HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK - PDP - 49-98 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSI
$701 Mom I
lx%
1-16-1998 9:21AM FRU'-ITYSCAPE 970 226 4196 P.8
FM
48.
A.
49.
A.
50.
51.
A.
52.
A.
53.
Type I & II processes are the same. There is a 12-15 week project review then
public hearing. Public comment is welcome.
Appeals?
After public hearing, they go to City Council directly.
The grid layout of the developments yisn't compatible with existing development.
The densities required by the City dictate the grid layout. There are 2 access points
only. There is a 50 foot common open space on the Chesapeake side.
Comment: We live here because of the open feeling. We want to keep it. Why not move
the park to the Chesapeake side? The plan as it is is repulsive. It is not compatible.
Where will lighting be located?
At all intersections. The City plans and controls lighting.
What about the increase in traffic in the area? What about the truck routes? Volume and
speed is the issue here.
City response: Voters approved a plan to re-route trucks from Old Town through the
northeast. It will be a major arterial. The State designates roads for truck use. Police can
ticket violators.
Bill Birchy (Councilperson for District 1) comment: Please put you comments in writing
to me. Please get involved in the transportation study for the northeast.
_ 1r4.•
54.
A.
55.
56.
A.
What about drainage for this area?
There is no master plan for the area. The irrigation ditch receives all water drainage.
There is only a 1 % chance for a 100 year flood.
City: This is prior to a formal project submittal. There is a 12-15 week development
review process. A sign will be put up before the neighborhood meeting for comment and
questions on the formal project proposal.
What will trigger another public hearing?
There will be the public hearing for approval of the plan. It 's near the end of the process.
1-16-19913 9 : 20AM FRO' ^.I TYSCAPE 970 226 d 19S P _ 7
39. New residences will take Country Club Road to shop.
A. City response: All traffic doesn't go south. The northeast transportation plan will
look at these issues.
40. Comments:
• The density in this area is unique in Fort Collins. The north has a lower
density —it's more open with large lots. Why does City Plan have an urban density
in this area? Why not put this in the south?
• We don't want to be a Harmony corridor.
A. City response: The northeast has been annexed in the last 10 years. The south has
limits to growth, and the northeast is available for growth.
41. Why isn't a suburban plan maintained'? Why so urban? Can we change the City
Plan?
A. City Plan has designated this quadrant for urban development. The plan could be
amended.
42. Comment: The City Plan concept is that low densities yield urban sprawl.
Increased density allows more open space. The City looked at 3 plans originally
before deciding on this plan.
43. There is a conflict - we were part of the County, not part of the City process.
A. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition was active in the development of City Plan.
44. Traffic on Country Club Road is a concern. The collector road may need to extend
north Were residents on Country Club Road notified of this meeting?
A. We notified some residents on Country Club Road, but not west of Country Club
Cove.
45. Comment: The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition worked to reduce density
concerns. The infrastructure doesn't exist to support development. People go
south. They need roads.
46. Will there be an interchange at County Road 52 and I-25?
A. City Plan will look at the entire area including the street plan. An interchange is
probable.
47. Where does public comment go after this? Could this plan be changed — layout
wise?
1-16-1998 9:20AM FROM ^.ITYSCAPE 970 226 4196 P.6
30. There is no sign of these changes in this plan.
A. It would be inappropriate at this time to comment on these changes. No traffic
analysis has been done.
31. Ina 1975 plan, Timberline was studied. The plan has indicators for Timberline's
extension.
A. The City would work with developers and the Northeast Transportation Plan..
32. Why not include this plan in the Mountain Vista Plan?
A. We will. We'll look at it in more detail. This is one corner of the quadrant.
33. Do you have control of the project?
A. From the land use code.
34. Will you include this project with the overall plan?
A. We'll work with them.
35. Comments:
• 700-1400 units is a lot.
Compatibility is a major issue for Adriel Hills and Chesapeake, in fact it is the
#1 concern.
A. There will be answers. This particular plan is transitional to actual development.
36. If this was still County, it would be different.
A. 1t is still in the City growth area, and the County has a new plan that promotes
clustering.
37. Comments:
- This plan is forcing more traffic on to Country Club Road.
• Pedestrians won't cross an arterial to a commercial area.
A. This is a 2 lane collector street, not an arterial. Country Club Road stops to prevent
this..
38. Will a grocery store be built before houses?
A. Not before the houses.
1-16-1998 9:19AM FROM CITYSCAPE 970 226 4196 P.5
• 600 units divided by 8 is not 12 units/ acre.
• Are 5/units/acre compatible with Chesapeake (patio home area of Adriel Hills
on County Road 11)? (Light yellow area on map)
• Chesapeake has a green belt.
• Your development doesn't compare to Chesapeake and Adriel Hills with its
golf course, etc. There is a conflict between City Plan and existing development.
The City has decided on an urban utility center.
25. Could you put the higher density in the center of the development?
A. Yes, we could move the houses. But the traffic issues are the same. It would have
the same overall impact.
City response: There is a 20 year window for City Plan. The northeast quadrant is
j' identified for future urban development. Yes, there are different compatibilities
with existing development.
The first of 1998 the City has a'more detailed plan for the northeast, "Mountain
Vista Plan." This is a 12 month review and planning process involving
transportation, land use issues. The process provides opportunities for community
involvement. There will be an opportunity to adjust densities.
26. Why are you -presenting this plan? (to City planner)
A. This plan came to us..
27. What chance is there for extending County Road 11 down to Vine? (to City
planner)
A. I don't know.
(Transportation Dept.) County Road I I is planned to extend to Vine according to
the master plan.
Transportation Dept.
28. The master plan for the northeast has a 3 year window, but will it be developed
already?
A. The Mountain Vista Plan looks at County Road 11 to Vine to I-25. The northeast,
transportation plan has a larger area It's a 12 month process. There is also an I-25
corridor plan.
29. Timberline is going to Summit View. Why isn't is going north?
A. It goes into Mountain Vista..
1-16-1998 9:19AM FROM CITYSCAPE 970 226 4196
P. d
will be a 2 lane road with detached sidewalks. Mountain Vista has 112 foot right of
way. It will be a 4 lane road with a median, sidewalks, and parkway.
16. Will County Road 11 be extended to Vine?
A. I can't answer that at this time.
17. Will curbs and gutter be put on both sides of County Road 11 ?
A. I'm not sure if the other side will have curbs and gutter, but it will be a 2 lane
completed road structure.
18. Will the property owners on the other side of the street be responsible for curbs and
gutters?
A. I don't know that tonight..
19. What is the compatibility of the project with existing neighborhoods?
A. We looked at residential land uses currently. Overall, we see a mix of residential
uses. The proposed project fits. The patio homes are similar to Adriel Hills. The
empty nester lifestyle that patio homes attract is similar to Adriel Hills.
20. The newer patio homes at Adriel Hills are detached.
A. These patio homes are duplexes.
21. That's different.
A. If they were separated, they would be similar to Adriel Hills.
22. What is the density for the light yellow on the Zoning Map?
A. It has a minimum density of 5 units/acre.
23. What is the densitof the light yellow on the Structure Map?
A. It has a minimum density of 4 units/acre.
24. To be compatible, shouldn't new construction be more closely matched at 4
units/acre?
A. 5 units/ acre is the lowest we can propose. We will need 2 '/: times that density for
the remainder of the property or 12/units/ acre to meet City density requirements.
Comments:
1-16-1998 9:19AM FROM CITYSCAPE 970 226 d196 P.3
6. Why are there minimum requirements?
A. City Plan provides for more efficient land use with this density versus urban
sprawl. Also, alternative transportation modes are encouraged.
7_ Why not build this project in an urban area?
A. We are building next to a built area.
8. What is the purple area (on the map)?
A. Purple areas are for civic uses such as churches, schools, government buildings.
9. What is the difference between the different colored areas (on the map)?
A. The other colors are for office/commercial areas, residential, and green spaces.
10. For the yellow areas, are there individual buyers?
A. There are no firm plans yet.
11. Is there a set price criteria for the yellow lots?
A. No.
12. Aren't County Road I 1 and Mountain Vista county roads?
A. Mountain Vista Dr. is in City limits. County Road 11, I don't know ... the City has
that information.
Gary Mackey, City Traffic Dept., presented information on Road Development.
13. How are County Road I I and Mountain Vista Dr. to be improved?
A. County Road 11 will be widened from the farmhouse down. Mountain Vista Dr.
will become a 4 lane arterial.
14. What are the required improvements?
A. Curbs, gutters and drains will be put in and the road will be repaved with
somewhere between 4"-6" asphalt.
15. What will be the width of the roads?
A. County Road 11 has an 80 foot right of way. It will be 60 feet wide curb to curb. It
1-16-1998 9:18AM FRO" CITYSCAPE 970 226 A196
P. 2
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Storybook
DATE: December 3, 1997
APPLICANT: Eldon Ward
CONSULTANTS:
STAFF: Steve Olt, City Planner, Dan McArthur, Neighborhood Resources,
Gary Mackey, Traffic Dept.
Questions/Concems/Comm=
1. What is the size of the plot?
A. 137 acres.
2. What provisions are there for east/west traffic? Is it only Country Club Road?
A. Traffic Dept. response: The roads are already there. Country Club Road will
extend east to the T-intersection where there will be a collector road which will
continue north. There are no other opportunities for a road west.
3. Mountain Vista Dr. is an arterial road. Will there be improvements made to it?
A. It has 114 foot right of way. It will be widened to 5 lanes, including bike lanes.
These improvements would be done to meet City requirements. There will also be
some widening of County Road 11.
4. What is the timeframe for the road improvements?
A. That is uncertain. There'is no specific construction plan at this moment.
5. Is development set at 700 units or 1400 units for the property?
A. 700 units is the minimum according to the City Plan.
No Text
V
..r,
Standards and Division 3.8 — Supplementary Regulations of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
D. The STORYBOOK - Project Development Plan is compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the STORYBOOK - Project Development Plan - #49-89.
R
.V
Sherwood Forest Court, Friar Tuck Court and Maid Marian Court are cul-de-sacs and tie
into Little John Lane. Also, the developer has stubbed Little John Lane for the future
continuation of all these streets to the north and east. The development plan complies with
the Land Use Code.
(8) Division 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements
FINDING: The Transportation Planning Department reviewed the traffic impact study the
development is well within the range anticipated of the overall traffic carrying capacity of
the surrounding streets.
(9) Division 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth Standards
FINDING: The STORYBOOK — PDP development proposal satisfies the applicable
Contiguity standards of LUC Section 3.7.2, based on contiguity to the existing Chesapeake
development to the west and the existing Adriel Village development to the southwest.
(10) Division 3.8.18 —Residential Density Calculations.
FINDING: The LMN zoning district requires a minimum overall average density of 5
dwelling units/net acre of residential land, and a maximum overall average density of 8
dwelling units/gross acre of residential land. The proposal meets the minimum net density
with 5.14 units per acre and maximum gross density with 4 units per acre. Hence, this PDP
conforms to all required minimum and maximum density requirements of Division 4.4 of
the LUC and this standard.
4. Neighborhood Information Meeting
FINDING: The STORYBOOK - PDP contains proposed land uses that are permitted as Type I
uses, subject to an administrative review. The proposed uses are single family attached
dwellings and a neighborhood park site. The LUC does not require that a neighborhood
meeting be held for Type I development proposals. However, a neighborhood meeting was
held for the STORYBOOK — PDP development proposal on December 3, 1997.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
A. The STORYBOOK - Project Development Plan contains uses permitted in the LMN - Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to administrative review.
B. The STORYBOOK - Project Development Plan complies with the process located in
Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development
Applications of ARTICLE 2 — ADMINISTRATION.
C. The STORYBOOK - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards as put forth
in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 —
Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and
Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, Section
3.6 — Transportation and Circulation, Division 3.7 - Compact Urban Growth
7
V
(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets.
(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks.
FINDING: County Road 11 and Mountain Vista Drive are designated as arterial streets on
the Master Street Plan and all residential dwellings adjacent to such are set back a
minimum of 30 feet. The development plan meets these Land Use Code standards.
(E) Garage Doors.
FINDING: The elevations and site plan identifies garage door placement to be split between
front -loaded and side ("side lot- or rear lot) loaded. All side loaded garages facing street
frontages incorporate windows, which mimic other portions of the dwelling's living area.
Upon review of the elevations, garage doors facing the streets in this development do not
comprise more than fifty (50) percent of the ground floor street -facing linear building .
frontage. This is in compliance with the LUC.
(5) Division 3.6.1 - Master Street Plan
FINDING: The Master Street Plan identifies County Road 11 adjacent to the site as a minor
two (2) lane arterial and Mountain Vista Drive adjacent to the site as a four (4) lane arterial.
There are no streets internal to the site identified on the Master Street Plan. The
development plan complies with the Master Street Plan.
(6) Division 3.6.2 — Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
FINDING: The developer is required to provide improvements to the City's street system in
accordance to the City's street grid system policy and master street plan. All street
improvements, including right-of-way widths and minimum cul-de-sac lengths, are in
conformance with city standards based upon the Poudre Fire Authority and City of Fort
Collins Engineering Department's review of the proposed Project Development Plan.
Hence, the proposed internal street system provides adequate circulation to the anticipated
traffic within the development.
(7) Division 3.6.3 — Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets.
FINDING: Residents will have the ability to access the schools and park via the existing and
future local and arterial street system in developments to the north and east, as well as by
future bicycle/pedestrian trails through open space areas in those developments.
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels.
FINDING: The proposed local street system consist of local streets to be accessed from
Mountain Vista Drive and County Road 11, both arterial streets. Two local street
connections are onto arterial streets, these are Little John Lane (local) connects to
Mountain Vista Drive (arterial) and Chesapeake Drive (local) connects onto County Road 11
(arterial).
0
In.accordance with the Land Use Code, onsite pedestrian systems provide directness,
continuity, safety and minimize the number of driveway and drive aisle crossings. In
addition, the developer proposes a direct enhanced pedestrian linkage across Little John
Lane at the Chesapeake Drive intersection to the neighborhood park.
(K) Parking Lots — Required Number of Spaces for Type of Use.
FINDING: All front lot lineal footages are in excess of 40 feet. The applicant provides a
two-(2) car garage for each dwelling unit. Hence, the development proposal satisfies the
parking requirements set forth in the LUC.
(3) Division 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
(B) Architectural Character.
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.
(D) Building Orientation.
(E) Privacy Considerations.
(F) Building Materials.
FINDING: The orientation of the buildings allows residents to enter and exit the buildings
"—directly to and from walkways that connect to the internal public sidewalk system.
The proposed residential buildings will be one (1) and two (2) story structures with pitched
roofs, up to approximately 26' in height, and they will consist of the. following building
materials:
masonry as the base material (colors: red, tan/natural, and red/gray)
12" masonite lap siding for the gables
8" masonite fascia and soffit (color: white)
30 year asphalt shake shingles (color: barnwood)
windows (white clad — options: stained glass, cottage grills, half
rounds, elliptical and transoms)
doors (steel — options: wood or clad)
As required by the Land Use Code, all building materials are generally similar to materials
already being used in the neighborhood. All dwelling entrances are gained from covered
porch entryways and connect directly to the street sidewalk system. All building colors will
be consistent.
(4) Division 3.5.2 — Residential Building Standards
(B) Detached Housing Model Variety
FINDING: The STORYBOOK PDP meets the requirement of having at least three (3)
characteristics including a variety of floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines and garage
placement.
(D) Residential Building Setbacks.
(1) Setback from Arterial Streets. The minimum setback of every residential building from
any arterial street right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet.
(d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than ninety (90) percent of the total
number of dwelling units. If single-family detached dwellings are the only housing types
included in the mix, then the difference between the average lot size for each type of
single-family detached dwelling shall be at least two thousand (2,000) square feet.
FINDING: The "mix of housing types" required within the LMN zoning district has been
addressed (to the extent applicable). The applicant has proposed one and two story single-
family detached and attached dwellings.
3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards
The Project Development Plan was reviewed for compliance with the following General
Development Standards:
(1) Division 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection
(2) Street Trees
FINDING: The proposed street tree plantings are at 40' on -center in the 8' wide parkways
(between curb and sidewalk) along County Road 11 and Mountain Vista Drive, arterial
streets, and an average of one tree every 30' to 40' in 5' to 7' wide parkways (between curb
and sidewalk) along the internal local and connector streets. The PDP also meets the
minimum species diversity and sizing requirements.
(2) Division 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking
(C) Development Standards
(4) Bicycle Facilities.
FINDING: Bicycle parking is provided on site that meets or exceeds the required number of
bicycle parking spaces, since, all 66 dwellings will have a 2-car garage that will
accommodate bicycle parking for each dwelling unit.
(5) Walkways.
(a) Directness and continuity.
(b) Street Crossings.
(c) Direct On -site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations.
FINDING: The development proposal provides for an internal sidewalk network that
includes detached walkways along the arterial, local, and connector streets. Primary
pedestrian crossings will be defined with pavement treatment and striping different from
that of the vehicular lanes.
4
dwelling units/gross acre of residential land. The proposal meets the minimum net density
with 5.14 units per acre and maximum gross density with 4 units per acre. Hence, this PDP
conforms to all required minimum and maximum density requirements.
(1). Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual
development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In
order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any project development plan
containing thirty (30) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased
overall development; and a minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on
any such project development plan containing forty-five (45) acres or more.
FINDING: The "mix of housing types" required within the LMN zoning district has been
addressed to the extent applicable. The applicant has proposed one and two story single-
family detached and attached dwellings. The dwellings will have porch entryways and the
designs include a wide variety of architectural details. The garage placement consist of the
following:
- front loaded (traditional)
- rear lot placement - side loaded
- front lot placement - side loaded (see sheet 1 of 5).
Staff finds the specifics of this requirement are met since the developer proposes four
different one and two story ranch style dwellings.
(b) Lot sizes and dimensions shall be varied for different housing types to avoid
monotonous streetscapes. For example, larger housing types on larger lots are
encouraged on corners. Smaller lots are encouraged adjacent to common open
spaces.
FINDING: Lot frontage range from 45' for the attached single-family dwellings to 83' for the
detached single-family dwellings. Staff finds that this PDP is in compliance with this
standard.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
1. Standard lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing six thousand [6,000]
square feet or more).
2. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than six thousand [6,000]
square feet).
3. Two-family dwellings.
4. Single-family attached dwellings.
FINDING: Lots sizes range in size from 4,275 square feet to 7,856 square feet. Staff finds
that this PDP is in compliance with this standard.
3
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: LMN; vacant
W: R; existing single family residential (Adriel Village and Chesapeake subdivision)-
S: LMN; vacant
E:. LMN; vacant
This property was annexed into the City as part of the East Vine Drive 71h Annexation on August
16, 1983 (Ordinance #99-1983) and the Country Club East Annexation on June29, 1983
(Ordinance #101-1983).
2. Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (LMN)
(B) Permitted Uses
(2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review.
(a) Residential Uses.
FINDING: In accordance with Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Land Use Code, single-family
detached and single-family dwellings are allowed in the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District (LMN) subject to an administrative review with a Public Hearing.
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density.
(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District shall
have an overall minimum average density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre of
residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall development
plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less and located in
the area defined as "infill area" need not comply with the requirement of this
subparagraph (a).
(b)The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be eight (8)
dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, except that affordable housing projects
(whether approved pursuant to overall development plans or project development
plans) containing ten (10) acres or less and located in the Infill Area may attain a
maximum density, taken as a whole, of twelve (12) dwellings units per gross acre of
residential land.
(c)The maximum density of any phase in a multiple -phase development plan shall be
twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
FINDING: The LMN zoning district requires a minimum overall average density of 5
dwelling units/net acre of residential land, and a maximum overall average density of 8
FA
f
Commu / Planning and Environmental vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: May 12, 1999
PROJECT: Storybook, Project Development Plan - #49-98
APPLICANT: Mr. Gary Mackey
6804 Aaron Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
OWNER: Mr. Gary Mackey
6804 Aaron Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FILE COPY
This is a Project Development Plan (PDP) request for a division of land into 66 lots on
approximately 16.6006 acres. The applicant intends to develop single family attached and
detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 7,856 square feet to 4,275 square feet. The site is
located on the northeast corner of Mountain Vista Drive and County Road 11. The property is in
the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code L( UC) and with the
purpose of the LMN District as it is 16.6006 acres in size and contains single family detached and
attached dwelling units and a neighborhood park site (with picnic tables/bench) greater than I acre
in size. Two major streets (Mountain Vista Drive/County Road 11) bound the property to the south
and west and this development will be integrated into neighborhoods providing a mix of residential
densities in the vicinity.
28t North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020