HomeMy WebLinkAboutPONDEROSA PARK PUD, 2ND REPLAT - AMENDED FINAL - 37-96 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSFeb-18-97 13:05 Bill or Jean Benton (970) 416-8885 or 1- P.Ol
William M. (Bill) Benton
516 Ponderosa Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80521-3 ] 33
Horne./Office: (970) 224-5326 or Toll Free: 1-888-597-6109
Fax: (970) 416-8885 or Toll Free: I-888-597-6110
Pager: (970) 490-3898 Cellphone: (970) 227-3739
e-mail: BBEN5]6@,aol.com
18 February 1997
FAX TRANSMITTAL
To: Community Planning and ErMroiuuental Services
Attn. Michad Ludwig, City Planner
Fax: 22 I-6378
Rc: Ponderosa Park PUD, 2' `' Rcplat, Amended Final #37-90
When we were looking at lots to buildouf hww, we investigated the southern pail of this P'UD and were
told by the developers that the arw now in question would have to be open space because they were
required by the City to bury a drainage pipe in the Northern portion, that area now serviced by the
Ponderosa Circle outlet, so excess water would flow into a catch basin at the Southern end of their
property.
It is possible T have the proposed building site confus4 but I felt obligated to Call this possiblo conflict
into question and also ask what changed?
What effect will these proposed building sites have on the drainage problem they've had (or have) in this
area?
At the meetings l attended before Jefferson Commons %4= approved, one of the soiling points of that
project was that the area directly north of their project wsa platted to be open space and thercferc the
neigbhorhpod would not appear to he overly crowded What thinking changed this?
Possibly the trap furnished by your office isn't detailed enough Imt I see no access to this proposed site.
If it is through extension of Orchard Place, then the traffic problem that is going to be created by Jefferson
Commons is just going to be compounded.
Water pressum in this area has been a headache during the months of high water usage. The City staff
assured us that the lefferson Commons Corporation would install a system to relieve this concern. Will
that relieve the water pr>~rstao problems That „ill be created by these new building sites'?
Unfortunately I has-e a conflict the night of your meeting, but I would vrry much like to have this letter
read into tho rcwrd and the concerns addressed before final approval.
Thank you in advance for your umittion in this mailer.
s GC
> e
3
1�7L T( UTf1T�U(��1��TT/�� TT-TTT\�r�
cr ntl
1 lL1LT i1JJ LJ1 .Ll L �1' L/1-Xir1Al �l1! �l lYlt,�
S
for FrjSA
1 Q Project: WQ67MMGROL ?L>S'� CtAOaC4
7� Meeting Location:
City of Fort Collins Date: L 1
v
d y
s Attendees: Please sifrn this sheet. The information wiIl be used to
='- update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you `vish to
receive minutes of this meeting.
Did You Receive �orrect
Written Noti icationladdress.
of this meeting?
Name Address Zip
Yes I \o
IYes
I Nol
13�fh Gti v�¢ r 30 �o✓� der S a r _
V
I
'�
r4.,. s IV( -7/ L
I
I
I
I
I
33. What is to prevent every one of the 15 homes from being the two story homes, largest
home?
A. Nothing really, other than the market. We will be trying to divide the 3 or 4 house styles
up evenly.
34. Does the City have a problem with noise ordinance when homes are this close together?
A. No different than any other residential neighborhood.
35. What steps are you taking to market this development?
A. I don't have a marketing plan yet, but I am willing to limit the number of investment
properties (rental) on the cul-de-sac.
36. What will this development do to our properties values?
A. The single family, at this price range, should pull values up.
22. What is the trail connection for between the 2 cul-de-sacs?
A. To provide bike/pedestrian connection between the cut -de -sacs.
23. What is your development time frame?
A. Realistically, summer to fall 1997.
24. Where will you put your mailboxes?
A. We will have to work that out with the Post Office.
25. How far apart are the house in the north cul-de-sac?
A. The are 10 feet apart.
26. The elimination of one lot would enable a 10 foot separation between all buildings.
27. I am concerned about the impact of construction on my property.
28. What are the fencing plans for this project?
A. There is existing fences along the east and west property lines. The development to the
south will provide one. The common open space to the north will not be fenced.
29. Will there be fencing design guidelines and restriction.
A. Probably.
30. We are concerned about the appearance of the northerly cul-de-sac and do not want this
to look like it.
A. We will resolve some of that with the HOA, as it develops.
31. Will there be a sprinkler system installed in the common areas?
A. We are planning on planting native grasses and not installing a sprinkler system.
32. What area are you referring to as these homes being similar to our compatible with?
A. The cul-de-sac to the north.
8. Originally, the plan was approved for 12 units, now you are proposing 15. This is
increasing the density in this area. I am concerned about this and the additional traffic
generated.
A. This phase is slightly higher in density but there will be more open space.
9. There will be more people, overall, probably more children and noise.
10. The north cul-de-sac was originally approved for 16 units and has a total of 12.
11. The houses in the north cul-de-sac feel very close to one another and these homes will be
even closer.
12. What is low density residential defines as? Is not the density to be about 5 dwelling units
per acre?
13. The 6 foot separation between buildings is much too short! The buildings should be
further apart.
A. The City's R-L - Low Density Residential District does not have a maximum density.
Planned Unit Developments require a minimum of 5 dwelling units per acre.
14. We do not have to duplicate the 5 foot to 6 foot building separation between buildings like
in other neighborhoods, in our neighborhood.
15. I would rather see townhomes here than these homes so close together.
16. When I bought my home in 1988 I asked someone about what was going to happen on the
vacant lot to the east of my home (this property to be developed).
17. The HOA will be responsible for maintenance of the drive and cul-de-sac, and common
areas (landscaping) not the individual private lots.
18. I could live with this project if 2 units were eliminated from the plan.
19. Why can you not do the same thing with townhomes (owner -occupied) like you want to
do with these houses?
20. The homes are just too close to one another.
A. Differences in marketing.
21. Would the elimination of 1 unit, enabling greater building separation, be acceptable?
A. It would be a step in the right direction.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: 2ND REPLAT OF PART OFPONDEROSA PARK
DATE: JANUARY 9, 1997
APPLICANT: DANE BRANDT
STAFF: STEVE OLT, CITY PLANNER
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/COMMENTS
These homes are to be priced from $105,000 to $115,000 and be similar in character to
the homes in the cul-de-sac to the north.
2. Home Owners Association- only the homes in the 2 cut -de -sacs off of Ponderosa Drive
will be included in the Home Owners Association. This will maintain the 2 private drives
& cul-de-sacs. Homes fronting on Ponderosa Drive are welcome to voluntarily join the
HOA.
3. Marketing to HOME Program qualifiers.
4. No units over 3 bedrooms. Do not want investors, want owner -occupied homes.
5. Can you require people living on the cul-de-sac to use designated parking in the cul-de-
sac?
A. Yes, that is the intent.
6. Is the private driveway from Ponderosa Drive already there?
A. Yes, it is a paved drive.
7. I like the idea of the homes being owner occupied.
3
To: Mike Ludwig FEB 14 IT'D
From: Dane Brandt
Re: Ponderosa Park Homeowners Association
Dear Mike:
The question has been asked about how the Homeowners Association will be set
up at Ponderosa Park. As we addressed at the neighborhood meeting, it our intention to
separate the new homes from the existing homes that face onto Ponderosa and the four
units that face into the private drive coming into the 2nd replat.
The homes that face the private drive will be provided an easement for ingress and
egress onto their property and will also be allowed to use the overflow parking under the
rules and regulations of the HOA.
The homes that we constructed on Ponderosa Court will be included into the
Homeowners Association. These owners were informed of the planned formation of the
HOA before they closed on their homes. They also signed a PUD rider with their Deed of
Trust at closing. Therefore, they are all aware of the intention to be in the HOA.
The homes that are to be excluded from the HOA will be given the option to join
the Association at the time of its formation. If they choose to join, they will from that
point forward become a mandatory member. If they choose not to join at that time, the
option will not be continued forward past a specific date and therefore cannot join the
Association after the deadline expires.
The Associations responsibilities will be to maintain the Green belt areas, maintain
the asphalt on the private drive, and carry the liability insurance for the Association
property.
The Association documents are currently being prepared by my attorney and
should be in place before the first home starts construction. Since these documents are
necessary for the project to obtain FHA approval, we are diligently pursuing the
completion of these documents.
I hope This answers the questions that were raised. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact me at 482-4000 or you can contact my attorney, Jeff Johnson,
at 482-4322.
Sincerely,
Dane Brandt
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Ponderosa Park P.U.D. is a 46 unit residential planned unit development approved in 1979.
Ten units were constructed prior to 1987. The North 20 lots were replated in 1987. The replat
reduced the number of lots to 18 which 18 residences have been completed at this time. This
submittal has 15 single family lots on 2.4886 acres. The total number of units in the P.U.D. will
be 43 which is a reduction of 3 units. The density of this submittal is 6.0 units per acre and the
density of the overall P.U.D. is 5.2 units per acre.
Land use policies that are achieved by this proposed plan are:
(L) To reduce urban sprawl by developing in -fill projects (Land Use Policies Plan
# 3.a.)
(2.) To develop projects at a density of three units or greater (Land Use Policies
Plan # 12)
(t } To provide low income housing (Land Use Policies Plan # 76)
(4.) To provide good pedestrian and bicycle access from the P.U.D. to the
Orchard Place Path (Land Use Policies Plan # 6.b. and 64)
(5.) To provide Housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. (Land
Use Policies Plan # 79)
Tracts "A", 'B" and "C" will be owned by the Homeowners Association. All of the lots will
be sold to individual homeowners.
Proposal:
Description:
Density:
General Population:
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
#37-96 Ponderosa Park PUD, 2nd Replat
Final
15 single family residential lots on 2.4886 acres.
6.03 du/ac (gross)
15 (multi -family units) x 3.35*(persons/unit) = 50
School Age Population:
Elementary: 15 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 6
Junior High: 15 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 3
Senior High: 15 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 2
TOTAL =11
*Figures are calculated on 3 bedroom single family residential units.
STEWART&ASSOCIATLS
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
7kAFRC STl)DY
December 23, 1996
Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Steve,
This describes the traffic impact from the Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park P.U.D.
The original approved P.U.D. had 46 units accessing to Ponderosa Drive. The portion of the
P.U.D. which has been developed has 28 existing units. The Second Replat has 15 proposed units
which is an overall decrease of three units and a decrease of 30 trips per day from the P.U.D.
The second Replat will have 15 units accessing Ponderosa Drive from the private drive. The
original site plan had 12 units which used the private drive for access.
The adjacent Jefferson Commons P.U.D. has a requirement that Orchard Place, east of
Ponderosa Drive will be vacated. That precludes any of the 15 proposed units using Orchard
Place for access. Likewise, it also does not generate any traffic from the East to the Ponderosa
Drive - Orchard Place intersection.
Due to the net decrease of 3 units, we feel that a full traffic study is not needed at this time.
Sincerely,
C�L"-
Richard A. Rutherford P. . & L.S.
President
rrc
James H. Stewart
and Associates, Inc.
103 S. Meldrum Street
P.O. Box 429
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
970/482-9331
Fax 970/482-9382
STEWART&kSSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
VAR i A&M ZQQQFST�
February 5, 1997
Mr. Mike Ludwig
Community Planning and Environmental Services
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mike,
On behalf of the owner of the Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park P.U.D., this is a
request for a variance to the Solar Orientation requirement of 65% of the residences face North or
South. This plan has 36% of the residences meeting the ordinance.
The P.U.D. is a change to the original site plan that was approved June 15, 1979. Two thirds
of the P.U.D. has been constructed and therefore the last fourteen lots have the same orientation
as the original P.U.D. The access and the shape of the site preclude East-West private drives.
Orchard Place is being vacated which also precludes solar orientation.
To meet the requirement, nine lots would have to face North or South. An undue hardship
would be caused, because the existing conditions would require that a radical change to the site
plan would be needed and it would mean eliminating three or four units.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call -
Sincerely , ,�1'14114 "4
F{UT•
�F.,.
// a �fi. FU• ; �G
Richard A. Rutherford P.E. & L.S.*! 2 8 3 *x
President
r ?
rrc
James H. Stewart
and Associates. Inc.
103 S. Meldrum Street
P.O. Box 429
Ft Collins, CO 80522
970/482-9331
Fax 970/482-9382
Criterion Earned
Credit
If it can be demonstrated that the project will retiree coo-caxwable energy usage either through the application of alternative energy
systems or through committed energy conservation m=% vs beyond those normally required by City Code, a 5% bonus may be
y
earned for every 5% reduction in energy use,
m
Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 acres included in the project
n
Cal mlate the percentage of the total aura is the project that ate devoted to recreational use. Fzdcr SS of that percentage as a bonus.
O
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requiranents, calailafe the
percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and cola this percentage as a bonus
P
Spat of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which arc not required by City Code,
enter a 2% bonus for every S I flu per dwelling unit invested
q
If part of the total development budget s to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not othawise required by City
Code, enter a I % bonus for every S I00 per dwelling unit invested
OIf
the projat contains dwelling unify set aside for individuals taming 80% or less of the median income of City residents, as adjusted
I,
for family size, and paying less than 30a/a of their gross income for housing, including utilities ("Affordable Dwelling Units"),
calculate the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the project and enter that percentage
as a bons, up to a maaararm of 150/a (If the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units
cast be constructed as a pert ofthe phase for which approval is sought.) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain
N
affordable for a period drat less than 25 year; the developer shall record such protective covenants as may be required by the City
under Sec. 29-526(JX4).
Ifa commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B"
handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
T 7
3
Type "A" .5 x Type "A" Units
tt
Tote] Units
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 300/a
Type "B" 1.0 x Type "B" Units
Total Units
SIf
the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following:
t
3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g. environmental, land use, aesthetic,
economic and social factors}
3% For assuring that new struc9uu will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units;
3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation and improvement in an
appropriate mamma
Ifa portion or all ofthe required puking in the multiple family project is provided umdergrourd, within the building, or in an elevated
u
parking structure as an Accawry use to the primary structure. a bonus may be earned as follows:
9a/. For providing 75% or more of the puking in a structure;
6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a Rrtrctum,
3% For providing 25 - 49°/a of the parking in a sbuctxu
V
Ifa cornninnent is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwellingunit,, ender a bonus of 10°k
W
Ifthe applicant oonnuts to providing adequate, safe and convenient Pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any
of the destination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/law,
5% Forconnecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the die -noes as defined in this Density Chart
5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses the 'ect.
TOTAL
85
DENSITY'CIIART H
Maximum Earned
Criterion Maximum
Credit
8
2000 fed of an o¢st ng nee
ghborhood service cede, or, neighborhood service center to be constructed M ,part
20%
ottere project (1f the project is proposed to be oomtructed in multiple phases, such neighborhood service ceder
20
must be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought.)
650 fed of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [61 dwelling units
20%
per acre on a gross ,.crease basis)
C
4000 feet of an existing communityhc, egiond shopping ocntor a commvruty/regional stopping cuter to be
We/.
constructed u a part of the project (If the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phasq such
'.. :.:
community/regional shopping cater must be constructed u a part of the phase for which approval is sought)
.
3500 feet of an exiting neighborhood or community unty park, or a community facility (EXCEPT GOLF COURSES);
20N.
20
°----------------------------------- �9K
d3500
-------------------------
fed of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community facility
--
IMe
-------
(EXCEPT GOLF COURSES) or
.
3500 feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed or not
10oti
e
2500 feet of an craslin8 school, mooting all rcquirernats of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws
100h
10
r
1
3000 feet of an existing major employmari center, or a major employment center to be constructed as;a put of
200/.
the prget. (If the project is proposed to be oo st udod in multiple phases, such major employment center mud
be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) No building, office or business pan#, or
shopping arts which his served as the basis for the claiming of credit under any other "bass^ criteria of this
Density Chart can also be used as; the basis for claiming credit under this aiteriom
g
1000 fed of an existing child care cuter, or a child ld cam center to be eructed as,a part of the project (If the
5%
project is proposed to be ocrostruCed in multiple phases, such child care center must be constructed as a part of the
phase for which approval is sought.)
h
"North Fort Comm"
200,E
E"
IThe
Cenral Business District
200/0
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
300/.
06/o For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 100/. coctigunty,
10 - 15% For projects whale property boundary his 10 - 200/. contiguity,
15 - 200/. For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 300/. contiguity; I ��
20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary his 0 . 30 - 4oontiguity;
25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary, his 40 - 500/. contiguity.
.
If the project contains dwelling units set aside for individuals earning 800/. or less of the median income of City
15%
residents, u adjusted for family size, and paying has than 300/. of their gross inane for housing, including
k
utilif ("Affordable Dwelling Unib"Z calculate the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number
of dwelling units in the project and erta flat peraztaM up to a maximum of 13% (If the project is proposed
to be con stnbcted in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units must be constructed as a part of the phase for
which approval is sought-) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units resin affordable for a period
of not less d mh 25 years, the deeclop r shall record such protective covenants u may be required by the City under
Sec. 29-526(Jx4}
2 r OF
' k 0 '• �- .ram
DEFINITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes,
mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses;
fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit
quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for
public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. .
CRITERIA:
following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
:lopment plan.
1. DOES THE PROTECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART IT'FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a
residential project shall be based on the following:
60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre
60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre.
90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED
ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H"
FROM BASE POINTS?
Yes10
1No N/A
Yes No N/A
Ivi ❑
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996.
p enAr ow PART aF L bE206k PWV- POtIo MGMU Ply , & 37-`I ro
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
I APPLICABLE CRITE.m,IA ONLY
CRITERION
is :he c.-enon
acriicaclO
Will the =enc
I be satisfied?
If no, please exclain
- 3
• s
Yes No
Al. -
COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1
Solar Onantation
I
I I I
IW000I I
1.2 Camorehensive Plan
1
1.3
Wildlife Habitat
I I
I I
14
Mineral Deposit
I 11
I
1.=
==106cally Sensitive areas
I rz;ar ed
I rester. ea
I I I
1.1-Z Lands cf Agricultural Imoor,_ncs
i
1.7
Energv Conservation
I
E I I
1.8
Air Qualitv
I
I I I
1.9
water Ot ality
I
i I I
10.
Se`Nace and \NaSiec
I t
I I I
1 11
Wa` iron rv^ '
1.12
Residential Density
IVol v#f
1 I I
o
NEIG'r'EORHOOD COIv1PA`TIEILITY C RIT=RIA1
I I
2.1
V_nic iar. Ps --saran. Eike Transocr,=lion I I I i I
2 2
Euiicir.c P!ac_r ,=nt and Orient_ticr.
ijevI 1 1
2=
Natural r=e_=tures
I I&000I I
2.-".
Vehicular Circuiation anc P=_rlcing_
I I I I
2.55
Enterger:cy AccBss
2.=
Pe_estrian Ciruladon
I
I 1 1
2.7
Arz::itec:ure
I I I
I I
J I
7uilcina Heim and Views
2.a .
Shading
iV#TVf
I I I
2.10
Solar Ac..=ss
I
I I
'"
2.11
Historic Resources
I I I
I
2.12
ScttaCkS
IVIOTWOT
401I
2.13
L andscace
I
I
I
I
2.14
Sicns
I
I
1
1
2.1.5
Site Lighting
Ivej
2.16
Ncise and Vibration
1
I
1
2.17
Glare or Heat I
I I
2.18
Haz=_rdous Materials
1
I
1
A 3.
ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1
Utility Capacity
Vol
I
3.2
Design Standards
- 1
I
3.3
Water Hazards
3.4
Geoloaic Hazards
I
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The Ciry of Fort Collins. Colorado. Revised 94
u.2�
-61-
No Text
REDWOOD
�_
�_ OD �
= oa =- , -
�_.__ � f�l [mil f�l
�0
-� � � -.1
I' � ���.���= ;� ICI C --I ICI ��
.�
-�• -
� � � � •
W.O.
S FEET
COMMON AREA WA
NG YUIER M1M(ia5 _14rr)Y
(d)
tCr arW IIBW4 _— _—
— __ r0.AO 5S
(rr+lm ee+e)
.Y]Y 2Wf M1SAS
IN4
(.mn)
ramr.rrz. xwrwc ems
—___ �. uou
NOTES
� � nohn MaM m a a<wNn[. iM lNN b
>eY
S 4bV.wq Wlm mmras.00/W Nmpm
IsssaLe'� tsNNmlp wl.M.rA M MW r �tiv 41M
�Jr�uppr Caay�q am�yrwm..gib q m wren.h waapwv
r1N[(i I.D L bG crN) M gynM q IN Cb
✓i' Nn m prw w m.af v •aerr wak
pv-m-.oy
f� IM awtw .w. wu o+. rtlas M�vl 4.. rm ar
0 M4davryp mulrisYMlrm.W �'Mm
emoa041rvsY� 4 vi � � a r�isw.r) w
..wwmn w.R�v.•.)
u' w.aDr /.m r amv vs n Wnuq cmroer �m4
bMa
n vmi.. a. nw.w
»w i a�.r cm. a'e""'"„e,•. i.�x..
W" wmM
a�
M
m
PLANT
ranw: Nrrr
LIST
muci .ar
ss
T M9iB
i
�
m
W
�
A1ISI9Vl i�6
HM16 NERi
DRY —LAND GRASS MIX
I+c
bvAa sniss�
r M MB
q
nwur cesrto r[ r�nSS afi U
l
(/IREIFAi LiLF,`I
111M LUIdIe
2 1/r GL 9!9
ei.uvrmsLYCls Nav rixu ]!i W
2
W9WLS SFEIIE4 AW
fRIW6/d6YlVAY01 YM®W/.SeEFLiES
2I/2'q[bN8
mwem m
sx
0.V.M0 LMII 9MW5vgd ]fi
a
srrtAr wcrmrss
a2ms1 (srwrncs ewrs sxnwE-
z r/r rx ese
11/
Ye
NIAieT d2er£P
AN4111610ffiG'IfN6'1L06
SC4 IXWI
s✓
ri
srwwii AMEA
AN4Ar5 sail '4.Ybl-
s (x mvr
M
le
NP/E CLNRW/
/� NPMN
5 G1t Cqi/
a'
Ae
5
Am 1e14 W4YCi])
QYMAi SILIIG'rUb LtlL01ef)66
a 61( [VII
¢
1
mm MV
uuus sv. •slur•
r r/r rx BIB
2a 2
�l VICINITY MAP
(EO4. OESCRIPWN: SITE MM
Ipry J papyl rp rmb 9' m1 Y. T. Sfq I/T d rrml Y'. «pf N Ir¢f "X". q.XS AVA -TJL) tld5 IOr.NTY
Mgrw W1 YU. fm trYe C.bNn .�V'^Y. m5W4 beMmxsa. (115I }p'wC -R
rwdM.4Mxm. IbNwll/f dJa4r l6 /aWT.YW. AbAtlYaIb IM SvM CY. MP4Y016£-W9E/YI
(� ±yf LtYa CUNy d taw. r4Y N (bYra§ .O✓r mva'R ro.M N T. b44m< Al[lEX K b5
I/ sI Esla 6 m ..rrnp MN•Jf'N1 a4 MI. dWfy.WmM tiwM MYd.. a ryrh NtA]16 ' AAI/ .T WYL
[wmY1.4Yr M.MmM)fiwM[EO.�pa �daa..ea IOYJS'D1rfRW MI. mI We'n W. LO/9ZE __ _T.I104
SOTtJ� Nrl. trot ou epw sw•AYPF trot /mm u. bXYmlml/e d.dv sn'M �6 me Iw. 9oX xr- __________________ H.
r
.m rrJJm^ETr:n ro.E >am sw•t+m'[fasw rme ro. pnf a. xwl�nm er aw..e cross nw'vn ________ _________eo raps aer va
lyQ /xXp Wq willbP Sr. MaW'TJ'Y I%! M NMta WYTSTR!'f riTJa NM. Inmm
JI YS� b w � d a� Ts40iss«mm�aw.wJs� rmm r..r. n.z. rlarzs'm'. PARKINO
If Rr-srrm nllrH (s+..wl
A eY%N410/Y ES
T- J' NY MYKX^ S1WE5
Nr4-YSMC6
L D USE BRENIOOWN:
etwcetc caEzcE--------------
Li vaW a _ IXH
gM£IrnrX a4aXmG -N.N]Y -1••H
pTX SWffIM}SCME-ST.ayS -S}Il
PoIM _ rOLMT i I-- tt0
_Xv11X[ nOY6 eXX. vtrxE t[ nOXP afar
a Mt MIE � OT�� LLTOK ivaXf B.m
OWNERS SI"MW.:
M a[w
Xqw} lblt
sv.dNum ss
aTm 9 bC «.x.0 wal.
bpR qBC
r1f Wu4 mmrm .4.e
1
APPROWD
i s.. Sv.^a/ d u. IiY.Xv ea T^ro9 bu N. � Im d
ST41Mv 61aIMN6IM I1MYC ilr9
NOTESmil
rmrMm.irnd`ro°mm -' �.Xra. r.ma ro ra .. a.a
TFM
} nme.-. a. r.«vbrr.renaY..yw.
rrw�e.
TFM
and N}sa Mgw)NM1%e•m.^.v •W N. ryJd-q
ri
a�f m. e✓um.vr s �.—. I—
a•4wbrabJ� S
r�
`f f
r.yssLL.bYN}OM1 Od. JEI Nb6
pl C
"�'. Xr. may.M9r7tl:mwW
UJ
%EmrwNla.
rr rod r.oYerXroe n.ra.ae V «dN.YXn
m
� bbl
r1I50•
WZ u
tl
Q
2
1
W $
g
U _
P
U o X
QSTNE [4.tY
aalnc vrE-TeT � w 2
F:
M
"time i
�:
---- .,.
1010101man ONVEJA\:
1110
1'-0
■
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar
Orientation" and approval of the Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended
P/F, #37-96 with the following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final
plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans,
and final PUD, plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between
the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second
monthly meeting (April 28, 1997) of the Planning and Zoning Board following
the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was
conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said
subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The
Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that
there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain
specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting
of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the
owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in
the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the
Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or
second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any
such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time
to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision.
(If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made).
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended,
as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall
become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition
is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of
calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter
2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall
be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval;
however, in the event that the dispute is presented to the Board for resolution
regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be
counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute.
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 7
Park must also construct the remainder of permanent stormwater detention facilities after
the right-of-way is vacated.
The developer of the 2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park is obligated to repay a portion
of the cost incurred by the Jefferson Commons developer for the construction of a storm
drainage outlet on the Jefferson Commons property which serves the Ponderosa Park
property and Skyline Mobile Home Park.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
The Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96 earns
85 of the maximum applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a residential density of 5.6
dwelling units per acre (80 of the points are earned from base/locational criteria).
2. The Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96 meets
the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
except for All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation".
3. The Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96 can be
granted a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on the basis
that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor
impair the intent and purposes of this section; and that by reason of exceptional
topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the
site, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of All
Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation".
4. The Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96 is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
5. The Second Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
complies with the City's Transportation policies for traffic volumes and levels of
service.
6. Lot 2 is designated as a drainage easement for temporary stormwater detention.
No building permits will be issued for Lot 2 until Orchard Place is vacated as part
of the Jefferson Commons development. The developer of the 2nd Replat of Part
of Ponderosa Park must also construct the remainder of permanent stormwater
detention facilities after the right-of-way is vacated.
7. The developer of the 2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park is obligated to repay a
portion of the cost incurred by the Jefferson Commons developer for the
construction of a storm drainage outlet on the Jefferson Commons property which
serves the Ponderosa Park property and Skyline Mobile Home Park.
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 6
The combination of the above stated constraints leads to a predominantly north/south
configuration of the development. The proposed configuration is consistent with the
existing portions of the PUD. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the applicant's
variance request on the basis that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to
the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section; and that by reason of
exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar
to the site (as noted above), undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict
application of All Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation".
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 9, 1997 regarding this development request.
Minutes of this meeting are attached. In response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant
eliminated one lot to allow a 10 foot separation between all dwelling units. This is
consistent with the separation distances of the First Replat of Part of the Ponderosa Park
PUD. The Homeowners Association for this development will assume the responsibility
of maintaining the private drive from Ponderosa Park and agrees to grant an access
easement to the existing duplexes along the private drive at no cost. The single-family
homes proposed are consistent with the remainder of the existing PUD. Staff recommends
that this request for Amended Preliminary/Final PUD is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
4. Design:
The proposed layout consists of 14 detached single-family units. Access to the units is
gained via an existing private drive from Ponderosa Drive. In addition to one
driveway/garage parking space per lot, a parking area for 22 vehicles (20 standard and 2
handicap spaces) is provided. Pedestrian access is provided to Ponderosa Drive along
the existing private drive; to the existing Ponderosa park units to the north; and to the
bike/pedestrian path to the south on the Jefferson Commons site.
5. Transportation:
The existing transportation system is capable of handling the proposed vehicular traffic
volumes. All surrounding intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service. As previously stated, pedestrian access is provided to the north, south and west.
6. Stormwater:
Lot 2 is designated as a drainage easement for temporary stormwater detention. No
building permits will be issued for Lot 2 until Orchard Place is vacated as part of the
Jefferson Commons development. The developer of the 2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
C. Variance Request:
Section K, Variance Procedures, of the L.D.G.S. states:
"The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of this
section (the LDGS). The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on any application for
a variance shall be set forth in writing in the minutes of the meeting of the Board. Variance
requests may be granted if the Board determines that the granting of the variance would
neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section
and if the applicant demonstrates:
(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface
conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, undue hardship would be
caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this
section, or
(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar
orientation or access, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by
the strict application of any provisions of this section, or
(3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating
the provision for which a variance is requested, or
(4) The granting of a variance from the strict application of any provision would
result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the
proposed project would help satisfy a defined community need (such as
affordable housing or historic preservation) or would alleviate an existing
problem (such as traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict application
of such a provision would render the project practically unfeasible."
This is a request to allow 14 detached single-family lots on the remaining 2.5 acres of the
Ponderosa Park PUD rather than 12 attached (3 four-plex) units. This request is virtually
identical to the First Replat to the north that was approved in 1987. There are several
physical constraints which make it difficult for the applicant to achieve solar orientation.
First, the remaining property is only 2.5 acres in size. Second, the remaining property has
a dimension of 217 feet in an east/west direction and a dimension of nearly 500 feet in a
north/south direction. Finally, the only point of vehicular access to the site is an existing
private drive to the west side of the property from Ponderosa Drive. A vehicular access to
Orchard Place that is shown on the 1979 PUD, must be eliminated as the Orchard Place
right-of-way south of this project is to be vacated by the Jefferson Commons development.
There is no direct vehicular access to the Skyline Mobile Home Park nor the remainder of
the Ponderosa Park PUD.
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
BASE (LOCATIONAL)
a. being located within 2, 000 feet of an existing neighborhood service center-
20 points..
The entire project is within 2,000 feet of Cedarwood Plaza (King Soopers)
and West Elizabeth Plaza.
d. being located within 3,500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community
park, or community facility (except golf courses) - 20 points.
The entire project is within 3,500 feet of Rogers Park.
e. being located within 2,500 feet of an existing school, meeting all
requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws - 10
points.
The entire project is within 2,500 feet of Moore Elementary School.
f having a boundary contiguous to existing urban development - 30 points.
100% of the project boundary is contiguous to existing urban (city)
development. Only 50% contiguity is required for the full 30 points.
BONUS
V. connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses
the project - 5 points.
A 4.5 feet wide pedestrian/bike connection is being made to the
pedestrian/bicycle path to the south on the Jefferson Common project.
B. All -Development Criteria:
This request meets all applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. except for A-1.1
"Solar Orientation. All development Criteria A-1.1 requires at least 65% of the lots less
than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area in single- and two-family residential
developments to conform to the definition of a "solar oriented lot" in order to preserve the
potential solar energy usage. 36% (5 out of 14) of the lots within the proposed PUD meet
the definition of "solar oriented" lot. Attached is a variance request dated February 5,
1997, Richard Rutherford on behalf of the developer, Dane Brandt.
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
COMMENTS
Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows
N: R-L; existing single-family residential (First Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park
PUD).
S: R-L; approved and under -construction multi -family (Jefferson Commons PUD).
E: M-L; existing mobile home park (Skyline).
W: R-L; existing duplexes (Ponderosa Park PUD).
This property was annexed into the City as part of the West Fort Collins Annexation on
August 10, 1967, and is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential.
In June of 1979, the City approved the Ponderosa Park PUD (pre-LDGS). Approval was
granted for 46 dwelling units (9 duplexes and 7 four-plexes) on 8.25 acres a residential
density of 5.58 dwelling units per acre. 10 units (5 duplexes along Ponderosa Drive) were
constructed in accordance with the 1979 PUD.
On May 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the First Replat of Part of
Ponderosa Park. Approval was granted for 20 units (all detached single-family) on the
northern 3.69 acres of the original 1979 Plat, a residential density of 5.42 dwelling units per
acre.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for Amended Preliminary and Final PUD approval for 14 detached single-
family dwelling units on the remaining 2.5 acres of the original Ponderosa Park PUD, a
residential density of approximately 5.6 dwelling units per acre.
A. Residential Uses Point Chart:
This request was evaluated against the Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land
Development Guidance System and earns 85 of the maximum applicable points,
exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a residential density of 5.6 dwelling units per
acre (80 points are earned from base/locational criteria). Points were awarded for the
following criterion:
2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96
February 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section; and that by reason of
exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions
peculiar to the site, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict
application of All Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation";
• is compatible with surrounding land uses; and
• complies with the City's Transportation policies for traffic volumes and levels of
service.
ITEM NO. 4
MEETING DATE. 2/24/97
iiA STAFF Mike Ludwig
CitV of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: 2nd Replat of Part of Ponderosa Park PUD, Amended P/F, #37-96.
APPLICANT: The Masters Touch Homes
c/o Stewart Associates
103 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: The Masters Touch Homes
c/o Dane Brandt
1504 W. Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Amended Preliminary and Final PUD approval for 14 detached single-
family dwelling units on the remaining 2.5 acres of the Ponderosa Park PUD, a residential
density of approximately 5.6 dwelling units per acre. The property is located east of the
Ponderosa Drive and Orchard Place intersection and zoned R-L, Low Density Residential.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar
Orientation" and approval of the Amended Preliminary and
Final PUD with a condition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for Amended Preliminary and Final PUD approval:
earns 85 of the maximum applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of
the L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a residential density of
5.6 dwelling units per acre (80 of the points are earned from base/locational
criteria);
meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System except for All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation";
• can be granted a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on
the basis that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT