HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHENANDOAH PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... SECOND (CONTINUED) P & Z BOARD HEARING - 47-95 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSThe following names are VICTORIA ESTATES Residents who oppose
the alignment of the entrance of SHENANDOAH P.U.D. with VICTORIA
DR. at HIGHWAY 287.
By aligning these two streets with a four way stop light this
will increase the through traffic in VICTORIA ESTATES, therefore
dramatically changing the life style VICTORIA ESTATES residents
are accustomed to living in.
2. ;Z 1 p
3. .(/�"-6,1 f .nn SL
8.
9.
Business Service Uses (continued)
h. Is the project located with at least one -sixth (1/6) of its property boundary contiguous to existing
urban development?
i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, has special public value
because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following
criteria?
1. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation;
2. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building or
place. Imitation of period styles should be avoided; and
3. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, conservation,
and improvement in an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-72-
I. INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric,
and control requirements at and near a proposed mixed use
development known hereinafter as Shenandoah. It is located north
of County Road 32 (CR32) extended and west of College Avenue (U.S.
287) in Fort Collins, Colorado.
- During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made
with the developers (Colorado Land Source), the project planning
consultant (Vaught*Frye Architects), and the Fort Collins
Transportation Division. This study conforms with typical 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.
- Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on
key intersections.
- Analyze signal warrants.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of Shenandoah is shown in Figure 1. Since the
impact in the short range, as well as, the long range is of
concern, it is important that a thorough understanding of the
existing conditions be presented.
Land Use
The adjacent land uses near Shenandoah are as follows: 1) to
the west is the developing residential area known as Ridgewood
Hills; 2) to the north are Front Range Stone and a few residential
units; 3) to the east are Victoria Estates and Robert Benson Lake;
and 4) to the south is land in agricultural use. The topography
is essentially flat along College Avenue. The property itself
increases in grade to the west from College, Avenue.
Roads
The primary streets near Shenandoah are College Avenue, CR32,
and Victoria Drive. College Avenue borders Shenandoah on the east.
It is a north -south street designated as a major arterial on the
Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Its existing cross section has
two 12 foot lanes in each direction. A center median (16' - 18'
wide) is used as a continuous two way left -turn lane between
intersecting streets and for designated left -turn lanes at major
1
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
Daae 2
VON
30.
3 1.
q77
DA -
3 2.
2
33.
7
3 5.
3 6.
lip
e Y&'IuAt�m
37.
C/
per. , 'JA 101R.
38.
39.
40.
41.
oz�
loV;(TOiZIA
42.
Lo
43.
f741;L Vi(:M1)9iA
bkm
44.
45
%.Il A ew, A
46..-
47.
Ll c roRtq
48.,-
e
December llth 1995
RE: Shenandoah P.U.D. Impact on Victoria Estates
Many of us in Victoria Estates have concerns about the
Shenandoah Development. The number one concern is the
continuation and alignment of Victoria Dr across State Highway
287 and into the new development. The majority of residents feel
this will become a shortcut through our neighborhood to reach
Lemay Ave, and also for west bound travelers on Cty Rd 32. When
traffic is heavy our neighborhood will be a ideal shortcut from
Cty Rd 32 to Highway 287.
As it is now, we already have traffic cutting through our
neighborhood. These non-residents have no regard for posted speed
limits or personal property. The blacktop portion of the street
is only 22 ft wide, since we have no sidewalks and a irrigation
ditch running along most of our properties, we are concerned for
the safety of children on bicycles, pedestrians and animals. We
are already experiencing dust problems from the gravel roads, and
cars making U-turns on lawns when they don't visually see a clear
outlet to a major street.
97.5 of the residents in Victoria Estates are in agreement on
opposing the alignment and traffic signal of the entrance of
Shenandoah P.U.D. with Victoria Drive.
Sincerely,
Mark & Karin Lang
395 Regina Drive
Ft. Collins, CO.
80525
(970) 667-4314
cc: Larimer County Commissioners
Steve Olt/ City Of Ft. Collins Planner
enc:
91
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
fi,r
PIo]
Meeting Loca
L
Attendees: PIease sign this sheet. The information will be used to
update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. l;ontact the rianning llepartment (LZ1-6750) it you wish to
receive minutes of this meeting.
Did You Receive
Written Notification
of this meeting?
orrresect
ldds.
Name Address Zio
Yes
( No
Yes
No
(�
/2 -3�
J. 4W-U
�/ -Q i Gt /)1
/� a n •�
n;se / rCt- z1er- d'(ir--)
i
!
1 . r r RoSa5
4:2�.
Fjtec'z�-
PNev.�� alrr L4*i V�e�r%cc 'i7rtiu� 6b.
�4
31. Question: Is it possible that this site could become a superstore center?
Answer: The site topography would pretty much preclude this type of use.
32. Question: What other plans, on other properties, did you contemplate doing? Why this
property and why this dense?
Answer: We currently own this property and large lot residential would be impractical
along South College Avenue. Commercial and multi -family uses provide -a
good buffer along the highway.
33. Question: With all the necessary grading, what do you do with the existing ditches on
the property?
Answer: That is what our development plans are for, to make those kinds of
determinations.
34. Question: Is there any consideration for bicycle traffic in your design of this area?
Answer: Yes, we will be looking at that in cooperation with the City.
35. Question: Will we see standard street widths here?
Answer: Yes, the streets will be designed to City standards.
36. Comment: As development occurs, bicycle paths should be provided.
Answer: Potential bicycle path alignments will be considered as part of the City's
development review and the actual paths will be constructed as appropriate
and possible.
37. Question: Can you give me gross areas of some ofe commercial/retail buildings? What
does 10,000 square feet look like?
38. Question: What are the sizes and heights of the buildings in the employment center
portion of the development? How many offices, suites, etc. will there be?
Answer: We don't have answers to these question yet. These details will be determined
with the development review.
39. Comment: Am I correct in stating that this is a neighborhood information meeting? The
purpose of the meeting is for sharing information only? This by no means
indicates or represents an agreement or endorsement, by the surrounding
property owners.
21. Question: If you align the street in this development with Victoria Drive to the east, will
this increase the traffic on the street on the east side of South College
Avenue?
Answer: Maybe, depending on the condition of the street and present and future
destinations to the east.
22. Comment: Benson Lake and the land around it to the east (Provincetowne PUD) was a
stupid City decision 15 years ago. Nothing has been or is being done fo
protect the natural areas.
23. Comment: There will be a lot of people cutting through on County Road 32 to get to
Lemay Avenue. This will create traffic, noise, air quality problems. This
situation needs to be part of a traffic analysis. ,
Response: A traffic impact analysis will be submitted to the City for review as part of the
development request.
24. Comment: Traffic has been doubled on the roads through Victoria Estates in recent
years. This use will increase the traffic even more.
25. Question: Will you be addressing different types of uses on this land in your traffic
'evaluation?
Answer: Yes, we will and the various land uses will be considered as part of the traffic
study.
26. Comment: The traffic flow should come out on -County Road 32.
27. Comment: There is concern about the ownership and support of the open space and
recreation areas in this development. There needs to be an active homeowner's
association with this development.
28. Question:
Answer:
29. Question:
Answer:
Did you indicate that a shopping center is required in a PUD of this type?
No, but City policy does encourage mixed uses in an area to enable people to
live, work, and play (recreate) in close proximity. -
When you designate a portion of the development as a business, office, or
shopping center, what determines the types of uses that will occur?
The uses are based on the market needi, and there are market aycleK. -`
30. Request: Can we keep the Longhorn steer on the open space (that already lives there)?
14
15
16.
17
18
19.
Question: Has the City addressed the concept of arterial streets to move traffic, like
around the Foothills Fashion Mall?
Answer: The City has standards for different arterial and collector street
configurations. There are major and minor arterials, some with center medians
and some without. Some collectors have on -street bikeways and some don't.
In terms of the stoplights on South College Avenue, the State likes to place
signals at'/z mile intervals and no closer.
Question: At what point will County Road 32 be extended west to South Shields Street?
Answer: It is possible that the need for County Road 32 to continue to South Shields
Street will be triggered when the Ridgewood Hills PUD develops south to the
potential street alignment.
Question: Are you saying that County Road 32 will not be extended west to South
Shields Street?
Answer: That is still to be determined.
Comment: We have to control our weeds but the City does nothing about theirs, like
around Benson Lake, for example.
Question: How many homes, how many lots, and what percentage of open space will
there be in this development?
Answer: We do not know yet how many homes or lots. The City no longer has a
requirement for an absolute percentage of the development to be set aside for
open space.
Question: What will the cost of the homes be?
Answer: The lots will be, generally, 65' x 110'. The cost of the homes could be in a
range of $125,000 to $225,000.
20. Question: There is no open space requirement for this subdivision?
Answer: There is not an absolute amount of open space, in terms of a percentage of the
gross area, that is required. for this development. The appropriate amount of _
open space is evaluated on a case by case basis, partially based on efficient,.
usable open space that also provides for good. separation and buffer between
the different land uses.
5.
91
7
8.
a
IN
11
12.
Question: Is this property under contract or owned by you?
Answer: We own the property.
Question: When you submit the PUD, will it be phased?
Answer: There will probably be 3 to 4 phases.
Comment: When you dig you will probably run into seepage from the existing ditch. You
will have to line it, or something.
Question: The green area that you have shown, what kind of setback do you have?
Answer: The setback is 200' at the widest, largest area and drops down to 75' to 80' in
some places.
Question: For the shopping area, would the automobiles have to access off of the
extension of Victoria Drive?
Answer: Probably yes, because they could not access directly from South College
Avenue. The State Highway Department has an access control plan on this
highway.
Comment: I have concerns about the existing traffic on South College Avenue.
Question: Will there be a stoplight in this area on South College Avenue?
Answer: 'There will probably be a stoplight at Victoria Drive someday, when it is
warranted.
Question: How about a stoplight at County Road 32, as far as the amount of traffic?
Answer: A stoplight is not warranted there yet. Further development to the east could
speed up the warrant, which is based primarily on the volume of traffic and the
level of service at the intersection.
13. Question: Are there any plans to widen South College Avenue in this area?
Answer. We can't answer that question tonight. The State Highway Department, in
concert with Fort Collins and Loveland, will have to make that determination.
Date:
Location:
Applicant:
City Planner:
Comm ty Planning and Environmenta
Current Planning
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Minutes for the
SHENANDOAH PUD
September 13, 1995
Evangelical Covenant Church
Vaught -Frye Architects
Steve Olt
?rvices
The Shenandoah PUD is a proposed mixed use development at the northwest comer of South College
Avenue and County Road 32. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the developer and
applicant for the project to the participants and provide the opportunity for an exchange of questions,
answers, concerns, and comments to take place.
1. Question: Who would control the open space proposed around the old bam area, the
City?
2.
3
4.
Answer: Probably not. The City has not expressed an interest in open space dedication.
It would probably be controlled by a homeowner's association within this
development.
Question: Where is the present Carolyn!s Cuisine?
Answer: It is to the north of this property, along South College Avenue.
Question: Will the existing irrigation ditches remain?
Answer: We will have to realign some portions of the ditch due to the flatness of the
grades. We want to use it as an amenity, if possible.
Question: There is reason to develop the south area. What is your intent in this area?
Answer: That will be determined with the preliminary planned unit development
(PUD).
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
JAN-09-1996 13:49 MAM EW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.05
The following summarizes this supplementary traffic analysis:
• Overall trip generation for the Shenandoah portion of the
Ridgewood Hills ODP is reduced compared to previous
submittals.
a The traffic, analysis used a conservative approach.
a The College/Victoria intersection is the best location for ther
traffic signal.
• City staff supports a signal at the college/Victoria
intersection.
• A signal at the College/Victoria intersection provides
positive benefits for existing and future residents in the
area.
JAN-09-1996 13:48 MATTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.04
shown at the College/Victoria intersection. This location provides
the best opportunity to serve existing and future land uses with
a signalized intersection, while still providing good through
signal progression on College Avenue.
The Victoria Estates neighborhood suggested that this signal
be moved 200-400 feet further north, thus eliminating a signal at
the existing Victoria Drive intersection. By moving the signal
further north, the existing College/Victoria intersection will
become a right-in/right-out. This restriction is based upon
engineering design criteria of both CDOT and the City of Fort
Collins. This will have a negative impact on the travel
characteristics of the Victoria Estates neighborhood. With this
limited turn intersection, all trips from the north and to the
south using College Avenue will be required to utilize the College/
CR32 intersection. This increases the travel time and distance for
these trips which, in turn, increases the negative aspects (fuel
consumption, air pollution, etc.) of motor vehicle travel.
The signal located at the College/Victoria intersection
provides overall positive benefits for both existing and future
residents in this area.
Existing Victoria Drive
Residents of Victoria Estates indicated that there was
currently non -neighborhood traffic using Victoria Drive to avoid
the College/CR32 intersection. While this may occur, it was not
observed on numerous peak hour and non -peak hour site visits. As
reported at the Board fleeting, Victoria Drive is partially paved.
The pavement condition is considered to be fair to poor. The
gravel portion of Victoria Drive has severe transverse -
corrugations, which tend to cause a reduction in speed.
it is expected that a signal will be warranted at the College/
CR32 intersection in the near future. it may now be warranted
based upon vehicle delay. Signal warrant studies should be
conducted at this intersection on a regular basis. When a signal
is placed at the College/CR32 intersection, delays experienced at
this intersection will be reduced and safety will be increased.
This signal will likely reduce/eliminate any "cut through" traffic
that might be using Victoria Drive.
Residents of Victoria Estates believe that a signal at the
college/Victoria intersection will cause an increase in traffic on
Victoria Drive. Any increase would be persons accessing the
Shenandoah area to/from points east along CR32. However,
logically, the route of preference for these people will be via the
College/CR32 signalized intersection. This route provides the
safety and efficiency of the signal, and the easier to execute
right turns.
JPN-09-1996 13:48 MATTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.03
portion would generate 16,400 vehicle trip ends per day.' There is
a reduction of 300 vehicle trip ends per day when viewed as a
whole. While the trip generation comparison fluctuates widely on
individual parcels within the Shenandoah portion of the ODP, the
overall trip generation is very close to that used for the approved
Ridgewood Hill ODP in 1994.
A question was raised regarding the number of vehicle trips
that would remain internal to the site due to the mixed used nature
of the ODP. These internal trips are in two categories: 1)
persons who live and work within the area itself, and 2) trips that
will have more than one purpose. The first category is generally
a function of the number of residential units and the type of
employment center. The rate of internal trips can vary widely from
10-40 percent of the residentially generated traffic. The second
category pertains to mixed --use commercial areas, where a single
external vehicle trip is used for multiple on -site purposes. The
trip reduction for these uses is generally 20-25 percent.
References regarding internal travel are as follows:
1. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE, 1991;
2. Transportation and Land Development, Stover/Roepke, ITE, 1988;
3. "Trip Generation for Nixed Use Developments," Technical Report
by the Colorado/Wyoming Section of ITE, 1988;
4. Various unpublished reports and technical papers.
In order to take a conservative approach in the traffic study,
I assumed 10 percent internal trips for the whole of the Ridgewood
Hills ODP. This approach results in higher external traffic than
might be expected, based upon the aforementioned references. This
conservative approach was discussed with City staff. Mitigation
measures are based upon somewhat higher traffic volumes.
Overestimating traffic volumes is traditionally a better approach.
Callege/Victoria Signal
Since it was demonstrated that a signal would be warranted at
a street access to the Ridgewood Hills (Shenandoah) area, the ideal
location is at a four -leg intersection. In order to minimize the
number of signals along College Avenue, City staff felt that the
best location was at Victoria Drive. In previous approved ODP's
(Del ,Webb and Ridgewood Hills), a signalized intersection has been
'The "Shenandoah Site Access Study, October 1995, indicated
18,990 vehicle trip ends per day. The higher trip generation is
based upon the land uses shown at the time of preparation of the
traffic study. Due to timing of submittals, the traffic study is
prepared with land use data available at an early stage in the
process. Land use changes, causing daily trip generation
fluctuations of 2,000-5,000, are not uncommon for some development
proposals. The traffic impact conclusions of the site access
study, as submitted, do not change with the lower trip generation
anticipated with the proposed land uses.
JPN-09-1996 13:47
MRTTHEW DELICH PE
3036695034 P.02
aai
�]
•o
0
� TO:
a
.o
�o
0
r
or FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Jim McCort', Colorado Land Source
Frank Vaught, Vaught"Frye Architects
Fort Collins Planning Department
Fort Collins Transportation Division
Matt Delich !!!��
January 90 1996
SUBJECT: Supplementary traffic analyses for the revised
Ridgewood Hills ODF (Shenandoah)
(File: 9582MEM2)
Due to some confusion and misunderstanding at the Fort
Collins Planning & Zoning Board Meeting (December 18, 1995),
I have conducted additional analyses that specifically address
concerns expressed at that meeting. This memorandum addresses
the following:
1. Trip generation,
2. Alternative location for signals at the College/Victoria
intersection,
3. Cut through on Victoria Drive, east of College Avenue.
Trip Generation
At the Board Meeting, there was some discussion regarding
trip generation on a specific parcel within the Shenandoah
portion of the Ridgewood Hills ODP. This was specifically
related to the area in the northwest corner, generally
labelled as B-1. The current proposal has 117 single family
dwelling units in this area. In the approved (1994) Ridgewood
Hills ODP, this area had a neighborhood center with office
uses. In a quick comparison that I conducted that evening,
it was roughly estimated that the former use would generate
approximately 6900 vehicle trip ends per day and the proposed
use would generate approximately 1120 vehicle trip ends per
day. The difference would be a reduction of approximately
5000 vehicle trip ends an that parcel.
After further discussion, it was decided that it is more
appropriate to compare overall trip generation, since some
other land uses changed within the Shenandoah portion of the
Ridgewood Hills ODP area also. Based upon the "Ridgewood
Bills Site Access Study," May 1994, the trip generation from
the Shenandoah portion would generate 16,700 vehicle trip ends
per day. The currently submitted land uses for the Shenandoah
I
TABLE 5
Long Range (2015) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
College/CR32 (signal) C D
College/Victoria (signal) B D
College/Access to Parcel E (R-in/R-out)
EB RT A B
N
-- - denotes Lane
SHORT RANGE (2005) GEOMETRY Figure 11
feet -of taper. If the posted speed is reduced, then the length of
the lane can be correspondingly reduced. Figure 11 shows the short
range (2005) geometry on the area streets•. The separate turning
movements on CR32 make the signal operation more efficient.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the
intersections operate in the long range future as indicated in
Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in
Appendix G. The key intersections continue to operate acceptably
during the analyzed peak hours. The analysis indicates that
College Avenue should have three through lanes in each direction
with the forecasted traffic volumes.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the impacts of the development of
Shenandoah on the short range (1997 and 2005) and long range (2015)
futures in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result
of this analysis, the following is concluded:
- The completion of Shenandoah is feasible from a traffic
engineering standpoint. The uses proposed and analyzed in this
study will generate approximately 18,000-19,000 trip ends daily.
It is expected that there will be 700 morning and 1835 afternoon
peak hour trips ends. Some of these trip ends will be from passby
traffic already on the area roads.
- Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometrics,
the College/CR32 and College/Victoria intersections operate
acceptably, except for minor street left turns.
- By 1997, given development and occupancy of the Phase 1
portion of Shenandoah and an increase in background traffic, the
key intersections will continue to operate acceptably, except for
the minor street left turns. This type of operation is normal at
stop sign controlled intersections along arterials.
- By 2005, given full development and occupancy of Shenandoah
and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will
operate acceptably. Signals will be warranted at the College/CR32
and College/Victoria intersections sometime prior to full
development of Shenandoah. The direct access to Parcel E from
College Avenue should be restricted to right-in/right-out.
- By the long range future, with the development of
Shenandoah as proposed/assumed, continued nearby development, and
growth in background traffic, the key intersections will continue
to operate acceptably. It is expected that College Avenue will
have a seven lane cross section by/before the year 2015.
7
i
TABLE 3
Short Range (1997) Peak Hour Operation
Level
of Service
Intersection
AM
PM
College/CR32 (stop sign)
WB LT
E
F
WB RT
A
A
SB LT
B
B
College/Victoria (stop sign)
EB LT/T
E
F
EB RT
A
A
WB LT/T
D
F
WB RT
A
A
NB LT
A
B
SB LT
B
B
TABLE 4
Short Range (2005) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
College/CR32 (signal) C D
College/Victoria (signal) B D
College/Access to Parcel E (R-in/R-out)
EB RT A B
- Speed of 45 mph and 40 mph;
- Mainline (College Avenue) G/C Ratio
Skyway G/C = 0.68
Trilby G/C = 0.64
Victoria G/C = 0.65
CR32 G/C = 0.57
Manor Ridge G/C = 0.60 (future)
CR30 G/C = 0.60 (future)
The .signal progression patterns are shown in Appendix D. In
the morning peak hour, the bandwidths are 22 seconds at 40 mph and
30 seconds at 45 mph in each direction. The Victoria Drive
intersection does not influence the progression bandwidths. In the
afternoon peak hour, the bandwidths are 39 seconds at 40 mph and
33 seconds at 45 mph in each direction. The Victoria Drive
intersection does influence the progression bandwidth at 45 mph.
Generally, the future potential signals at CR30 and Manor Ridge,
which are on half mile spacing, control the width of the
progression bandwidth at the speeds and cycle lengths analyzed.
This indicates that reasonable signal progression is attainable
along College Avenue with a signal at the College/Victoria
intersection.
The above progression analyses are presented to show that
signals can fit along this segment of College Avenue. Design
progression analysis must be, conducted on a regular basis
reflecting change in land use, speed, and other variables.
Operation Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed on the key intersections
which provide access to Shenandoah for both the short range (1997
and 2005) and long range (2015) traffic conditions.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the intersections
operate in the short range (1997) future as indicated in Table 3.
Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E.
The key intersections operate acceptably, except for minor street
left turns during the peak hours. This type of operation is normal
at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. This
operation is not dissimilar from the current operation.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the intersections
operate in the short range (2005) future as indicated in Table 4.
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix F. The key
intersections operate acceptably with the warranted signalization.
The proposed right-in/right-out access to Parcel E should have an
auxiliary lane to remove turning/slowing vehicles from the right
through lane on College Avenue. This auxiliary lane can be striped
in the existing shoulder lane of College Avenue. At the posted 55
mph, the right -turn deceleration lane should be 450 feet plus 270
A
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS
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. It is expected that signals will
be warranted at the College/CR32 and College/Victoria intersections
in the future. These signals will likely be warranted sometime
after Phase 1 of Shenandoah, but before full development of
Shenandoah. The College/CR32 signal will be warranted based on
traffic volumes from both the east and west legs of CR32. The
College/Victoria signal will be warranted based upon the traffic
volumes from the west leg of Victoria Drive. Traffic should be
monitored to determine when signal warrants are met.
Signal Progression
Signal progression was evaluated prior to intersection
operational analysis in order to determine whether a signal at the
College/Victoria intersection should even be considered. The
College/ Victoria intersection is located approximately 1700 feet
north of CR32. This location is dictated by the existing Victoria
Drive on the east side of College Avenue. Also considered was the
Robert Benson Lake on the east side of College Avenue, which
precludes an intersection at the half mile between CR32 and Trilby
Road.
The technique used in this analysis was a computer program
called Signal Progression Analysis (SPAN) prepared by the
University of Florida Transportation Research Center. Its main
functions include:
- Interactive entry of arterial system data.
- Display a time location diagram which provides graphical
representation of the quality of arterial progression.
- Printing of a ,time -space diagram to show the quality of
progression.
- Optimization of signal offsets for arterial progression.
The program inputs are:
- Intersection location
- Cycle length
- Offsets
- Speed
Any or all of these inputs can be changed iteratively in achieving
the optimal progression.
The signal progression on College Avenue was analyzed based
upon the following criteria:
- Cycle length of 110 and 120 seconds (as determined by
intersection capacity analyses);
5
J.
35/205 ((7
W
J
J
0
U
LONG RANGE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
N
�-185 275
35/555
.4er-125/250 COUNTY ROAD 32
AM / PM
Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles.
Figure 10
4
i
0
N
IC)
�
M
en
— 5 10
r - 5/5 VICTORIA
260/400
5 10 --�
CDLO to105/140
-�
Lo
o \
to o
n
0 0
0
w
to
� W
35/205 -� a
W
J
J
0
U
0
0
LOoo
Cj o_ o oCZ)-110/110
-
— 35/55
-80/90 COUNTY ROAD 32
135/290
30 75 —
o 0 0
5560
o �o
N O
CV
to
SHORT RANGE (2005)
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
AM / PM
Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles.
Figure 9
3
j ad
+ o
N
h
N
LO
—15/10
1
1
� I Ln
r-5/5
Site
1-
VICTORIA
55/55 —�
r
I
1
1
I
I
NOM.
40/50
c3 L�
N
N
LO
v
�o
r- C) — 55/60
�45/55 COUNTY ROAD 32
0
co
Ln
A
SHORT RANGE (1997)
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
AM / PM
Rounded to the Nearest
5 Vehicles.
Figure 8
N
AM / I'M
FULL DEVELOPMENT
PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Figure 7
I
Site
AM / PM
N
SHORT RANGE
PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Figure s
to reflect an improved CR32 and continued growth between College
Avenue and I-25.
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. Figure 6 shows the
assignment of the Phase 1 site generated peak hour trips.Figure
7 shows the assignment of the site generated peak hour trips at
full development of Shenandoah. At full development, it was
assumed that 10% of the residential and business park trips would
remain internal to the site or be shared. It was assumed that 30%
of the day care trip ends would be from within Shenandoah or from
Ridgewood Hills to the west. Based upon information contained in
Trip Generation, 5th Edition, it was assumed that 10% of the retail
generated trips would have multiple trip purposes. Passby trip
assumptions were made regarding convenience store/gas and retail
trips, but these assumptions do not affect the turning movement
assignments at the key intersections. The passby assumptions were
60% for convenience store/gas and 30% for retail. These
percentages are documented in Trip Generation, 5th Edition.
Figure 8 shows the morning and afternoon Phase 1 peak hour
traffic plus background traffic in the short range future (1997).
Background traffic on College Avenue for 1997 was determined by
factoring the 1995 traffic by 3.5 percent per year and adding
traffic from other known developments in this area. The factor was
determined based upon historic traffic growth and information
contained in the "North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan,"
October 1994. Traffic on CR32 was increased based upon known
development proposals in the area and factored growth of the
existing traffic.
As mentioned earlier, Shenandoah was assumed to be completed
in approximately seven years. Therefore, a year 2005 future was
used for analysis purposes. Background traffic was factored by 3.5
percent per year and traffic from known development projects was
also included. Ridgewood Hills and Fossil Creek Nursery traffic
was included on the west legs of CR32 and Victoria Drive. Figure
9 shows the short range (year 2005) total peak hour traffic
forecasted at the key intersections.
Figure 10 shows the morning and afternoon weekday peak hour
traffic in the long range future (2015). Background traffic for
the year 2015 was determined using other traffic studies for
projects in this area and the "North Front Range Regional
Transportation Plan."
4
p
A
NO SCALE
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5
T
cy
TRILBY ROAD
Ridgewood
Hills
N
NO SCALE
i
IICTORIA
COUNTY ROAD 32
SITE PLAN Figure 4
factoring the through traffic volumes by 1.2 and dividing by 2 to
account for unequal distribution in the lanes on College Avenue.
Use of this technique was field verified and discussed with the
Chairman of the TRB Committee on Capacity.
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Shenandoah is a mixed use development located north of CR32
(extended) and west of College Avenue in Fort Collins. The land
is currently in agricultural use. Figure 4 shows the site plan of
Shenandoah. The site plan is labelled with letters that correspond
to the parcels shown in Table 2, Trip Generation. Parcels A, B,
C, and D have defined uses. Parcel E is approximately 36 acres.
Uses on this parcel are not defined. It is the developer's desire
to depict the highest trip intense use on this parcel. These uses
may or may not occur, but this traffic study would reflect the
highest traffic volumes that could be expected. This conservative
approach was also discussed at the neighborhood meeting.
The site plan shows three accesses to College Avenue. The
College/CR32 and College/Victoria intersections are proposed to
have full turns. These are expected to be signalized in the
future. The direct access to Parcel E (shown 850 feet north of
CR32) is expected to have limited turns. The proposed Fossil Creek
Nursery to the north will have future internal access through
Shenandoah to the College/Victoria intersection. It is.expected
that the Fossil Creek Nursery access to College Avenue will
eventually be restricted to limited turns. Three accesses to
Ridgewood Hills are shown through Shenandoah. One access is via
CR32 (extended) and two are via Victoria Drive to College Avenue.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a
development such as this upon the existing and proposed street
system. A compilation of trip generation information was prepared
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and is presented in
Trip Generation, 5th Edition. This document was used to project
trips that would be generated by the proposed uses at this site.
Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and a peak
hour basis.
Trip Distribution
Directional distributions were determined for Shenandoah.
The trip distribution used in subsequent analyses is shown in
Figure S. The long range trip distribution was modified somewhat
3
TABLE 1
1995 Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
College/CR32 (stop sign)
WB LT D F
WB RT A A
SB LT B B
College/Victoria (stop sign)
WB LT C E
WB RT A A
SB LT A B
TABLE
2
Trip Generation
I
Daily
A.M.
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Parcel A
S. F. Residen. - 137 DU
1310
26
75
90
48
Parcel B
Business Park - 60 KSF
860
83
15
20
69
Daycare - 6.0 KSF
480
41
37
38
43
Townhome - 8 DU
45
1
3
3
2
Parcel C
Townhome - 8 DU
45
1
3
3
2
Parcel D
C-store/Gas
1170
44
43
50
50
Retail - 10.0 KSF
410
6
3
19
19
Parcel E
Community Shopping -
14670
202
118
690
690
320.0 KSF
TOTAL
18990
404
297
913
923
street intersections. The posted speed limit is 55 mph on College
Avenue in this area. Sight distance is generally not a problem.
The College/CR32 and College/Victoria intersections have stop sign
control on the minor streets. Currently, the nearest signalized
intersection along College Avenue is at Trilby Road,'which is one
mile to the north of CR32.
CR32 intersects on the east side of College Avenue at the
south property line of Shenandoah. It is a east -west street that
functions as, an arterial, connecting to the SH392 interchange with
I-25. It is a two lane road with a rural cross section. It is
expected that CR32 will have a five lane cross section in the long
range future.
Victoria Drive is a local street, serving a residential
subdivision. Currently, Victoria Drive is paved near College
Avenue and unpaved for some distance north of CR32, It is narrow
and has a curvilinear alignment. The paved surface is in poor -fair
condition. The gravel surface has transverse corrugations.
Traffic on Victoria Drive is primarily related to the subdivision
that it serves. In a neighborhood meeting (9/13/95), residents
voiced concern that people were using it as a "short cut" between
CR32 and College Avenue. During a number of site visits, this
concern was not observed. Due to the condition of the road surface
and the fact that using the College/CR32 intersection involves the
same traffic conditions, use of Victoria Drive cannot be construed
as being a "short cut."
Existing Traffic
Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic data was
obtained in 1995 at the College/CR32 and College/Victoria
intersections. The peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure
2. All raw traffic data Is presented in Appendix A. The traffic
data was collected approximately two months apart. The July count
probably reflects some tourist traffic on College Avenue.
Therefore, the through traffic counts were averaged and balanced
between the intersections, as shown on Figure 3.
Existing Operation
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 and the existing
geometrics and control, the key intersections operate as indicated
in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in
Appendix B. Appendix C describes level of service for signalized
and unsignalized intersections as provided in the 1994 Highway
Capacity Manual. The analyzed intersections operate acceptably
except for minor street left turns during the afternoon peak hour.
Acceptable operation is defined as level of service D or better.
The unsignalized intersection analysis technique was modified by
2
N
'N p i .Ilf
llll �"/1U
'
—= �_— 27 — —
26 In'
d�
1 Jl
- �hcr.3lS�
N �`
r '
✓I
—�t<Yi..
.5
1III_lII N 11 11
h�J1
'II
`.
�IJIJ—I
,•
— .:��
:l F
�.�j
—_
sGraV
I
; ,( Omegh
„
0 ^ —Pits
l
'L.: €€
•,
—. ,
1549
�1•>.-•a.-tr
u
�—
IIf 'JE .III
Dly gc
IIJ
G701/i�i• l
I •I'. ,' a
p
•
YI r?O
I
�II I1111'ii"
\? 4r \ Ill
��l
'!'C ".
--
Lake
•
`iS
5
Sli ' 499115,/
„Gravel]I
i
Fort Collin
�
Pit
j-
Mc Clellands °
c,l
'-
`••,
\` '
u
�: �'
yr�Dp�; i
e; Ilai•mony
0
l
.-
�.— _ —
0 —
:::.>•: .,r__a='
-•:tom--_ =>_cr.
CemP-.'
-
- y��--. �o
-
I
68
I
50,0
•—
'
all1y
•.\.(/ .�,II O,
'1
yL Q;//..
'
y
---
4916
/498
�._1
P/!f!/
u
�OI t\\ I\
Q n TI'i1b3
' 1 -I\
II: TpI�6Y ROAD
l
/50/
4923
SHENANDOAH
W--�
> . I :,
<aso
Il,
a
Il;c
II
y 1,
m Lnli!-
1 \
oKICO. RD.�bl
24
edmond
1 1
r
Gravel
Pit
5040
lResthaven
'
I
1 Memorial Gardens
I (Cemetery)
, J
"•�� f'_ \,; .�; '
'
r. ' Drive-in
II
\Theater I
19
NO SCALE
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shenandoah is a proposed mixed use development, located north
of CR32 and west of College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. This
site access study involved the steps of trip generation, trip
distribution, trip assignment, capacity analysis, traffic signal
warrant analysis, and signal progression analysis.
This study assessed the impacts of the development of
Shenandoah on the short range (1997 and 2005) and long range (2015)
futures in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result
of this analysis, the following is concluded:
- The completion of Shenandoah is feasible from a traffic
engineering standpoint. The uses proposed and analyzed in this
study will generate approximately 18,000-19,000 trip ends daily.
It is expected that there will be 700 morning and 1835 afternoon
peak hour trips ends. Some of these trip ends will be from passby
traffic already on the area roads.
- Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometrics,
the College/CR32 and College/Victoria intersections operate
acceptably, except for minor street left turns.
- By 1997, given development and occupancy of the Phase 1
portion of Shenandoah and an increase in background traffic, the
key intersections will continue to operate acceptably, except for
the minor street left turns. This type of operation is normal at
stop sign controlled intersections along arterials.
- By 2005, given full development and occupancy of Shenandoah
and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will
operate acceptably. Signals will be warranted at the College/CR32
and College/Victoria intersections sometime prior to full
development of Shenandoah. The direct access to Parcel E from
College Avenue should be restricted to right-in/right-out.
By the long range future, with the development of
Shenandoah as proposed/assumed, continued nearby development, and
growth in background traffic, the key intersections will continue
to operate acceptably. It is expected that College Avenue will
have a seven lane cross section by/before the year 2015.
SHENANDOAH
SITE ACCESS STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
OCTOBER 1995
Prepared for:
Colorado Land Source, Ltd.
8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite M180
Englewood, CO 80111
Prepared by:
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
3413 Banyan Avenue
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
FEB-12-1996 12:35 -'ITTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.02
Pertaining to her last comment (4.) regarding increasing
the traffic on Shields Street, Z explained that Shenandoah was
primarily accessing US287, not Shields. Development generated
traffic on Shields Street is expected to be low. The current
plan indicates that CR32 will not be connected from US287 to
Shields Street. This is a variance from the Fort Collins
Master Street Plan.
Please call if you have questions regarding this
memorandum.
TOTAL P.02
i
I
LU
d
FEB-12-1996 12:35 ITTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.01
✓I&v C�CI
Z �a.et�v
i ZZ,
t
MEMORANDUM
a TO. Jim McCort', Colorado Land Source
45
Lucia Liley, March & Myatt
Prank Vaught, Vaught*Frye Architects
Blaine Spencer, Larimer County Engineering
I- Steve Olt, Fort Collins Planning Department
Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer
FROM: Matt Delich
DATE: February 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Larimer County Engineering Department letter on
Shenandoah ODP
(File: 9582MBM3)
This memorandum documents my conversation with Elaine
Spencer, Direct of Engineering, Larimer County, regarding her
letter dated January 3, 1996, pertaining to the Shenandoah
ODP.
Elaine's primary concern was the issue of the Victoria
Estates residents regarding existing and potential cut through
traffic on Victoria Drive. The citizens were cdncerned that
lining up the Shenandoah access and signalization of ithis
intersection would increase this type of �traffic. In her
letter, she stated that she did not support signalization, but
did support lining up istreets on both sides of US287. I
explained that a signal at the half mile was' not reasonable
c, due to Benson Lake and that signalization of the
US287/Victoria intersection was not new to this ODP, but had
W
L„ been in the 1994 Ridgewood Hills ODP, as well as the Del Webb
plan in the early 19801s. Elaine agreed that Victoria Drive
W (through Victoria Estates) would not be the route of
J preference once signals go in at the US287/CR32 and. US287/
71.
Victoria intersections. The easier and faster route will be
through signalized intersections.
a
a Her comment.(S.) of not being in favor of the right -in/
right -out to Parcel B-6 (really B-7 in new plan) stems from
a limiting direct access to state highways. II explained that
z the location was approximately 800 feet south of Victoria
s Drive and 600 feet north of CR321 and that it would operate
acceptably. I also told her that the right-in/right-out to
r? Parcel B-7 would remove traffic from otiller!intersections,
a thereby improving the operation at those intersections. if
r this access were to be allowed, it (would require a
with/without analysis.
FROM:LRRIMER CTY ENGINEER
TO: 9702246111 8, 1996 11:34RM #406 P.02
Post Once Box 1190
Fort Coffins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
January 3, 1996
Steve Olt
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RR: Shenandoah ODP (47-95)
Hear Steve,
Thanks for sending me these plans. 1 have reviewed them and have the following concerns:
1. There is a note referring to an alternative street configuration if the City Master Plan is not amended as
anticipated. What is the anticipated amendment and will the County have a chance to comment?
2. The County has received several calls and petitions from residents in Victoria Estates regarding lining up the
intersection and a future signal at this intersection. Their concerns with the intersection are that drivers will
use Victoria Drive as a cut through either to this intersection and west or north on US 287. Streets in this
development are in very poor condition, part paved and part gravel, with a very narrow cross section.
Larimer County is not in support of signal ization of this intersection. I do however support the effort to line
up the intersections on the east and west side of US 287. Some signing will probably be required to stop cut
through traffic and to restrict construction traffic from using this street.
3. lam not in favor of the right in/right out access to parcel B-6 just north of the intersection with CR 32
4. This proposal appears to be forcing all the traffic to Trilby/US 287: Tribly/Shields and CR 32/US 287. This
will add significant future traffic to Shields north and south. Is Shields able to handle this amount of traffic
or will offsite improvements be required?
Please call if you have any questions regarding these comments and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
(/I aim
Elaine W. Spencer
Director of Engineering
c: GRS
Frank Lancaster
Mark and Karin Lang .
02/12/1996 10:28 970-350- 18
Steve olt
February 12, 1996
Page 2
CDOT REG 4 TRAFF""
PAGE 03
Shenandoah ODP
construed as a "short cute, although we believe signage should be
added to discourage through -traffic both at the SH 287 and LCR 32
connections. We agree with remarks made by Matt Delich's
Memorandum of January 9, 1996. We understand the residents,
concerns, but do not see a great negative impact upon their
neighborhood.
Details of access design have not yet been presented. Access
design must conform with. the State Highway Access Code. The City
of Fort Collins is the issuing authority for access permits.
Be advised that the Department will not participate in any
signals which are warranted and approved.
Right-of-way - Although SH 287 will likely be developed to a
seven lane cross section in the future, we still anticipate that
a full complement of auxiliary lanes should be required for
accesses; therefore we request adequate right-of-way be protected
for highway facilities.
Please call me if you have questions at (970)350-2163.
Sincerely,
Ispa G. Jones
Region Development/Access Coordinator
TGJ
CC: M. Delich, 3412 Banyan Ave., Loveland Co 80538
J. Springer
G. Hice-Idler
file
02/12/1996 10:28 970-350- '8 CDOT REG 4 TRAFF"7 PAGE 02
STATE of covariAno
DEPART T OF TRANSPORTATION
Region 4
1420 end sueee i
cm@'aY , colormb eo632-oe so
(97M353-1232
Larimer Co., SH 287
Shenandoah ODP
NW corner 287/future
LCR32 Extension
Fort Collins
February 12, 1996
Steve Olt, Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522
Dear Steve,
I have reviewed the following items regarding Shenandoah'ODP:
plan sheets for Shenandoah ODP; Site Access Study; Larimer
County's January 3', 1996 letter; Supplementary Traffic Analyses
for the revised Ridgewood Hills ODP (Shenandoah) dated January 9,
1996; and Memorandum in address of Larimer County's Engineering
Department letter. my comments are based upon all of those
documents as related to access.
The Departments position regarding access and the impact of this
development is presented as follows:
• Larimer County Road 32 should be extended west of SH 287
(south property boundary). A signal is planned for the near
future.
• A single intermediate site access should be planned to align
with existing Victoria Drive (approximately 1700' north of
LCR 32).
• The proposed right-in/right-out access to Parcel B-6 (Parcel
E) should not be anticipated. The traffic study should be
amended to delete that access, its volume re -distributed,
and surrounding intersections re -analyzed. In the future,
if that access is still proposed, an analysis must be
provided which compares the two conditions - with and
without that access.
The Department recognizes the spacing from LCR 32 to Victoria
Drive as less than optimum, but to offset the two intersections
does not seem practical or wise. Signal analysis at this early
stage indicates that progression and level of service will be
acceptable.
We have viewed the existing conditions of Victoria Estates and
agree with the traffic study that the route would not be
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Region 4 �T
1420 2nd Street
P.O. Box 850
Greeley, Colorado 80632 -0850 Latimer County, SH 287
(970)353-1232 Shenandoah ODP
(previously Ridgewood Hills)
Between Trilby Rd and Future LCR 32,
West Side
South of Fort Collins
November 8, 1995
Steve Olt - Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Steve:
We have reviewed the Shenandoah Overall Development Plan amendment and prior correspondence which was
addressed to Kirsten Whetstone, dated May 16, 1994. (Shenandoah was previously identified as Ridgewood Hills.)
The current plan shows an additional access to SH 287 located between proposed Victoria Drive and the future LCR
32 extension. The narrative does not address the addition of that access point. My prior letter mentions the Site
Access Study conclusions which recommend an updated traffic study when development plans have been
confirmed. It appears that it may be time to amend that traffic study with additional analysis.
That previous letter also requests we be allowed to review drainage plans when those issues are addressed.
Be reminded that any traffic signal which is warranted and approved by the City and State will be at the expense of
the City and/or developer, not at any cost to the Department.
If plans for this development are moving forward, the Department should be contacted in order to meet with the
City for review of access proposals. Access Permits will be issued by the City of Fort Collins, with the Department
making final approval. 1 can be contacted at (970) 350-2163 in order to arrange a meeting to discuss development
and access issues.
My comments are based upon the submittal received October 18, 1995.
Sincerely,
Teresa G. o
Region De ment/Access Coordinator
TGJ:blg
cc: J. Springer
G. Hice-Idler
file
Issues Associated With
THE AMENDMENT TO THE RIDGEWOOD HILLS ODP
Possible extension of County Road 32 west from South College Avenue (State Highway
287) to South Shields Street.
Issues Associated With
THE SHENANDOAH PUD
1. Possible extension of County Road 32 west from South College Avenue (State Highway
287) to South Shields Street.
2. The alignment of the internal collector street within the Shenandoah PUD that connects
South College Avenue, in alignment with the existing Victoria Drive to the east, with the
proposed County Road 32 extension.
3. Potential pass-thru traffic from the Shenandoah PUD and South College Avenue through
Victoria Estates on the east side of South College.
4. Location(s) and timing for signalization of intersections on South College Avenue.
5. Potential topographic disturbance with the proposed neighborhood shopping center
(relating to All Development Criterion A-2.3 in the Land Development Guidance System).
4.
Passive solar heating utilized by building
heating system with a minimum of savings
fraction of 0.4 (using orientation that
maximizes solar gain and window coverings)
3.0
5.
Natural daylighting utilized, with automatic
insulated minimum R-value 2.5
0.3
covers with of
6.
Overall wall U-value is <0.2
1.0
7.
Overall roof U-value is <0.6
0.3
Reflective glass or film used on all windows
0.2
9.
Vestibules, air locks, or revolving doors used
on all entrances
0.2
10.
Automatic night/weekend temperature
setback is
0.4
provided
11.
"Free Cooling" (using outside air) used for fan
systems of less than 5000 CFM
0.2
12.
Low leakage outside air and exhaust air
dampers used; 1% leakage maximum at 5" W.C.
0.3
13.
Variable air volume.system used, with inlet
vanes or variable speed drives
0.5
14.
High efficiency motors (as labeled by
manufacturer) used
0.1
15.
Water-cooled condensers used for
mechanical cooling systems
0.2
16.
Evaporative cooling used in lieu of
mechanical cooling
0.4
17.
Boilers or furnaces used with firing
efficiencies than 82%
0.2
greater
18.
Automatic spark, ignition used for gas
fired boilers, furnaces, unit heaters, etc.
0.1
19.
Automatic dampers used in combustion
air intakes
0.1
20.
Outside air reset used for boiler supply
water temperature control (boiler water
temp reset inversely from outside temp)
0.3
21.
Exhaust or condenser heat recovery utilized
0.3
22.
Waste water heat recovery utilized (car
washes, laundries, etc.)
2.0
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
- 121 -
APPENDIX "E"
Energy Conservation
Method One: Direct comparison to Model Energy Code.
This method awards points based on the extent to which the proposed building exceeds the minimum
standard as established in the Model Energy Code using the systems approach. Certification by a
professional engineer licensed in Colorado will be required to demonstrate that the annual energy
consumption will be a certain percentage, less than the same building just meeting the minimum
standard as defined in the Model Energy Code.
Percentage below the
Model Energy Code Minimum
Points Awarded
15 - 25%
1.0 point
26-35%
2.0 points
36 - 45%
3.0 points
46% or more
4.0 points
Method Two:
Points will be given for the implementation of one or more of the energy conservation measures
listed below. The use of Method Two requires that the final approved PUD plans and construction
plans submitted for a Building Permit must specify all of the energy conservation measures for
which points have been awarded in the approved plan. The total number of energy conservation
points earned will be based upon the following table:
0.6
- 1.5
1.0 point
1.6
- 2.5.
2.0 points.
2.6
- 3.5
3.0 points
3.6
or more
4.0 points
Method Two Energy Conservation Measures:
1. Long axis of building is cast/west (building
oriented to south, with majority of windows
on south wall) 0.2
2. Ratio of exterior wall area to interior floor
area is less than 1.5 0.3
3. Mass of exterior building walls greater than
30 lb/sq. ft. 0.2
Land Development.. Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
- 120 -
Criterion
H -
Z t
O
m
U
U
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;
6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure;
3% 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 units,
enter a bonus of 10%.
If the applicant commits tJ providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
project and any of the desir.,i uon points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connectons :o the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle patMane;
5% For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this
Density Chart;
SrYo For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses the project.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
- 79a -
TOTAL
CA-�.v.cw,dl ea�UD, �re.(.i,w�.i,utiac--
DENSITY CHART
Criterion Mum Earned
Credit Credit
2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center, or
Cl----------------------------------------------- ---- ----
2000 feet of an approved but not constructed neighborhood shopping
center. 1090
b
650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [6] dwelling
20%
units per acre on a gross acreage basis)
C
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center
10%
3500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community park; or
d
3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community
1090
iLld
facility (except golf courses); or
— — — — — — —
3500 feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed
or not
1090
m
e
8500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education
10%
ws
f
3000 feet of a major employment center
2090
1000 feet of a child care center
590
11)
h
"North" Fort Collins
2090
The Central Business District
20%
J A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows: 3090
0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 10% contiguity;
10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 2090 contiguity;
15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 3090 contiguity;
20 - 25% 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 measures beyond those normally required by
City Code, a 5% bonus may be eared for every 5% reduction in energy use.
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
fn 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.
If the applicant commis to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements,
n calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a
bonus.
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 $100 per dwelling unit invested.
If pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
H P required by City Code, enter a 1% bonus for every S100 per dwelling unit invested.
= q If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low
Z income families, enter that percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 3090.
OIf a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
CO f and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
Type "A" .5 x Tame "A" Units
Total Units
Type "B" 1.0 x Tvne "A" Uning In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%
Total Units
Continued
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
-79-
ATTACHMENT 11B11
ACTIVITY;
Residential Uses
DEFINITION;
All residential uses. Uses 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 criterion must be answered "yes" and
implemented within the development plan.
Yes No N/A
1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE NNII TIT PERCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON TIM FOLLOWNG "DENSITY
CHART" FOR T'W PROPOSED DENS= OF T'rT� RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be
based on the following: //
60 oercenta a ints = 6 or fewer dwellin units er acre (24°!o w/3 •Ci0 4U/qG.
6 - / percentage points = we g units per ace
70 - 80 pe tentage points = 7 - 8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8 - 9 dwelling -units per ace
90-100 pemenrage points = 9-10 dwelling units per ace
100 or more pe c-entagc points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised August 1994
- 78 -
T.
BUSINESS
SERVICE USES
POINT CHART
E
_-�
For All Criteria
Applicable Criteria Only
the
I II
III
IV
_.
_^
Criterion
Criterion
Applicable
Circle
the
Multiplier
Points
Earned
Maximum
Applicable
-
Yes No
Correct Score
Ixll
Points
a.
Transit Route
X 2
0
2
—
_
b.
South College Corridor
X
X 2
0
4
p
g
c.
Part of Center
X
X 12
T0
3
(0
6
-7
T
d.
Two Acres or More
X
X 12
I 0
3
(p
6
_
e.
Mixed -Use
X
X 2
1,0
3
(�
6
f.
Joint Parking
1 2
0
3
g.
Energy Conservation
X
1
2
3
4 0
2
¢
g
h.
Contiguity
X
X
2
0
5
D
10
:
i.
Historic Preservation
1
I, L I
0
2
A-
1.
1
2 1
0
k.
1
2
0
I.
1.
2 I
0
Totals
V
V1
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII
pyll
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
73 -
ft
i of
ACTIVITY:
Business Service Uses
DEFINITION:
ig
fC_C ,tAA t
E
Those activities which are predominandy retail, office, and services uses which would not qualify as a
neighborhood service, neighborhood convenience, or community/regional shopping center. Uses include
retail shops; offices; personal service shops; financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clinics, health
clubs, membership clubs; standard and fast-food restaurants; hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theaters;
recreation uses; small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which
are of the same general character.
CRITERIA:
Each of the following applicable Crites must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
development plan.
Yes No N/A
1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street other than ❑
South College ?.venue?
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OF � ❑
THE MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED ON POINT CHART
"B" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA?
a. Is the activity contiguous to an existing transit route (not applicable
for uses of less than twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet GLA or
with less than twenty-five [25] employees, or located in the Central
Business District)?
b. Is the project located outside of the "South College Avenue Corridor"?
c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a art of a neighborhood
or community/regional shopping center, an office or industrial park,
located in the Central Business District, or in the case of a single user, employ or will employ a
total of more than one hundred (100) full-time employees during a single eight (8) hour shift?
d. Is the project on at least two (2) acres of land, or located in the Central Business District?
e. Does the project contain two (2) or more significant uses (for instance retail, office, residential,
hotel/motel, or recreation)?
f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing
or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces?
g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the application of alternative energy
systems or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model
Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix "E" for energy conservation methods to
use for calculating energy conservation points.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-71-
Activity A: %LL DEVELOPMEN I'kITEMjA
I LL CF1T=
''-17 E=1CN
A�Ft.IC�.E -Z CHIT= CNl .
:`e :-encn Will Cie c;.erc
3c_:ir.=c:e7 I be ,atis;;ec?
3 I Yes INc
If rc, �Ie=se=x�iain
1. Scier Crler.- ::cn
Vag' w
--ter - =(an
I ✓' I
anau�
I ✓ I
Jrs
.
�_ /!
li I
V
.2..yln2
—
I
y..._....G::C{i
2. S
.1�
2 1
Site
2.16
Ncis= and V• =: cn
2.17
G;ar- zr He -a-,_
2.1
Ha_=- cus ltilat=rrais
=• 3.
ENGINE==INC CElitlilA
3.1
uffifty C2CaC7^J
3.2
Desk:; Starca �s
...4
G@CIicc;c Ha2cr:5
I
I ✓ I
I ✓I !
I ✓ I 1
!
1
I I
I ✓f
I ✓/J I
I ✓1 1
I V
I✓ i
I I l
I
I 1
I V I
Land Develooment Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
Tne CIEY of Fos Collins. Colorado, Revised . 1994 _
-61 - 1-10-5US�
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal: Shenandoah PUD
Description: Mixed use development on 43.17 acres, which includes 111 single family
residentail lots.
Density: 2.57 du/acre
General Population:
111 (single family units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 355
School Age Population:
Elementary: 111 (units) x .27 (pupils/unit) = 30
Junior High: 111 (units) x .15 (pupils/unit) = 17
Senior High: 111 (units) x .17 (pupils/unit) = 19
TOTAL = 66
*Figures assume a mix of 2- and 3-bedroom single family residential.
SOLAR ORIENTATION VARIANCE REQUEST
Due to several significant design constraints of this site, the 65% solar orientation requirement for
this P.U.D. cannot be technically met.
The narrow north -south orientation of this site makes it difficult to design streets and lots in this
area that are in an east -west direction. This results in 59% of the total lots meeting the solar
ordinance. The widest point in the single family area measures 750' wide while the narrowest
point is only 550' wide near the Fossil Creek Nursery site. The area also measures 2,650' in
length. This allows the applicant to provide some east -west streets with lots fronting on them,
but due to the narrow width to work with, the streets become shorter segments, thus lowering the
number of north -south lots. It also makes good planning sense to connect with the existing streets
on the Ridgewood Hills site to the west. In addition, the placement of the residential portion of
the site allows continuity with Ridgewood Hills. From a locational standpoint, it also made sense
to place the residential area internally rather than along South College Avenue, a major arterial.
The unique topography of this area also makes it extremely difficult to orient the lots and streets
in any other way. Minimum grades and design standards for streets must be met as well as
providing an opportunity for some walkout lots.
Out of I I I total lots, 65 lots are solar. 72 lots are required to meet the ordinance, therefore the
site is 7 lots short.
78. Residential development should be directed into areas which reinforce the phasing plan
In the urban growth area. ,
79. Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and
regional/community shopping centers.
b. Which have easy access to major employment centers.
C. Within walking distance to an existing or planned elementary school.
d. Within walking distance to an existing or planned neighborhood park and
within easy access. to a community park.
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access.
kv
SHENANDOAH P.U.D. PLANNING OWECTIVES
The Shenandoah P.U.D. is a preliminary submittal for a portion of the Shenandoah ODP, which .
amends the previous Ridgewood Hills ODP. This portion is in the southeast corner of the ODP
and contains 95.66 acres. This proposal includes single family, multi -family, office park, day
care, and a private park.containing a historic barn.
r
The residential portion contains 117 single family lots and 18 duplex lots on M.0 acres with a
density of 1.75 d.u. / ac. A 456/o solar compliance is obtained: Due to site constraints, a variance
request for solar orientation will accompany this P.U.D. submittal.
A 5,000 s.f day care center is conveniently located on the corner of two streets to provide
service to the surrounding neighborhood. A tract is being reserved next to the historic barn for
the use of a small private neighborhood park and/or recreation area. A use for the barn has not
'been identified yet, but the applicant fully intends to preserve it in accordance with any
necessary state or federal regulations as determined.
An office park on approx. 7.0 acres contains 6 buildings, with about 10,000 s.f in each building.
Due to the unique topography in this area, a terraced, walkout approached has been achieved.
Each building allows entry on both the one-story `high' side and the two-story walkout side. The
parking lots and drives accommodate the drop in grade by stepping down across the site. A
series of retaining walls and bermed areas will be landscaped with a variety of plant materials.
Two street connections are provided to Ridgewood Hills to the west and Victoria Drive will be
built as a collector loop down to County Road 12. This phase will take its primary access off of
Victoria Drive.
A series of bike/pedestrian connections are utilized throughout the site with several connecting
to the west.
This proposed P.U.D. is supported by the following land use policies:
12. Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should
be encouraged in the urban growth area.
14. Urban development standards shall apply to all development within the urban growth
area.
74. Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban design elements) should
be provided between the residential neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to
enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses.
75. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
Shenandoah P.U.D. Preliminary
Business Services
7.0 acres
Day Care
1.5 acres
Multi -family
2.5 acres
Park / Open Space
3.0 acres
Single Family
35.0 acres
Net Site Area 49.0 acres
Building Coverage
5.39 acres
11%
Parking & Drives
12.5 acres
26%
Landscape Remainder
31.1 acres
63%
Total
49.0 acres
100%
BuildingDetails
etails
Office
Daycare
Total
No. of Single Family Dwelling Units
No. of Duplex Dwelling Units
Total
Residential Density
605000 s.f.
5,000 ST
65,000 s.f.
117 d.u.
18 d.u.
135 d.u.
49.0 acres / 135 d.u. = 2.75 d.u./ ac.
TYPICAL CAAIACTU OF DAYCARE .-..
TYFICAL SIDE ELEVATION )CALL '&
i•
LOWER LEVLL LNT" LUVAIMIN -
A31NAL' IYIN"L1
ILILC YMEL - 'J FTIi LEVLL LKIT iT ELL V4 TION KALE le' - -0'
1ITL 5ECTI ON SCALL v- 50,-0'
ate.
SHENANDOAH P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS COLORADO
0
FUTURE
Mal
•" �rli li
5.2 ACRES �
t.
1
mu
PRIVIA-ii
--� III � �o�- __ --_•_O�
68 _ A�:��, fro - — _ - v►�! )s
<F` • a�a•are�a� 0 O
FUTURE
180 ACRES
SERVICE CENTER
0010 S�►�c4 � , �� �,
R
\e','
o
FUTURE
5.6 ACRES
BUSINESS SERVICES
�� ��., aye \•• ��
J
�J
E r�f� +T O IISAf
AM
PLANTING NOTL5 PLANTING LEGEND
SHENANDOAH P.U.D.
e0 FORT COLLINS COLOR DO
eta.,
RIDGEWOODsr
ILLS FUTURE
/BR
E m CON
DEVELOPEMNT
RILTO MLU
DENeEawwlAr . rD1YRE
PNM UN 5[IgOL _
- NLLLB
i
1
NNNE IVWO.LLE 1
T
a
a
Y
T U
Y
M
Y
Y
W
Y Y
f
al
f
f M f ■
WrE CWNECI0.}I {NLM 1
RD¢wOCD wus oENaaPNwr 1
rO Imm rO I
e
EGVPTIAN
DRIVE (u aO.w. /
N'
s*RN
O
uaw srwEEr
mdru
eE aw.r MM sulscwEnr I
INALT O
oNiIRE . wGI,NOM NILLS I
lE1C➢4f.
D ENr 1. AuuNN*) ;
i
E I
i
r
FUTURE
5.2 ACRES
MULTI FAMILY ♦ ♦m}.
tow 4 I I
f
>
W {
f I
♦
I
I
fi
LIMITS OF
PRELIMINARY
D
� �
`a
1
Rea�OAd � ,� ♦
\
a
\ \\ W i} II
O
�7 ' f CF II
a D.
W
f
TOO7i ®]f1 9$fl �\ eA ACRE
\ t
\ { \\✓
TRIANGLE
DRWE (51 R.D.w. / x's.e ,)
\
PRIVATE---
RIDGEWOOD
ILLS PNST
Pl NIM
f f
l
\\ A
I a
MCI II
V CT. I I •
M f p
J \
� RGinEYII nIELS
�
.w
PARR 'fir ✓ f __. __ �� }` \f N
MAw wwxEcnax ♦ 12 ACRE \ \°• ������������� \ TIT
etiina x \ DAVCAREroMRCAN
Aw
NRD
L\\
wPNCYrtN.O '
FUTURE ♦ _ / \ FUTURE
t4.1 32 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD
�% ACRES �� \ ` ♦♦ vBUSINESS ��� NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICEERCENTER • A .�♦ �� 8®9VICE6 CONVENIENCE CENTER
ws •
R.,
V,
EI "NC FMK
\
ar TK. rO R
.NWD Al
FUTURE
SEE RIOGEW000
56 ACRES
-
HILLS O.D.P
BUSINESS SERVICES
AMENDMENT FOR
REMAINDER OF
SHENANDOAH SITE
NYBdE/
OWNER'S CERTFICATTON
VIC70RIA EST ES
Z D FA COII�INT, o C
go m
VICINITY MAP
♦
PRO.ECT 1p w 1
BRE
r4 �
,IN
PLANNING AND ZONING
BOARD APPROVAL
POSSL CREEK I
ArRrtO NURSERY
^P ZONED RP
li I
NOT
.rLL BINIDINR �
ARE KO' O Ewawr N _ \
rwO-srwer wAu-
ar IN 9ACN.
rDN STAT
LAND 113E BREAKDOWN
CAROLYNS
CUISINE
ZONED SP
RESIOEN4-
LARIMER
COUNTY C
I
I
I
urr .K. UK
I
I
ZONED NS
SHENANDOAH P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS COLORADO
8 ET 1 to
OUT
■
h
•
rip
■
• ••'.�
•
�;
rip
tpAV
tUPS�
R
a
c�
0.
Of
' T
: 5tis
City Limits
❑ C UNTY OAD 32
Urban Growth Area Boundary
d cute`
vna8V0`Ope6
VICINITY MAP
#47-95 SHENANDOAH PUD
Preliminary
12/05/95
1"= 600'
pleni: N 111 O
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for approval of the Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary, staff makes
the following findings of fact:
* It is in conformance with the Amendment to the Ridgewood Hills ODP.
* It meets the All Development Criteria of the LDGS.
* It scores 54% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart in the LDGS,
exceeding the required minimum of 50%.
* It scores 124% on the Residential Uses Density Chart in the LDGS,
exceeding the required minimum of 60% to support the proposed gross
residential density of 3.51 dwelling units per acre.
* It is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and all proposed signage
is subject to the requirements of the City Sign Code.
* It is feasible from a transportation standpoint and meets City policies for
transportation.
* It is considered to be in conformance with stated policy in the Plan for the
Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland that is presently an advisory
document only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a variance to the Solar
Orientation Ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary - #47-95.
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
west to South Shields Street, and street improvements to and signalization on South
College Avenue. A copy of the minutes from the meeting is attached to this staff report.
5. Transportation:
The proposed access point onto State Highway 287 (South College Avenue) is in
conformance with the Amendment to the Ridgewood Hills ODP. It is approximately 2,900
feet south of Trilby Road, 2,500 feet north of County Road 32, and 700 feet north of
Victoria Drive (on the east side of the highway). Highway access permits are required for
specific development proposals taking access onto the State Highway 287 (South College
Avenue). There is a local street connection from the single family residential portion of this
PUD into the Ridgewood Hills PUD, Second Filing to the west.
An extension of County Road 32 to the west, to South Shields Street, is not a part of this
PUD request given the environmental sensitivity and general steepness of the topography
through the ridge area to the west. The County Road 32 extension will terminate at the
intersection with Victoria Drive, just to the east of the existing wetland area. However, if the
extension of County Road 32 does not continue to South Shields Street the City's Master
Street Plan will have to be amended and approved by City Council.
The Transportation Department has reviewed the Site Access Study that was submitted
with the Ridgewood Hills Amended ODP request and finds that this preliminary PUD is
feasible from a transportation standpoint and meets City policies for transportation.
6. Storm Drainage:
This developer is responsible for providing adequate outfall and an off -site drainage
easement from Robert Benson Lake downstream into the City -owned Provincetowne PUD.
The Shenandoah PUD development cannot add any stormwater volume to the lake. The
City has prepared a preliminary draft of an agreement between the City and the developer
for acquisition of the required off -site drainage easement. The agreement is being reviewed
and will be executed prior to approval of a final PUD plan.
7. Resource/Historic Protection:
There is a small 4 acre wetland in the south part of Tract C, Future Business Services, that
will have to be addressed by the developer at the time of submittal of a preliminary PUD
plan for that area. Tract C is not part of this current preliminary PUD.
There is an existing historic barn located in the proposed day care and private
park/recreation area, adjacent to some of the residential units, that will be preserved and
incorporated into the park.
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
The applicant has submitted a request for a variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance
based on reason (1) regarding the existing, natural topographic features of the site and
reason (2) regarding difficulties with solar orientation due to the narrowness of the
residential area restricting the length of the east -west oriented streets. The applicant's
justification is based on the narrow north -south orientation of this site that makes it difficult
to design streets and lots in this area that are in an east -west direction. This results in 59%
of the total lots meeting the solar ordinance. The widest point in the single family area
measures 750' wide while the narrowest point is only 550' wide near the Fossil Creek
Nursery site. The area also measures 2,200' in length. This allows the applicant to provide
some east -west streets with lots fronting on them, but due to the narrow width to work with,
the streets become shorter segments, thus lowering the number of north -south lots. It also
makes good planning sense to connect with the existing streets on the Ridgewood Hills site
to the west. In addition, the placement of the residential portion of the site allows continuity
with the Ridgewood Hills PUD's. From a locational standpoint, it also made sense to place
the residential area internally rather than along South College Avenue, a major arterial.
The unique topography of this area also makes it extremely difficult to orient the lots and
streets in any other way. Minimum grades and design standards for streets must be met
as well as providing an opportunity for some walkout lots.
In evaluating the applicant's variance request, staff has determined that the
relatively narrow north -south oriented parcel of ground (between
approximately 550' and 750' in width) that contains the single family and
duplex residential lots presents constraints to the possible layout and
orientation of the lots due to a combination of somewhat extreme topographic
changes and relatively short east -west oriented streets. Staff is
recommending approval of the request for a variance to the Solar Orientation
Ordinance based on reasons (1) and (2).
Signage:
The property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and all proposed signage is
subject to the requirements of the City Sign Code. This District is more restrictive than
other more commercially oriented Districts.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood information meeting was held on September 13, 1995 at the Evangelical
Covenant Church. There were 13 affected property owners and interested participants in
attendance. The primary concerns expressed at this meeting pertained to maintenance of
existing irrigation ditches on the property, traffic impacts in the area (especially in the
Victoria Estates Subdivision east of South College Avenue), extension of County Road 32
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
The main building material on all the non-residential buildings will be a stucco facade, with
brick veneer as trim work. The roofing material will be asphalt shingles.
Landscaping:
The landscaping will consist of canopy, ornamental, and evergreen trees, deciduous and
evergreen shrubs, and groundcover and wildflower mixes. There will be street trees along
the collector streets and a mix of plant materials in the office park, the day care center,
park, and open space areas. A series of retaining walls and bermed areas will be
landscaped with a variety of plant materials in the office park, due to the relatively steep
topography.
Parking:
Each single family residential dwelling unit will have two off -site parking spaces. There will
be 104 parking spaces provided for the non-residential uses (office and day care), which
equates to 1.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area.
Solar Orientation Ordinance:
All 111 single family lots are subject to the City's adopted Solar Orientation Ordinance. A
total of 65 of the lots meet the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance (65 of 111 = 59%)
that requires a minimum of 65% of all single family and two-family lots comply with the
ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board is authorized to grant variances to this
ordinance upon finding that the following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been
satisfied:
(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or
other conditions peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by
the strict application of any provisions of this Article. Such variances shall not be
granted if it would be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and
purposes of this Article.
(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar
orientation or access, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict
application of any provisions of this Article. Such variance shall not be granted if the
same would be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of
this Article.
(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than
such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested.
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
the setting and scenic backdrop that the natural landscape provides, are qualities that will
be diluted if the cities are allowed to grow together.
This document has not been adopted by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland or Larimer
County. It is presently an advisory document only.
The site making up the Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary is located in Subarea 8 of the Plan
for the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland. This subarea extends from Shields
Street/Taft Avenue (County Road 17) to State Highway 287 from Trilby Road on the north
to 57th Street on the south.
The north section of this subarea (Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary being a
portion of the Ridgewood Hills ODP) is within the City of Fort Collins, and is
master -planned for mixed -use development.
" The center section of this subarea should be kept open to preserve the rural
character. Agriculture or restored prairie is the preferred scenario here, with
rural residential as an alternative.
The south section of this subarea is within the City of Loveland, and is
master -planned for mixed -use development.
The stated policy is for mixed use in the north and south sections, in a master -planned
campus setting. The Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary provides for a mix of land uses that
include mixed density residential, office and business services, day care, and private
park/open space. The preliminary PUD is considered to be in conformance with stated
policy in the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland. Again, this presently is
an advisory document only.
3. Design:
Architecture:
The day care center will be a one-story structure with a sloped hip -roof line.
There will be six office park buildings, each about 10,000 square feet in size. Due to the
unique topography in this area, a terraced, walkout approach is being proposed. Each
building allows entry on both the one-story "high" side (uphill) and the two-story "walkout'
side (downhill). The office buildings will have sloped roofs with gables in various locations
on essentially all the elevations.
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
e) providing adequate, safe, and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections to the
nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane (in Ridgewood Hills PUD, First
Filing).
The residential portion of the preliminary PUD is 31.7 acres in size and the gross
residential density is 3.50 dwelling units per acre. The score of 124% on the density chart
exceeds the minimum 60 percentage points required for a project containing 6 or fewer
dwelling units per acre. This development proposal was originally submitted to the City on
November 20, 1995 and has remained in the development review process since that date.
Therefore, it is subject to the density chart that was revised in September, 1994.
Business Service Uses Point Chart:
The proposal scores 54% on the point chart, earning points for:
a) being part of a center (having contiguity to and being functionally part of the future
neighborhood shopping and convenience centers that are part of the Amendment
to the Ridgewood Hills ODP);
b) being two acres or more (this site is approximately 11.9 acres in size and includes
the office park, day care center, and private park/recreation area);
c) containing two or more significant uses (office, day care, recreation);
d) energy conservation (using Energy Conservation Method Two in Appendix "E" of
the LDGS);
e) historic preservation (preservation and incorporation of the existing historic barn on
the site into a private park/recreation area).
The business service uses portion of the preliminary PUD is approximately 11.2 acres in
size. The score of 54% on the point chart exceeds the minimum requirement of 50%.
A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland:
This is a document prepared for the City of Loveland, City of fort Collins, and County of
Larimer that describes a plan for the region between the Cities of Loveland and Fort
Collins. The purpose of this plan is to determine the future character and vision for the area
between the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Fort Collins and Loveland both have a
unique identity as a community, and each consider the northern front range landscape an
important part of their natural heritage. The identity at the heart of each community, and
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
to low density residential, duplex/patio homes, cottage homes, multi -family
residential, convenience/day care, potential neighborhood park, potential
elementary school, and business services.
The Colorado & Southern Railroad right-of-way (approximately 26 acres in size) was
excepted from the total acreage of the approved Ridgewood Hills ODP.
The Amendment to the Ridgewood Hills ODP, for 548.47 acres of mixed uses, is being
reviewed concurrent with this preliminary PUD request. The amended ODP contains
residential, day care, business service, neighborhood convenience and neighborhood
service center, and private park/open space land uses.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for preliminary PUD approval for 111 single family dwelling units, a 5,000
square foot day care center, and 60,000 square feet of office uses on a site with a gross
area of 43.76 acres (including street right-of-way except the State Highway 287 right-of-
way) located at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and County Road 32
(extended).
The proposal has been evaluated against the All Development Criteria, the Residential
Uses Density Chart, and the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. It has also
been evaluated against the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland.
Residential Uses Density Chart:
The proposal scores 124% on the density chart, earning points for:
a) being within 2,000 feet of an approved but not constructed neighborhood shopping
center (Ridgewood Hills Amended ODP);
b) being within 1,000 feet of a child care center (day care on the Amendment to the
Ridgewood Hills ODP and included as part of this preliminary PUD);
c) containing 7.1 acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use as defined
in the LDGS;
d) preserving 47 acres of permanent off -site open space meeting the City's minimum
requirements as set forth with Special Conditions in the LDGS (south of Trilby Road
and east of the railroad tracks in the westerly portion of the Ridgewood Hills
Amended ODP);
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, #47-95
July 22, 1996 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and all proposed signage is subject
to the requirements of the City Sign Code;
is feasible from a transportation standpoint and meets City policies for
transportation;
is considered to be in conformance with stated policy in the Plan for the Region
Between Fort Collins & Loveland that presently is an advisory document only.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RP - Planned Residential in the City; planned commercial (Fossil Creek Nursery).
C - Commercial in Larimer County; existing residential and commercial (Front
Range Stone, Mountain View Montessori, Thermal Concepts, pet clinic).
S: rlp - Low Density Planned Residential in the City; future neighborhood shopping
center and business service uses (Ridgewood Hills Amended ODP).
E: rlp - Low Density Planned Residential and hb - Highway Business in the City, -
existing lake and residential (Benson Lake).
FA - Farming in Larimer County; existing residential (Victoria Estates).
W: rlp - Low Density Planned Residential in the City; planned residential (Ridgewood
Hills Amended ODP).
The original overall development plan, the Del Webb ODP, was approved in 1984 for a
mixture of uses on 557 acres. The uses included attached and detached single family
residential, multi -family residential, school/park site, office/research & development,
neighborhood retail, convenience center/office, and recreation/health center. The Colorado
& Southern Railroad right-of-way (approximately 26 acres in size) was included in the total
acreage.
The Ridgewood Hills ODP, an Amendment to the Del Webb ODP, was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board in July, 1994 for a mixture of uses on 529 acres. This
amendment changed the middle section of the ODP (253 acres in size). -
from attached and detached single family residential, multi -family residential,
school/park site, recreation/health center, and office/research & development
1
ITEM NO. 14
MEETING DATE
iii
7/227'96—
STAFF Steve Olt elm 40
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Shenandoah PUD, Preliminary - #47-95
APPLICANT: Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Shenandoah Land LLC
c/o Colorado Land Source
8101 East Prentice Avenue, Suite M180
Englewood, CO. 80111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (PUD) approval for 111 single
family dwelling units, a 5,000 square foot day care center, and 60,000 square feet of office
uses on a site with a gross area of 43.76 acres (including street right-of-way except for the
State Highway 287 right-of-way) located at the northwest corner of State Highway 287
(South College Avenue) and County Road 32 (extended). The property is zoned rlp - Low
Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for approval of the preliminary PUD:
is in conformance with the Amendment to the Ridgewood Hills Overall Development
Plan (ODP);
meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
(LDGS);
scores 54% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart in the LDGS, exceeding the
required minimum of 50%;
scores 124% on the Residential Uses Density Chart in the LDGS, exceeding the
required minimum of 60% to support the proposed gross residential density of 3.50
dwelling units per acre;
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o
o
n
a
o
CD
N
�12/6
I� IN
VICTORIA
r
W
J
to C'4
M N
i
U
N
00
N
ILo
"^'
- 42/29
�- 39/36
COUNTY ROAD
32
o�
oo
uo
fn
M
I
AM / PM
RECENT PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
Figure 2
N
M
rl
12f 6
1
/`-13
VICTORIA
lu
W
I
J
rn�
J
.- N
�
OCD
U
M
N
Mc-4
to
"^'
�-- 42/29
39/36
COUNTY ROAD
32
I
to
to
�l
Cl
rn �
0
AM / PM
RECENT PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC,
BALANCED
Figure 3
page
v lllll�11,
73
74