HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTOCKBRIDGE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 27-94 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSStockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94
May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
provide access from Skyline Acres and potential future development
to Westfield Park and the two schools south of Stockbridge. The
developer for Stockbridge P.U.D. is willing only to provide
bicycle/pedestrian access across the canal. Staff is recommending
a condition of preliminary approval stating that at the time of
Final P.U.D., the developer of Stockbridge P.U.D. shall dedicate
right-of-way to the east property line to provide for future
vehicular access from Stockbridge P.U.D., across the Pleasant
Valley & Lake Canal, into the vacant property to the east.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the Stockbridge P.U.D.,
Preliminary - #27-94, and an Amendment to the Seneca O.D.P. based
on the following findings of fact:
* The proposed change to the 30.47 acre Seneca O.D.P.
remains in conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
* The development is in compliance with the City's Solar
Orientation Ordinance.
* The development meets the applicable All Development
Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
Staff recommends a variance be granted from the requirement that
the project earn the minimum percentage points as calculated on the
Residential Uses Density Point Chart by virtue of the Stockbridge
P.U.D., Preliminary being equal to or better than a residential
project of lesser density.
Staff is recommending a condition of preliminary approval stating
that:
1. At the time of Final P.U.D., the developer of Stockbridge
P.U.D. shall dedicate right-of-way to the east property
line to provide for future vehicular access from
Stockbridge P.U.D., across the Pleasant Valley & Lake
Canal, into the vacant property to the east.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Did n N Notification
of this meeting?
Address,
Name Address Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
05Z
a, lqq-Z Pcd, r*&, el '90�26
X,
X
..
be very heavily,burdened by this explosive population growth. The new development will clearly burden
the existing infrastructure unless the City is willing (or the developer) to improve the situation on
Horsetooth Rd.
Another infrastructure problem that will be apparent in the near future will be the impact on the two
local schools (Johnson Elementary and Webber Junior High) that currently serve the area. Johnson is
now being adapted to accommodate the existing overcrowding. Although the school board is primarily
responsible for determining school size, location and district lines, the board could not have foreseen this
lot going to high -density housing as it was previously held by a church group that was planning to
develop it as a place of worship.
We would like to have more of a transitional zone between existing lots in Imperial Estates and
proposed lots in Stockbridge. Also we would like to see larger lot sizes and more greenbelt area to
be more balanced with existing neighborhoods (Imperial Estates and Richmond) as well as the new
proposed subdivision of Mountain Ridge Farms. We would like to see some balanced infill to retain the
character of our neighborhood. We feel that with the cooperation of the developer and the City planners
Stockbridge could be made more appealing to existing neighborhoods as well as to future residents of
the deveopment itself.
The City of Fort Collins has become not only a cherished place to live and work, but also an inviting
community. We chose to live in this neighborhood for its proximity to schools, the workplace, and the
mountains, and clearly others would like to have those benefits also. We would like to see the
developers and the City reconsider the plan for high -density housing in the lot east of Imperial Estates
and work together to develop a plan that will smoothly transition our neighborhood into the next.
Contact Residents:
Ed Robison 223-9372
Clayton Vilhauer 223-1104
Peter Dorhout 225-2310
Respectfully submitted,
Imperial Estates Residents
TO: City of Fort Collins Planning Staff April 14,1994
Planning and Zoning Board
Progressive Living Structures
FROM: Imperial Estates Residents
RE: Stockbridge Development
As residents of the Imperial Estates subdivision of unincorporated Fort Collins (hereafter "we'), we
respectfully submit this letter of opposition to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the planned
development, Stockbridge, that has been submitted for board approval. As this subdivision plan will
directly affect our quality of life, we reserve the right to raise several concerns that we believe the
builders (Progressive Living of Loveland) should consider before approval. Below you will find a brief
summary of our concerns that will be further elucidated in a planned report to be distributed prior to the P
and Z Board worksession on Friday May 20.
The developers and their investors are considering a somewhat risky undertaking and should be
compensated for their hard work by expecting reasonable returns on those investments. Any investor or
shareholder would expect that out of an investment. We are also investors. We are investors in our
homes and real estate and in our families' quality of life. As investors, we considered the options
available during the purchase of our homes. We chose to accept a rural setting with all the
inconveniences of water distribution and septic tanks, rural mail distribution and county road services.
The land adjacent to our development affords the City an opportunity to preserve that rural feeling in this
ever-expanding city. We are very concerned that the builders have not considered this aspect of our
lives and our investments in their plans.
The Stockbridge development will consider developing the 30 acre plot to the east of Imperial Estates
at 5 dwelling units per acre, a value totally inconsistent with the neighboring subdivisions (Imperial
Estates- —1du/acre, Richmond- —1du/2 acres) as well as the new subdivision to the north of Horsetooth
Rd., Kingston Woods- —3du/acre. We are concerned that this incommensurate housing density will
impact negatively on our way of life. In our unincorporated subdivision, we may have livestock and
outbuildings that are incompatible with the proposed very high density housing.
The City is attempting to make affordable housing available to every resident. The developer's
reasons for such high density are to make available such housing. However, the developer expects to
offer the subdivided home sites at premium rates, resulting in homes that will sell for $120-140,000, a
price range that is not considered affordable by many. The high density subdividing appears to be an
attempt to only get a high return on their investment. This an admirable goal, but not one that suits the
residents of Imperial Estates. The developer also stated that he needed to have this high of density in
order to comply with existing and proposed minimum density requirements. The P and Z Board has
approved lower density housing PUD's just recently (414/94 - Huntington Hills at 2 du/acre) to be
commensurate with existing low -density housing. It is our understanding that this 5 du/acre minimum
density requirement has been rejected by both the P and Z Board and the City Council. We believe that
this development (and others near it) should be considered for lower density housing.
We believe that the proposed development will also impact negatively on the infrastructure currently
available in the area. At this time Imperial and Richmond do not have sewer infrastructures and possess
rural water supplies. In addition, this housing density will introduce potentially 150 or more new drivers
and probably double that number of pedestrians along Horsetooth Rd. This part of Horsetooth is still
2-lane blacktop with no sidewalks and no left -turn lane. The current bus route along the street will also
Loma M VanderZanden, DVM
4028 Crescent Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
April 25, 1994
City of Fort Collins Planning Staff
Planning and Zan* Hoard
Progressive Living Structures
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
I have recently been informed of plans to connect our subdivision, Imperial Estates
in Larimer County but not in Font Collins, with a proposed subdivision called Stockbridge
Development. This would be done by extending Westfield Drive eastward into
Stockbridge.
I vehemently otoct to this proposal. It would drastically increase the traffic both
on Westfield and Crescent Drive, neither of which is constructed to be a thoroughfare.
This is a quiet, "dead-end" subdivision here at Imperial Estates. Our streets cannot handle
the excess traffic that would come with the road extension. There are no sidewalks here,
hence children would be at additional risk. If sidewalks were to be added for their safety ,
those of us who are homeowners would have to pay handsomely for the construction.
This household strongly favors dropping the plans to connect Stockbridge with
Imperial Estates.
Sincerely,
1670i kv, 4h :�0aY —M,
ies a oa
CORRECTED LETTER MAILED PREVIOUSLY
Corrections are underlined.
May 18, 1994
Mr. Steve Olt, City Planner
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: 1401 W. Horsetooth Road Property
As the owner of the property adjacent and on the East of the Stockbridge Development, I have
concerns about my property.
I am concerned that the Stockbridge developers will maintain all their construction on the west
side of the boundary line and consequently, will'not disiupt'or,disturb any of my property on the
west side of the ditch.
Of further concern are the easements they want for Horsetooth road and for the detention pond
drainage. I do not want to give up anymore of my 8.37 acres than is absolutely necessary.
Although, I certainly would be willing to sell the Stockbridge developers the ground east of their
line and west of the ditch unless there is some reason I have to keep it for the ditch rider or some
other reason unknown to me.
Any advise from you on any of my concerns will be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lois G. Burr
9113 E. Nassau Avenue
Denver; CO 80237
lb
.+NEIGHBORHOOD INFORNIATION
for
r
Project:_/r is
44n.ais•!2 A �
Meetincly Location: IL 4y
City of Fort• mmnwm� Date:
Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to
update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to
Did You Receive
Correct
receive minutes of this meeting.
Written NotificationAddress?
of this meeting?
Name Address Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
so�i Z 36 3D CCc)
r L' 6 For, L
xKL
- SoZa
)lob
o 7
y
AA
-
39 os 49,. Ft- C. r os-z-f
X
X
Kathleen Harris 3$4a C-reqcerck Dr. Pt, -C, eo5a6
k
NN i sMLeE.,Lt' 2-E 3,F31 CfYSCFNrQA- FC goda
X
U G 77,77 I rel AQLGS Ft ye-
' \
d� 34 3 2 Cv� sc c•v D� �. C �OfL(o
�(
j�+
r
Kic- tg,M6 02E-� 38 8a 5 ��
e -+ ,cJ t, 7 3711 6s(frvT
°-- '100 opt Ft' �D5_R b
k<
The people in
dhave
ck
30. Comment: and we do want the ImperialEstates
ofsthis developmentto
be made aware of this. The animals are legal.
21. Question: How much area will the detention pond cover?
Answer: Approximately 3.5 acres.
22. Question: Have you done a market analysis and considered
larger lots?
Answer: No, I have not done that to date.
23. Comment: What is your price range for the homes?
Answer: $1201000 to $140,000 per home.
24. Question: Part of your presentation was that the City
requires a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed 140 dwelling units is greater than the
minimum density requirement. Have you thought about
an increase in the lot size and what would that do
to the cost of the lot?
Answer: We try to fill a need for a particular type of
housing for certain people. We feel that we need to
provide this product to maintain a certain price..
25. Question: Why have you selected a higher density here,
particularly in light of adjacent neighborhoods?
Answer: We feel that this is the product -line that we do
best.
26. Comment: The housing market, based on the Kingston Woods
project, suggests that there is a market for
slightly larger lots similar to those.
27. Question: Have you done an analysis that determines what
effects this development's utilities will have on
our septic systems?
Answer: Not yet, but that will be part of our development
review.
28. Question: Do you know if you have groundwater problems, and
will you be required to put in an underdrain
system?
Answer: We are looking at an underdrain system.
29. Question: What happens if the water table rises and this
development causes water problems in our basement?
Answer: The underdrain system should take care of that.
is
12. Question: Will we be looking at a mosquito -breeding pond in
the detention area, with standing water all the
time?
Answer: No, the area will drain.in a short period of time
after a storm. The intent is for the PV & L Canal
to accept some of the stormwater overflow.
13. Question: Is there a new pipe for stormwater that must be
installed through and under Skyline Acres?
Answer: Yes. The City's Foothills Drainage Basin Plan calls
for this pipe.
14. Question: Who is responsible for the costs of the stormwater
facilities in this area?
Answer: The costs will probably be shared by the City
Stormwater Utility and the developer.
15. Question: Is there a minimum open space requirement that is
required by the Land Development Guidance System?
The quality of life seems to be threatened without
sufficient open space in the area.
Answer: The L.D.G.S. does not have specific numeric open
space requirements in terms of area.
16. Comment: This development is going to add sufficient traffic
into the system to worsen an already difficult
situation in the area.
17. Question: There are prairie dogs on this site. will you
humanely eradicate or relocate the animals?
Answer: We will definitely eradicate them before earth is
moved.
18. Question: Will these homes have woodburning stoves?
Answer: No, they will not.
19. Question: What is your anticipated schedule for this
development?
Answer: We would like to do it this year, but the timing on
adequate access to all of the development is a
concern.
20. Question: What will the difference be between the elevation
along the east side of Imperial Estates and the
west line of this development?
Answer: They will be about the same.
.V
4. Comment: A crosswalk for children going to school is needed
at Royal Drive.
5. Question: What % of the lot is covered by the house? Those
look like very small lots.
Answer: Generally, the lots will be 50' x 100' and the size
of the homes is not yet finalized.
6. Comment: This area does not feel like the "core" of the City
and the core density of 3 dwelling units per acre
does not seem to be compatible with the surrounding
area.
Response: The City has an Urban Growth Area boundary that was
established between the City and Larimer County
that carries within it the minimum density of 3
dwelling units per acre. The developer is trying to
provide homes in a range that is affordable to most
families.
7. Question:
What will the impact on Johnson Elementary School
be from the children generated with this
development?
Answer:
The school is being expanded to accommodate
additional children within the school district.
8. Question:
Will you be putting a fence along the west property
line adjacent to Imperial Estates?
Answer:
The fencing plans are not yet finalized to the
extent that we know what will be where.
9. Question:
Is it possible to put a little buffer along the
west line adjacent to Imperial Estates?
Answer:
We have located some of the larger lots along that
side for the opportunity to provide on -lot
buffering.
10. Question:
Will your engineer provide additional information
on the stormwater detention needs?
Answer:
Yes, he will be providing more information on the
storm drainage. He has already, to date, provided
information to the best of his ability.
11. Comment:
We do not need a street connection from the east
into Imperial Estates. We have been told by the
City that a connection would not be necessary.
City of Fort Collins
Comma. _ty Planning and Environmental _rvices
Planning Department
Neighborhood Information Meeting -Minutes
for
STOCKBRIDGE P.U.D.
Date: March 10, 1994
Applicant: Progressive Living Structures, Inc.
4190 North Garfield Street
Loveland, CO. 80538
City Planner: Steve Olt 00
The potential applicant, Progressive Living Structures, has
expressed an interest in developing a single family residential
project on vacant land located on the south side of West Horsetooth
between Imperial Estates Subdivision and the Pleasant Valley & Lake
Canal.
The purpose of this meeting was to introduce Leo Schuster,
Progressive Living Structures, and his representatives to the
affected property owners and other potentially affected interests
in attendance and enable them to ask questions about, express their
concerns about, or express their support for the development
proposal. The following questions, concerns, and responses were
expressed at the meeting:
1. Question: Will you be responsible for improvements to
Horsetooth Road only along the frontage of your
property?
Answer: Yes, in the City's hierarchy there is an oversizing
and off -site improvement fund that will pay for the
street adjacent to other properties.
2. Question: To the west, in front of Imperial Estates, will
this development cause improvements to Horsetooth
road due to the increased traffic?
Answer: The traffic study that will be prepared for this
development will help determine what necessary off -
site street improvements must be made.
3. Question: Will the development of this property cause
Imperial Estates to be annexed into the City?
Answer: No, it will not trigger annexation at this time.
- 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
�i�krvt �r n
DENSITY CHART
Maximum tamed
Criterion Credit Credit
Cl
2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center
20%
b
650 feet of an existing transit stop
10%
'
C
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center
10%
Cj
3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park, community park, or community facility
20%
!�
1000 feet of a school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws
10%
W
f
3000 feet of a major employment center
20%
V)
Q9
10(10 feet of a child care center
5%
m
h
"North" Fort Collins
20%
j
The Central Business District
20%
jA
project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
30%
0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 10% contiguity;
10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguity;
15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30% contiguity;
20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 40% contiguity;
25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 -520% 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 earned for every 5% reduction in energy use.
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
M
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.
n
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements,
calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a
bonus.
p
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.
P
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
required by City Code, enter a 1 % bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested.
a
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low
j
income families, enter that percentageas a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%.
Z
f•
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
O
and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
"A" "A"
m
Type .5 x Type Units
Total Units
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%
Type "B" 1.0 x Type "B" Units
Total Units
$
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.
t
If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the building,
or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows:
9% For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure;
6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure;
3% For providing 25 - 49% of the parking in a structure.
U
If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units,
enter a bonus of 10%.
TOTAL
-79-
n
a
ACTIVITY: "
Residential Uses H
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:
Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and
implemented within the development plan.
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average residential density in the
project at least three (3) dwelling units per acre? (Calculated for
residential portion of the site only.)
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART' FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be
based on the following:
30 - 40 percentage points = 3 - 4 dwelling units per acre
40 - 50 percentage points = 4 - 5 dwelling units per acre
50 - 60 percentage points = 5 - 6 dwelling units per acre
60 - 70 percentage points = 6 - 7 dwelling units per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7 - 8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8 - 9 dwelling units per acre
90-100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
Yes No N/A
❑
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
IFFSE
rd:
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERIONa
Is the criterion
applicable?
Will the criterion
be satisfied?
If no, lease explain
z
m
c
.9
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
1.2 Comprehensive Plan
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
1.4 Mineral Deposit
✓
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
1.7 Energy Conservation
1.8 Air Quality
1.9 Water Quality✓
1.10 Sewage and Wastes
A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation
V11
I ✓
2.2 Building Placement and Orientation
2.3 Natural Features
✓
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parkin
2.5 Emergency Access
✓
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation
2.7 Architecture
✓
2.8 Building Height and Views
✓
2.9 Shading
2.10 Solar Access
✓
2.11 Historic Resources
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 Landscape
V✓
2.14 Signs
2.15 Site Lighting
2.16 Noise and Vibration
2.17 Glare or Heat
2.18 Hazardous Materials
A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity✓
3.2 Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
3.4 'Geologic Hazards
Completed Point Charts
Attached are the following completed point charts:
Residential Uses Density Chart H
Activity A — All Development Criteria
--uu r uu r1aniniiy vqecaves bha design inc.
Statement of City Land Use Policies Achieved by Plan
I. General Policies
3. The City shall promote:
a. Maximum utilization of land within the City,
b. Alternative transportation modes;
C. The development of an efficient mass transit system to serve all city residents, and
expanded to serve all urban growth area residents, provided it is cost effective; and
d. The location of residential development which is close to employment, recreation, and
shopping facilities.
The proposed development is located along one of the city's major arterial roadways, along a
corridor which is served by the mass transit system. The site is conveniently located with regard to
major employment centers, schools, and recreation facilities. Development of this property will
help to increase the overall density of development along the Horsetooth Road corridor, which will
contribute to maximizing the utilization of land within the City of Fort Collins.
II. Growth Management Policies
9. The City will cooperate with the County in establishing an urban growth area surrounding
Fort Collins.
The proposed development is located within the City limits, and is within the urban growth area.
Development of this site at urban densities will help achieve this goal.
12. Urban density development usually at more than 3 or more units to the acre should be
encouraged in the urban growth area.
The proposed development achieves a density of more than 4 dwellings per acre; which is
consistent with this policy.
79. Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood or regionallcommunity
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; and
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access.
The proposed development has easy access to shopping and major employment centers via
Horsetooth Road and Shields Street, as well as a future planned neighborhood shopping center at
Shields Street and Troutman Parkway. An existing elementary and junior high school and
proposed neighborhood park are within walking distance. Seneca Street, a collector roadway,
provides the major access to the site.
Stockbridge PUD Planning Objectives bha design inc.
Statement of Planning Objectives
Stockbridge PUD
Project Description
Stockbridge PUD is a proposed residential development consisting of 31.02 acres, located on W.
Horsetooth Road and Seneca Street, approximately 2,000 feet west of Shields Street. The
surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
North
RP
Existing residential (Casa Grande PUD); Horsetooth Stables
South
RLP
Proposed residential (Mountain Ridge Farm PUD)
West
County
Existing Residential (Imperial Estates)
East
RE
Vacant; Pleasant Valley and Lake Ditch
Primary access to the site will be from Horsetooth Road via Seneca Street, a collector roadway,
which provides access to points south and east via future connections to Harmony Road and
Troutman Parkway. The site is bounded by Horsetooth Road on the north, an irrigation ditch and
vacant land zoned RLP to the east, the Mountainridge Farm PUD to the south (currently under
review), and Imperial Estates, an existing County residential subdivision, to the west.
The plan provides for a total of 126 single family homes, on a series of cul-de—sacs oriented in an
east -west fashion to maximize solar orientation. Residential lots will be an average of 5,000 square
feet in area, with lots along the west edge being larger in size to provide a transition from Imperial
Estates. The plan achieves a gross density of 4.43 dwellings per acre, and a net density of 5.65
dwellings per acre. A significant portion of the site has been set aside as open space, to
accommodate buffering requirements along Horsetooth Road and the adjacent irrigation ditch, as
well as to provide for storm water requirements for the site and surrounding areas. Provision has
been made in the plan to incorporate the City's proposed trail along the Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal.
Planning Assumptions and Rationale
The land use plan for the site is based upon the following assumptions:
• Due to the proximity of schools and a planned neighborhood park, the site is ideally suited
for family —oriented housing.
• The location adjacent to Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal provides opportunities for
neighborhood orientation and pedestrian connections.
• Existing residential development to the west is a compatible use; however, larger lot sizes
and appropriate fencing treatment are proposed along this edge to insure an appropriate
transition between neighborhoods of different densities.
• Open space and detention areas are located along the collector road, to provide for open
space focal areas and to provide open space benefits to all of the residents in the
neighborhood.
Stockbridge PUD Planning Objectives bha design inc.
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: STOCKBRIDGE PUD - Preliminary
DESCRIPTION: 126 single family units on 31.02 acres
DENSITY:
General Population
126 units x 3.5
4.06 du/acre
(persons/unit) = 441
School Age Population
Elementary - 126 (units) x '450 (pupils/unit) = 56.7
Junior High - 126 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 26.46
Senior High - 126 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 23.31
Design
Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment
Johnson Elementary 568 573
Webber Junior High 900 977
Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land situate to the North ... t Quarter of
Section 34, Township T North, Nang. 69 Nest of the
6th P.N., Lorimar County, Colorado which considering
the North line of said Northeast Quarter as baering
South 89643•00" East and with all bearings Contained
herein relative thereto, is contained within the
boundary lines which begin at a point on amid North
It-- which bears South 89.43'00" east 209.00 feat
WOODS PUD
tree the NOV" Quarter none[ of said Section ]N and
KINGSTON
cm thence South 89843'00" meet 609.46 bet to a point
1 E0141110 A - 4Lf R✓AO
on • line which 1s 10.00 bet Westerly from the
Westerly line of the ➢!..sent Valley and Wk. Canal
Company Ditch: theme along veld line South 26-21'DO-
At L14 CMfast
"'•
•••"^•
East .85
La6
and again South feet, and a 73'1138'53"h Seat 6127.06a teat at band
/LG1hr' 7-I---
- - -"r,i""�-^'.'."'"���---^�.�..�..�........^.- .............
PINCIPCIIISDTWyHy,�JEt sib
aq•Sn South 01 •]S'00" east 1)].22 feet, and again
:.'mm.,,.,.- ... ........ .......-• .. ....
— =-
00" Nest foil and again South
South---------
35-13'S0- Weet 32.27 feet and 9e1n South 54'56'06"
•�...;,,
tootas
NissN1]
•.,
se is^h e..t sg2cn
get.
'
S9,uth 19-
34*59'40" Cast 2.24 feet, and
agai send
•••„y '. .,, E"" .w P/,.
'�•••...,.....
L''
east 1 Tl tS
0West
'• '' ..., V I
an h 49.14'20 53.Weat•1 t
tut, end again South N9'U'20" Weal 53.92 feet to
.
"••.
/
• polo[ on the South It.. of said Northwest Qua[G[I
,Uwee along ealtl South line, North 69'48'4S" Meat
••• / __
` "• O
/ /
C
513.49 bat •. point On a curve e00645 to the
••,�
_
``
//
TMAL
i
Northeast Navin a central and
f0.AR '••..� �,`
'•+, ♦„ �'
�_^ f
I
.1,
a radius d Curve Leap thence southerly along the
thence ut rly along
am of said moires 8.72 East; from t
���� 1,
r•
I '�/
radial
curve South 69'23152" West 90.74 borUet: thence Nor
♦ __
•r •, `
.TN
89840'45" West 542.54 feet to A point on the Nest
line the
. ` ,^ .*
of Northeast Quarter of said Section 34:
than.. along sold West line North DO'O1'D8" West
bet:
•, /. r
`'\ n
f
\
.. Loin:
0-01' South 89VJ'00" out
.♦ r
� O / � � � �`�
- i y
� �
tha o the
of than.. Ng[th 00'01'0!" West 239.00 foot t0 the Point
of Beginning.
IIIILJ1yJll
P _
��" r %'.• f so I,'P�i P
Parcel contains 31.02 Ac[ea, more or lea..
IMPERIAL E8
/
C
/ / �' a
1^
NOTE: All existing .....ants and/or rights of Way
�` p
I
vseetea with the platting p[moia
anall vacated
CNOl1 May WAO IOQOfIYI i
�R _"- _-- I P
/ r
ed
and rededicated with the Canal Dletlsl.
EsPad
LANDSCAPE
. O / /
'DOWINUM POW
' , '
/ /: ;
jf ;• _ - ---
VACANT
GENERAL NOTES
--':___i
PLAT AND U EABH7'®Rf,
1•LiPI
l SH PIS."
DN D CIE
LOf AIiM NC DI e1•fNMGNb. ADN DEMON GF PT�iN A90 ND6lld1.ICD
AND C 67 UMTS D 04
-
A1
". ,..P
' / //
y- \
L
2. Cp?ION OPEN SPACE AREA! AND LANDM%ArMfi UNTNN ADJACENT ROLL
SELL BE MANTAJNW BY A NCIhE XM M ASlGLIATICTL
.
1. ALL 601 WILL COPPLT MTI THE CITY OF PORT CCLLNS MON CODES.
'
P
f f
f
'
7 N
4. EN SPACE TRAOTS APE 1'CR dr'eAAE. eDINAGAGGLSS
(Ir
b UTILITY PURPOSES
AND
�,
PMACTRJAN
r
�
� I i
'`• I I 1 ' ., ,
., .--- `'+ `, '
♦
�.
S. PEeICMb 81I.L CIE POIPIMW AS POLLOM
-ALONG WIMT EICUGARY - f' %10= PENCE MTN PACaA AND c , PN*WEP esarvl SIDES
Y
Tv-vEWCLE
__
�-
{ �\.
-ADJACENT�_-- A'-v ui7�OD PENCE
TO SNAG NO
AGCEM ,.
�L
., r•_ _ ---
-�
Q
•' art
LOMWOO NVAD AaM
-ALL E IRPECR Tom ' WOW PESO 1 u1DG0 PENCE
,�� `
�/
'Y
♦1 __-
__ _�
■
f'
/
i \
e. OWLDNO ELEVATIONS FQTNO TNe 1@OUMff10MS Cr TWE 870C3QM0QE PRDTECTNE
AAD APPROv= TYE ARCNSTECIURAL CON TTQ SHALL at ACCEPT=
O UIILI
__
I
♦♦;+,,.
WI 15Y
COVaTS
FOR TINS PUD.
ILfy
P _P e o
a I
-I
p
♦ N
q
f
LEGEND
--
DECIDUOUS SNADE TREE f SOLAR OI[I[Ni= LOT
_-_
/ _
_
__
•-- _,
___
• MIMIQEN TREE A' NKINITEGTU.A1. P19Nf2
'
-
`'•`
_-
_- -
4 ---- ------ -- --- ^---- -�-- ---- ---- i
/
1 '
SOLAR Lm, WPICu
MOUNTAN ROM FARM PUD
VAOAMhLOMIS P P
S.Nf CEVAC
VICINITY MAP
LAND USE TABLE
61 a Area
RaskliNl.l
2SAS sane
I)D6.4N mq.Pt.
DalwMon
20e acras
112AIM m%m
Total Ares
Pesrldentlal Arse
3,102'cram
IJ61y11 ag1t
Grow R.alcks usl
28AS a.
13SE,451 aq.R.
Net p.eldetlul
CvfNke Units
2221 a.
169,6N egtt.
SIn81e P"IN
Dd altu
m uMu
brew
S, 1 duds.
Nat
Sour Lou
4L a✓sc
SINS Covered,
106 untie
fit
DulldYq•
•DL
201A00 mqn.
1r2-t16
61reM
Ied'Wov and Drives
02244, er+211I
240~ pp..n
,SA►0 eqh
2144R
SZE
Opwl OpleeA.Andacape
225,101 p.R
If.lq
Private Open Space
SIa.SDI GGVL
41i91t
P.mUw TO I Open Opau
1420M mq.M
96.Sm1t
*eras
owily"no Ho 'A
2f2
2 spacseMn
Rrldrtl'I
Ge5Ww
40 /Ml
aroM
r, 20. 22 M.
91W
f R
C. WOW,
s n.
Rear
20 /t
Stockbridge P.U.D.
PORT DOI.LNE, COLORADO
PRELIMINARY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
Fffli
es•yar
sTt�s
woraRs
AND LAlDSCAPS
PLAN
pin 5/ 8/ IN
JOa an.
ourw Its
cwla® ZhN
lave= a / u / 91
mr NfIM
isTaiH:1Oki 1!
Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94
May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
2. The strict application of any provision would result in
peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or
exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such
property, provided that the variance may be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good and
without substantially impairing the purpose of the
L.D.G.S.
Staff finds that the variance from meeting the requirements of
obtaining a score of 37% on the Residential Uses Density Point
Chart is justified by virtue of the Stockbridge P.U.D., Preliminary
being equal to or better than a residential project of lesser
density.
3. Design:
Architecture:
The developer is proposing twelve styles of homes in this
development, all being one- or two-story structures.
Landscaping:
Rear of lot landscaping, in conjunction with a 6' high fence, is
being provided on the lots along the entire west property line of
the Stockbridge P.U.D. as visual and noise buffer to the Imperial
Estates Subdivision.
solar Orientation:
This development is subject to the City's Solar Orientation
Ordinance that requires at least 65% of the lots in the Stockbridge
P.U.D. to conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented lot". A
total of 106 of the 117 lots, equalling 91%, comply with the
ordinance.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood information meeting was held on March 10, 1994 at
Webber Elementary School, with 23 affected property owners or
potentially affected interests in attendance. Concerns centered
around the overall density and lot sizes in this development, and
the increased traffic impacts in the area, especially on West
Horsetooth Road. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is attached
to this memo. Staff feels that this development proposal is
compatible with existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area.
5. Transportation:
City staff feels that dedicated right-of-way to allow for a future
vehicular connection across the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal from
Stockbridge P.U.D. into the property to the east is necessary to
Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94
May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Residential Uses Density Point Chart:
This is a request for 117 single family lots on 31.02 acres, for a
gross residential density of 3.77 dwelling units per acre, located
on the south side of West Horsetooth Road at Seneca Street. It was
evaluated against the Residential Uses Density Point Chart and
meets the applicable All Development criteria of the L.D.G.S. The
proposal earns 33% credit on the point chart, with credit being
awarded for: a) 50% of the dwelling units being within 650' of an
existing transit stop; b) all dwelling units being within 3,500'
of a reserved neighborhood park (Westfield); and c) a portion of
the development being devoted to recreational use.
Credit cannot be earned for contiguity to existing urban
development. The definition of existing urban development is:
"Any subdivision approved in the city which has been recorded,
once all engineering improvements (water, sewer, curbs,
gutters, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage
facilities) are installed and completed."
Although 23% of Stockbridge P.U.D. outer boundary is contiguous to
Imperial Estates, an existing residential subdivision in Larimer
County, credit cannot be earned due to the fact that Imperial
Estates is not "approved by the City".
Also, while credit cannot be earned for being within 1,000' of a
school meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education
laws of the State of Colorado, all of the lots in Stockbridge
P.U.D. are within 3,500' of two schools, Johnson Elementary and
Webber Junior High. Further, this distance is considered to be
within the School District's designated walk-in area, there is
direct access to the schools on sidewalks along a collector street,
and there is no crossing of an arterial street.
The score of 33% does not reflect a sufficient amount of earned
credit to match the requested density of 3.77 dwelling units per
acre. The proposed density, therefore, is not supported by the
performance on the Residential Uses Density Point Chart. Staff
feels that this proposal represents an appropriate infill project
with a density that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods, uses, and facilities in the area. Staff, therefore,
recommends a variance be granted from the requirement that the
project earn the minimum percentage points as calculated on the
point chart. According to the L.D.G.S., the Planning and Zoning
board is empowered to grant variances to the strict provisions of
any of the 10 point charts upon finding that either:
1. 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; or
Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94
May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1. Background•
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RP; existing single family residential (Kingston Woods P.U.D.)
S: rlp; planned residential (Mountainridge P.U.D.)
E: rlp; existing large acreage single family residence
W: R; existing single family residential in Larimer County
(Imperial Estates)
The property was annexed into the City with the Hors etooth-Harmony
West Annexation in June, 1980.
The property was subdivided as the Stockbridge Village P.U.D. in
May, 1981 for 63 lots on 30.47 acres.
A portion of this property was approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board in January, 1990, for an 8.0 acre church site.
2. Land Use•
Amendment to the O.D.P.:
A portion of this proposal, at the northwest corner of the site, is
located on a parcel of land 8.0 acres in size that is designated as
a church site on the approved Seneca O.D.P. The request for single
family residential lots is not in compliance with the designation
on the O.D.P.
The Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.) allows for changes
to an O.D.P. Major changes to an O.D.P. must be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board. Changes are based on conformance with
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
As part of the consideration of the Stockbridge P.U.D.,
Preliminary, the change to the O.D.P. to allow single family
residential lots on a parcel designated for a church must be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Both churches and single
family residential are permitted uses in the RLP Zoning District.
Staff finds that with the proposed change, the 30.47 acre Seneca
O.D.P. remains in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the change to allow single
family residential lots on the 8.0 acre parcel designated as a
church site.
Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94
May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
family residential lots on the parcel designated as a church site.
The development is in compliance with the City's Solar Orientation
Ordinance. City staff feels that dedicated right-of-way to allow
for a future vehicular connection across the Pleasant Valley & Lake
Canal from Stockbridge P.U.D. into the property to the east is
necessary to provide access from Skyline Acres and potential future
development to Westfield Park and the two schools south of
Stockbridge. The developer for Stockbridge P.U.D. is willing only
to provide bicycle/pedestrian access across the canal. Staff is
recommending a condition of preliminary approval stating that at
the time of Final P.U.D., the developer of Stockbridge P.U.D. shall
dedicate right-of-way to the east property line to provide for
future vehicular access from Stockbridge P.U.D., across the
Pleasant valley & Lake Canal, into the vacant property to the east.
ITEM NO. 25
MEETING DATE 5/23/94
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Stockbridge P.U.D., Preliminary - #27-94
Amendment to the Seneca Overall Development Plan
APPLICANT: BHA Design Inc.
2000 Vermont Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Progressive Living Structures Inc.
4190 North Garfield Street
Loveland, CO. 80538
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for 117 single family residential lots on 31.02
acres. This request also includes a change to the Seneca Overall
Development Plan (O.D.P.) to allow single family residential on 8.0
acres that was approved for a church site. The project is located
on the south side of West Horsetooth Road at Seneca Street and is
zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Major Change to the O.D.P.
Approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. with a
condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a request for 117 single family lots on 31.02 acres, for a
gross residential density of 3.77 dwelling units per acre, located
on the south side of West Horsetooth Road at Seneca Street. It was
evaluated against the Residential Uses Density Point Chart and
meets the applicable All Development criteria of the L.D.G.S. The
proposal earns 33% credit on the point chart. The score of 33% does
not reflect a sufficient amount of earned credit to match the
requested density of 3.77 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
density, therefore, is not supported by the performance on the
Residential Uses Density Point Chart. Staff feels that this
proposal represents an appropriate infill project with a density
that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, uses, and
facilities in the area and, therefore, recommends a variance be
granted from the requirement that the project earn the minimum
percentage points as calculated on the point chart. A portion of
this proposal, at the northwest corner of the site, is located on
a parcel of land 8.0 acres in size that is designated as a church
site on the approved Seneca O.D.P. The request for single family
residential lots is not in compliance with the designation on the
O.D.P. Staff recommends approval of the change to allow single
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT