residential, Timnath Single Family Residential
South FA-1 Unincorporated Larimer County; E-1 Estate
Farming; Residential
West FA-1 Unincorporated Larimer County; R-2; Main Street (CR5)
Residential; Farming; Timnath Single Family Residential; Main Street
East FA-1 Unincorporated Larimer County Residential; Farming
Existing Zoning: R-2 (Single Family Residential), C-2 (Community Commercial) Proposed Zoning: No Change Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential, Commercial, Open Space, Trails, Parks Application Description: Sketch Plan proposal demonstrating a total of 596 total single family lots in the remainder of the Serratoga subdivision. The entire proposal encompasses approximately 328.33 acres. Density is approximately 1.82 dwelling units/acre. Lot sizes range from 6,050 to 16,000 square feet. Average lot size is approximately 9,250 square feet, with a median lot size of 8,750 square feet. The Town’s currently adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates Serratoga Falls as Very Low Density Residential (VLR) and Commercial (C). The VLR designation calls for residential densities equal to or less than one dwelling unit per acre. The Town acknowledges the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Code. When such a discrepancy exists the Comprehensive Plan, per its terms, is subordinate to the Land Use Code as spelled. The existing zoning of R-2 (Single Family Residential) allows for single family residential lots that are at least 6,000 square feet. The Sketch Plan as presented does further the missions and goals of the Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan by providing varied housing types, business interests, and recreational opportunities. The existing zoning of R-2 (Single Family Residential) and C-2 (Community Commercial) allows for the aforementioned uses. The Plan also includes various park amenities, such as pocket parks, neighborhood parks, and local and regional trail systems. The proposed Sketch Plan also demonstrates compliance the Town of Timnath PROST Plan. The plan shows a regional trail through the development, as well as a Community Park. A community roadside trail is provided along CR42E (Prospect Rd). In addition, connections are provided to existing lots and future phases. Two neighborhood parks are shown on the Sketch Plan, incorporating both passive and active uses. In addition, a Community Center is centrally planned within the development. This central amenity is shown with a fishing dock, beach, pool, and boardwalk, as well as enhanced landscaping and trail access. Open space area currently shown exceeds the minimum 20% required by code. Wildlife corridors and sensitive habitats are being evaluated and incorporated into the plans as necessary. Intersections to Main Street and Prospect Road are shown to conform to LCUASS standards as well as the approved Town of Timnath Transportation Plan. Prospect Road will undergo a re-alignment in order to conform to current roadway geometry standards. This re-alignment will occur at the eastern end of the property around Deadman Lake. The re-alignment will ensure conformance with current Town of Timnath Roadway Geometry standards for arterial roadway design, which include larger radius curves for safety. A determination of a 2-lane arterial street classification for Prospect Road will also allow for additional full movement intersections at ¼ mile spacings. Additional right in/right-outs will be allowed at 660 feet intervals. Pedestrian movements through the development will be provided by the trail and sidewalk amenities mentioned above. The existing infrastructure for Serratoga Falls Filing 1 will allow for access to both the new and existing development. Utilities for the project are to be served as outlined above under “Services.” ELCO water will provide potable water resources for the development. Non-potable irrigation will be provided on-site. Boxelder sanitation will
provide sewer service for the development. Both have provided “will serve” letters. Portions of the eastern half drain to Kitchel reservoir; the remaining eastern portion drains to Deadman Lake. The western portion flows to a detention area constructed as part of the first filing, which ultimately discharges to the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal. Water quality ponds will be constructed as needed and peak runoff required will not exceed historic rates. The existing on-site irrigation lateral is proposed to remain in its current condition. An easement is currently being negotiated for the lateral. Architecture and housing types for the development will be required to conform to Town of Timnath code requirements for quality and diversity (16.2.18). A Block Diversity Plan will be required prior to home construction. Town code requires diversity in massing, porches, garage size and orientation, materials, and color palette. The Block diversity plan will outline the home model compatibility within subdivision. Commercial architecture will be required to conform to code section 16.2.19 and any other applicable code requirements. Overall, the plan is consistent with Town Land Use Code, the PROST Plan, and furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it generally conforms to Town of Timnath Engineering Standards. The proposed density and land uses are consistent with the existing zoning of the parcel. Buffering and similar lot sizes have been provided where the proposed development is adjacent to the First Filing. Prior approvals with Serratoga Falls (Smith-Bassett) included the annexation of the property on June 1st, 2005, the Sketch Plan was approved by the Town Board on July 6, 2005, and the Preliminary Plat was approved by the Town Board on October 5, 2005. The annexation included a Concept Plan depicting approximately 388 single-family residential lots. The Preliminary Plat was approved for 363 dwelling units. The First Filing Final Plat was approved on April 19th, 2006 and included 83 single-family residential units on approximately 63 acres. On March 22, 2006, the Town Board approved a revised Preliminary Plat with an increase in lots from 361 to 365. Future Approvals/Processes:
1. Preliminary Plat – currently under review 2. Final Plat – submittal pending
Sketch Plan Review Criteria: The Town shall use the following criteria in addition to other applicable provisions of this Code to evaluate the applicant’s Sketch Plan application: 1. The land use mix within the project conforms to Town’s Zoning District Map and Land Use Map and furthers the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan including:
a. The proposed development promotes Timnath’s small town, rural character; b. Proposed residential development adds diversity to the Town’s housing supply; c. Proposed commercial development will benefit the Town’s economic base; d. Parks and open space are incorporated into the site design; e. The proposed project protects the Town’s environmental quality; and f. The development enhances cultural, historical, educational and/or human service opportunities.
Note: A discrepancy exists between the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Town’s Zoning District Map. The discrepancy is that the Future Land Use Map shows the property as Very Low Density Residential and the Zoning Map shows the property as R-2 Zoning. The Town’s Land Use Code accounts for these types of discrepancies and in the event of a discrepancy the Comprehensive Plan is
subordinate to the Land Use Code. The plan as presented incorporates open space that exceeds the Town’s minimum requirements. Nearly every lot has access to the open space, promoting the small town rural character. There are landscape buffers and parks provided between the existing residential developments to also help promote the rural character in a developing area. The plan incorporates a variety of lot sizes, ranging from 6,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet that will add diversity to the Town’s housing supply. The commercial development is not being proposed at this time, however the property is being retained for a future commercial development with access being provided. The plan incorporates parks that exceed the Town’s minimum requirement of one ½-acre pocket park per 50 dwelling units, and one 5-acre neighborhood park per 200 dwelling units. The community park requirement allows for land dedication or cash-in-lieu of land dedication. This requirement will be met at time of platting if land is not dedicated with the Final Plat. Parks and trails depicted on the Sketch Plan are in compliance with the Town’s PROST Plan. Buffering and protection of classified natural areas are being met by incorporating them into parks and open spaces. Some non-classified natural areas are being impacted and are allowed per the Town’s Land Use Code.
2. The sketch plan represents a functional system of land use and is consistent with the rationale and criteria set forth in this Code and the Town Comprehensive Plan. The submitted Sketch Plan as presented meets the R-2 zoning district requirements and Community Design Principals per the Town’s Land Use Code. Specifically, the plan is walkable and pedestrian oriented with sidewalks and trails throughout, there is a variety of lot sizes allowing for housing diversity, and the street system is orderly and organized. The Comprehensive Plan Goals are furthered by the addition of this development, in particular this development will help promote a healthy community by incorporating trails and bike lanes. The transportation system will support automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles. The public infrastructure will be extended and improved. Level of service for utilities is adequate and will be provided by the appropriate districts. The Poudre School District is aware of and can accommodate the proposed development with an adequate level of service. The Poudre Fire Authority can adequately provide service to the development. 3. The utility and transportation design is adequate, given existing and planned capacities of those systems. The submitted Sketch Plan meets these criteria as transportation improvements will be made that accommodate the increased traffic and relevant utility providers have stated they are capable of serving the development. . 4. Negative impacts on adjacent land uses have been identified and satisfactorily mitigated. Potential negative impacts have been mitigated by additional buffering and locating compatible sized lots adjacent to the existing adjacent properties. 5. There is a need or desirability within the community for the applicant’s development and the development will help achieve a balance of land use and/or housing types within Timnath according to Town goals. The Sketch Plan proposal provides a variety of housing types and is consistent with these goals. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Not returned: AT&T Communications, Poudre School District, Poudre River Public Library District, Centurylink, Timnath Finance, Timnath Public Works, Xcel Energy, Timnath Town Attorney, Comcast, US Army Corp of Engineers
Returned with comments: Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, City of Fort Collins Planning Department, Colorado Geological Society Colorado Historical Society, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, Northern Front Range MPO, Poudre Fire Authority, Timnath Community Development, Timnath Engineering Returned with no comments: Safebuilt, Timnath Police Department See attached referral comments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Finding that a complete application was submitted and reviewed in accordance with all applicable Town regulations, the application conforms with the mission and goals of the Timnath Comprehensive Plan, and all criteria outlined in Section 16.4.5.C. of the Timnath Municipal Code have been met, I move to recommend approval of the Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan to the Timnath Town Council, with the following conditions:
a. Allow staff to continue to work with applicant to address all unresolved non-substantive technical comments to the satisfaction of Town Staff and Referral Agencies
OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIONS: Approval with Conditions: Finding that a complete application was submitted and reviewed in accordance with all applicable Town regulations, the application conforms with the mission and goals of the Timnath Comprehensive Plan, and all criteria outlined in Section 16.4.5.C. of the Timnath Municipal Code have been met, I move to recommend approval of the Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan to the Timnath Town Council, with the following conditions:
a. Allow staff to continue to work with applicant to address all unresolved non-substantive technical comments to the satisfaction of Town Staff and Referral Agencies
b. (insert other conditions) Denial: Finding that a complete application was submitted and reviewed in accordance with all applicable Town regulations, the application does not conform with the mission and goals of the Timnath Comprehensive Plan, and all criteria outlined in Section 16.4.5.C. of the Timnath Municipal Code have not been met because (insert findings for motion), I move to recommend denial of the Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan to the Timnath Town Council.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan Documents (4 pages), dated October, 2014. 2. Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Sketch Plan Narrative of changes occurring since 10.07.14 Planning
Commission meeting 3. Referral Agency Comments 4. Public Comment letters, emails, and exhibits
October 24, 2014 TO: Planning & Zoning Board of Commissioners
Matt Blakely, Town of Timnath Jason Oldham, Town of Timnath FROM: Jim Birdsall, TB Group Serratoga Falls, LLC (“Applicant”) RE: Supplement to the Narrative Serratoga Falls Sketch Plan Thank you for the opportunity to present a revised sketch plan to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners at the November 4, 2014 hearing. We very much appreciate having an additional meeting to further describe the merits of the Serratoga Falls proposal. The Applicant looks forward to the opportunity to respond to a number of objections or concerns that were raised during our last presentation. In response to some of the concerns brought up we have modified the plan, as well as, added some more thought and detail to the plan and to the presentation of the plan. To give you as much opportunity to review the plan and consider the additional information we’ve prepared, the applicant is providing this supplement to the narrative as well as a modified sketch plan and associated exhibits highlighting some of the changes that are proposed to the plan. Concern #1 – Separate planning areas for separate sub-neighborhoods. Town Staff shared that due to the size of the sketch plan application, it was difficult to understand the unique aspects of the various sub-neighborhoods. Applicant Response: The sketch plan has been revised to include five separate planning areas, which relate to the individual sub-neighborhoods throughout the community. Each planning area is based on natural boundaries and features. Furthermore, separate naming and monumentation for each enclave will help to differentiate the planning areas. We expect that as the project moves through the design/approval process that additional unique features will be added to the sub-neighborhoods including landscape, fencing, and architectural design criteria. We expect that each sub-neighborhood will have its own unique character and product types. Concern #2 – Relocate lots from the blocks adjacent to Filing No. 1 into future phases. Staff requested that the applicant consider reducing density from the blocks adjoining Filing No. 1 to provide larger lots and lower density as part of an enhanced transition between Filing No. 1 and future phases. Applicant Response: One lot was removed from each of the four blocks contiguous with Filing No. 1. The square footage from each relocated lot was added to the remaining lots in the block creating larger lots and enhanced streetscape experience. Four lots have been added to the future phase of the plan, east of the irrigation canal. The previous proposal provided for lots that were very nearly
Serratoga Falls – Amended Sketch Plan 10.24.14 Page 2
equal or slightly larger than the adjacent lots in First Filing. With this proposed revision the lots in Second Filing that are adjacent to First Filing are larger than the adjacent lots in First Filing. Concern #3 – Diversity of Housing types During the Oct. 7 hearing, a concern was raised by Planning Commission about the diversity of housing types and whether this project meets the diversity criteria of the Town of Timnath. Applicant Response: The applicant has gone to great lengths to ensure Serratoga Falls has a diversity of lot sizes, housing sizes, types, and price points. Serratoga Falls meets this goal of the Comprehensive Plan by its range of lot sizes, lot configurations, and placement around natural features. The lots range from 6,050 to over 16,000 sf. The smaller lots, which comprise only 10% of Filing No. 2, are well suited for patio homes or garden style houses, while the largest lots will attract custom and semi-custom home builders. In between, the majority of the lots are between 8000 and 12,000 square feet – suited for mid-priced family homes and semi-custom houses. The average size lot is 9,250 sf and the median size lot is 8,750 sf. Concern #4 – Rural Character Also during the Oct. 7 hearing, the Planning Commission expressed a concern that the Serratoga Falls proposal doesn’t appear to meet the rural character requirements of the Town of Timnath Code. Applicant Response: The Serratoga Falls sketch plan seeks to fit seamlessly with the character of Timnath. The property boasts wonderful natural features, which have been carefully preserved and woven into the land plan. Meandering streets create a sense of discovery as they pass ponds, parks, lakes, and irrigation canals. Large, landscaped setbacks from county roads, and numerous green space lanes integrate the experience of nature and provide habitat for wildlife. The layout is respectful of the existing topography preserving and enhancing views from the existing ridges to the mountains. 93% of homes back to greenbelts, parks or open space. Open rail fences will be provided anywhere a home adjoins open space, maintaining the feel of open natural environment. Irrigation ditches are kept open and topography is honored to maintain the rural agrarian feel of the neighborhood and the surrounding properties.
Phone: (970) 224-3211 FAX: (970) 224-3217 www.TimnathGov.com 4800 Goodman St. Timnath, CO 80547
MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Goldstein Serratoga Falls, LLC FROM: Matt Blakely, Town Planner RE: Serratoga Falls Sketch Plan (SP-2014-003) DATE: August 4, 2014 The following represents the 1st review of the above application by Staff and the affected referral agencies. The included comments are from all of the agencies that have provided comments. Please provide a point by point response to each of the following comments along with the original comment in a resubmittal to the Town. The following items must be addressed by the applicant: Town Planner, Matt Blakely - (970) 224-3211 x19 Sketch Plan:
1. All Sketch Plans must include the required items listed in the Town’s Land Use Code section 16.4.5.3. Specifically:
a. Context/Vicinity Map with the information as outlined in (16.4.5.3.e.) b. Sketch Plan Map with the information as outlined (16.4.5.3.f.) c. Conceptual Landscape Plan and Conceptual Open Space Plan may be combined with
the Sketch Plan, but the required information from sections 16.4.5.3.g and h. must be included.
2. The Sketch Plan land use table as outlined in 16.4.5.3.f. is necessary to evaluate how the development meets Town requirements and is compatible with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
3. The planned density as called out in the narrative is more than the Very Low Density Residential Land Use Category as depicted on the adopted Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Very Low Density Residential densities are equal to or less than one dwelling unit per acre. Please clarify the density calculation to demonstrate compliance.
4. Does the Lot Summary table include First Filing lots? 5. Please include signature blocks for the Planning Commission Chairperson and the Town
Council Mayor as well as a preparer’s signature block. Narrative:
1. The General Development Information from LUC section 16.4.5.3.i. must be included. Some of these items are addressed in the current narrative, but the missing items must be added.
2. Paragraph a. does the density indicated represent the total density including the first filing or is it only for the current filing? The land use table required with the Sketch Plan will help clarify this point.
3. Paragraph b. the first sentence suggests that the Second Filing in 2008 was final platted for 49 lots. This is not the case the application was never approved by Council and recorded.
Page 2 of 3
This current Sketch Plan application will represent the new Second Filing of Serratoga Falls thereby eliminating that previous submittal.
4. Paragraph d. there is reference to Kitchel Reservoir. Please describe the rights that the community has to access the reservoir.
5. Paragraph e. there is no mention of traffic impacts. However, traffic is brought up in paragraph h. Please include reference to traffic impacts here as well.
6. Paragraph e. please also add reference or description of the re-alignment of Prospect Road in the area of Deadman Lake.
7. Paragraph h. traffic impacts should also address the intersection of County Road 5 and Highway 14.
8. Paragraph h. please reference the PROST plan and the relationship the Sketch Plan has with this planning document. There is a community trail shown on the PROST plan within Serratoga Falls. The location and depiction of a community/regional park is not on the PROST plan. This is disconnected from the neighborhood, however it could function as passive open space. Additional discussion will need to be had concerning this portion of the project.
Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company, Dale Trowbridge – (970) 352--0222
Please see attached
Colorado Historical Society, Todd McMahon – (303) 866--4607 Please see attached
Colorado Geological Survey, Jill Carlson – (303) 384--2643 Please see attached
Comcast, Dennis Greenwalt – (970) 567-4807; (970) 484-7166
1. Comcast would like to make sure that the old Prospect Road remains a utility easement due to having fiber optic facilities in the right of way. We would also be interested in any grade changes that would occur along the old Prospect due to our vault placements and needing access to these for maintenance of the fiber.
Engineering, Steve Humann, TST Inc. – (970) 226-0557
Please see attached Fort Collins Planning Department, Pete Wray – (970) 221-6754
See attached comments Larimer County Department of Health, Doug Ryan – (970) 498-6777
See attached comments Northern Front Range MPO, Joshua Johnson – (970) 416-2293
1. It was stated in the Plan Narrative that a traffic impact analysis would be done on Prospect Road and County Road 5. The developer should also consider completing a traffic impact analysis on the intersection of County Road 5 and Mulberry Street (SH14).
2. The development is close to a planned section of the Front Range Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail that is outlined in our Regional Bike Plan. The developer should also consider bicycle and pedestrian connections through planned routes and trails to surrounding corridors.
Page 3 of 3
Planning Commission: No formal comments at this time. These will become available after the Planning Commission Public meeting to be held on August 5, 2014.
Poudre Fire Authority, Jim Lynxwiler – (970) 416-2869 Please see attached
Safebuilt, Russ Weber - (970_686-7511
No comments Timnath Police, Sherry Wagner – (970) 224-3211
No comments Documents Required for Resubmittal:
� (1) hard copy and Word Doc of the point by point response to comment letter � (1) hard copy and Word Doc of the Revised Narrative � (1) Full size, (1) ½ size, and PDF version of the Revised Sketch Plan
In addition, the Preliminary Plat may be submitted. Please use the attached applications/forms and provide the required documents and fees. Cc: April Getchius, Town of Timanth, Town Manager (email)
Steve Humann, TST Inc. (email) Don Taranto, TST Inc. (email) Town File (SFS)
LM-14-0013_1 Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing.docx 2:45 PM, 07/16/2014
July 16, 2014 Karen Berry Acting State Geologist
Matt Blakely Town Planner Town of Timnath 4800 Goodman St. Timnath, CO 80547
Location: Section 14,
T7N, R68W of the 6th P.M. 40.57, -104.972
Subject: Serratoga Falls, 2nd Filing – Sketch Plan Case # SP 2014-003; Town of Timnath, Larimer County, CO; CGS Unique No. LM-14-0013
Dear Matt: Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the above-referenced Sketch Plan application. I understand the applicant proposes 524 single family lots on 322 acres located north of Prospect Road, between County Roads 5 and 3. With this referral, I received a Serratoga Falls Sketch Plan Narrative (TB Group, June 18, 2014) and a Conceptual Master Plan (TB Group, June 2014). I visited the site on July 15, 2014, and did not observe any surface conditions that would preclude the proposed residential use and density. The site is not undermined, and does not contain any mapped flood zones, areas of steep topography, or other identified geologic hazards. CGS therefore has no objection to approval of the sketch plan application as submitted. Potential development constraints that will need to be considered prior to development include: Shallow groundwater. Several unlined surface water features are located adjacent to and within the
subject property, including lakes, ditches and canals, and detention/retention ponds. Groundwater should therefore be expected to occur at relatively shallow depths beneath the site, at least seasonally, and groundwater levels always rise, post-development, as a result of landscape irrigation and impermeable slabs and pavements preventing evaporation. Lowermost floor levels must be located at least three feet, and preferably five feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, to reduce the risk of water infiltration into below-grade spaces, damp conditions, and excessive wetting and softening of soils beneath foundation elements. Full-depth basements may not be feasible on some or all of this site, and should not be considered unless a systematic groundwater level monitoring program, consisting of monthly water level observations over at least one spring-summer-fall cycle, is conducted to determine maximum anticipated water levels across the site, and to ascertain whether the required three to five ft. separation distance can be maintained year-round.
If groundwater is observed at depths of less than about 20 feet below proposed grades, one or more of the following mitigation measures may need to be implemented: (1) place fill to raise planned basement floor levels to at least three feet and preferably five feet above shallowest anticipated seasonal groundwater elevations, (2) limit basement floor depths through the use of walk-out or garden-level basement construction, and/or (3) construct an area underdrain system if the site geometry permits a permanent gravity outfall. If site grades or basement floor levels cannot be raised to maintain a separation distance of at least three feet between lowermost floor elevations and
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1500 Illinois Street Golden, Colorado 80401 Phone 303.384.2655
Matt Blakely July 16, 2014 Page 2 of 2
LM-14-0013_1 Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing.docx 2:45 PM, 07/16/2014
the shallowest anticipated groundwater elevation, and an area groundwater collection system (underdrain) is determined to be unworkable, then full-depth basements should not be allowed.
Perched water conditions are likely to form above less permeable soil layers, on top of the bedrock surface, and within foundation excavations (which tend to be more loosely backfilled), as a result of landscape irrigation and runoff from roofs and paved areas, causing wet or moist conditions in the soils immediately surrounding basement/crawl space walls and foundations. Regardless of whether basements are determined to be feasible, individual foundation perimeter drains will be necessary to control perched water. This will help prevent infiltration, and help control wetting of potentially collapsible or expansive soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements and floor slabs. The perimeter drains must be sloped to discharge to an interior pumped sump or a gravity outlet that discharges water as far as possible away from all structures, or they may discharge to an area underdrain system, if one is constructed.
Expansive and collapsible soils. Geologic mapping for this area indicates that the site is underlain by wind-deposited, potentially hydrocompactive clay, silt and fine sands that can settle or collapse under loading and wetting, and potentially highly expansive claystones and clay shales of the Pierre Shale formation.
A preliminary geotechnical investigation, including drilling, sampling, lab testing and analysis, is recommended to characterize soil and bedrock engineering properties such as density, strength, and swell and consolidation potential, and to determine depths to bedrock and groundwater. This information is needed to develop preliminary recommendations regarding earthwork and subgrade preparation, foundations, floor slabs, surface and subsurface drainage, pavement design, feasibility of basements, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or require further review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or e-mail [email protected]. Sincerely, Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist
1
Matt Blakely
From: Matt BlakelySent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:56 PMTo: Jason OldhamCc: Brian Williamson; '[email protected]'; Don TarantoSubject: FW: Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing - Sketch Plan Review
Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged
JR, for the file… Thanks, Matt
From: Pete Wray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:53 PM To: Matt Blakely Subject: Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing - Sketch Plan Review Matt, Planning staff offer the following comments on the Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing ‐ Sketch Plan Review.
1. Traffic Impacts We are interested in seeing the traffic impact study to review information on off‐site improvements warranted as
a result of this proposed project, in particular on CO RD 5, and East Prospect Road. All internal traffic is funneled to CO RD 5 and East Prospect by only two access points.
2. Access to adjacent land uses
Street connections and access should be considered to the future commercial center and school sites from this
project. Thanks,
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins [email protected] 970.221.6754
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524-2004
General Health (970) 498-6700 Environmental Health (970) 498-6775
Fax (970) 498-6772
To: Matt Blakely, Timnath Town Planner From: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner Date: July 7, 2014 Subject: Serratoga Falls 2nd Filing Water and Sewer. Water and sewer will be provided through the ELCO Water and Boxelder Sanitation districts. We concur that these are the appropriate utility providers for the type of development proposed.
Stormwater Management during Construction. All construction activities are required to obtain coverage under a State level stormwater management permit if they disturb one or more acres of land. The permits are administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. The main pollutant of concern for construction activities is sediment. The permits require holders to control or eliminate the sources of pollutants in stormwater through the implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan, developed as part of the application process. These Stormwater Management Plans must include best management practices (BMPs) that include treatment of stormwater discharges along with source reductions. The permit application and guidance documents are available from the Water Quality Control Division, which can be accessed through the Department’s website at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-WQ/CBON/1251596875260. Fugitive Dust during Construction. Colorado's air quality regulations contain requirements for controlling fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. The steps necessary to comply with those standards depend on the amount of land disturbed, and the duration of the disturbance. Development that involves clearing more than five acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions. If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party is required to prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution emissions notice (APEN), and obtain an emissions permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The APEN and specialty permit application form for land development is available from the Air Pollution Control Division, which can be accessed through the Department’s website at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-AP/CBON/1251596800194.
Page 2 of 2
Pipeline Easement. The Rocky Mountain Pipeline (formerly Kaneb or WYCO) petroleum pipeline traverses the site from north to south. We recommend that the applicant work with the pipeline company, the fire authority and the Town to determine adequate setbacks and buffers for both routine operation and maintenance, and emergency response. Mosquito Control. This project will utilize a series of stormwater detention/water quality ponds. Mosquitoes will try and utilize the ponds as breeding sites. Controlling mosquitoes is an important practice to prevent spread of the West Nile Virus. Limiting the design water quality detention time to less than 72 hours generally prevents mosquito eggs from maturing to the adult stage. Additionally, regular maintenance of the ponds and outlet structures is necessary in order to keep them functioning properly. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I can be reached at 498-6777 if there are questions about any of these topics.
Page 1 of 2
TO: Matt Blakley, Town Planner FROM: Jim Lynxwiler, Fire Protection Technician, Poudre Fire Authority, 970-416-2869 PROJECT: SERRATOGA FALLS 2ND FILING Timnath Case Number: SP-2014-003 DESCRIPTION: Sketch Plan proposal for 524 lots at 1.62 dwelling units per acre in Serratoga Falls. Lot sizes
will range from 6050 sq. ft. to 12600 sq. ft. This does not include the existing 1st filing lots. DATE: July 15, 2014 Poudre Fire Authority will enforce the 2012 International Fire Code and its accompanying local ordinances, as follows: WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy.
IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. Outside the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
FIRE LANES
Any residential building outside the allowable fire access distance shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed.
IFC 503.1.1: Fire Lanes shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. When fire lanes cannot be provided, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS All public roads are required to meet minimum fire lane standards. Please show the connection to Larimer CR3 to the east. Roads and hydrants infrastructure shall be fully installed and functional before building permits may be issued. IFC 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments:
Fire lanes shall maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance.
Page 2 of 2
Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads cannot exceed 660 feet in length. Dead-end fire access roads in
excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. When a turnaround is required, the turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. CUL-DE-SACS FCLUC 3.6.2(B): Cul-de-sacs are permitted only if they do not exceed 660 feet in length and have a turnaround at the end with a minimum outside turning radius of 50 feet (100 foot diameter). FIRE CONTAINMENT Any structure exceeding 5000 square feet shall be sprinklered or fire contained. If containment is used, the containment construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to installation. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION Street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Timnath, LETA, and the Poudre Fire Authority.
IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from
the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background.
ACCESS TO WILDLAND AREAS The Poudre Fire Authority recognizes that homes and other structures built within wildland urban interface areas present a special hazard for homes and occupants. Development of this site should include a plan for fire access to the natural areas to the north, around Kitchel Lake. Sizing the trail system to accommodate our smaller “brush trucks” may be an option. Further discussion will be needed.
Data
Page 1
Block Lot Area Price Style Count Percentile Median Average1 1 9256 $109,000.00 1 1.205 11306 11967.541 8 9280 $109,000.00 GL 2 2.4104 9 9289 $99,000.00 GL 3 3.6144 8 9399 $99,000.00 . 4 4.8191 6 9400 $119,000.00 5 6.0241 7 9400 $115,000.00 6 7.2296 1 9434 $99,000.00 7 8.4344 4 9440 $99,000.00 8 9.6394 7 9520 $99,000.00 9 10.8433 15 9539 10 12.0483 16 9540 Spec 11 13.2536 3 9540 $99,000.00 12 14.4588 10 9565 $99,000.00 WO 13 15.6634 6 9631 $99,000.00 14 16.8673 12 9640 $106,900.00 15 18.0724 5 9640 $99,000.00 16 19.2776 2 9640 $99,000.00 17 20.4822 12 9651 $109,000.00 18 21.6876 4 9660 $99,000.00 19 22.8921 10 9921 $109,000.00 GL 20 24.0968 9 10037 $109,000.00 WO 21 25.3011 5 10043 22 26.5063 1 10130 $99,000.00 WO 23 27.7117 6 10192 $99,000.00 24 28.9162 13 10207 $109,000.00 25 30.1203 4 10243 $99,000.00 WO 26 31.3254 2 10243 $99,000.00 27 32.5304 3 10243 $99,000.00 28 33.7358 12 10243 $99,000.00 WO 29 34.9408 13 10243 $99,000.00 WO 30 36.1458 14 10252 $99,000.00 WO 31 37.3493 3 10256 $99,000.00 WO 32 38.5543 5 10325 $99,000.00 WO 33 39.7591 9 10376 $109,000.00 GL 34 40.9648 1 10534 $99,000.00 35 42.1692 1 10546 $106,900.00 36 43.3734 1 10644 $99,000.00 37 44.5786 7 10661 $99,000.00 38 45.7836 8 10803 $99,000.00 39 46.9888 15 11050 $99,000.00 WO 40 48.1938 11 11173 $99,000.00 WO 41 49.3987 2 11439 $99,000.00 42 50.6027 3 11518 $99,000.00 43 51.8073 13 11585 44 53.0127 9 11597 $99,000.00 45 54.2172 2 11644 46 55.4222 4 11722 SOLD 47 56.6277 1 11737 $99,000.00 48 57.831
BartranPortafino
Bartran
Bartran
Bartran
Data
Page 2
6 6 11773 $99,000.00 49 59.0368 8 11779 $113,000.00 WO 50 60.2416 5 11874 $99,000.00 51 61.4462 11 11910 $109,000.00 52 62.6512 3 11982 Spec 53 63.8553 11 12328 54 65.0607 5 12480 $99,000.00 55 66.2657 4 12523 $99,000.00 56 67.4703 2 12588 $99,000.00 WO 57 68.6751 2 12605 $109,000.00 58 69.8805 2 12622 $119,000.00 WO 59 71.0847 8 12821 $99,000.00 60 72.2893 14 13146 61 73.4948 2 13296 $105,000.00 62 74.6997 7 13335 $99,000.00 63 75.9048 5 13348 $113,000.00 GL 64 77.1088 6 13386 $113,000.00 GL 65 78.3135 1 13413 $115,000.00 WO 66 79.5188 4 13835 $113,000.00 67 80.7232 8 13966 68 81.9288 3 14449 $110,000.00 69 83.1332 9 14612 70 84.3373 6 14623 $99,000.00 WO 71 85.5421 4 14664 72 86.7472 10 14712 $109,000.00 73 87.9521 3 14799 $109,000.00 74 89.1578 7 15588 $113,000.00 GL 75 90.3613 10 15906 76 91.5662 14 15954 Spec 77 92.7712 5 16503 WO 78 93.9762 7 17547 79 95.1813 8 18216 80 96.3862 6 18499 WO 81 97.5903 9 18745 Spec 82 98.7953 7 23408 $109,000.00 GL 83 100.000
PortafinoBartran
Portafino
Portafino
Portafino
Portafino
BartranPortafinoBartranBartrannaPortafinoPortafino
Lot Area Graph
Page 1
0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.0006000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
Phase 1 Lot Area
Area
Percentile
Area
(sq
ft)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
40020
00 t
o 3
000
3000
to
400
0
4000
to
500
0
5000
to
600
0
6000
to
700
0
7000
to
800
0
8000
to
900
0
9000
to
100
00
1000
0 to
110
00
1100
0 to
120
00
1200
0 to
130
00
1300
0 to
140
00
1400
0 to
150
00
1500
0 to
160
00
1600
0 to
170
00
1700
0 to
180
00
1800
0 to
190
00
1900
0 to
200
00
2000
0 to
210
00
2100
0 to
220
00
2200
0 to
230
00
2300
0 to
240
00
2400
0 to
250
00
2500
0 to
260
00
2600
0 to
270
00
2700
0 to
280
00
2800
0 to
290
00
2900
0 to
300
00
3000
0 to
310
00
3100
0 to
320
00
3200
0 to
330
00
3300
0 to
340
00
3400
0 to
350
00
3500
0 to
360
00
3600
0 to
370
00
3700
0 to
380
00
3800
0 to
390
00
3900
0 to
400
00
4000
0 to
410
00
4100
0 to
420
00
4200
0 to
430
00
> 1
acre
Nu
mb
er
of
Lots
Lot Size (ft.2)
Figure 1. Distribution of Residential Lots in Timnath, COData From Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, October, 2014
Does not include Timnath Landing sketch plan with proposed 1,100 lots of average 10,200 ft.2
Also does not include Serratoga Falls sketch plan with proposed 596 lots of average 9,250 ft.2
Serratoga Falls Original Sketch Plan Serratoga Falls Proposed Sketch Plan
Figure 2. Comparison of proposed lot sizes with existing developed first-filing lot sizes in Serratoga Falls.
(Source: Serratoga Falls Overall Master Plan, TB Group, October 2014)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
comparison of existing with proposed lot sizes
south section
Serratoga Falls Filing 1 RLH S Section
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
comparison of existing with proposed lot sizesnortheast section
Serratoga Falls Filing 1 RLH NE Section
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
comparison of existing with proposed lot sizes
overall
Serratoga Falls Filing 1 RLH
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: November 4, 2014
Item: Timnath Community Park Master Plan
Presented by: Matt Blakely/Brian Williamson EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Town Staff has prepared a master plan for the Timnath Community Park, located in the Timnath Ranch and Timnath South Subdivisions. Town Staff held two public open houses and solicited feedback on the Town’s website. The public open houses provided opportunities for input on program elements and conceptual plans. This information was used to develop the plan being presented. Staff has also prepared a master plan level estimate of probable cost. Funding for the design of the park is a partnership between the Town and Great Outdoors Colorado. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting a recommendation of approval of the Timnath Community Park Master Plan to the Timnath Town Council.
KEY POINTS/SUPPORTING INFORMATION: First Public Open House At the first public open house Staff asked for specific feedback relative to the program elements in the park. The following is a breakdown of the results from the attendees that participated in the programming exercise (each attendee was provided 6 dots to place on their preferred program element): Percentage Votes Description
14% 45 Habitat / Xeric Demonstration & Trial Gardens 8% 26 Specialty / Multi-use Trails 7% 23 Nature / Education Playground 7% 23 Restrooms 6% 21 Picnic Pavilion / Shelter 6% 20 Benches 5% 16 Dog Park 5% 15 Traditional Playground 4% 14 Shade Sails 4% 13 Bike Racks 3% 10 Outdoor fitness 3% 10 Disc Golf -- Note: Moved to Timnath Reservoir 3% 9 Soft / Running trails 3% 9 Skate Park 2% 8 Tot Lot 2% 8 Thematic Playground 2% 7 Tennis 2% 6 Interactive Playground
2% 6 Interpretive Trails 2% 6 Soccer 2% 5 Grills 2% 5 BMX/ Mountain Bike Course 2% 5 Softball 2% 5 Basketball 2% 5 Sand Volleyball 1% 4 Seat Boulders
Other items that were added at the open house and received votes include the following:
Votes Description 1 Trees / shade 2 Sledding Hill 1 Snack Hut 1 Quiet Zone and Quiet Times 1 Platform Tennis 1 RC Plane Park 1 Natural and Green Space 1 Parking Screening 3 Zip Line 1 Fishing Pond 1 Lacrosse Field 1 Water Feature 1 Spin Cup Equipment for Playground 1 Movie Projection Wall
Second Public Open House At the second open house Staff asked for feedback relative to three concept alternatives. These alternatives are included in the packet. We asked that participants use these dots to mark their preferred elements relative to each of the three concept alternatives. For this exercise we provided a list of secondary uses that could be interchangeable throughout the park. These elements are shown on the plans and labeled “Secondary Uses”. The concept alternatives were broken down as follows (again each of the attendees was given a set of 6 dots): Concept A: 51 Concept B: 16 Concept C: 41 Further analysis based on the predominant locations of the dots concluded the following:
• The dog park location was preferred as depicted in Concepts A and C • The playground, shelter, restrooms, and picnic area was preferred as depicted in Concepts A and C • The parking area location was preferred as depicted in Concepts A and C
The master plan being presented by Staff attempts to accommodate the input from the public that attended the open houses and best practices for park development. One significant deviation from the three concepts as presented was the location of the park access drive. This drive was relocated to the north side of the park and is shown to align with the future Tombstone Ridge Road. In general the park master plan attempts to incorporate the preferred elements. The following is an overview of the park elements as presented in the master plan
Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking: Access is taken off of Summerfield Parkway at the intersection with Tombstone Ridge Road. Circulation is provided along a linear parking lot that extends into the park and past the existing River Pass Road. This affords park users the opportunity to access various parts of the park without having a central parking lot and walking long distances. The park has approximately 128 parking spaces and Staff has attempted to maximize the parking and still accommodate the desired uses. Pedestrian Access: The park has numerous pedestrian connections from the south and the west. Most of the connections are directly from The Preserve at Timnath Ranch by means of neighborhood trails. Pedestrian connections to the north are limited by the Great Western Railroad tracks along the north property line. There is currently a crossing of the railroad at the east end of River Pass Road. This connection will most likely be removed when the Summerfield Parkway crossing is installed. Summerfield Parkway will be the primary method of pedestrian access to the park from the north. Pedestrian Circulation: Internal pedestrian circulation is provided by a series of loop trails. There is an existing trail along the west and south sides of the park that will be connected to a primary regional trail that will run along the north and east portions of the park connecting to Summerfield Parkway and to Timnath South’s regional trail. Program Elements: The park will feature a restroom building, shelters, picnic areas, large and small playground elements for various aged children, turf play areas, an adventure play area including zip lines, community marketplace for events, small amphitheater with a location for evening movies, basketball courts, tennis courts, dog park, bocce ball/horseshoe courts, natural areas and gardens, fitness stations, benches, and maintenance shed. Public Safety: The park will include site lighting throughout in the form of parking lot lighting, pedestrian lighting, and accent lighting where appropriate. The primary trails will accommodate emergency vehicles. Buffering and separation is provided from the existing railroad tracks. Project Schedule:
Task Description Date 1st Open House 54 attendees 03/19/2014
2nd Open House 24-30 attendees 06/25/2014
Planning Commission Public Hearing 11/04/2014
Town Council Public Hearing 11/11/2014
Phase 1 – Design (CDs) 1st Qtr 2015
Phase 1 – Bid 2nd Qtr 2015
Phase 1 – Construction 2nd &3rd Qtr 2015
ADVANTAGES: • Improved quality of life • Public access to open space, trails, and play equipment
DISADVANTAGES:
• Increase in maintenance cost and time
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The park improvements will be phased in over time. The first phase is budgeted in the 2015 for $1.1 million. This phase will include grading for the entire park as well as improvements on the north side of River Pass Road. The second phase is anticipated to begin in 2016 when Summerfield Parkway is connected and is currently budgeted for $1.5 million. Future phases will be developed over the next several years. The master plan as presented is estimated to be a total of approximately $4.0 to $4.5 million. There is a draft master plan budget attached to the staff report for review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I recommend approval of the Timnath Community Park Master Plan to the Timnath Town Council.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Timnath Community Park Concept Plan - Bird’s Eye Perspective 2. Timnath Community Park Concept Plan – Programming Diagram 3. Timnath Community Park Concept Plan 4. Timnath Community Park Concept Plan – Detailed Plan View 5. Timnath Community Park Concept Plan – Pedestrian Circulation Diagram 6. Timnath Community Park Draft Budget 7. Public Open House Exhibits – Program Elements and Concept Plans
Page 1 of 4
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ONLYDate: October 31, 2014
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
I. ADMINISTRATIVE & MISCELLANEOUS
1 MOBILIZATION 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,0002 PERMITS 1 L.S. $0.00 $03 POTHOLE/UTILITY LOCATES 16 HR. $230.00 $3,6804 CONSTRUCTION STAKING 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $ $18,680II. DEMOLITION ITEMS
1 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE 0 S.Y. $1.70 $02 REMOVE EXISTING MISCELLANEOUS ASPHALT 0 S.Y. $2.50 $03 REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE SURFACE 0 S.Y. $0.75 $04 RELOCATE TREES 0 EA. $250.00 $05 REMOVE CULVERTS 0 EA. $250.00 $06 REMOVE FENCE (NOT CHAIN LINK) 0 L.F. $1.10 $0
SUBTOTAL $ $0
III. EARTHWORK
1 STRIP TOPSOIL (6") AND REPLACE IN NON-STRUCTURAL AREAS 20,973 C.Y. $3.50 $73,4062 ON-SITE CUT TO FILL 55,282 C.Y. $3.50 $193,4873 IMPORT SOIL 55,282 C.Y. $3.50 $193,487
SUBTOTAL $ $460,380IV. EROSION CONTROL
1 INLET PROTECTION (INLETS, CURB CUTS, FES, ETC.) 7 EA. $200.00 $1,4001 SILT FENCE (SF) 975 L.F. $1.75 $1,706
2 VEHICLE TRACKING PAD (VTC) 1 EA. $1,500.00 $1,500
3 CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA 1 EA. $1,000.00 $1,0004 SEED AND MULCH 6.8 AC. $750.00 $5,0785 SWMP ADMINISTRATION & BMP MAINTENANCE 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $ $15,684V. PAVING
1 6" VERTICAL CURB WITH 24" GUTTER 1,466 L.F. $17.00 $24,9222 6" VERTICAL CURB WITH 12" SPILL GUTTER 4,254 L.F. $17.00 $72,3183 NO CURB GUTTER/CONCRETE EDGING 136 L.F. $12.00 $1,6324 SIDEWALK AND SHELTER PAD CONCRETE PAVING 9,889 S.Y. $38.00 $375,7825 4' PAN 1,485 L.F. $15.00 $22,2756 HC RAMPS 14 EA. $1,500.00 $21,0007 8' CROSS PAN 1 EA. $1,750.00 $1,7508 PLAZA CONCRETE PAVING 992 S.Y. $38.00 $37,6969 DRIVE AISLE CONCRETE PAVING (6" THICK) 782 S.Y. $40.00 $31,28010 SUBGRADE PREP AND STABILIZATION 8,196 S.Y. $1.50 $12,29411 DRIVE AISLE ASPHALT PAVING (4" HBP) 3,193 S.Y. $18.00 $57,474
Client: Town of Timnath
Project: Timnath Community Park
No.
Page 2 of 4
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ONLYDate: October 31, 2014
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Client: Town of Timnath
Project: Timnath Community Park
No.
12 DRIVE AISLE BASE COURSE (6" ABC) 3,193 S.Y. $6.00 $19,15813 PARKING AREA ASPHALT PAVING (4" HBP) 3,038 S.Y. $18.00 $54,68414 PARKING AREA BASE COURSE (6" ABC) 3,038 S.Y. $6.00 $18,22815 STREET SIGNS 1 EA. $500.00 $50016 LATEX PARKING STRIPING 2,929 L.F. $1.00 $2,929
SUBTOTAL $ $753,922VI. WATER
1 CONNECT TO EX. 12" MAIN 1 EA. $1,750.00 $1,7502 CONNECT TO EX. 8" MAIN 1 EA. $1,250.00 $1,2503 6" PVC WATER LINE 2,538 L.F. $23.50 $59,6434 12"x6" TEE 1 EA. $575.00 $5755 8"x6" TEE 1 EA. $350.00 $3506 6" GATE VALVES 5 EA. $1,000.00 $5,0007 6" HORIZONTAL BENDS 8 EA. $200.00 $1,6008 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 2 EA. $4,500.00 $9,0009 3/4" WATER SERVICE (INCLUDES VAULT & METER) 4 EA. $1,250.00 $5,00010 3/4" SERVICE LINE 0 L.F. $40.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $ $84,168VII. SANITARY SEWER
1 CONNECT TO EX. MH 2 EA. $2,500.00 $5,0002 48" I.D. MH 2 EA. $2,900.00 $5,8003 60" I.D. MH W/POUR IN PLACE BASE 1 EA. $1,500.00 $1,5004 8" PVC SEWER LINE 538 L.F. $35.00 $18,8305 4" PVC SEWER SERVICE 60 L.F. $30.00 $1,8006 CLAY CUTOFF WALLS 2 EA. $150.00 $300
7 SEWER TESTING PER MH 3 EA. $100.00 $300SUBTOTAL $ $33,530
VIII. STORM SEWER
1 18" STORM RCP 96 L.F. $46.00 $4,4162 18" FES 1 EA. $700.00 $7003 24" RCP 44 L.F. $56.00 $2,4644 24" FES 1 EA. $950.00 $9505 30" RCP 219 L.F. $70.00 $15,3306 30" FES 4 EA. $1,300.00 $5,2007 6'x3' BOX CULVERT 250 L.F. $350.00 $87,5008 6'x3' BOX CULVERT HEADWALL & WINGWALLS 2 EA. $7,500.00 $15,0009 TYPE D INLET 2 EA. $4,000.00 $8,00010 5' TYPE R INLET 3 EA. $3,750.00 $11,25011 TYPE L RIPRAP 36 C.Y $70.00 $2,520
SUBTOTAL $ $153,330IX. FENCING AND LIGHTING
1 MONUMENT SIGN 1 EA. $10,000.00 $10,0002 LIGHT STD. AND LUMINARE 10 EA. $4,500.00 $45,0003 PED LIGHT STANDARD 15 EA. $3,500.00 $52,5003 BOLLARDS 40 EA. $2,500.00 $100,000
Page 3 of 4
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ONLYDate: October 31, 2014
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Client: Town of Timnath
Project: Timnath Community Park
No.
SUBTOTAL $ $207,500X. LANDSCAPE
1 SHADE TREES 350 EA. $400.00 $140,0002 EVERGREEN TREES 100 EA. $425.00 $42,5003 ORNAMENTAL TREES 150 EA. $275.00 $41,2504 SHRUBS 500 EA. $40.00 $20,0005 ORNAMENTAL GRASSES 1,200 EA. $7.00 $8,4006 TURF/NATIVE 261,360 S.F $0.10 $26,1367 SOD/GRASSED AREA 429,000 S.F $0.35 $150,1508 BOULDERS 120 EA. $400.00 $48,0009 MULCH 1,500 S.F $0.30 $450
SUBTOTAL $ $476,886XI. SITE AMENITIES
1 BIKE RACKS 35 EA. $1,200.00 $42,0002 BENCHES 40 EA. $1,250.00 $50,0003 PET WASTE STATION 15 EA. $750.00 $11,2504 PRIMARY PLAYGROUND AREA (2) 1 EA. $175,000.00 $175,0005 BIO SWALE (3) 0 EA. $1,200.00 $06 TREE GLADE/EARTH SLIDES (4) 2 EA. $1,250.00 $2,5007 ADVENTURE/NATURAL PLAY AREA (5) 1 EA. $35,000.00 $35,0008 ZIP LINES/NATURAL PLAY AREA (6) 1 EA. $75,000.00 $75,0009 ORCHARD/ORNAMENTAL TREE BOSQUE (7) 0 EA. $1,250.00 $010 BASKETBALL COURTS (8) 2 EA. $30,000.00 $60,00011 TENNIS COURTS (9) 2 EA. $60,000.00 $120,00012 PICNIC AREA/BOCCE/HORSESHOES (10) 1 EA. $20,000.00 $20,00013 COMMUNITY MARKET/GRAND PLAZA (12) 0 EA. $35,000.00 $014 DOG PARK (13) 1 EA. $8,000.00 $8,00015 BALL FIELDS (15) 0 EA. $1,250.00 $016 OUTDOOR MOVIE STAGE (19) 1 EA. $10,000.00 $10,00017 ROCK OUTCROPPING (20) 0 EA. $1,200.00 $018 SECONDARY PLAY AREA (22) 2 EA. $20,000.00 $40,00019 MAINTENANCE SHED (23) 1 EA. $25,000.00 $25,00020 BRIDGE (24) 3 EA. $15,000.00 $45,000
SUBTOTAL $ $718,750XII.IRRIGATION
1 TURF AREAS 429,000 S.F. $1.10 $471,9002 IRRIGATION CONTROLLER AND SETUP 1 L.S. $20,000.00 $20,0003 DRIP TO TREES AND SHRUBS 15 L.S. $3,000.00 $45,0004 IRRIGATION CONNECTION 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000
SUBTOTAL $ $546,900
SECTION A. SUBTOTAL $3,469,729CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20% OF COSTS) $ $693,946
TOTAL COST $ $4,163,675
Page 4 of 4
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ONLYDate: October 31, 2014
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Client: Town of Timnath
Project: Timnath Community Park
No.
Civil and Landscape Design, Survey, and Construction Inspection (range from 6-8%) 6% $249,820.518% $333,094.01
This conceptual cost estimate does not include the following;12
The conceptual drainage concept for this site was assumed to be a low impact design utilizing bio-swales.
Contract Administration.Miscellaneous amenities - i.e. sand volleyball, drinking fountains, etc.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: November 04, 2014
Item: Community Development Report
Ordinance Resolution Discussion
For Information X
Presented by: Matt Blakely
KEY POINTS/SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Issued Building Permits: 2011 Single-Family Residential Total = 132 2012 Single-Family Residential Total = 141 2013 Single-Family Residential Total = 166 2014 Single-Family Residential September = 8 2014 Single-Family Residential MTD (10/01/2014 to 10/22/14) = 8 2014 Single-Family Residential YTD (1/1/14 to 10/22/14) = 141
2. Current Development Actions:
a. Fisher Annexation and Sketch Plan: This is an annexation application for a 236 acre parcel located west of CR 5 and north of CR 40. This application is on hold pending new property ownership.
b. Timnath Commercial Center Annexation: This is an annexation application for a 115 acre parcel located north of Kechter Road and east of I-25.
c. Wildwing Block 13 Sketch Plan: This is a Sketch Plan Application for the replatting of Block 13 from 10 lots into 24 lots for patio homes. A Planning Commission Public Meeting was held on 08/05/14. Staff has issued initial comments and is currently awaiting a resubmittal.
d. Wildwing PD Overlay: This is a PD Overlay application for a PD Overlay for the entire subdivision excepting the 1st filing lots. Typical R-2 zone requirements apply with the exception of several street standards criteria and density and dimensional standards. Staff has issued initial comments and is currently awaiting a resubmittal.
e. Serratoga Falls Sketch Plan: This is a Sketch Plan proposal for approximately 596 lots. Lot sizes will range from 6,050 square feet to 15,000 square feet. A Planning Commission Public Meeting was held on 08/05/14. Staff issued 1st round comments and received a resubmittal. On 10/07/14 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application as presented, and the Town Council presentation was postponeed. Staff is currently awaiting a revised submittal, which will be presented to the Planning Commission and Town Council.
f. Serratoga Falls Preliminary Plat: This is a Preliminary Plat proposal for approximately 293 lots for the Serratoga Falls Subdivision 2nd Filing. This does not include the existing 1st filing lots. Staff has received a revised submittal and has issued comments. Staff is currently awaiting a resubmittal.
g. Timnath Landing Sketch Plan: This is a Sketch Plan proposal for approximately 1,200-1,400 housing units as well as commercial space for the property formerly known as Timnath Farms North. The proposal includes a variety of zoning designations, housing types and densities, varied open space, and connections to regional amenities. A Planning Commission Public Meeting was held on 08/05/14. Staff has issued initial comments and is currently awaiting a resubmittal.
h. Brunner Farm Administrative Plat: Administrative Plat proposal for a lot line adjustment
for lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Block 1 of the Brunner Farm Subdivision. Staff is currently awaiting a resubmittal.
i. Brunner Farm Block Diversity Plan: DR Horton has submitted elevations for review. Staff is preparing a Block Diversity Matrix demonstrating any conflicts, and will be issuing comments to the applicant. Staff will prepare materials and present to the Planning Commission and Town Council in the upcoming weeks.
j. Wildwing Phase 2 Sketch Plan: This is an application for a Sketch Plan of the future filings of Wildwing Subdivision. Staff and referral agencies are currently reviewing the proposal. A Planning Commission public meeting will need to be held prior to the project moving forward.
k. Les Schwab Tire Center Site Plan: Site Plan proposal for a full service tire center located at 4570 Weitzel Street, Lot 8 of the Gateway Timnath Subdivision. Station services include servicing of tires, wheels, brakes, batteries, and alignment. No hazardous fluid services are performed. Staff is currently finalizing the initial round of comments.
3. Projects: a. Land Use Code Update: Staff continues to review draft language and is holding meetings
with the Orion Planning Group. Orion is making revisions based on the input from those meetings and both parties continue to work on the revisions of the draft language.
b. Timnath Community Park: An Open House was held on June 25, 2014, to review three concepts and solicit additional input from the community. Staff has consolidated the input from this meeting and has created a single concept for a full presentation to Planning Commission on November 4th, with a presentation to Council to follow on November 11.
c. Wildwing Park: Storm soccer will continue to use the fields until November. Plans for landscape improvements are being prepared.
d. Timnath Reservoir: Staff will be developing plans for additional improvements at the reservoir.
e. Harmony Median Landscape Improvements: Staff is developing landscape concepts for the Harmony Road Medians.
f. Gateway Park: Staff is continuing to work on the design for the Gateway Park located next to Wal-Mart.
ADVANTAGES: N/A
DISADVANTAGES: N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Building Department Statistics
Phone: (970) 224-3211 FAX: (970) 224-3217 www.timnathgov.com 4800 Goodman St. Timnath, CO 80547
MEMORANDUM TO: Timnath Planning Commission FROM: Matt Blakely, Town Planner Sherry Snyder, Building Permit Technician RE: Timnath Single-Family Building Permits – YTD 10/22/14 DATE: November 04,2014
2013 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec # Permits Issued in 2013 for Single Family HomesSingle Family Home 7 22 24 14 13 13 15 19 21 8 3 7 166Foundation Only Permit-3Modular Home-1Commercial-2
2014 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec # Permits Issued in 2014 for Single Family Homes
14 15 14 20 21 12 17 12 8 8 141Foundation Only Permit - 1Commercial-7
2015 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec # Permits Issued in 2015 for Single Family Homes
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fairview Village 1 1 8 7 3 Harmony 13 17 13 23 18 Serratoga Falls 1 2 1 8 4 Timnath Ranch-1st Filing 0 0 0 3 32 Timnath Ranch-3rd Filing 25 45 21 5 0 Timnath South-1st Filing 27 58 83 92 63 Timnath South- 2nd Filing 1 9 7 8 2 Wild Wing 0 0 8 20 19 Total 68 132 141 166 141 0
Foundation Only Permit
3 1 Modular Home
1
Commercial
2 7
