HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 3-96 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSLEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR
STOP -CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third
Edition, 1994.
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
VII. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the potential impacts of constructing the Scenic Views PUD, a residential project
in Fort Collins, Colorado. As a result of the, analysis, the following conclusions were drawn:
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following intersections: Overland
Trail at Elizabeth Street, Overland Trail at the access drive, Elizabeth Street at Cuerto Lane (the western
access drive), and Elizabeth Street at Tierra Lane (the eastern access drive).
The traffic impact analyses were performed for existing conditions and future Years 1997 and 2015.
Future background traffic conditions without the project and total traffic conditions, with completion
of the proposed project, were evaluated.
Under existing conditions each of the intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street is currently
operating at an acceptable level of service.
For Year 1997 background and total traffic conditions, the study intersections are projected to operate
at acceptable levels of. service.
For Year 2015 future background and total traffic conditions, it was determined that the study
intersections would operate at acceptable levels. It was assumed that Overland Trail would be a four -
lane facility with a center left -turn lane and Elizabeth Street would be a two-lane facility with a center
left -turn lane.
As required by the City of Fort Collins, Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street will need to be improved
adjacent to the project site. However, no additional roadway or intersection improvements would be
necessary due to the proposed project.
21
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
Peak Hour Level of Service
Background Traffic
Total Traffic
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Overland/Elizabeth
(stop -controlled)
WB L
C
C
C
D
WB R
A
A
A
A
SB L
A
A
A
A
Overland/Access Drive
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
B
B
SB L
A
A
Elizabeth/Cuerto
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB-L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
WB L
A
A
A
A
Elizabeth/Tierra
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
WB L
A
A
A
A
20
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Peak Hour Level of Service
Background Traffic
Total Traffic
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
Overland/Elizabeth
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
B
C
C
C
SB L
A
A
A
A
Overland/Access Drive
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
C
B
SB L
A
A
Elizabeth/Cuerto
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
WBL
A
A
A
A
Elizabeth/Tierra
(stop -controlled)
NB L/R
A
A
A
A
SB L/R
A
B
EB L
A
A
WBL
A
A
A
A
W]
VII. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The previous chapter described the development of future traffic forecasts both with and without the
proposed project. Intersection capacity analyses are conducted in this chapter for both scenarios to
assess the potential impact of the proposed project -generated traffic on the local street system.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 1997
The peak hour background and total traffic volumes for Year 1997, illustrated on Figures 4 and 7
respectively, were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level of service.
Table 3 summarizes these results for Year 1997 background and total traffic conditions.
As indicated in Table 3, each of the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level
of service under future traffic conditions for Year 1997.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 2015
The Year 2015 peak hour traffic volumes for background and total traffic conditions (after completion
of the proposed project), were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level of
service. Table 4 summarizes these results.
As indicated in Table 4, with the assumed improvements described in Chapter III each of the study
intersections is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service under future background and total
traffic conditions for Year 2015.
18
a
M O
515
15110
fr
N
H
ti
n
v v�i
M
105/105
ILI
F— 65/145
fr
M
O
C
� N
Note -Traffic volumes rounded
to nearest S vehicles
aI�w
U
�
~ N
10/25
f— 140/220
J L
10/10
5,15
160/245 —►
r
5/10
w
in
`4
10/25
0-140/240
J L
10/10
5/5
—►
r180/245
I
5/10
in
in
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
STREET
�ngure 8
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
H
o
v
M %
515
1 L
15110
fr
O N
M�
tn
M H
O�
N
85/85
55/105
fr
N
7
Note-Tra w volumes rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles
o'^ U
Ln
N
L—
10/25
f_ 110/160
J L
10/10
5/15
110/180 —►
r
I
5/10Ln
\
O�
tn
10/25
f-110/180
i L
10/10
5115r
130/18080 —►
I
5/10
� o
tA
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
STxEET
�a��nre
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
V. FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The future total traffic projections reflect future traffic conditions with traffic from the proposed Scenic
Views PUD project. The future total traffic projections were developed for Years 1997 and 2015.
TOTAL TRAFFIC YEAR 1997
The total traffic for Year 1997 was developed by: adding traffic from the proposed project to the
background traffic for Year 1997. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 1997 are
shown on Figure 7. ,
TOTAL TRAFFIC YEAR 2015
The total traffic for Year 2015 was -developed by: adding traffic from the proposed project to the
background traffic for Year 2015. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 2015 are
shown on Figure 8.
15
a
� � N
H
0
N 7/4 NOT TO SCALE
L 15110
fr .
000
x
w w
00
N ~ N
17/18
~ 25/15 J L 9/27 9/27
L 40— 1M9 J f— 9/27 ELIZABETH
f r 5115 5/14 STREET
5/14 -i
26/16 --m-
N
�' aganre fD
SITE - GENERATED TRAFFIC
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
approximately 65 percent to the east.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway
network. The site -generated trip assignments are shown on Figure 6.
13
IV. PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Development of traffic projections for the proposed Scenic Views PUD project involved the following
steps: estimation of trip generation, development of a trip distribution, and assignment of traffic onto
the roadway system.
TRIP GENERATION
Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their
report entitled Trip Generation, 5th edition, 1991, and revised February 1995, were applied to the
proposed land use in order to estimate the daily, AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips for the site. A
vehicles trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination.
Table 2 illustrates the projected daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed
project. It should be noted that the full trip generation estimates for the day care were assumed.
However, most likely a large number of the children at the day care would be from the Scenic Views
project and would not generate and external trip onto the roadway system.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Units
ITE
Code
ADT
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Tot
In
Out
Tot
Condos
192 DU
230
1,125
14
70
84
70
36
106
Duplex
40 DU
210
382
1 8
1 22
130
26
14
40
Single Famly
68 DU
210
649
13
37
50
44
25
69
Day Care
2 KSF
565
159
14
12
26
13
14
27
TOTAL
2,315
49
141
190
153
89
242
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The overall directional distribution of the site -generated traffic was determined based on the location
of the site within the City of Fort Collins. The trip distribution used in the traffic analysis was as
follows:
approximately 15 percent to the north,
approximately 20 percent to the south, and
12
A
a
0
tA
N
N
if
g
0
a,en
7 M
in
M
90/85
IL
40/130
�F-
fr
O1-1
Min
in
O �
�o
Note- Traffic volumes rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles
-�— 125/210
10/10
155/230 ---w-
5/10 —1 � r
a d
U Cz
�— 130/215
10/10
155/230 —i
5/10
N
F
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
STREET
EiL:gure 5
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
AM/PM PEAK HOUR '
a
0
Ln
4
N
M
l
70/65
30/90
Note -Traffic volumes rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles
—a-- 95/150
10/10
f— 1001155
10/10
I
NOT TO SCALE
ELIZABETH
STREET
�' flgunre
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
Background Traffic Year 1997
The peak hour background traffic for Year 1997 is depicted on Figure 4. As mentioned above this was
developed by factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth in the City of Fort Collins and
adding the traffic from the nearby projects described above.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC YEAR 2015
Future projections of background traffic for Year 2015 were developed by: factoring the existing traffic
to account for overall growth and adding traffic from proposed developments.
Future Roadway Improvements
The analysis of the long term future traffic conditions within the study area included several roadway
improvements. These assumed improvements are described below:
Overland Trail would be widened to accommodate four travel lanes, two in each
direction, with a center left -turn lane.
Elizabeth Street would be improved to accommodate two travel lanes and a center left -
turn lane.
Citywide Traffic Growth
An overall growth in traffic of 1.5 percent annually was assumed. The existing traffic volumes were
adjusted upward by a total of 33 percent to reflect this citywide growth.
Traffic From Nearby Projects
City of Fort Collins staff provided information on the projects near the study area which could be
completed within the long term. A description of each of these projects is provided below. The Year
2015 background traffic projections also include the list of proposed projects to be completed by 1997.
The remainder of the proposed Ponds project would be completed. This would include an
additional 200 single family homes.
Background Traffic Year 2015
The peak hour background traffic for Year 2015 is depicted on Figure 5. As mentioned above this was
developed by factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth in the City of Fort Collins and
adding the traffic from the nearby projects described above.
7
III. FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS — - — -
In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed Scenic Views PUD on the local traffic
conditions, future traffic volumes were first estimated for the study area without the project. These
future forecasts reflect the growth that is expected from overall development in the study area and the
City of Fort Collins and from proposed projects within the vicinity of the project site.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC YEAR 1997
The growth reflected in Year 1997 Background Traffic is based on two factors: citywide growth and
development, and traffic generated by specific projects located near the study area.
Citywide Traffic Growth
Based upon recent historical traffic data, it was determined that traffic within the study area has
increased at a rate of approximately 1.5 percent per year. Assuming a completion date in 1997, the
existing traffic volumes were adjusted upward by 1.5 percent to reflect this citywide growth.
Traffic From Nearbv Proiects
City of Fort Collins staff provided a list of the projects near the study area which could be completed
within the short term. A description of each of these projects is provided below.
The Lory Ann Estates is a residential project located south of the project site. Although it is
not known if this project would be completed by Year 1997, this was assumed to provide a
conservative analysis. It was assumed that this project would include 30 duplex units.
The Ponds is a proposed residential project located west of Overland Trail at Prospect Road.
It was assumed that the first phase of this project would be completed in the short range and would
include 84 single family homes.
Sienna is a proposed residential project located south of Elizabeth Street at Rocky Road. This
project would include 116 single family homes.
The West Plum PUD is a small residential project located off of Plum Street, east of Rocky Road.
This project would include 16 single family homes.
Jefferson Commons is a multi -family residential project located west of Taft Hill Road.
Jefferson Commons would include 192 apartments. This project would also extend Orchard Place
through to Taft Hill Road.
The trip generation for these projects was developed based upon the trip generation rates in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report entitled Trip Generation, 5th edition, 1991. The
project traffic from each of these developments was then assigned to the roadway system.
G
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Peak Hour Level of
Service
AM -
PM
Intersection
Overland/Elizabeth
(stop -controlled)
WB L/R
B
C
SB L
A
A
M
M
l
1
Fizunre 3
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
I AM/PM
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed description of the existing
conditions within and near the project site. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study include
land use, streets, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system.
EXISTING/FUTURE STREET SYSTEM
Overland Trail is a two-lane north/south roadway which serves the western areas of the City of Fort
Collins. South of the project site, at Drake Road, Overland Trail ends and curves to the east. There
are bike lanes present on both side of Overland Trail, and the speed limit is posted'at 35 mph. It is
anticipated that in the long range future, Overland Trail would accommodate four travel lanes, two in
each direction, and a center left -turn lane. The T-intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street is
stop -controlled for Elizabeth Street.
Elizabeth Street is a two-lane, east/west roadway. Adjacent to the project site, -Elizabeth Street is
narrow without a paved shoulder. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. In the long range future,
Elizabeth Street would continue to provide two travel lanes, with the addition of a center left -turn lane.
EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were conducted at Overland Trail and Elizabeth
Street during February 1996. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 3.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the conditions of traffic flow, ranging
from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level of service definitions are
provided in Appendix A. The City of Fort Collins standard for minimum acceptable LOS is D. The
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manua/ by the
Transportation Research Board in 1994, were used to analyze the study intersections for each of the
traffic scenarios. The capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix B. These techniques allow for the
determination of the intersection level of service based on congestion and delay of each traffic
movement.
EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 1 summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening peak hour level of service at the
intersection of Overland/Elizabeth. Under actual, existing conditions, this study intersection is operating
at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours.
y
1
1._ Background Traffic - Year 2015 - Future traffic conditions for Year 2015 will be
determined. The Year 2015 traffic projections will be determined by accounting for
overall future growth in the study area and for traffic generated by proposed projects
within the vicinity of the project site.
Project Generated Traffic - The traffic generated by the proposed project will be
determined.
Total Traffic - Years 1997 and 2015 - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions
with traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project added to the Background
Traffic forecasts. The impacts of the proposed project on future traffic operating
conditions can then be identified.
The City of Fort Collins identified the following intersections to be analyzed for the scenarios identified
above:
1. Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street
2. Overland Trail and the Access Drive
3. Elizabeth Street and Cuerto Lane (western access drive)
4. Elizabeth Street and Tierra Lane (eastern access drive)
In addition to the above analysis, a subsequent traffic analysis will be conducted to identify the
potential impacts to the local street system within the adjacent neighborhood. The traffic data for this
focused neighborhood study is being conducted. The results of this analysis will be summarized and
submitted to the City of Fort Collins.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this report is divided into six parts. Chapter II presents and analysis of the existing
street system and traffic conditions for each of the study intersections. Forecasts of future background
traffic for Years 1997 and 2015 are provided in Chapter III. Traffic projections for the proposed project
are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents the total traffic projections for Year 1997 and 2015.
The future intersection operating conditions are presented in Chapter VI. The conclusions of the traffic
impact study are provided in Chapter VII.
4
LOCUST
O
a
CIt0�
a
O
SITE `♦
`.�
♦"t
w�W
Ul
F�
N
NOT TO SCALE
MULBERRY
STREET
ORCHARD
a PLACE
5� ao O O
x
PLUM
STREET
STREET
�ngunre 2
DETAILED SITE LOCATION
p
NOT TO SCALE
El
F-,Ur l
SITE LOCATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the findings of a traffic study conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impacts
and circulation needs of the proposed Scenic Views PUD residential development in Fort Collins,
Colorado.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Scenic Views PUD is a residential development proposed at the northeast corner of Overland Trail
and Elizabeth Street. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The final number of residential dwelling
units has not been determined however, for purposes of the traffic study the maximum number of
dwelling units was assumed as follows: 192 condominiums, 40 duplex units, 68 single family homes,
and a 2,000-square-foot day care center. The proposed project would also include a 3.9 acre
neighborhood park.
A detailed site plan is provided on Figure 2. Access to the site would be from Overland Trail, Elizabeth
Street, and from the existing neighborhood to the north and east of the site. The proposed duplex units
would have a full access from Overland Trail. The condominiums would take access from two
driveways to Elizabeth Street. These driveways were designed to align with the future driveways to
the residential development south of the project site. The single family residential homes would have
access from Orchard Place and ultimately Plum Street.
The proposed site plan has been designed with strong pedestrian and bicycle links between the differing
residential uses. A bike path would be provided within the site. The bike path would connect between
Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail. The path would also service the neighborhood park.
It is anticipated that the Scenic Views project could be completed by Year 1997
STUDY SCOPE
The scope for this study was developed in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins traffic engineering
and planning staff. The base assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic coverage of the
study were all identified as part of the study approach.
The study is directed at the analysis of potential project -generated traffic impacts along the existing and
future street system. As directed by the above mentioned agencies, the following traffic scenarios are
analyzed in the study:
Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide
a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an
assessment of traffic volumes and operating conditions at the study intersections.
Background Traffic - Year 1997 - Future traffic conditions will be projected for Year
1997. The objective of this phase of the analysis is to project future traffic growth and
operating conditions which could be expected to result from regional growth and from
related projects in the vicinity of the project site.
SCENIC VIEWS PUD
Fort Collins, Colorado
Traffic Impact Study
February, 1996
Prepared for:
SOLITAIRE PROPERTIES, LLC
6645 East Heritage Place South
Englewood, Colorado 80111
Prepared by:
RUTH CLEAR, P.E.
430 East Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 416-0410
Ref:9610
NEIGHBORHOOD ENTORtiIaTION 1NIEETIN s
ti'Did YouReccive I�,rrec:
rittcn \otlficetfori.-kddress.
of th:s mcetlrg'
'Na Address Z1D
yes
I No Yesi
do
�� z� ICI
ICI
III
I
I
I
II
II.
II
i
III
!II
III
III
III
I
NEIGHBORHOOD IN' DRNLMON NIEETIT
n;� n°�,o �f�,�,on�dd«;
of this meeting?
lame Address Zip
Yes
No
I Ycs'
Yo
E� EP , ie Q L /T i ee & uEFT_
i
2`7!3 ram,.
Ij
Rtce. 1041 Po„dorDSe,,,#S
I' VI; �LL
I
I
I ✓
I
r, Z
PLIA � 7C-dcba
/ sy, + 708 kt W'BALL F.D �� I
✓ I
✓I
i
&1-3 lLr� Canes , Uzi
✓
✓
13
_� , x 3ec9 r UJ fjtza rkkTz,
'�
----- - - - --
� I
I I raunw � Law I
II I
I
I I I I I }4w► MN
Y i■
M I
`
Y -
I I
I I
I I
r-- i
I I
I I
wo USE OFMAKDOM
o. �•.o,..ia.
TOfK IM• v i1uR
T.•>■lL.b M1 O4Lu• rwJO��.ipp N\K
�] T1S f YMO N .6LV• r.M00 RIYO TOfK CCYD
ttlfLL Cd'1YD
1Y 1�
» MfK l.m
L1 �.®iMR
Qli7N@lp&
•• =X "
SCEPTIC VIEWS RUM.
PRELDANARY SITE 1
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project. Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 7
32. Is there bike access to the park from Overland Trail?
RESPONSE. Yes, the bike path is designed form a loop around the project using
the path and the sidewalks along Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street.
33. We will be very disappointed to see this project develop. Right now we enjoy the
open field. We see deer, red fox and other wildlife. The northwest corner of the site is
marshy which also attracts wildlife. We enjoy our views. It would be tragic to call the
project "Scenic Views" when all it does is destroy our views. This project will disturb our
quiet neighborhood.
34. Is the site in the City? I don't remember the project being annexed.
RESPONSE: The site was annexed in different stages around 1979 and 1980.
35. Since the neighborhood is located east of the project we are downwind. Also, the
Happy Heart Farm is an organic farm and wind and water erosion and dust will be a
serious problem. We are concerned about the disturbance due to construction and
erosion.
RESPONSE: These are good concerns. If we get approval to build, we can work
with the neighborhood to minimize these problems. One possible solution would be
construct a fence on the eastern property line to mitigate the construction activities.
RESPONSE (from City): If there are problems, the City Engineering Department can be
called since they enforce construction sites for compliance with City Code. A construction
inspecctor can be dispatched to the site if there are code violations. Also, the Stormwater
Utility has an erosion control inspector to enforce the erosion control measures. These
two departments can be called upon to inspect the site.
36. The grass used in the park and common areas should not be irrigated blue grass
sod. Drought tolerant grass mixtures should be used that are more native to the area.
Fescue blends are very effective ground covers in our arid climate. Water conservation
is an important community value.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The City has adopted water conservation
standards for new developments. In addition, irrigation plans are also reviewed so that
watering is efficient and not wasteful.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 6
development. Increasing lot widths from 50 to 60 feet wide could add $20,000 to the cost
of the end product. This is because of land development costs and development fees are
expensive. If your lots were developed in today's market, you could not buy them for what
you paid for them. The only feasible way to make this project competitive in the market is
to keep lot widths at 50 feet.
27. There is equestrian use in our neighborhood. Are you planning any equestrian
trails?
RESPONSE: This is an interesting revelation. We are not planning on providing
any equestrian trails.
28. You have provided no parking for the park which will cause users to park in front
of our houses. This will disturb our peace and quiet.
RESPONSE: Our park is not a public park that will be programmed for organized
sports. There will be no soccer field and no softball diamond. These activities are
provided at the nearby public parks. We hope our park will be used by bicyclists and
pedestrians.
29. The developer is encouraged to use the park as a permanent site for the City's
Horticulture Center. The Horticulture Center is seeking a site for a community garden and
other activities. In addition, the park could feature edible plants and fruit trees as was
done in a successful project in Davis, California. These are positive steps that could be
taken so that the development becomes an asset to the neighborhood, not a liability.
RESPONSE: This is an interesting comment. We know that there used to be, or
perhaps still is, a fruit orchard located on the property to the north. We have looked into
this concept and it may not be feasible for us to do this.
30. Could you shift the park to the northeast corner to help buffer the existing
neighborhood? Is the park site set in stone?
RESPONSE; The park could be shifted a little but it is designed to tie into the bike
path which will follow the canal.
31. Will the canal area be used as a stormwater drainageway?
RESPONSE: Our plan, at this time, is to try to place the canal into an underground
pipe and use the land for the path. Stormwater will be routed to the two stormwater
detention ponds. It is possible that a dual system, one pipe for the canal and one pipe for
the drainage, may be allowed but would require permission from the ditch company and
approval by the City's Stormwater Utility.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project. Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 5
20. Will you consider restricting the single family area to one-story ranch -style homes
to preserve views?
RESPONSE. No, this would place our project at an unfair disadvantage when other
projects are not so restricted.
21. Is this project viable given two recent development proposals in the area: The
Ponds at Overland Trail and Overland Ridge?
RESPONSE: We have factored these projects into our market analysis. We believe
we are targeting a "first-time buyer" or "empty -nester" market which these other two
projects do not.
22. What will this project do to school overcrowding?
RESPONSE: The Poudre R-1 School District has capacity in the district to serve
new students at all levels. Students from this project will be assigned to a school that has
capacity. This may or may not be the nearest school. Students will be bussed rather than
build new capacity. Keep in mind that condos and duplexes historically generate fewer
elementary students than single family.
23. If there will be so few students generated by this project, why the need for a daycare
facility?
RESPONSE: The daycare is part of the amenity package and points are awarded
under the Land Development Guidance System for providing this service.
24. Will Overland Trail and Elizabeth be improved by this developer?
RESPONSE (from city staff): The developer will be obligated to construct sidewalk,
curb, and gutter and the appropriate street widening along the frontage of both streets.
25. Are you willing to reduce density in the single family area to minimize traffic impacts
on the neighborhood.
RESPONSE: We will conduct a traffic impact study and work with the City and the
neighborhood to plan a project that will work.
26. Our existing neighborhood is on larger lots. Why can't this project feature larger
lots for the single family?
RESPONSE: Larger lots like yours cannot be provided in today's market at the price
range we are targeting. Lot widths are the key variable in determining the cost of land
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page 4
14. Will the project be subsidized or supported by a public agency as an affordable
housing project?
RESPONSE. No, the project will be sold at market rates.
15. Are the units "for sale" or "for rent?" Can a covenant be placed on the project so
that owners do not rent out their units?
RESPONSE: The units are "for sale." It would be against the law to restrict a
private property owner from renting out his or her unit after the initial sale.
16. Our neighborhood is suffering from owners who rent to college students. In some
cases, the landlord is a parent of a college student who buys a house for the student for
a four year period and then sells the property. These rentals are filled with students who
are not desirable neighbors.
17. What is the price range for the units?
RESPONSE: At this time our thinking is as follows:
One bedroom condo Low $60's
Two bedroom condo $88 - $90,000
Three bedroom condo $90's
Duplex $120's
Single family $140 - $160,000
18. Will all the houses look alike?
RESPONSE: There are a variety of floor plans and models that can mixed and
matched so all the houses will not look alike.
19. What about our view to the west? The new development will block our view of the
mountains?
RESPONSE: The view on the low horizon will probably be obscured but the view
to the upper horizon will probably not change. Views are a sensitive issue as properties
develop west of existing development. The only view protection is in R-F, Foothills
Residential, Zone. In the R-F Zone, in a cluster development plan, new development must
minimize the aesthetic impact upon the view of the foothills as well as the view from the
foothills. This proposal is located in the R-L, Low Density Residential, Zone which
contains no provisions regarding view preservation.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 18, 1996
Page: 3
RESPONSE: These are good comments. The C.S.U. games are infrequent (five to six
home games per year) and there is adequate warning. The main point is that the concept,
at this time, is to not penetrate the central park and not cross the canal with a street as this
would have an adverse impact on this attractive central feature.
8. What is the projected trip generation for the project?
RESPONSE: The single family houses will generate approximately 10 trips per day,
five trips out and five return trips. Total trip generation for the single family would be 660.
9. What about connecting Plum Street to the project? This would relieve traffic on
Orchard.
RESPONSE: We are planning for a future Plum Street connection but the
intervening property, Happy Heart Farm, is a viable organic farming enterprise and
residence and is not available to be divided by a street connection.
10. Will Elizabeth be widened and if so, how many lanes will added?
RESPONSE: The City consideres West Elizabeth to be a minor arterial street once
you get west of K.F.C. This means one travel lane in each direction, and one continuous
center left -turn lane. East of K.F.C., the street is planned to widened out to an arterial with
two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center left -turn lane.
11. What about the intersection of Taft Hill and Elizabeth? This intersectrion needs an
eastbound left -turn lane with separate green arrow. Otherwise, traffic stacks up back to
the west.
RESPONSE: This intersection will be widened with a city capital improvement
project this Spring (1996) to provide a separate left -turn lane for eastbound traffic.
12. Louise Lane is used by high school students who cruise around the neighborhood.
Plus, kids use Louise Lane to get to Poudre High. This project will only add more traffic
on this street which will make things unsafe for everyone.
13. There is a speeding problem on Kimball already. This project will only make it
worse.
RESPONSE (from the city): Speeding problems should be reported to Police
Department. Your report will be logged in to the computer. If you do not call in, the Police
Department will never know about the problems and will not be able to respond.
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail
and West Elizabeth Street
Date: January 16, 1996
Page: 2
3. The three proposed housing types are not connected to each other for the benefit
of creating the park space. But this benefit is internal to the project and comes at the
expense of the existing neighborhood. By not providing an access to Elizabeth or
Overland Trail for the single family area, all this traffic, by necessity, will impact the folks
living in the immediate neighborhood.
RESPONSE: One of the primary objectives of the plan is create an internal open
space area of real value for residents of the project as well the surrounding neighborhood.
By not constructing a bridge over the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, a continous linear
greenbelt is preserved for a bicycle/pedestrian path. Internal circulation among the three
housing groups would be by bikes or pedestrians which promotes a safe friendly
neighborhood. The design of providing each housing group its own primary access
(condos - Elizabeth, duplexes - Overland Trail, and single family - Orchard Place) prevents
any one particular group from overloading any one particular access point.
4. The design is advantageous for the internal amenities but puts a burden on Locust
Grove, Louise Lane, and Kimball Road.
RESPONSE: The traffic impact analysis has not been done yet. We will look at the
impact on these local streets. In addition, the City's Transportation and Engineering
Departments will evaluate the anticipated traffic loads and the ability of the local streets
to carry this new traffic.
5. Will the traffic study account for new traffic generated by The Ponds at Overland
Trail and Overland Ridge P.U.D.? These two new projects will add a substantial amount
of traffic onto Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street.
RESPONSE: Yes, the study will be required to consider these projects as part of the
"background" traffic on these two streets.
6. What about extending Orchard Place all the way west to Overland Trail?
RESPONSE: This extension is not part of this request at this time. The intervening
property is not part of this P.U.D. There are two points to consider regarding this ultimate
extension. One point is that an additional access to the west will help distribute the new
traffic from the 66 single family homes and minimize the direct impact on Orchard. The
possible downside is that new traffic from Overland Trail could be introduced onto Orchard
that serves the entire neighborhood and not just the 66 homes in Scenic Views.
7. Without an alternative access point for the condos, these folks will be landlocked
before and after C.S.U. home football games. Also, if there is a stalled car or snow drift,
these folks will be stuck for hours without an alternative access point.
Commu. y Planning and Environmental '-vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
DATE:
APPLICANT:
CONSULTANT:
STAFF:
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
Scenic Views - Northeast Corner of Overland Trail and
West Elizabeth Street
January 18, 1996
Mr. Bill Veio
Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer
The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing
a mix of housing types and densities on 36 acres. The southern portion of the site would
feature 192 condominium units. The western portion of the site would feature 28 duplex
units. The eastern portion of the site would feature 66 single family detached units. Total
number of units would be 288 units. Orchard Place is proposed to extend west to serve
the single family area but not extend to Overland Trail with this project. A 3.9 acre park
site along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is proposed. (Unless noted, all responses
are from the applicant.)
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. With the proposed extension of West Orchard as the primary ingress and egress
for the 66 single family units, we are concerned about the introduction of new traffic into
our neighborhood. It looks like Kimball will bear the brunt of the new traffic as this will be
the primary route to West Elizabeth. Louise Lane and Locust Grove will carry additional
traffic as the primary route to West Mulberry.
2. The single family area is cutoff by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal which
eliminates access out to Elizabeth. There should be a bridge over the canal so the single
family area does not have to soley rely on Orchard for access.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
FROM RMRI WI -I VEIQ FEo.IS. SS 5:55FM. P.001
February 12, 1996
213 Thunderbird Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Mr. Bill Veio
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
6645 E. Heritage Place South
Englewood, CO 60111
Dear Mr. Veio,
.Per your request, of February 9, 1996, I visited the property
located on the northeast corner.of Elizabeth Street and Overland
Trail this morning to determine whether or ,riot Ute ladies' -
tresses orchid (Spiranthes ddj Lvia ) habitat exist: on -site.
Limited, marginal: orchid- habitat, -is- present, In my opinion,
however, it is unlikely that the orchid occurs on the property.
Small mud flats (ie., 10 square feet or less) present within the
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal channel provide extremely limited,
degraded potential orchid habitat. Relatively steep canal banks
are densely vegetated, primarily by reed canarygrass (Phala.ris
arundn.ce-1), and provide no orchid habitat.
A cattail marsh in the northwest corner of the site is bordered
by a pasture that appears to be mowed as close as possible to the
marsh. Smocth brome (5.rDial s. i,nermi s) is the predominant grass in
this area; sedges and rushes typically associated with Ute
ladies' -tresses orchid were not apparent. The orchid is unlikely
to occur in association with the marsh due to the dominance of
tall pasture grasses, apparent absence of associated species, and
disturbance due to mowing.
Thank you for the opportunity to conduct
contact rie (phone/fax: 970-223-8744) if
need additional information.
Sincerely,
Ellen Wheeling
enclosure
this survey. Please
you have questions or
January 30, 1996
Mr. Bill Veio
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
6645 East Heritage Place South
Englewood, CO 80111
Re: Colorado State University Foothills Campus
Dear Bill:
CologuAi
Facilities Management Department
Fort Collins. Colorado 80523
As discussed, blueprints illustrating the building groups at Foothills Campus are attached.
Approximate numbers of employees are noted on the prints. They are:
Atmospheric Science & Solar Village
92
Atmospheric Science Lab
7
Engineering Research Center
78
Colorado State Forest Service Nursery & Shop
16
Animal Reproduction Biotechnology Lab
26
Embryo Transfer
2
Environmental Stress
12
Equine Teaching & Research Center
12
245
The Center for Disease Control is also located on the CSU Foothills Campus. We do not have
access to their data; however, I called and they said approximately 120 employees are located at
that site.
The two private groups Joe mentioned are E.N.S.R. (I don't have any information on them at
all), and the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). NWRC is a federal installation so,
again, we have no data on them. That facility is currently vacant; however, it will be occupied
in the near future.
As we discussed on the phone, these figures are approximate. If our Human Resources
Department is able to provide figures which differ from these significantly, I will call you.
Very truly yours,
Nancy G' christ
Facilities Planning
Enclosure
Division of administrative Services
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal: Scenic Views PUD - Preliminary
Description: Mixed use development, which includes 226 units (34 duplex and 198
multi -family units).
Density: 10.81 du/acre (gross)
General Population:
34 (duplex units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 109
198(multi-family units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 634
TOTAL = 743
School Age Population:
Elementary: 34 (units) x. 104 (pupils/unit) = 3.53
198 (units) x .104 (pupils/unit) = 20.59
Junior High: 34 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 1.70
198 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 9.90
Senior High: 34 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 1.56
198 (units) x .46 (pupils/unit) = 9.10
TOTAL = 46.38
*Figures assume a mix of 2- and 3-bedroom multi -family residential.
Criterion
DENSITY CHART (con"
H
O
m
s=
V
If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following:
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 structures 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 manner.
If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the
building, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure. a bonus may be earned as
follows:
9% For providing 75% or more of the parking -in a structure;
690 For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure;
396 For providing 25 - 49% of the parking in a structure.
If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling umts,
enter a bonus of 10%.
If the applicant commits to providing adequate. safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
project and any of the desinadon points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane;
5% For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this
Density Chart;
5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle mail which is adjacent to or traverses the project.
Land Devei . meat Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
-79a-
TOTAL
Criterion
azimum
Credit
Eamed
Credit
2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center or
t7
2000feetofana _v ____"""""' ppro edbutnotconstructedneighbtrrhoodshoppingcenres�----'''''--
_209e�
----
650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects Navin a
g density of at least six [6] dwelling
IO�o
b
units per acre on a gross acreage basis)
Z090
C
4000 fat of an existing or approved regional shopping center
3500 feet of an existing neighborhood_ or co_mmu_niry panic; or 4CMV%. nt! t l ,x u l st y a
3500feetofa publicly o
P Y wtud, but not developed,
3aciliry
l09e
090
UJ
d
neighborhood or commitrtiri park or cantrnuruty
(except golf courses); or
1090
t/9
3500feetofa ublicl owned olfco ---""
P Y g urse whetherdevelopedoinoc---------'
m@
laws fat of an existing school meeting all requirements of the Stare of Colorado compulsory education
1090
(
3000 feet of a major employment center F
4
1000 feet of a child care carter
20%age
h
"North" Fort Collins
59e
ar
The Canna! Buiineaa District
20%
2090
J
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development Credit may be earned at follows:
3090
0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 10% contiguity;
10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguiry;
15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30% contiguity;
20 - Z5% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 40% contiguity;
25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 50% contiguity.
k
If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy usage either through the application of
alternative energy systems or through committed energy conservation beyond
measures those normally required by
City Code, a 5% bonus may be earned for every 590 reduction in energy use.
0OjO
�� rr
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project
fit
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational . useEnter 1/2 of that
percentage as a bonus.
opab
/
n
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirerneats,
calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and
bonus. enter this percentage as a
C
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not
otherwise required by City Code, enter a 2% bonus for every S100 dwelling
per unit invested.
to
p
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
required by City Code, enter a 1 % bonus for every S 300 per dwelling unit invested
Z
q
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low
income families, enter that percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%.
0
m
f
If a commitment is being made to developa specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
and Type "B" handicapped housing as dfined by the City of Fort Collins,
calculate the bonus as follows:
Type "A" S z T= "a" Units
oral Units
rs
Type "B" 1.0 z Tvne "R" Unite In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 3090
'
Total units
Continued
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fan Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
-79-
M
ACTIVITY;
Residen t iai Uses
DEFINITION;
H
All residendal uses, ses include Single `a.mily atrac red dwellings, cownhomes, dnpleus, mobile .:cr.,es,
and multiple f_ L. d welings• r up hor..es. boarding. rconung houses- :5ra*_^.ury a.^.d sc ": i
houses: au. -sir._ ncmts: public and privy : Sc-00LS: -ubLc :ad acn ,aronc cuasi-public , r t cnai yes
as a oi-nc:pal use: uses providing re: �g places and ply es ier pllbLc assebiV wirh incaen•_l once space: and caild ^ -e centers.
CRITERIA:
ne cilowL'lg _ ^1e'.::=..cn ::1'•.'s-,'e zrswe. yes" =d
impiemen:ed _-e deveioome^ pia^
Yes Nc
1. DOES i = ?-C.=C' E.A2.*i 7= 1 L1N"uVr -m PER —v— ?6/
PCLti S - c _ C- - _ iGa Jul
i C: ,:��:�� Cti �= =OLT OwL:C; 'DEtiSIiM:
?FOPCS=D DENS r 1 :' OF
.. e :e ui ed eam.ed c..,,.ic for a resider=:zi projec: shall be
aced on a cwing:
60 - 6-`_0 ^ _ge points = 5 or fewer dweiL'rg ,—sits per acre
:age points = 5 7 dwelling ,units per aca
70 80 ^--= :age points = 7 8 dweiling'=its per ac•e
80 - 90 7' e—cenrage paints = 8 - 9 dweiling.unks per ace
90-100 �e -=:age points = 9-10 dweding.ur its per ace
100 or more r-er`==g%; points = 10 or more dwelling wits per ace
Lana weveiopment lruicance .,)ystesn for Planned licit Developments
ire City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised August 1994
iN/'/,-,.
.78.
SCENIC VIEWS PRELIMINARY PUD
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the criterion
applicable?
Will the criterion
be satisfied?
If no, please explain
Pre-
mi-
In:y
Final
Not
Ap-
pll-
ble
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
X
X
1:2 Comprehensive Plan
X
X
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
X
1.4 Mineral Deposit
X
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
reserved
1.7 Energy Conservation
X
X
1.8 Air Quality
X
1.9 Water Quality
X
X
1.10 Sewage and Wastes
X
X
1.11 Water Conservation
X
X
1.12 Residential Density
X
X
A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation
X
X
2.2 Building Placement and Orientation
X
X
2.3 Natural Features
X
X
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking
X
X
2.5 Emergency Access
X
X
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation
X
X
2.7 Architecture
X
X
2.8 Building Height and Views
X
2.9 Shading
X
X
2.10 Solar Access
X
X
2.11 Historic Resources
X
2.12 Setbacks
X-
X
2.13 Landscape
X
X
2.14 Signs
X
X
2.15 Site Lighting
X
X
2.16 Noise and Vibration
X
X
2.17 Glare or Heat
X
2.18 Hazardous Materials
X
A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity
X
X
3.2 Design Standards
X
X
3.3 Water Hazards
X
X
3.4 Geologic Hazards
X
Land Development Guidance System for planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collim, Colorado, Revised August 1994
-61-
SCENIC VIEWS
PRELIMINARY PUD
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
FEBRUARY 20, 1996
Area
Dwelling Units
Solar Oriented Lots
Density
Coverage
Gross
Net
Duplex Units 07 Lots)
Multi -Family
TOTAL UNITS
Gross
Net
910,405
sq.ft.
20.90
acres
910,405
sq.ft.
20.90
acres
34
units
192
units
226
units
13
units
76%
10.81
du/ac
10.81
du/ac
Buildings
156,332
sq.ft.
17.17%
Street R.O.W.
0
sq.ft.
0.00%
Parking & Drives
214,192
sq.ft.
23.53%
(Includes multi -family garages)
Open Space:
Recreational
209,855
sq.ft.
23.05%
Other Common
202,988
sq.ft.
22.30%
Private
127,039
sq.ft.
13.95%
TOTAL OPEN SPACE
539,882
sq.ft.
59.30%
Floor Area
Residential 276,464 sq.ft.
Minimum Parking Provided
MULTI -FAMILY PARKING DEMAND
1 Bedroom Units @ 1.5 spaces/unit 48 Units
2 Bedroom Units @ 1.75 spaces/unit 128 Units
3 Bedroom Units @ 2.0 spaces/unit 16 Units
Daycare 2,200 sf @ 3.6/1000 sf
TOTAL 192 Units
MULTI -FAMILY PARKING PROVIDED
Garage/Carport
Standard
Handicapped
TOTAL VEHICLES
DUPLEX PARKING PROVIDED
Garage/Carport
Standard
Handicapped
TOTAL VEHICLES
NOTE:
Maximum Building Height
Setbacks (unless otherwise noted)
Duplex
Front
Side
Rear
192 spaces
192 spaces
17 spaces
401 spaces
72 Spaces
224 Spaces
32 Spaces
8 Spaces
336 Spaces
2.09 spaces/unit
68 spaces
18 spaces
0 spaces
86 spaces 2.53 spaces/unit
Garages and/or driveways will accommodate
handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking
40 ft.
20 ft.
0 ft. (10 ft. Between Buildings)
15 ft.
SCENIC VIEWS PUD
Statement of Planning Objectives
February 20, 1996
Planning Opportunities
urban design, inc.
The Scenic Views site presents an opportunity to create a neighborhood area that may
achieve many of Fort Collins' adopted Goals and Objectives, Land Use Policies, and other
desired results identified in elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development
will form a logical land use transition between the existing neighborhood and the major streets
to the west and south, and will add interest and variety to the housing mix in the area. The
plan is consistent with adopted City Land Use Policies 22, 26, and other policies promoting
in -fill development; and with Policies 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, and 82 regarding residential
densities.
Proiect Goals
The Scenic Views Preliminary Plan has been prepared with a number of planning goals
and concepts in mind, including:
Create a successful neighborhood with a mix of housing types.
Provide for a variety of housing types by defining distinct development parcels - likely.
to be constructed by multiple builders/developers - with the potential to share
amenities, storm drainage improvements, and/or other common elements.
Plan for a land use mix with complementary uses within easy walking distance.
Allow .flexibility for the development to respond to changing market demands.
Create a circulation, system that - to the extent practical - improves bike, and pedestrian
access between uses, but does not encourage extraneous, high speed vehicular traffic.
Include design characteristics - such as entry features and drives tailored to serve
differing land uses - which lend clarity and identity to residential neighborhoods.
Provide street systems that promote mixed density development, but discourage
extraneous through traffic from low density residential areas.
Plan a viable, integrated bike and pedestrian system for.Scenic Views including safe,
direct pedestrian and bike access to destinations in the area.
Phased Implementation.
Construction of the first phases of development at Scenic Views is expected to begin
in the fall of 1996, and continue through the year 2001.
SCENIC VIEWS
PRELIMINARY PUD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the said Northwest Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North
00042'00" West with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the
boundary lines which begin at the West Quarter corner of said section 16 and run thence
North 00042'00" West, 328.90 feet; thence North 89018'00" East, 150.00 feet; thence
along the arc of a 175.00 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 83.99 feet, the long
chord of which bears North 75033'00" East 83.19 feet; thence North 61 048'00" East 90.00
feet; thence along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 23.56 feet,
the long chord of which bears North 16148'00" East 21.21 feet; thence North 28 ° 12'00"
West 120.00 feet; thence South 89 ° 18'00" West, 261.61 feet to the West line of the said
Northwest Quarter; Thence along said West line North 00142'00"West, 703.10feet; thence
East 440.00 feet; thence North 00042'00" West, 100.00 feet; thence East 336.66 feet;
thence South 00053'20" East, 659.23 feet; thence South 27036'00" East, 57.01 feet;
thence South 29032'00" East, 321.27 feet; thence South 19053'00" East, 83.69 feet;
thence South 00052'00" East, 252.00feet to the south line of the Northwest Quarter of said
section 16, thence along said South line, West 987.80 feet to the point of beginning.
The above described tract of land contains 23.6034 acres more or less and is subject to all
easements and rights -of -way now on record or existing.
= r�.--� y
_�2,.. _ �
E
it
lI I PLAIRNp NOTES
LEUEND
I
I
I i I
-
I
I f
I I /
/ ` 1
__ 3
It mm�
r____ __ _- __
_ � - - _ _ - - _ ._ - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ i �T� uve�AW ��_ y _ - _ r _ - > - _ - 7 - - _/ - - - - - _ _ _ PiIELMNARV LANDSCAPE PLAN .. r.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ... �_
•rarem r uc
PTE
----------------
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
1
I
_
I i:i
i
1
I
I
/ r
+
JLM m
LAND use BREAKDOWN
�i�=6L-=.
z;
a
...... M e
M
OENER� NOTES.... �.o...»»,m•Y._.
------Y—�- C•itygEa��
I
MOUNVUH V!W %1CRC8
II
I I
I
II
II
I
I
zcNIW3i 1GP
I1U
20' DRIVEWAY GO ECTIOI4
N_❑
_ _=3 --
ZONM R
SO,OLE PAMLY ATTACf®
INS DUPLEX UWM
2W PRIVATE STREETS
YV PA14111*6 ON ONE SIDE
CCUNTY
20 Ef'E7MBJ,Y AL'.CESS
a�
DOHDOMMwSS
♦- EA AO NET
*a WIND
+ 16.8 DDWAO
PARK
a-" AO
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
GFROW SITE AREA M,14 AG
NEIG"I ONNOOD PAFK 22A A --
DETACHED SIDLE PAI-MY N WITS
ATTACiED SNSI.E PAKLY 28 WITS
CONDCTWRM IS2 WffS
TOTAL WITS 2" WRS
CROSS SIZE DENSITY .l. M SWAG
l-� 4: S 9UNITSBUILDING. NO. OLD�3S 4 X 2 &Pa DE&UNI TOTAL DEMAND
SPACES
4- E 3 UNITS 4 4 x 7 NG DW ANR • SELDO T SPACES
4 - 2M WITS 4 x LTD SPACE& NR • 1 N.DG 20 SPACES
C\_L L] s -�ieie w°I'DiTS e s x dP DUT . w.nLoa m eµP. n
{�T/T TYPE 2 SUILDNO NO.OLDOS PAWW * DeK*V TOTAL p ff
Jr- IN S - PAS WITS S S x 18 SPAGE11AMT • DiDLDS 6
0 SPACES
< N NMI (Q Ville aIZR11wkiIALla
PRELIMINARY SITE &
LANDSCAPE PLAN
S SSPA
TOTAL PROVIDED
ID2 QAwAbE SPACES
210 SPACES
16 1LYOICX SPACEL
418 TOTAL SPACES
221 SPACEM►7R
C O D o
urban design, inc.
mien.. mixers
ICI .na-w,.
drip FLEA 57I
f'p�.£Ct NO Sl0
Y.<LE, I•,YEO•
Dare W nErawAnora I-n-�
DAM oNl
DdiE DEM.�PtILN OY
5H$ . 1 m 1
i■
.�
L!
■=.l r.T�� ~I 113 '1: �`===1 ,� t ... -_-;.- _ - .:■IIII■ -all
-
.,un'= IIII:•!• _'�f �Ir�� ul ir1 .• 1 nllll�i Iiil IIIIsIIIII� �u IIIIC IIIIIII 11111
111: 11 I i l i ■: i IIIIII' l: cIIIN_ :IIII! :IIIB III_ EV IIII !III • . III! 111111 11 I■
�� _� ����_ .IIII• �� p 1� _ �!_ _ � = I��_
�� t P • �� 11' .Ti.T. _� �_ c eG'l I=I=...un =
um E111111 011111 i11111 Illi 1iiluUt O11111111 :Ir'lIC 1111111111111
-■� IIII— �111i 1119IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIB 14111! 1*F1
llll! IIIIIIIIIIII11111. IIIIIIIIIIC, ���i�un nunwu:�lllli llllllllllllM..MEM
! -1= _III_uc un+\•u ��1111111111
7� 17 I1 +i h Gu�_ ■ ��Iur■n1.1M.rwp
.�c?:1-� time If11111111 ri`., I .._,� �uu loll lu'n
'IIII .III ��I •�iliil _'ll'` 1 1, i �' IIII ! :IITIIIIIII : ;1::111111111111111
.. .16 11 anal
\IIIa /IIIIII n„ /1\•1111i mile
.,IIII, _ m - _-uuuar�mm�u-
all, 11 .IJ �i'.. �: IIII r rp'//.__..�..uurnu.uI1nI �-�:• InIIIl,l,u. II p -.�� ,It•u •i��i �II
I
.1�.� .m �- :: .- _Iu.au :� - . /1 II. \�.�. - _G.\ \Illlp i■ III.:.:: e. -I : ��/
Per : C- 1- .- -.•Ina .- = -1 . .ann.d le n1111\ p...u.nle i1..1 : �i� .\�. �■..�
I- . uulluuu Cn..u►` �. .. ..
Diu . :11 11: pO1n1I � :III. 1■.1. :■ i
\\\ \ ���. � III- -: _ •• � aulllll p nuUuw • _
\,\\ ►1. �iq�... -. � Lam■ �/. •r
o.
m. .u.. L
dual •I: _ �1 �.. n1 ICI llllln.: nn11■'�
��\\�\ ��� Il T�.i •�1�!�� it, �� .mew �:
.m. ..........
.. \i �iir :: ink-- 1�i is �� :■ I,\.II
In1.. Illl.v ul�11=I � IIII-. .. /.-■.IIIIIII IOa1-i'
I
••--- _ �/I. .IIIIII.. \Ir11n �\IIIIn1 � -- •IIIIII � �io dllunlln.tlllllll iiiil 1... :._ .P�. :\qlu II•1 ► I/ 1i } - - -�I f \.!1111`1p111111110\:i:: r DIp.IpIa n1110/. �i• :men. null 1n...
O / ,I►i I�. IIIIII 111/,1 : �.P m -..7 . .::: - • uluuunl�� �:n"•:� � 1{♦��{7{tl ' : aim ..,I 1. ep pll . ..:... -1 I
- ;/uum m: I •:
.► .uuuu mew. i.:. ... :: ?IIE•'uuuq :I :: S• . �: ::
illll 11111 n .. um .1n; pnu• �. �eunn\I,.I111� i■� : .I� :: '��
1 1 - _i.� : - r 11\ �:`m S: :w �:'� iiuiiri• �'It,..11
1�11111 IIIIII Ji.1 i _..�■I'. i'�nfVi_'�11n111S.'.0 a in ■
RIM
IIII-. , .. .. :. ......•..; -- ��
IIII 1�,,-�� � ;.,..:•.IIII. ..�.-.
•l 'II►, ggy
� Inn.\� IIII I■ � �g��: 11-
: ,IIIIIII �•Itt.�_.
J110
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Preliminary, #3-96
April 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
Elizabeth Street (and thus have to make two left turns onto arterials). People in the
multi -family units would have to go through the intersection to travel northbound
instead of accessing Overland Trail directly via internal circulation. Further, the
desired connection could be accommodated without losing any developable land
or lots; that is, building 1 of the duplex portion of the development could be shifted
to alongside/next door to building 12, and the access could be shifted to the
currently proposed location of building 1.
Overall, the studied intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
As required by the City of Fort Collins, Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street will be improved
adjacent to the project site; however, no additional roadway or intersection improvements
would be necessary due to the proposed project. With the recommended condition stated
above, the Scenic Views Preliminary P.U.D., therefore, would be feasible from a
transportation standpoint.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusions:
A. The Scenic Views Preliminary P.U.D., #3-96, with the recommended condition,
satisfies the applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
B. The Preliminary P.U.D. exceeds the minimum density requirements of the L.D.G.S.,
and exceeds the required minimum point total (100 points) on the Residential Uses
Point Chart (Point Chart H: Density Chart) of the L.D.G.S. with a score of 105
points.
C. The Preliminary P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding area and exceeds solar
orientation requirements.
D. The Preliminary P.U.D. is feasible from a transportation perspective and, as
conditioned, promotes City transportation policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Scenic Views Preliminary P.U.D., #3-96 subject to the
following condition:
1. The P.U.D. is approved subject to the proposed "twenty foot emergency
access" changing, at final, to a permanent roadway connection, of at least
twenty-four (24') feet in width, between the duplex and multi -family portions
of this development.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Preliminary, #3-96
April 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
The ultimate decisions involving materials and colors will be determined during final review.
5. Solar Orientation:
Of the 17 applicable lots, 13 are oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line, or
have a minimum of 50 feet of unobstructed access along the south lot line. This results
in a compliance rate of 76%, which exceeds the required minimum of 65%.
6. Transportation:
As mentioned, pedestrian/bike circulation is provided by connecting sidewalks from within
the development to South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street. Similarly, the West
Elizabeth sidewalk will be connected with the sidewalks along South Overland Trail. The
proposal would provide access to/from the multi -family portion of the development via West
Elizabeth Street, exclusively; access to/from the duplex portion of the development would
be gained via South Overland Trail, exclusively. Both Elizabeth and Overland Trail are
designated on the City's Master Street Plan as arterial streets. These accesses and street
designations lead the discussion to an explanation of the condition being recommended
by staff:
The traffic study submitted with this proposal states that 65% of the anticipated trips
generated from this development, will be traveling eastbound on Elizabeth Street,
toward shopping, CSU, employment, and most other destinations. The proposed
plans do not allow for re -circulation of auto traffic from the duplex portion of the site
to West Elizabeth Street, rather vehicles are forced to use two arterial streets in
order to travel to the east or the north (depending on which part of the site the
vehicle is coming from). For this reason, staff is recommending a condition of
approval which would connect the two portions of the Planned Unit Development
while providing access to both arterial streets, Elizabeth and Overland Trail. The
recommended condition would provide on -site recirculation of vehicles rather than
forcing that recirculation to occur on the arterial street system.
Specifically, pursuant to All Development Criteria A-2.4, staff feels that the proposed
"twenty foot emergency access" should be a permanent roadway connection
between the duplex and multi -family portions of this development. Staff does not
feel that this would encourage extraneous, high speed vehicular traffic, but if this is
a concern, staff would suggest using some traffic calming mechanism(s), such as
speed humps. It is staff's contention that the lack of this connection would
encourage extraneous traffic through the Overland/Elizabeth intersection. People
living in the duplexes would have to use Overland Trail to go eastbound on West
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Preliminary, #3-96
April 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Lory Ann Estates subdivision, which has approval for 29 multi -family lots on 10.8 acres. Also
along Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road, approvals have recently been granted to the
Ponds at Overland PUD (an RF Cluster Plan of 284 single-family units, actually a bit further
south on Overland), the Siena PUD (116 single-family units), and the Jefferson Commons
PUD (192 multi -family units); consequently, the area seems to be developing as a
neighborhood of mixed residential densities. This proposal would contribute to this mix of
residential densities in a compatible fashion.
4. Design:
The streetscapes along West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail would be defined
by sidewalks detached from the curb by approximately twenty (20') feet and fifteen (15')
feet, respectively. If and when the West Elizabeth Street is widened to "arterial" standards,
the parkway strip would become ten (10') feet wide; similarly, if and when Overland Trail
is widened to "major arterial" standards, the parkway strip would become nine (9') feet
wide. Within the resulting parkway strips, street trees would be planted in a formal,
traditional spacing. Trees would also be planted behind the sidewalks, thereby filling in the
spaces formed by the street trees. Together, this serves to create a safer pedestrian area
while beautifying the streets. The eastern border of the site is bounded by a
pedestrian/bike path that would run alongside the existing ditch and provide access to the
proposed 169,455 square foot (3.9 acre) park/recreation area. Pedestrian/bike access to
this park/recreation area is also provided off of Overland Trail. Where existing homes are
found adjacent to the site, significant landscaping has been proposed in an effort to provide
visual screening, buffering, and privacy.
The proposed site and landscape plans provide for entry features at the main access
points off of both Elizabeth and Overland Trail. Internally, the site layout is designed to
provide for efficient use of land and substantial accommodation of pedestrian circulation.
Adequate parking is being provided in accessible garages and outdoor parking areas. The
proposal also includes a community clubhouse and swimming pool, as well as a 2000
square foot child care facility. Front yard setbacks would be at least 20 feet, and rear yard
setbacks would be at least 15 feet. The closest structure to Overland Trail would be more
than 65 feet from the beginning of pavement. The closest structure to West Elizabeth
Street would be more than 35 feet from the beginning of pavement.
The architectural elevations submitted with this proposal depict two-story structures with
pitched roofs. The notes on these elevations state that "compatibility of elevations will be
created through the use of materials and colors. Considerations will also be given to
existing buildings, materials, and colors surrounding the site." The potential materials list
includes asphalt shingles or tile roofing, and brick, stone, dryvit, or masonite wood siding.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Preliminary, #3-96
April 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
be shifted to the currently proposed location of building 1. For this reason, staff is
recommending a condition of approval which would connect the two portions of the
Planned Unit Development while providing access to both arterial streets, Elizabeth and
Overland Trail. With the addition of such a condition, the request would satisfy all
applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H):
The P.U.D. was reviewed by the variable criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S, as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December 19, 1995. The project
scores 105% which exceeds the minimum required score of 100%. Points were awarded
as follows: 20 points under base criterion "b" for being within 650 feet of an existing transit
stop; 20 points under base criterion "d" for being within 3500 feet of an existing
neighborhood or community park (both Rogers Park and Overland Trail Park); 20 points
under base criterion 'T' for being within 3000 feet of a major employment center (CSU
Foothills Campus, see attached letter of verification); 5 points under base criterion "g" for
being within 1000 feet of a child care center; 10 points under bonus criterion "k" for
achieving a minimum energy score rating of G-80; 10 points under bonus criterion "m" for
devoting of open space to recreational use; 15 points under bonus criterion "q" for
committing to develop a minimum of 15% of the total number of dwelling units for low
income families; and, 5 points under bonus criterion "v" for connecting to the nearest City
sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. The project achieves 65 base points and 40 bonus points
for a total of 105 points.
The P.U.D., therefore, is supported by its performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart
of the L.D.G.S., as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December 19, 1995.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 18, 1996, prior to submittal of this
Preliminary P.U.D. Neighborhood compatibility issues were discussed at length; issues
surrounding school capacity, density, water pressure, park usage, occupancy, stormwater
runoff facilities, views, traffic, and street improvements were thoroughly addressed. The
Preliminary P.U.D. is found to be reasonably sensitive to and maintain the character of the
surrounding area. The request satisfies the applicable All Development Criteria pertaining
to neighborhood compatibility.
The surrounding area has been in a relative state of flux; that is, many of the remaining
infill sites found in this area of the City seem to be developing in close temporal proximity.
For example, the proposed Scenic Views PUD site is across the street from the platted
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Preliminary, #3-96
April 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows
N: RP; One existing single-family home, a vacant lot, then County land (Mtn. View
Acres).
S: RLM; Lory Ann Estates (still vacant) approved for 29 multi -family lots.
E: RL; Vacant, then Happy Heart Farm.
W: FA-1; CSU Equine Teaching and Research Center.
In July of 1985, this site was granted Final PUD approval for 210 two -bedroom units in
four- and six-plex configurations with a day care center, a community clubhouse, and
tennis courts on 23.6079 acres. An extension on the approval, until January 24, 1988, was
later granted; however, as no site improvements were made, the PUD approval has since
expired. The current proposal is the first submittal involving this parcel of land since the
approved Final PUD expired on January 24, 1988.
2. Land Use:
All Development Criteria:
The request for 226 dwelling units (17 duplexes and 24 eight-plexes) on 20.9 acres equals
10.81 dwelling units per acre. The P.U.D., therefore, exceeds the minimum requirement
that there be at least 3.00 dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis.
Pursuant to All Development Criteria A-2.4 (Vehicular circulation and parking), staff feels
that the proposed "twenty foot emergency access" should be a permanent roadway
connection between the duplex and multi -family portions of this development. Staff does
not feel that this would encourage extraneous, high speed vehicular traffic, but if this is a
concern, staff would suggest using some traffic calming mechanism(s), such as speed
humps. It is staffs contention that the lack of this connection would encourage extraneous
traffic through the Overland/Elizabeth intersection. People living in the duplexes would
have to use Overland Trail to go eastbound on West Elizabeth Street (and thus have to
make two left turns onto arterials). People in the multi -family units would have to go
through the intersection to travel northbound instead of accessing Overland Trail directly
via internal circulation. Further, the desired connection could be accommodated without
losing any developable land or lots; that is, building 1 of the duplex portion of the
development could be shifted to alongside/next door to building 12, and the access could
ITEM NO. 9
MEETING DATE 4/22/96
STAFF Mitch Haas
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
J
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Scenic Views Preliminary P.U.D., #3-96
APPLICANT: Solitaire Properties, LLC
% Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Snowoods Land and Cattle
2900 Lincoln Center Building
Denver, CO 80264
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Jeanne A. Gidding
1532 Adriel Court
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval for 226 dwelling units (17 duplex lots containing
34 units and 24 multi -family structures containing 192 units) on 20.9 acres located at the
northeast corner of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The proposal includes
such amenities as 4.63 acres of recreational open space, bike/pedestrian connections from
the public sidewalks to the recreational open space, a day care facility, a community clubhouse,
and a swimming pool. The parcel is zoned rp, Planned Residential with a P.U.D. condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval with a condition.
The Preliminary P.U.D. request satisfies the All Development Criteria (as conditioned) and
the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The land use is compatible with the
surrounding area. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering perspective and, as
conditioned, promotes City transportation policies.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT