No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON COMMONS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 50-95 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSDENSITY CHART Criterion Mum Famed Credit Credit 2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center; or gp � Z. 6Z&/ 2096 2000 feet of anapproved but not constructed neiaorh shopping center. — — —"— 1090 b 650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [6) dwelling 20go units per acre on a gross acreage basis) 1 t l r 1 C 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center 1090 3500 feet o_f _an_ex_istin_g_neighb_or_ho_od_ or co_m_munity_park or —fig. j �g 20yo d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community 1pg,W _ [,3,acility(except golf courses); or 5000 feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed not — — — — — — or 1090 m e 250 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compttisory education logo - to f 3000 feet of a major employment center I OF K. t t% 1000 feet of a child care center R-1 % h "North" Fort Collins The Central Business District J309o j A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows: 0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 1090 contiguity; 10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguity; !0 15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 3090 contiguity; ��0/SIN 20 25% - For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 40% contiguity; 30 25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 509c contiguity. H z O cc 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 measures beyond those normally required by City Code, a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5% reduction in energy use. Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project. fl1 Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. 1,3 44AMS l IG.9 T .20,{ $•2 a 4.1 n If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus. GIf 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 $100 per dwelling unit invested. If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and s rvices which ar not o erwist P required by City Code, enter a 1 % bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested. � Z$ [ (os4 1 2 [ oo q If a commitment is being trade 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 309c. r If a 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: Type "A" .5 x Tvne "A" Units Total Units Type "B" 1.0 x In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 3090 Tvne "A" Units Total Units Continued Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994 -79- I Is Mal q f 15310 1 �--15 35 MULBERRY LOU0 -171", N� M a 0 m w 0 z 0 a o CD o� -10/30 t C —100/380 `o 20/60 f 12 10/15 f 340/265 o o Ln Y15 425 310 — 5/15� ooc 0 N\O 20/10 ORCHARD l� l- � — 5/10 LACE / 1 %-15/5 15/15 105-� Ur,OO 50y5 --� ��LO M LO N n LO LO c L \- 60/175 � —115/485 ELIZABETH /—60/155 105/115 } 295/310 in Ln 0 90/105 AM / PM m o Rounded to the Nearest L 5 Vehicles. SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH ORCHARD PLACE CONNECTION Figure 7 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Did You Receive 'rittea Notiflcatic ofthfs-meetlno7- Name Address Zip Yes No Yes No 4-IZ�S J(-ti'�SY"Lr�4,CXD e. /-4s COL/N R � R►v f�UC,Z �� �, S76(41 Z.� FV �l h`r/.p� iJ ' 1'7-C.��ikf Tell/ IlIX �e Armes g29 oAtVMza Dr r �9�¢ �° �► r' $ 33 7d> 4Doi6Sk D e, I ('� vl Lam; u F CAL V 6-?C, CZ) : _gdl In wff,4w, IT 1 Li IA NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING for Project: City of Fart Collins Meeting Attendees:. Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to receive minutes of this meeting. Did You Receive written NotificationAddress? of this meeting? orrect Name Address Zip Yes No IYes No o o Z3 DSO 4 6-,W,46CO ULti c&- 41- r�"usZ l g'osi/ a I- 8 /0 C ✓ . - & 80A,1L�� f o V/ V 12- 76U-f-Ssn712-��N�c�os�i BoSZr ✓ j�VA7iar idols 1910.rd•/ 'Z ✓ I� On J 40. I'm concerned about if you make that channel deeper, we will be affected. A. It should not impact you. 41. What has a project like this done to property values? A. There is a market out there for this type of project. 42. What is your approach to organic landscaping and maintenance? A. I cannot say that we have a policy concerning this, however, we do try to plant certain trees and shrubs that require minimal spraying. 43. Will the utilities on W. Elizabeth possibly be buried? A. The overhead utility lines will not be buried until a new service is run down Ponderosa and can service those homes from the front. No rear lot underground services are allowed due to an inability to access for servicing. 44. If this goes, when will construction start and then be completed? A. If our submittal of this project is the end of June, then we could start late summer or early fall of this year. This would be a twelve month project and time of completion would be by fall term at C.S.U., 1996 (developers projection). 45. How much money will JPI make off of this project? A. The developer is not required to state this information. 28. Will you allow pets? A. No. 29. Parking on the C. S.U. campus is virtually impossible, so providing parking spaces for our tenants will be of great help to them. ti 30. I have seen students park in the King Soopers parking lot all day long and taking Transfort from there to school. 31. King Soopers will still be a bus pick-up and drop-off. 32. Do you, JPI Texas Development, own this site? A. It is under contract right now. 33. You can contact Mike Ludwig 221-6750 regarding the status of the project (when or if the project is submitted). 34. Does JPI own any further commercial area around this project?. A. No. 35. How many of these complexes have you built and how long have you maintained them? A. We presently have two complexes in other cities in the U.S. 36. What about lighting? A. We have the lighting mounted on the buildings opposed to lamp lighting on the poles. The City does regulate any lighting of complexes and signs. 37. Will an Environmental Impact Statement be required? A. No, however the Natural Resources Department will be reviewing the development proposal when it is submitted. 38. Will the drainage be placed underground? A. There will be some on -site drainage ponds. 39. Will you have to improve the drainage downstream of this project? A. No. 21. How does this point system work and has the developer reached his 100 points.? A. The Residential Uses Point Chart is used to evaluate the appropriateness of a residential land use on a particular property (please refer to pages 78, 79, and 79a of the LDGS). Points are awarded based upon a project's proximity to existing services such as schools, parks, employment, and shopping. In addition, points may be awarded for providing additional services or public benefit. The proposed density of this project exceeds 10 dwelling units per acre and therefore must achieve a minimum of 100 points on the residential uses point chart. 22. Where are seven hundred more students. going to grocery shop? You can hardly get into King Soopers now. 23. How did this site grow from 12 acres to 17.5 acres? The notice you sent out to us concerning this meeting stated 12 acres. A. The notice was based upon information provided by the developer at conceptual review. The developer did state 17.5 acres at the neighborhood meeting. Staff will verify the acreage at the time of submittal of a formal development application. 24. What will happen to the irrigation ditch that follows Elizabeth Street? A. The developer is responsible to handle that water and the ditch company will be routed information about this project. Ditch company approval (sign -off) is required. 25. Do you expect any married couples with children to be living in these proposed apartments? And will you require married couples with two children to have to rent the three bedroom units or up? A. Yes, we possibly will rent to married couples with children if they can afford the rent. We're still reviewing the requirements concerning how many bedrooms they will be required -to rent. 26. A bike path goes through this property now. Where will they go once you develop this land? I'm also concerned about the 40 plus children that walk down Orchard Place and where will they go? A. We will connect to bike and pedestrian pathways. Plum and Orchard through connections are still under consideration. 27. How high will the fence be on your site? A. Eight feet high. 10. As tax payers do we have to pay for any improvements due to this project going in? A. The developer is responsible for improvements and there is also an Street Oversizing Fund that the City has which will come into play if needed. 11. We can only exit and enter our house from Clearview and W. Elizabeth and if these two streets are jammed, it is very difficult for us. 12. A stop sign will be installed to exit the project. 13. Traveling Taft Hill Road between Drake and Horsetooth is only one lane and most always congested. A. That area is still in the county, but I'm sure improvements will be made to that area in time. 14. Will the developer widen W. Elizabeth Street in front of the project? A. Yes. 15. We still do not seem to have the Police Department cruising our area any more frequently due to all this new building going on. 16. I'm concerned about the noise level and pollution from added cars. A. We will have a full time staff monitoring our project at all times for partying and noise, etc. 17. I don't care, students tend to be more noisy. 18. Our water pressure is not that good now. Will building this new project make it worse? Can the city do something about it? A. The Water and Wastewater Utility Department will review the proposed development and determine if there is available capacity. 19. Will our property taxes be raised or lowered due to this project? A. No answer was available. 20. How is this project zoned? A. R-L, Low Density Residential, however, this zoning district also allows Planned Unit Developments to be submitted which are evaluated against the Land Development Guidance System and which may allow higher density development. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. How many bedrooms will this project have? A. 696. 2. How many parking spaces will there be? A. 696 averaging one parking space per bedroom. City staff stated that this was greatly in excess of City parking standards and that staff would not support this many parking spaces. 3. There will be routine inspections of the units two to three times per year. 4. The rent for these units will be similar to Ram's Village on W. Elizabeth, $300 plus for the three bedrooms and up to $400 to $500 for the four bedrooms. J 5. The applicant proposes fire lane access only off of Orchard Place. Staff stated that this would need to be evaluated at the time of formal application submittal. 6. Has a traffic study been done recently on Taft and W. Elizabeth Streets? A. Yes, Elizabeth St. will have improvements done to it and a deceleration lane will be installed when nearing the project entrance. Necessary improvements will be determined by the traffic study which must be submitted at the time of application. 7. Have you taken into consideration the C.S.U. ball games and that traffic? A. Yes, this is something that just happens periodically and not a constant problem. 8. I live on Ponderosa Street in those single-family dwellings and I'm concerned about the City not carrying out it's rules and regulations for how many unrelated persons can live in one house. A lot of people purchase homes in this town for rentals only and rent to too many people in one house. A. The number of unrelated individuals per dwelling unit is regulated by the Building Inspections and Zoning Department on a complaint basis. Special requirement E(6)of the LDGS (page 87) does allow the Planning and Zoning Board the discretion to approve a project with four bedroom units. Please refer to this handout (page 87 of the LDGS). 9. Certificates of Occupancy are issued by the City even though the P.U.D. was not considered. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: JPI Student Apartments P. U.D. DATE: June 7, 1995 APPLICANT: JPI Texas Development, Inc. CONSULTANT: Gefroh Hattman Architects/Planners CITY PLANNER: Mike Ludwig The proposal is for a residential Planned Unit Development on 17.5 acres for approximately 204 apartments. The property is located on the north side of W. Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road and west of the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION 1. The proposal is for seven 24-unit buildings, and three 12-unit buildings. Units will have two, three or four bedrooms and be furnished. There is a clubhouse with leasing office iw it, exercise equipment, a room for students to buy stamps, use computers and copying equipment. 2. There's a swimming pool, volleyball and other sports area. 3. Lots of berming and buffering will surround the compound including a solid fence along the west property line for screening and safety. 4. The entrance will be gated and controlled. 5. Plum Street and Orchard Place will not have accesses to this project. 6. Transfort will possibly have a turn -around and stop in front of the project. 7. Highest percentage of occupants will be students. NEIGHBORHOOD LAG 14 INFORMATION MEETING D(d You Receive Correct Vrittea YotiFcatioa� lddress. Name Address Zip A PIZ I/ S tv");ez i Yes No Yesl No 10 17 M4 5a � n I l 1 f III i III' II I I i I I II I II I I i I X NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING for Project: J E FF City of Fort - CollinsIMeeting Location: pges�. Date: 7-115N, Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood M 15 g meetinns. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you Nvisfi to t3 e) Did You Receive Correa receive minutes of this meeting. Written Notification Address] of this meeting? Name Address zip Yes No Yes No 0 lo n L-�­btr -Ac IC 0�� V\ T (I :2 3-ct�F&rA 14 33 AUa/�Lvni/ 4)12�pl - M X+77- t4re,,X - 2) ( -'�c 4 vi L k L; N- 4 14 w 40. Is it possible to build single family homes here? A There are 3 property owners here. They have a contract with us. They still own the land. They'll sell if the development is approved. Multi -family housing pays commercial prices for land to build on. Therefore, a landowner would be able to sell their land for more to a multi- family developer than they could to a single-family residential developer. 41. Lots of owners lease along Ponderosa. 42. I'm hearing a lot of traffic concerns. I know that Ramblewood Apartments have a shuttle service to CSU for its residents. The majority of the residents use it. Would you also consider a similar service? A (Applicant) Transfort would have a stop at the entrance from Elizabeth Street. 43. The bus now picks up on Elizabeth in 30 minute intervals. 44. What is the time factor on the construction being complete? A. (Applicant) We would have a 12 month construction schedule-- from August to August. 45. Is our privacy protected or compensated for? A. (Applicant) We are required to mitigate our impacts. However there is no monetary compensation to the neighbors. 46. With Transfort, the students get a free ride and the taxpayers pay for it. A. (Applicant) It's included in the student fee to CSU. (Mike Ludwig) The owner of the property pays taxes also and figures into the rent structure. So, students are paying taxes also. 47. This is a private development. What is CSU doing to address student housing? A. (Grant Sherwood) I am the director of housing at CSU. We have identified a number of places on campus: - talk with private developers - potential for housing on main campus (South of Holiday Inn and Aggie Village) - residence halls —opened at 98% capacity and apartments (Ram Village) were full with 50 on waiting list. It is tight in the fall. - now there are 450 vacancies at residence halls (2nd semester) - the university will tear down '/z of Green Hall --storage now. - marketing is showing that the future is places like this. - housing must be affordable. 32. As property owners right up to the property line we are concerned about lights and noise right next to our backyard. There is no way to guarantee there won't be noise or that the tenants will be mature. A (Applicant) Can't address maturity. But we will have on -site management and security to control and maintain our project. There will be an on -site management number to call if you have complaints. We are trying to develop fighting that doesn't spill over into the neighborhood. 33. I can see right out my back window... see the TVs in units in Sunray Apartments. A. (Applicant) There's no landscape now between you and that project. 34. How long will it take for the trees to mature? A. (Applicant) Several years. 35. Noise factor--- Will security have authority to break up a beer party? A. (Applicant) Yes, same resource.... call security. 36. There will be one person per room? A: (Applicant) Yes. 37. No married couples? A (Applicant) We cannot discriminate, but our project is geared for a student population and rented on a one person per bedroom basis. No more than 4 people are allowed in a four bedroom unit, three in a three bedroom unit, etc. There will be 6 management people, 2 full- time maintenancelgroundsmen and a security officer. A $200-$300 deposit is in jeopardy if rules are violated. 38. What is the anticipated cost of the whole project? A. (Applicant) $16 million to $17 million. 39. Are there any plans to expand King Soopers? A. (Mike Ludwig) King Soopers was approved for a ten thousand square feet addition to the north side of the existing store in 1986 but the approval has since expired. Recently, King Soopers did contact staff to discuss the possibility of expanding but no development plans for an expansion have been submitted for review. A. (Applicant) It slows cars down— we have become efficient at repairingtreplacing them. 24. It seems to me that they are providing an absolute minimum of improvements! It's a nightmare already. Put it there and it will be totally clogged. 25. What about the other P.U.D. down the road? A. (Applicant) We did a traffic study for this development. The traffic study includes traffic from existing developments as well as anticipated traffic from future development in the area. 26. You will have one security officer for 600 units? A. It's only 15 acres-- it's walkable. 27. Do you plan on moving Moore Elementary School to keep the children out of danger? A. (Applicant) No, I don't think we can do that. We are doing the best we can to make it as safe as possible. 28. Are any speed bumps proposed for Ponderosa? A- (ERIC) Speed bumps- no. Speed bumps are possible but there is currently no budget for any speed calming measures. The City is working on a process to prioritize streets which need speed calming measures so that when a budget is available, it is spent effectively. Ponderosa will be on the list. 29. I believe there are 640 homes to be built at the Ponds at Overland. That combined with other developments in this area and a project of this density is too much. A. (Mike Ludwig) The City policies encourage infill development - development of vacant parcels closer to the center of the City. The policies also encourage higher density uses near shopping, schools, transit, etc. This site is an infill site which is close to existing services. It can support a higher density. 30. How can we stop this kind of density? A (Mike Ludwig)1. Attend the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and express your concerns. 2. Write letters to the P & Z Board in care of the project planner. 3. If unhappy with the decisions of the Board appeal to the City Council. 31. The university is growing. The students will not go away, if we don't approve a project like this the students will not have a place to live and will continue to overcrowd single-family houses in neighborhoods surrounding the University. connections from Taft Hill except for Mulberry and Elizabeth. The idea is to disburse traffic rather than concentrate it. The volumes will not be excessive. 16. You're turning a 3 way intersection into a 4 way death trap. A (Eric Bracke) We have that issue (connections and 4-way intersections - not death traps) all over town. This will help relieve traffic at all points. 17. Elizabeth files into one lane. 18. Is Orchard a done deal? A (Eric Bracke) Nothing is a done deal. Staff recommends that Orchard Place be connected. This will be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 19. I saw a map in the paper on how crime has increased. In Rams Village, crime has increased in the area since it was built. Why isn't the city doing anything about it? A (Applicant) Our own management will have their own security. Students are concerned about crime just as much as the neighbors. 20. What are the gated entries? A (Applicant) We are proposing controlled access to our property. The city doesn't want it. We do. (Mike Ludwig) This same type of development (gated entry, student housing) was proposed a couple of years ago and was denied by the City Council on appeal. There is not a single development with gated access in this community. It does not promote porosity (neighborhood connections). Staff does not feel that the applicant will have problems with cut through traffic as it is too inconvenient. This will also be up for discussion at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 21. How can someone get in if they're a visitor? A (Applicant) The visitor would dial up-- press • on phone-- gate open - then would be able to come in. 22. Part of a security system is speed bumps. Will you have those? A (Applicant) They're not currently shown on our plan but we will pick strategic points for stop signs. We will deal with on -site traffic. 23. Pm confused. There is a gate there and not on the other side (Orchard Place)? Banks have traffic arms and they are always torn down immediately. If the students do that, will you replace them? 6. How do these improvements help left turns out of the project. A. (Applicant) We would provide a left turn lane— easier to get out. There will be a stop sign. There is not enough traffic volume for a light. 7. Entryway- Are you going to funnel people out onto 1illcrest and Ponderosa? A. (Applicant) Minimal 'amounts of traffic from this development will use Hillcrest and Ponderosa. Destinations of the residents are more to the east (CSU). 8. I feel good about the plan. My concern is traffic, It is already so bad. I'm concerned about the children and the school. People go down Hillcrest at 50 miles per hour! A. (Applicant) The most direct route to Taft Hill is Elizabeth Street. 9. People are trying to avoid the traffic light. A. (Applicant) People avoid it now because the intersection is not fully signalized. 10. I've seen it, they're taking Ponderosa as a short cut to Taft Hill. A. (Applicant) The main destination is to get to campus, which is east of our site. 11. What about going up Orchard to Taft? A. (Applicant) There is an entrancelexit also proposed on Orchard Place. The City staff has requested that Orchard Place be connected through. 12. One person was killed on Ponderosa. 13. People learn fast. The easy way is Ponderosa to Mulberry. 14. I disagree a little'. People will go down lillcrest to Clearview to Taft. A. The traffic study indicates that the majority of the traffic will go east on Elizabeth to Taft Hill with a secondary amount going east on Orchard Place to Taft Hill. 15. My concern is the opening of Orchard. The children walk to school along here and cross Taft IM at Orchard Place. This trail provides a gathering place, a sense of community, people use it. Now your going to make it unsafe with vehicles. A. (Eric Bracke) I am the one who made them connect Orchard Place. The Orchard Place connection has always been expected to be completed with the development of this property. That is why Orchard Place to the east and west of the site does not have cul-de-sacs or dead ends. The connection is intended to relieve impacts. There are currently no east/west NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT. Jefferson Commons DATE. February 15, 1996 APPLICANT: JPI Texas Development CONSULTANT. Geffroh Hattman Architects STAFF: Mike Ludwig QUESTIONS. CONCERNS. COMMENTS 1. I am concerned about the students using bikes. They won't always be using them. In three years there will be no parking at CSU. Will there be a light at the project exit onto Elizabeth? Elizabeth is horrendous in the mornings! A. (Applicant) This project includes connections to existing bikelpedestrian lanes and is on a transit route (a transit stop is planned on Elizabeth Street at the projects entrance). Although residents can't be restricted from driving, we are incorporating alternatives to driving. A traffic light at the Elizabeth Street entrancelexit is not required but improvements will be made to Elizabeth Street and also the Elizabeth/Taft Intersection. 2. Will the bus go into the project? A (Applicant) No. The bus will pick up in front of the project on North Side of Elizabeth Street. 3. Are you going to put in a turn signal at Taft Bill Road and Elizabeth? A (Eric Bracke) We were going to put it in last fall, but that ice storm came ... the crews were out picking up trees. Right now it's scheduled for the first week in March. 4. Could you explain how your project will blend improvements to Elizabeth Street? A. (Applicant) West Elizabeth is a minor arterial. There will be 10 feet of landscaping and a 7 foot sidewalk. 5. That looks pretty narrow for a right turn. Will you make room for a bus? A. (Applicant) Yes, Elizabeth Street will be widened. A bus will fit. JPI P.o, BOX 619208 • DALLAS, TEXAS 75261 9200 March 6, 1996 John Narum 2305 West Plum Street VIA FAX: 224-5513 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Jefferson Commons PUD Dear John: You are the owner of the home located at 2305 West Plum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. JPI Texas Development, Inc. ("JPI") is the proposed developer of the Jefferson Commons PUD (the "Project"). The Project is to. be located at the eastern boundary of your property. Plum Street is not to be connected in conjunction with the construction of the Project. Instead, the City,has indicated that it would be willing to vacate the section of Plum between Ponderosa and the western boundary line of the Project. Your property currently receives.access to Ponderosa via this "to -be -vacated" section of Plum Street. If Plum Street is vacated then you will receive ownership of the right-of-way to the centerline of road and it will be necessary to construct a driveway to access your property. JPI agrees that if the Project is approved and Plum Street is vacated that it will remove the,(1) asphalt and sidewalk in the vacated portion of Plum, (2) construct a driveway to provide access to your garage from Ponderosa, (3) install curb and gutter along Ponderosa and (4) install sod in .the areas surrounding the driveway on both your property and the neighboring property in both the vacated right-of-way and in areas where necessary along the front of both residences. You have indicated that there may also .be a need to relocate fences or install new landscaping. You have not yet developed a landscaping plan. JPI agrees to pay you. $750.00 to allow you to install landscaping and relocate fences in conjunction with the construction of your driveway. JPI also agrees to provide you with at least 30 days notice prior to removal of the street. You agree to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to accommodate JPI's removal of the street. You recognize that there will be some inconvenience associated with the street vacation. Assuming that this letter generally sets forth our agreement, please execute a copy of the letter and return it. JPI Texas Develo ment, Inc. By: Patric9 Rhamey Development Associate John Narum GOO I Mir I.Ac: Col IIIAS RI VD. • CIGNA TOWER, 011E 11100 • IRVING. TEXAS 75039 • (214) 556-1700 • PAX (214) 5563784 Michael Ludwig Larimer County Planning March 6, 1996 Page 2 Sunray Apartments. The neighborhood representative indicated that she would carry the proposal back to the residents of the neighborhood. JPI is willing to cooperate with the neighborhood in minimizing traffic impacts. Subject to direction from the City and input from neighbors, we are willing to agree to: (1) modifications of Orchard Street and,.(2) include an access point at our eastern boundary at Plum Street. JPI understands that neighborhood residents are in the process of evaluating the agreed to alternative proposals. It is anticipated that the neighborhood's position will be better defined prior to the Planning and Zoning Board's preliminary hearing. If the neighborhood supports the Plum Street connection, the developer is willing to modify its proposal at final to accommodate the desires of the neighborhood. Sincerely yours, JPI Texas Development, Inc. B J. Patrick Rhamey Development Associate JPI P.O. BOX 619208 • DALLAS, TEXAS 75261-9208 March 6, 1996 Michael Ludwig City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Jefferson Commons PUD - Traffic Issues Dear Mr. Ludwig: This letter is in response to traffic concerns which have been raised by the Ponderosa Street neighborhood in conjunction with the proposed Jefferson Commons PUD. The neighborhood concerns involving the PUD center around the construction of the final leg of Orchard Place over the Jefferson Commons property. This construction would allow traffic'to flow over Orchard between Taft Hill Road and Ponderosa. Residential property owners in the area surrounding Ponderosa have expressed concern that completion of the final leg of Orchard will have an adverse impact on already crowded neighborhood streets. Neighbors have acknowledged that their traffic concerns do not arise as a result of the proposed project. Rather, neighborhood representatives agree that traffic generated by the project will logically exit the project onto Taft Hill Road and Elizabeth. There is no reason to believe that traffic will exit the project by left turn onto Orchard and thereby compound the neighborhood traffic problems. The neighborhood feels that connection of Orchard will encourage use of neighborhood streets by drivers who are frustrated with congestion on Taft, Elizabeth and Mulberry. The residents have also voiced concern that the completion of Orchard will do away with the existing bike/pedestrian trail which currently runs between Ponderosa and Taft. Your office suggested that in order to minimize the traffic impacts of the Orchard connection, it might be sensible to install a point of entry to the project at Plum Street. Immediately prior to the preliminary plan submission date, we reviewed this proposal with a representative of the neighborhood and with the owner of the 600 EAST LAS COLINAS BLVD. • CIGNA TOWER, SUITE 1800 • IRVING, TEXAS 75039 • (214) 556-1700 • FAX (214) 556-3784 166 morning peak hour trip ends and 242 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - Current operation at the Elizabeth/Taft Hill signalized intersection is acceptable. Operation at other key intersections Is acceptable with the existing stop sign control. In the short range future (1997) withthe proposed Jefferson Commons and the increase in background traffic, the key Intersections will operate acceptably. Left -turn phases should be added.to the Elizabeth/Taft Hill signal phasing. In the long range future (2015), the key intersections will operate acceptably. - Providing the connection of Orchard Place through the north portion of Jefferson Commons has a positive effect on all but one intersection. This connection also provides an alternative route to the arterial street system for the existing residential neighborhood to the west of Jefferson Commons. The location of Jefferson Commons Student Apartments provides an opportunity for travel by many modes, particularly for school trips to/from CSU. Use of the alternative modes has the positive effect of mitigating the use of personal vehicle travel for school trips. The developers of Jefferson Commons have indicated an interest in providing for a turn -around for Transfort buses within this site. - An enhanced two lane cross section is recommended for Elizabeth Street. This should include right- and left -turn lanes at appropriate locations. Specifically, a westbound right -turn lane is recommended on Elizabeth Street approaching the., Jefferson Commons access. Left turns should be accommodated in a continuous two-way left -turn lane on Elizabeth Street. 7 Appendix F. in the short intersection connection. All of the key intersections operate acceptably. As range analysis, only the Taft Hill/Orchard Place decreased in level of service with the Orchard Place The cross section of Elizabeth Street through the area adjacent to Jefferson Commons should be two lanes plus the center left -turn lane. A westbound right -turn lane should be provided on Elizabeth Street approaching the Jefferson Commons access. This will facilitate right -turn entrances to the site and eliminate delay to the through vehicles on Elizabeth Street. While Elizabeth Street is classified as an arterial street, the forecasted traffic volumes indicate that an enhanced two lane cross section is adequate west of Taft Hill Road. Other Issues This section discusses one issue which was raised at the neighborhood meeting. This issue is related to the non - neighborhood traffic which is currently using Ponderosa Drive to get from Elizabeth Street to Mulberry Street and vice versa. The neighborhood described this traffic as primarily students going to/from Poudre High School. Ponderosa Drive is a relatively straight street that is conducive to this type of traffic. It was not observed as part of this study, since school was not in session during the preparation of this study. There is currently all -way stop control at the Ponderosa/Orchard intersection. This action was probably taken to reduce speeds on Ponderosa Drive. Due to the nature of the street system, there is little that can be done to eliminate this cut through traffic. It is not likely that residents of Jefferson Commons will significantly contribute to this issue. The trip attractions for Jefferson Commons are primarily east of the site. Provision of the Orchard Place connection through Jefferson Commons will positively impact the residents to the west by providing an alternative route to the arterial street system. IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the traffic impacts of the Jefferson Commons on the short range (1997) and long range (2015) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the Jefferson Commons Student Apartments is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development as proposed, approximately 1880 trip ends will be generated at this site daily. It is expected that there will be ri Table 6 Long Range Peak Hour Operation (With Orchard Place Connection) Intersection Elizabeth/Jefferson Commons (stop sign) SB LT SB RT EB LT Elizabeth/Taft Hill (signal) Taft Hill/Orchard Place (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT WB LT/T/RT NB LT SB LT Elizabeth/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT/T NB RT SB LT/T SB RT EB LT WB LT Mulberry/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT NB RT WB LT Level of Service AM PM C A A C B' B A A B A B A A A B A A 0 C A A C ~ C B A C A C A A A C A A Table 5 Long Range Peak Hour Operation (No Orchard Place Connection) Level of Service Intersection AM PM Elizabeth/Jefferson Commons (stop sign) SB LT C D SB RT A B EB LT A A Elizabeth/Taft Hill (signal) C D Taft Bill/Orchard Place (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A SB LT A A Elizabeth/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT/T B C NB RT A A SB LT/T C C SB RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Mulberry/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT B C NB RT A A WB LT A A Table 4 Short Range Peak Hour Operation (With Orchard Place Connection) Level of Service Intersection AM PM Elizabeth/Jefferson Commons (stop sign) SB LT B C SB RT A A EB LT A A Elizabeth/Taft Hill (signal) C C Taft Hill/Orchard Place (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT A A SB LT A A Elizabeth/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT/T B C NB RT A A SB LT/T B C SB RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Mulberry/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT B C NB RT A A WB LT A A Table 3 Short Range Peak Hour Operation (No.Orchard Place Connection) Intersection Elizabeth/Jefferson Commons (stop sign) SB LT SB RT EB LT Elizabeth/Taft Hill (signal) Taft Hill/Orchard Place (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT WB LT/T/RT NB LT SB LT Elizabeth/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT/T NB RT SB LT/T SB RT EB LT WB LT Mulberry/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT NB RT WB LT Level of Service AM PM C C A A A A C C B B B B A A A A B C A A B C A A A A A A B C A A A A e Providing the Orchard Place connection to Taft Hill Road gives future residents of Jefferson Commons and existing'residents of the neighborhood to the west of Jefferson Commons an alternative route to the arterial street system. For those who desire to travel east on Elizabeth Street or south on Taft Hill, direct access to Taft Hill Road will enable them to make a right turn rather than a left turn to Elizabeth Street: Review of past City transportation plans indicate that the Orchard Place connection has always been intended. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.. No new signals are anticipated at any of the key intersections. Signal Progression Signal progression was not evaluated since no new signals are warranted due to the Jefferson Commons development. Operations Analysis Capacity analyses were performed on key intersections adjacent to and near the Jefferson Commons development. The operations analyses correspond to the short and long range traffic forecasts shown in. Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The Elizabeth/Taft Hill signalized intersection will continue to operate acceptably, however consideration should be given to providing left -turn phases for each leg. The stop sign controlled intersections operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown.in Figure 7, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. All of the intersections operate acceptably. Comparing Tables 3 and 4, and the detailed calculation forms in Appendices C and D indicate that, with the Orchard Place connection, the operation at all intersections except the Taft Hill/Orchard Place intersection will improve. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections operate as, indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. All of the intersections are expected to operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 6. . Calculation forms are provided in 5 —190/370 �-- 15 35 toLO �N N� M Q 0 m w a z 0 a MULBERRY —10/30 '1 20/60 �-14 10/15 � f 5/15 425/330 — o o Ln 505/375 5/15 --, o 0 0 N �7 OR jCHARD 46, Ln � 20/10 55/5 20/20 —' f Ln o Ln 60 50 � � �Nzl- 0 N 00 LnLn Ln 70/195 CD — 135/540 ELIZABETH r-70/165. 125/135 340/365 — cD Ln N 110/125 \�\ AM / PM LO LOLN Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH ORCHARD PLACE CONNECTION Figure 9 �--19375 1(-15 40 —_ ) r to LO N M Q N O W Z O a MULBERRY Site f Y LO 20/45 �o to C*14 O 130/475 40/1 1 20/60 10/15 --") r 445/345 -�^ CDo Ln 5/15 o 0 0 N LO --160 5/15 540/400 -� op��HARD NI J _J H U. F- LO LO �- 20/10 c M ' LO NOM. + 15/5 15/5 10/15 NOM. c) O to 25/20 o�LO 0 N 00 0 �� �'n - 50/120 co J �, 155/615 70 165 5eo ELIZABETH % 125/135 } 410/410 130/140 -NL o N Ln cli AM / PM LO CD N Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NO ORCHARD PLACE CONNECTION Figure 8 — 155 315 r- 15 40 370/425 --� r 5/10 I N NLO M MULBERRY ooto �- 20/45 oCO N � —105 405 20/660 Ln J � 40 1 /- 3" 10/15 -1 ) } r 5/15 360/280 — o o uO 460/335 -� 0 0 OP CHq_RD 0 20/10 in in - NOM. 5/10 } NOW C3On 15/15 --� LO � Ln N n N 0 LLn o �U'-) 40/100 -q' to + —135/560 60/155 ELIZABETH /r /- - 105/115 r 365/355 110/120 -� in - Q AM / PM Lo � o Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NO ORCHARD PLACE CONNECTION Figure 6 N NO SCALE SCHOOL TRIPS A& N NO SCALE NON -SCHOOL TRIPS I TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 trips. This is shown in the row labelled non -school trips in Table 2. The remaining vehicle trips were considered to be school trips. Based upon the location of Jefferson Commons with regard to CSU, it was assumed that 20 percent of the school trips would be by modes not involving a personal motor vehicle. These modes are primarily Transfort or bicycle. Transfort operates on West Elizabeth Street with service to CSU. The Jefferson Commons developers are interested in providing a turn -around for buses within Jefferson Commons. Jefferson Commons is less than two miles from the geographical center of CSU. This makes bicycle travel an attractive travel alternative, also. Trip Distribution Two directional distributions of the generated trips were determined for Jefferson Commons. Distribution for the non -school travel used employment as the attraction variable in the gravity model. Future year data was obtained from information supplied by the Fort Collins Planning Department. School related vehicle trips for Jefferson Commons were oriented to CSU. A small percentage of the school trips are to the west, since there are CSU facilities in this direction. Both trip distributions are shown in Figure 5. Background Traffic Background traffic is defined as the traffic that is and/or will be on the area streets that is not related to the proposed developments. Future analysis years were 1997 (short range) and 2015 (long range). It was assumed that this development would be built out by 1997. The traffic projections from the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, October 1994 were used to obtain the short range and long range background traffic projections. In addition to the forecasts shown in the cited plan, traffic studies for other developments (e.g. The Ponds, etc.) were used to develop background traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Four trip assignments were performed. Figure 6 shows the short range peak hour traffic with Orchard Place not connected through Jefferson Commons. Figure 7 shows the short range peak hour traffic with Orchard Place connected through Jefferson Commons. Figures 8 and 9 show the, long range peak hour traffic with no Orchard Place connection and with the Orchard Place connection, respectively. 4. Table 2 Trip Generation Daily Land Use Trips JEFFERSON COMMONS 684 Bedrooms/684 Persons 2240 Non -school Trips 450 School Trips 1790 Alternative Mode School 360 Trips Remaining School Trips 1430 Total Private Vehicle Trips 1880 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out 48 150 185 103 10 30 37 21 38 120 148 82 8 24 30 16 30 96 118 66 40 126 155 87 ORCHAREIF=- _,._.._.._ g PLACE--- i■ R,-r„-rrm I I© I I 19 55 I I PLUM STREET--20 I I ■ I ■ I ■ o N NO SCALE Ro PLACE STREET • � I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I WEST 'ELIZA-AETH STREET SITE PLAN mw' Figure 4 Table 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM Pli Elizabeth/Taft Hill (signal) B B Taft Hill/Orchard Place (stop sign) EB LT/RT B B NB LT A A Elizabeth/Cedarwood Plaza (stop sign) NB LT B C NB RT A A WB LT A A Elizabeth/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT/T B B NB RT A A SB LT/T B B SB RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Mulberry/Ponderosa (stop sign) NB LT B B NB RT A A WB LT A A obtained and still meet the schedule for submittal of this project. The synthesis techniques were discussed with City staff. Existing Operation The five intersections shown in Figure 3 were evaluated regarding operational efficiency. They were evaluated using their respective control with existing geometrics. The peak hour operation in shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B describes level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (1994 HCM). The signalized Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection oPerates acceptably. All of the stop sign controlled intersections operate acceptably. By definition, acceptable operation is considered to be level of service D or better. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Jefferson Commons is located north of West Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the site. Jefferson Commons is a student apartment development consisting of 6B4 bedrooms in various size apartment buildings. Based upon the rental policy, this will result in a population of 684 students. Students are expected to be primarily upperclassmen and graduate students. The main access to Jefferson Commons will be across from West Elizabeth Street. A secondary access is shown connecting Orchard Place through the site. City staff requested an evaluation of the change in traffic patterns with and without the Orchard Place connection. Trip Generation and Modal Split Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the vehicular travel to/from Jefferson Commons. Land use code 220 (Apartment) was used with persons as the independent variable. Urban Travel Patterns for Hospitals, Universities, Office Buildings, and Capitols, NCHRP Report 62, HRB, 1969, was used to determine the student travel from/to Jefferson Commons, since the data in this document was more definitive pertaining to diurnal travel behavior of students. Table 2 shows the trip generation expected from Jefferson Commons. Jefferson Commons trips were divided into two categories: school (CSU) and non -school trips. The non -school trips can be categorized as work trips, shopping trips, recreation trips, etc. It was assumed that 20 percent of the trips would be non -school 3 N �— (140Y(288) �-- 15) (38) MULBERRY M V' .v N tLo1!') to M v� a co O Q W C Z O a J J LL a F- 3/95 Lo O pq� LACRo 5/a t 12 13 � oa �o co rn 7/92 12/93Lo M �16 /(45) � rn N � 34/93 70)A290) +— 82 /292 r-1 — 69/352 (17)A59) r �47;/169 ELIZABETH f 1 /-46/131 (290((3/)/(15 C 'o. )) M rn� O rn� O 892 } 215 246 0 83/95Lo —� Locn AM / PM (Synthesized) 0 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 14 PRIMARY STREETS Figure 2 West Elizabeth Street. Land in the area is essentially flat. The center of Fort Collins lies to the east of the site. ' Roads The primary streets near the Jefferson Commons are shown in Figure 2. West Elizabeth is south of Jefferson Commons. It is an east/west street designated as an arterial on the Fort Collins ` Master Street Plan. In this area, it has a functional two lane ( cross section with auxiliary turn lanes at some intersecting streets and driveways. The West Elizabeth/Taft Hill intersection 'I is signalized. Sight distance is generally not a problem along West Elizabeth Street. Streets and driveways intersecting West Elizabeth have stop sign control. Taft Hill Road is approximately 1000 feet east of the site. 1. It is a north/south street designated as an arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. In this area, Taft Hill Road has a I fourlane cross section with a center left -turn lane at some intersections. Mulberry Street is an east -west street designated as an arterial. It intersects with Taft Hill Road at a signalized intersection. It is located approximately 1/4 mile north of the site. Jefferson Commons does not take direct access from Mulberry Street. On the west side of the proposed Jefferson Commons is Ponderosa Drive. It is a local street, 40-50 feet wide. It provides a direct north/south connection between West Elizabeth Street and Mulberry Street. It intersects with Mulberry Street at a stop sign controlled T intersection, and at West Elizabeth Street at a four leg stop sign controlled intersection. Due to its location, it provides an access route to Poudre High School. As indicated in a neighborhood meeting, it. has considerable high school vehicular traffic. There is little that can be done to alleviate this. Orchard Place and Plum Street are local streets which terminate on each side of the Jefferson Commons site. The City's intention has always been that both streets would be connected through the Jefferson Commons site. Meetings with City staff indicated that at least one of the streets should be connected. The preferred street connection is via Orchard Place. Existing Traffic Peak hour turning movements obtained in 1992, 1994, and 1995 are shown in Figure 3. Some turning movements were synthesized because actual traffic counts during the school year could not be 2 - p [ Emb-stl [ j 96 , E --- yIgL��L p_ 0 L IT x North Yards COLOR •'Tt ugai Refin( r �Vi W. 1wer LUU jjjj�( 4 Downto, Fort Coll W. Airpai y y Golf 144 - 'o 'oluf SO 'I T T fbs(age .7 A.. .1L -A T . I ff j J, gi JEFF N N i - 71" 4 0 islo SM4954 F k" W�SES'.Vk" CO) DL=;::w 4� . m- I ! I --- 4 .. 0 AD Ir T E —1, �! =_ L . IL ,l EL1t,_jjH A3 r __1 - :3 L UNIATIR -M- ;Jlj L CIS jr J + k., U — I IF S 31 * D- 2 !as let Dive4 - - ,it I Zj dc k<xv �r_ 11 x 2 , 3 A -W r ye -I Theat !Theate.r'. rakes ) it it - r 27, 26 ui 7-30, . . K 1. Gravel Pits I Omegq :mJ 5bh2 l549 % Dry F Wet f Lak�� U11 7— 499/ 5� 3 Gravel Pit Me Cleflands 2 1 ­T. Harmony Cem -b 501. NO SCALE SITE LOCATION Figure 1 I. INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near a proposed development known as the Jefferson Commons in Fort Collins, Colorado. Jefferson Commons is a student apartment development, located north of West Elizabeth Street between Taft Hill Road and Ponderosa Drive. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planning consultant (Gefroh, Hattman Architects), the developer (JPI Texas Development), and the Fort Collins Transportation Division. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes and daily traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections and roadway sections; - Analyze signal warrants; This report is prepared for the following purposes: - Evaluate the existing conditions at key intersections; - Estimate the trip generation by the proposed developments; - Determine the trip distribution of site generated traffic; - Evaluate operation at key intersections; - Determine the geometrics at key intersections; - Determine the impacts of site generated traffic on key intersections. Information used in this report was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, the planning consultant, the developers, research sources (ITE, TRB, etc.) and field reconnaissance. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS. The location of the Jefferson Commons is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily vacant, commercial or residential. ' Residential development exists on all sides of the proposed Jefferson Commons. Some commercial uses exist to the southeast along both sides of West Elizabeth Street. The site itself is vacant. There is also some vacant land to the west along 1 M In O OD O •5 06 N O o. J 10 O '9 U 0 • M O Z I August 16, 1995 (File:9558LET1) O J ,,, Fort Collins Planning Department Z Fort Collins Transportation Division > Fort Collins, CO 60522-0580 a and Z Mr. Jim Truitt Z Z JPI Texas Development m P.O. Box 619208 M Dallas, TX 75261-9208 Gentlemen: This site access study was prepared in July, 1995 and used a bedroom count of 684. Subsequent reworking of the site plan caused the number of bedrooms to be reduced to 624. This change has a minimal impact on the trip generation. I have gone through a cursory evaluation using the 624 bedrooms and have determined that the conclusions and recommendations of this report would not change. Therefore, I am submitting this report using 684 bedrooms as the size of the project. Sincerely, leAA— -& w Matthew J. Delich, P.E. z co z N.1 w J_ > U O V � J Q W Cr C o EL cc z a 3 W S a F- Cr H Q JEFFERSON COMMONS STUDENT APARTMENTS SITE ACCESS STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO JULY 1995 Prepared for: JPI Texas Development P.O. Box 619208 Dallas, TX 75261-9208 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 DENSITY CHART continued Criterion Ear S If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following: Credit 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g. envirortmental, 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; tly>t 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation, and improvement in an appropriate manner. O t 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 m follows: 9% For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure; 6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure; 3% For providing 25 - 49% of the parking in a structure. U If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. V If the applicant commits tr providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the desim don points described below, calculate the bonus as follows: PFor connecting. ro the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle pathAane; 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 trail which is adjacent to or traverses the project. TOTAL i Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994 - 79a - .IEF�'ERSoN�M�Oti1S pvD. , PRe�M , 955 ACTIVITY: Residential Uses 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: The following applicable criteria must be answered `yes"and implemented within the development plan. Yes 'a 1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be based on the following: 60 percentage point = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre 60-70 percentage point 6-7 dwelling units per acre i 0-80 percentage pcin-e = 7-8 dwelling units per acre 80-90 percentage poi :s = 8-9 dwelling units per ac 90-100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre 100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling unit per acre tt i VACM }� J ®cr WAS suIDMTTEt� ?k%c k -ra Qev►s�o�S VSE� ta6lNfi CNRi�'", N/A I� NAVEMeI�. Land Develop mentGuidance"System for Planned Unit. Developments The, City"of'Fort_Collins, Colorado; Revised..Augusti;1994 -78- J $1 . ActivityA; U.D. M # So--gs ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA I CRITEF ION Al. COM(vt 11`11 -WIDE CRITERIA. 1.1 Sclar Oner,tancn 1.2 Comorehensive Plan 1.3 Wildlife Habitat 1.= Mineral Deocsit 1 • _� ,Iecic�lly Sensitive Areas 1.c Lands cr Acricultural Imocrarce 1. r Enercv Ccnsa nation 1.p Air Qualitv 1,S V1/ater QL'c-Ill`/ ' Q ='Ala anC IAI--- 'NaterCons= tvStian 1.12 Residential Density APPLICAELE CRITE-IA ONLY the c•-'anon Will the cme aepicaele7 be satisfiea7 . 3 slYes INo Ifne, please ex -fain COMPa7iEILl1' CRITE:RIAI V'elic iar. Fedes;,;an. Bike Transocraticn I I I = =ullclnc P!2::err:snt and Ori,.. �en t_,icr, ? 3 Natural 2 " Venice lar Circulation anc FsC,<irc I I I ) I 2 C: iBryanCf =.0 _ I I I I - sec=strian Ci,:c�lation I ' I 2• %,ItaC:Ure 2- I I I I - ���ilding ;;e ,_. c =nd Views ( I I I '2.,S . Shading 2.1 C Sclar ACCcSs I I I I 2.11 �istcric Rescue=s. 2.12 Se,backs I I I I 2.13 Landscape 2.14 Sicns I I I 2.1 Site Lighting I I I I 2.1 3 Ncise and Vibration I I I I 2.17 Glare or Heat I I I I 2.18 Hazardous Mate 'pals I I I I 3. ENGINEERING CRiTER1A 3.1 Utility Capacity 3.2 Design Standards I I I 3.3 Water Hazards I 3.4 Geologic Haz=_rds I I Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments the City of Fort Collins. Colorado. Revised illah 1994 -61- 5USt The total cost of this clubhouse can be expressed in terms of the following: Cost per SF of heated area (3,418 SF) $86.52/SF' Cost per SF of slab area (4,333 SF) $68.25/SF Hopefully, this information will be beneficial in budgeting your clubhouses. If you have any questions, please let me know. cc: SW, TR, BL, CC, JM, DT JPI CONSTRUCTION Y Estimating Ext Details Report 2-05-96 Page 1 • JEFFERSON GLEN 2:36 pm IT M DESCRIPTION LOCATION TAKEOFF QTY Wf CONVERSION ORDER QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUR 13000 SPECIAL CONST ----------------------------- 13850 SWIMMING POOLS 03 Entry Fountain 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 21,790.00 21.790 10 Rear Fountain 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS' 4,900.00 4.800 16 Cast Stone P1 Coping 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 3.990.00 3,990 17 Stone Veneer 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 1,280.00 1,280 18 Area Drains 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 2,060.00 2,860 20 Main Pool 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 16,650.00 19.690 21 Aggregate Deck 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 13.660.00 13,660 25 Exterior Spa 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 9,650.00 9,650 28 Colored Concrete 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 14,590.00 14,590 30 Secndry P1 w/ Plntra 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 23,510.00 23,510 30 Circular Elvtd Rr P1 1.00 LS Sub 1.00 LS 15,900.00 15,900 SWIMMING POOLS 426,904.00 ------------ NRSF 126.680 .301/NRSP ----------------------------------- SPECIAL CONST 128.690 426,904.000 NRSF .301/NRSF U MEMORANDUM , JPI Construction, Inc. DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Jim Truitt FROM: Kerry White SUBJECT: Clubhouse Costs Listed below are the approximate costs of the clubhouse for Jefferson Commons: 3001 Foundation $ 14,948 4100 Fireplace $ 6,016 4100 Masonry Labor $ 13,375 4100 Masonry Material $ 11,179 4100 Lintels $ 1,000 4100 Cast Stone Labor $ 903 4110 Stucco $ 6,000 5505 Cupola Rails $ 1,152 6100 Lumber $ 10,000 6101 Framing $ 10,000 6102 Trusses $ 10,600 6200 Trim Material $ 9,411 6201 Trim Labor $ 25,000 7210Insulation $ 500 I�2lJ�tT� 7300 7650 Shingle Roofing Flashing $ $ 5,282 500 �00/VNIT- 00 G d D 77 utters an ownspouts $ 500 �O� l�OfWs 8111 Exterior Doors $ 15 969 1%2M Pot" 8200 Interior Doors $ 9 6,122 8610 Wood Windows $ 19,485 8710 Finish Hardware $ 11,325 8810 Mirrors $ 1,636 9250 Drywall $ 8,000 9300 Tile $ 18,883 9350 Cast Stone $ 3,700 9650 Carpet, VCT 9900 Paint $ $ 8,000Ze�,(�S� 5,000 9900 Tape, Bed, Texture $ 3,000 9950 Wallpaper $ 1,302 191200 10160 Toilet Partitions $ 724 10306 Fireplace Accessories 10990 Fire Extinguishers $ $ 320 255 4 is ID ►v 11452 Appliances $ 2,510 12370 Cabinets $ 5,000 12510 Miniblinds $ 4,435 15001 Plumbing $ 7,500 15010 HVAC $ 13,900 16001 Electrical $ 6 000 Music System Subtotal s \5 Subtotal Overhead and Profit 14 0 TOTAL $295,737 (continued) 03 0 �1 Eo■ MEMO � — IiFm7l —M■MA ■Eo EOEE .■■■MEMO OM■M� i■■■ MEMO■ MI m■n in ■EEOMMMM MMo E••• MEMMwonC ON WHOM ON 1 n Im11 �SID'e ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE VI -A a VI-B - xn:eve• . ra• /,FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE VI -A < VI-S. r��rRONIT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE V ZI i. z C)X Owe MIL-i tm z VA w On :D otx �-x I dR A4.4 i I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I MILLCREST STREET I ul TO E i B4 PONOERGSA STSEE- I I 1 E I I Ir IW I N MILES - LNYLNNO I7 Ip I I-- N 0025'W w 112 m, lijililrrl K o`-`a PAPA 94.42' X - n 1 � RYY I>P.no I v�Yw v 5 S �� � i ® 1 AW r /l .EST ELIZ.IBETN PLAZA LYz ; SUNRAY PLACE P U.O. J � fp 1 I I ! IV I I I ;� / !i ---___ 1 . J — li -- ,�.m' JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. SLA11. I I,h ,o u F I N A DEVELOPMENT OF J.P.I. LANDSCAPE PLAN RFVISEOI.EN%OASY'.Iw LANDSCAPE NOTES i SG.^L`-�. 'f' .f� ✓ Q I �i— r }iv'es Zvi 1 - 1 •a 1 1 —�,w— r`eviu—�w�� Y mW oq�pMRMAnON ---_— 7 — rx.T� WATIRCONSI..NVAHON IX �'f30.VERNINL TNY ATTORNEY KIS 19 A CUTIYY IYII.T fIX TMtl UY _ PiNIp® TX¢ T .tl 14 iM! p-SY�pry¢ppPtt•A6 OBB@Ix® x 7U xvvmx Nv �M T ^ttnli r nvl ylry x'mnc la Uv u axrn TIE, III �(; I me�.r.INew �Jyyp! I I I D PST R ENCLOSURE fp I 1 2� jll i I ® m Ip in .• ,G BI •• III I I F • '• HJ l i i l ❑ + R • Tan MILLCRESLCREiT--I STREET I 0 '2500 W 1� I I I iI , • IWL d I�'alks, mIllp Wj - ❑ 4 I / F HI I I I it I I I III I I I _ I -- 5 0022'2' E I , 94.a2' nil + C IIi 1 _ �IIIffi i�� i � p� LEGAL ® w...w...,..u..x.•..s..�.�...,.1 ,.. ' — I ��•�•rrnau,'�n�wr i JEFFERSON a■ A DEVELOPMENT OF J.P.I. PRELIMINAR OWNER PLANNING WPerm 1®Yr LYIIn TUT Irn lY uNOVm PNi:i uD GMlP6 � ® YvvR[B®4 LW W D] �➢Y mWtA. [OIRIW. TH16 p� ox 9vm eln Pun Bn Px¢ cvlmn.4s um vunlcPl4v art Pmix ,�jy ipiya e aIC — I I � 1 wo MLLER-LPYLPNO j I )i3•00W 1121.98• 1 _ 1 _ 1 1 I I 1 \rF /, v I I 1 emw I' .I I• - I - .�P m , I Hill Do7a oY Iw m I , I lLaiiR h I E � n y�; is /1 J'r I a o 1 Y. rn SUNRAY PLACE P.UD. ; =w / I p r LAND USE ANALYSIS COMMONS P.U.D. Y SCALE'. I IN = W,0 Ff SITE PLAN GRAPHIC scA r—REVISED FUBRUMY !, IW 1IU 21 W mm mm.4T VICINITY MAP SCALE IIN.-2,YY0.9 Ff. GENERAL NOTES Y SCALE'. I IN = W,0 Ff SITE PLAN GRAPHIC scA r—REVISED FUBRUMY !, IW 1IU 21 W mm mm.4T VICINITY MAP SCALE IIN.-2,YY0.9 Ff. GENERAL NOTES CLlK4I61MI1Y1[ O144y:1910 �� CkiKet• ■ Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 11 would be a solution and extremely costly to the developer. The applicants consultants, City Staff and the Poudre Fire Authority will further research all potential water pressure solutions during the review of Final P.U.D. utility plans and if the City's concerns cannot otherwise be addressed, the developer has committed to installing pumps in each building. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: The Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95 earns 116.5% of the maximum applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum required 100% for a residential density of 12.11 dwelling units per acre (92.5% of the points are earned from base/locational criteria). 2. The Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95 meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System including A-2.5 "Emergency Access" and A-2.6 "Pedestrian Circulation" as the applicant has abandoned their request for a "gated community. 3. The Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95 provides additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. 4. The Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95 is compatible with surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a request to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units of the Jefferson Commons P.U.D. and approval of the Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95. Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 10 Parking: The applicant originally requested a total of 660 parking spaces (1 space per bedroom). The parking standards outlined in All Development Criteria A-2.4 would require a minimum of 427 parking spaces for the proposed bedroom per unit configuration. The Jefferson Commons P.U.D. currently shows 559 on -site parking spaces. This is a parking ratio of about 84% of the total bedrooms. This ratio is consistent with the parking ratio for the Fort Ram Village (CSU Student housing) which also has four bedroom (4 person) units. Monitoring of the Fort Ram Village parking has proven this ratio satisfactory. Pedestrian Access: Internal pedestrian connections are made to the existing bike/pedestrian lanes on West Elizabeth, Orchard Place and Plum Street, including a bike/pedestrian path east of the site that currently provides direct pedestrian access from the Sunray Apartments to the Cedarwood Plaza Shopping Center (King Soopers). In addition, Transfort has expressed an interest in establishing a future bus stop directly in front of the Jefferson Commons entrance on West Elizabeth and possibly at the proposed entrance on Orchard Place. 6. Natural Resources: There is an existing drainage channel which crosses the site, south of the proposed Orchard Place connection. The applicant has worked with the Natural Resources Department and the Stormwater Utility to preserve and enhance existing wetlands along this channel. The Site Plan was revised so that there was only one crossing of this channel rather than two. Trash dumpster enclosures will be large enough to include recycling bins. 7. Stormwater: All applicable Preliminary Stormwater design criteria have been met. 8. Water and Wastewater: Low water pressure was a concern expressed at the neighborhood meeting. The Water and Wastewater Utility and Poudre Fire Authority also expressed a concern regarding water pressure on this site. The Water and Wastewater Utility has indicated that there is adequate water volume to serve the site. There may be a number of ways in which the water pressure issue can be resolved. Clearly the installation of pumps in each building Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 9 Orchard Place do not support the connection of Orchard Place. All neighbors seem to agree that automobiles travel at a high rate of speed on Ponderosa. City Staff supports the connection of Orchard Place for the following reasons: a. City Council direction is for connections through neighborhoods (porosity). There are no other east/west connections between Taft Hill and Ponderosa except for West Elizabeth and West Mulberry. b. Orchard Place has always been planned to connect through this site when it develops. Evidence of this is found as there are no permanent dead -ends on either end of Orchard Place at the east and west property lines of this site. Right-of-way outside of this P.U.D. boundary has been dedicated. The existing pedestrian path along the northern portion of the property was designed to be a temporary solution for pedestrian access until permanent sidewalks could be installed with the future connection of Orchard Place. C. Although the connection of Orchard Place will not generate heavy usage by this development, it will allow all intersections to operate at levels of service "C" or higher, rather than two intersections operating at levels of service "D". d. If Orchard Place is connected through the site, a 4-way stop would likely be warranted at the Orchard Place/Ponderosa intersection thereby eliminating a "straight -shot" down Ponderosa and helping to calm an existing speeding problem. e. Engineering and Transportation staff support narrowing the cross-section of Orchard Place adjacent to the Jefferson Commons site to 28 feet from flowline to flowline. This width accommodates 2 travel lanes and parking on one side. Due to the nature of the development along this portion of the street (existing development and proposed basketball and tennis courts on the north side of Orchard Place) and the amount of off-street parking available, it is not necessary to provide street width for parking on both sides of the street. If the excess street width is taken off of the north side, this will create additional space behind the curb to provide room for a detached sidewalk on the north side. The sidewalk could also be wider than the standard 4 feet required for residential areas to create a more inviting pedestrian and bicycle connection. The applicant is willing to further mitigate its impact on W. Elizabeth and Orchard Place by stubbing Plum Street into the eastern boundary of this site to provide a third point of access. They have also offered to install traffic calming measures (speed humps) on Ponderosa and Orchard Place if requested and approved by the City. Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 8 Elizabeth Street and Orchard Place frontages. The applicant has committed to provide dense landscape materials along the northern and eastern edges of the tennis courts and basketball court to decrease noise pollution to the adjacent mobile home park and multi- family residential. The eastern and western property lines will each have a 6' high wood fence. The frontages along West Elizabeth Street and Orchard Place will have a six foot high fence constructed of 3/4" wrought iron pickets on 6" centers with brick columns at approximately 24 feet intervals. Specific plant types, quantities, and locations of all landscaping will be further reviewed at the time of Final P.U.D. application. Lighting: All proposed lighting is to be sharp cut-off, down directional. The parking areas will be lighted by 250 watt, 14 feet high pole mounted lights. The interior walkways will be lighted by 100 watt, 8' high pole mounted lights. The lighting plan submitted by the applicant indicates that lighting levels at the perimeter of the parking lot along the western boundary (approximately 30' from the property line) will not exceed 0.3 foot candles. This is within the recommended lighting levels of All Development Criteria A-2.15. There is no exterior lighting of the tennis and basketball courts. 5. Transportation: Traffic Generation/Street Connections: The main access point to the Jefferson Commons development is from West Elizabeth Street. At the City's request, the applicant proposes to extend Orchard Place through the northern portion of the site. There would be a secondary access point to/from the development onto Orchard Place. The Site Access Study indicates that "at full development, approximately 1,880 trip ends will be generated at this site daily. It is expected that there will be 166 morning peak hour trip ends and 242 afternoon peak hour trip ends. All intersections would operate at a level of service "C" or higher at both the A.M. and P.M. peaks. If Orchard Place was not connected through the site, south bound left turns at the Elizabeth/Jefferson Commons entrance (automobiles leaving Jefferson Commons making a left onto W. Elizabeth) and the West Elizabeth and Taft Hill intersection would operate at a level of service "D". The majority of the trips generated by this development are to destinations east of the site. Based upon concerns expressed at the neighborhood meetings, there appear to be two neighborhood opinions. Those who travel on West Elizabeth and use the Taft/Elizabeth intersection appear to support the connection of Orchard Place. Those who live near Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 7 residential buildings and information/community center are placed in a manner that creates a common, activity area in the center of the site with parking on the perimeter. City Staff has requested that Orchard Place be completed through the site at the northern edge of the property. The two tennis courts and basketball court are located on the north side of Orchard Place. Setbacks/Building Placements: In response to neighborhood concerns, particularly the single-family residential neighborhood adjacent to the western property boundary, the applicant has increased building setbacks and incorporated a variety of angled building placements to mitigate the height and mass of the buildings from the adjacent land uses and public right-of-ways. The minimum setback of any building from the western property line is 110 feet. Only one of the three 24-unit buildings is located on the western half of the property. It is setback a minimum distance of 170 feet from the western property line. The other five buildings on the western half of the property are 12-unit buildings. The closest portion of any building on the eastern half of the property to the eastern property line that is adjacent to existing multi -family uses is 77 feet. Architecture: All of the multi -family buildings will have a maximum building height of approximately 38 feet. The ten (Type V) 12-unit buildings are approximately 115 feet long and 50 feet wide each. The three (Type VI) 24-unit buildings are approximately 165 feet long and 70 feet wide each. Building materials consist of brick veneer foundations, 4" and 8" horizontal siding, painted cedar fascia, and high definition composition shingles. The information/community center building will be predominantly 29' in height with a single cupola feature extending to approximately 39'. The building is approximately 100' long and 75 foot deep. Building materials consist of a brick veneer foundation, 6" horizontal siding, brick soldier course accents, wood trim, and high definition composition shingles. Architectural elevations, building materials and colors will be further reviewed at the time of Final P.U.D. application. Landscaping: The landscape plan consists of a mix of deciduous shade trees, deciduous ornamental trees, coniferous trees, shrubs, and sod. There is a thirty foot wide bermed, landscaped buffer along the entire length of the western property boundary adjacent to the single- family residential neighborhood. Extensive plantings will be required along the West Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 6 Staff feels that the requested increase of the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units is justified. As evidenced by the Residential Uses Point Chart for this project, high density multi -family housing is an appropriate land use for this site. 92.5% of the total points awarded for this project are obtained from the base/locational criteria alone. All units will be furnished and private management practices similarto Fort Ram Village will insure that no more than four unrelated individuals will reside in each 4-bedroom unit. The combination of this project's proximity to off -site services, on -site amenities, and the presence of on -site, 24-hour management/maintenance/security will "adequately serve the occupants of the development" and "protect the adjacent neighborhood". 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: Two neighborhood meetings have been held regarding this development request. Minutes from June 7, 1995 and February 15, 1996 are attached. Concerns were generally related to the buffering of this multi -family project from existing single-family residential housing to the west; existing traffic conditions in the area and the additional impact this development will have; property values; overcrowding of single-family residences in the area by CSU students; low water pressure in the area; lighting; and the proposed completion of Orchard Place as an east/west connection. The applicant has increased setbacks; increased landscaping; modified the architecture and placement of buildings; and eliminated lighting of the basketball and tennis courts in an effort to address neighborhood concerns. In addition, the applicant complied with City Staff requests to reduce excessive parking and to abandon the "gated" community concept. The overcrowding of single-family residential units surrounding the university by C.S.U. students is an indication of a shortage of multi -family residential opportunities. This problem is expected to further increase as C.S.U.'s enrollment increases. As evidenced by the Residential Uses Point Chart for this project, this is an appropriate location for higher density residential uses. Staff feels that the proposed plan adequately mitigates this P.U.D.'s impacts on existing land uses which surround it. 4. Design: Layout: The proposed layout consists of ten 12-unit buildings (noted as Type V on the Site Plan), three 24-unit buildings (noted as Type VI on the Site Plan), an information / community center, outdoor pool, a sand volleyball court, two tennis courts and a basketball court. The Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 5 (1) Any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship; or (2) Any unrelated group of persons consisting of: a. Not more than three persons; or b. Not more than two (2) unrelated adults and their related children, if any." Section 29-526 E(6) of the City Code states: "All residential developments approved pursuant to this section shall conform to the definition of "family" as established in Section 29-1 of the Code, provided however, that with respect to multiple -family dwellings only, the Planning and Zoning Board may, upon receipt of written request of the developer and upon finding that all applicable criteria of this section have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. Further, the Planning and Zoning Board shall not increase said number unless it is satisfied that the developer has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood." The applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Board authorize the increase of the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units. The applicant states: "The subject project has been designed so as to provide on -site recreational area for the occupants. As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, the project will include an information/community center, swimming pool, sand volleyball court, basketball court, tennis courts and ties to existing bicycle and pedestrian trails. The project is also located and designed so as to afford easy access by bicycle and bus to significant other recreational facilities on the Colorado State University campus. A grassed commons area is proposed to be located at the center of the project which will be available to all project occupants. Thirty-eight percent of the project property as designed is open, and there is roughly 75,000 square feet of open space in the grassed common area." The Jefferson Commons P.U.D. provides a total 559 parking spaces which is approximately 84% of the total bedrooms. This parking ratio is consistent with the existing Fort Ram Village (CSU student housing), which also has four bedroom (4 person) dwelling units and has not experienced any problems of parking overflowing onto adjacent public streets. Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 4 BONUS M. Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Enter % of that percentage as a bonus - 4 points. There are approximately 1.3 acres of land within the P.U.D. boundary that meet the active open space definition of an area "no less 10,000 square feet and not less than 50 feet in any dimension." 1.3 acres divided by 15.86 total acres in the Jefferson Commons P.U.D. Preliminary boundary is equal to 8.2 percent. '/z of 8.2 percent is 4 percent. 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 $100 per dwelling unit invested - 15 points. The applicant proposes to spend $281,654 on the information/community center facility within the development (approximately $86.52/s.f.). Please refer to the attached itemized list of associated construction costs. $281,654 divided by 192 units in the Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary divided by 100 is equal to 14.67. V. connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane - 5 points. The internal bike/pedestrian system of this development is connected to existing and proposed bike/pedestrian paths/lanes along West Elizabeth, Plum Street and Orchard Place. This development application was submitted in November of 1995. Therefore, it is not subject to any of the recent changes to the Residential Uses Point Chart requiring a minimum number of points to be earned as "base points". However, as shown above, this application would meet such requirements as it achieves 92.5 points from "base/locational" criteria, exceeding the minimum of 40 points which is now required. 4 Bedroom Units: Section 29-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins defines family as follows: "An individual living alone or either of the following groups living together as a single housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities: Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 3 exceeding the minimum required 100% for a residential density of 12.11 dwelling units per acre (92.5% of the points are earned from base/locational criteria). Points were awarded for the following criterion: BASE (LOCATIONAL) a. being located within 2, 000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center- 20 points.. The entire project is within 2,000 feet of Cedarwood Plaza (King Soopers) and West Elizabeth Plaza. b. being located within 650 feet of an existing transit stop - 10 points. Only the southern one-half of the project is within 650 feet of existing transit stops along West Elizabeth Street. Therefore one-half of the maximum 20 points were awarded. 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 Avery 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. being located withing 3,000 feet of a major employment center - 2.5 points. The northern 1/8th of the development is within 3,000 feet of Poudre High School and the Poudre R-1 Administrative facilities where there are in excess of 100 full-time employees during a single eight hour shift. 1/8th of the 20 maximum allowable points is 2.5. j. 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. Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary, #50-95 March 25, 1996 Page 2 provides additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. COMMENTS Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; existing single-family residential. M-L: existing mobile home park (Skyline). S: R-L; existing single-family residential. R-L-M; existing multi -family (Stadium Apartments). R-M; existing multi -family (Stadium Apartments). E: R-M-P; existing multi -family (Sunray Apartments). B-P; existing commercial (West Elizabeth Plaza). W: R-L; existing single-family residential. This property was annexed into the City as part of the West Elizabeth Annexation on February 14, 1963 and the West Fort Collins Annexation on August 10, 1967, and is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. 2. Land Use: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval for 192 multi -family student housing dwelling units (120- 4BR, 36- 3BR, and 36- 2BR) on 15.86 acres, a residential density of 12.11 dwelling units per acre. The applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Board authorize the increase of the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units. The property is located on the north side of West Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road, west of the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken. All -Development Criteria: The request meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. Residential Uses Point Chart: The request was evaluated against the Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System and earns 116.5% of the maximum applicable points, ITEM NO. 18 /01 MEETING DATE 3/25/96 STAFF Mike Ludwig City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Jefferson Commons P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-95. APPLICANT: Gefroh-Hattman Architects 145 W. Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: JPI Texas Development, Inc. P.O. Box 619208 Dallas, Texas 75261-9208 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval for 192 multi -family student housing dwelling units 120- 4BR, 36- 3BR, and 36- 2BR) on 15.86 acres, a residential density of 12.11 dwelling units per acre. The applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Board authorize the increase of the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units. The property is located on the north side of West Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road, west of the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken and is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of a request to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120- 4BR units and approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval: earns 116.5% of the maximum applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum required 100% for a residential density of 12.11 dwelling units per acre (92.5% of the points are earned from base/locational criteria). meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT