Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL ..... 7/24/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 19-94C - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSLANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN Q . -- Jj - t T I �, II Q�ILy I� I !/ ,Yonr, 2,2�m�ae FINAL SITE AND POJ[CI MU. LANDSCAPE PLAN sc"r SOUTH AREA PKPu Tch - - - - _ Lot 5 � Lot 49. Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 5= _ot D3 Lot 54 Lot 555 Lot 56t� p c.:5 -o t 24 98 99 IDo I© iL� lc1 �Lot ..6 fd �. .ct 31 32' _o: 33'.at 3 I L L L J YCLO/PS'7QIE GRCL't- L -15 I i ti ___ ___ jl��y t l Lot ib �rn i5 _ »d Lct 43 Lot 0. Lot +I Lot 40 '-ot 39 of 38 Lo: 37 cc T \ II V �i: r «ot 6 D• 1isr y.15. �N-�«e.evn •�N��M-� I -e+w,r wxr,w.mf I o �M, aaa•w rme I I P�STCTI-KELu.EY 9UppIv191GN I HEUIETi nMXal.p �u eme• r4ee � 't a.•eK m-.1 ff wee L9.ND.SC9-PE_PHA_ShO PLANLot &a • 1 MI'l Tr�c B �dM7.:.7Rlt5�. O „reap aes,yx' JS u lvicgzz(ae 1S OUZO — i.awcc, xa . x FINAL SITE AND " LANDSCAPE PLAN m 150 NORTH AREA .i .r oacr,.annox.=x�-es oxs — Lot Lot = Lo• Lot 4 Lct 5 Lat b _ot ' -- • IHED NO 2 3 -- -_--, of 9 Lot 9 Lot 90 T Lot B Lot 14 , Lot 89 / \ Lot 13 Lot 8H Lot 96 _ of 93 Lot 15 - i-- — _ _ Lot 9 Lot 12 i I l Lot 82 o 8 II �. Lot 95 -ot 94 r. 0 t 83 L `\\Lot 16 /Lot H' �� I Lot !0 ----------------- Lot 11 a AA� �a Lot 11 Lot 18 --��li z III Lot 86'� II I i Los HS Lot 19 Lot EO � � � i Lot 84------------- Lot 10 - _C 9 111�/Lot 68 Lot 61 4 of 62 Lot 61 -ot mot 6 Lot 66 Lot 65�Lat 6 Lot 63� L Lot 48 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 52 Lot 53 Lot 54 Lot 55 I Lot 56 Lot 51 Lot 58 FOR CONT/NULITION SEE SHEET 3 0! 3 C° C1 • I TOLUNT40ME LANDSCAPE f=L,4N z COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPE FLAN PR0PEBlYJXSCRlPlQX-- LAND USE BREAKDOWN PROPERTY w—I PLANT LIST TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION ml 111, m Uffig T.1 im mill T0U.INL40Tt`H FLE /4TION& 7M LUj2q'lqao RUZO COVER SHEET & PROOto 1..ego -30 LANDSCAPE DETAILS W"r Or v9EvuuT �2. 95 41 s.sl NI o 60 I,,o PLANIIN)TES- t I=:= SiGNATURE BLOCK DENSITY CHART (continued) Criterion Earthed Credit 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; 6mo For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure, (n 39a For providing 25 - 49`yo of the parking in a structure. Z U If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. mV If the applicant commits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the desination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows: 5% For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane; 590 For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this Density Chart; 5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses the project. TOTAL 75 *K: Energy Criteria:, An'Energy Score' of G-70 qualifies a home buyer for'I energy efficient mortgage lending incentives. The proposed minimum of G-80 exceeds this City requirements by over 14%. **P. Neighborhood Facilities: Clubhouse .................$ 40,000 (min. 480 sq.ft. @ $85/sq.ft.) Pool ......................$ 85,000'(25 meter) Playground ................$ 20,000 Decorative walls/Fences ... $ 25,000 (1100_1f. @ $24/foot average) Landscape (125,000 sq.ft.)$105,000 ($220/tree; $60/sq.ft. turf .& irrigation) $275,000 = $2,500/d.u. / 100 = 25 points Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised August 1994 - 79a - 0 U wnnnT.AMn C'Ttdb-)N - DVPT.TMTTIADV PT1T) T217\1i�V 11 1QQG i� DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit Credit 2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center; or —TeeTtR------------------------------------- 2090 — — ^_000 feet o[ an approved but not conscucted neighborhood shopping center 1090 —INO ----- 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 1090 a 3500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community park; or ----------------------------------------------- 20% ---- I 3500 fee[ of a publicly owned Dut not developed, neighborhood or community pazk. 1090 ----- LLI @ 2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education 1090 V) laws Qf 3000 feet of a major employment center 2090 20 g 1000 feet of a child care center 5eo 5 h "North" Fort Collins 2090 j The Central Business District 20g0 r j A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows: 3No 0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 10% contiguity; f 10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguity; 15 - 2090 For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30% contiguity; 20 - 25% For projects whose property boundaryhas 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 �% reduction in energy use. City* ode• a 590 bonus may be eamed for everyof 10 Calculate a 190 bonus for every 50 acres included in the project m Calculate the percentage of the Lora! acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Enter 112 of that percentage as a bonus. j 5 I n If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the Ciry's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus. 0 If pan of the Loral development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit faeJiries which are not otherwise required by City Code, enter a No bonus for every S100 per dwelling unit invested. p If pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which art not otherwise required by City Code, enter a 1% bonus for every S100 per dwelling unit invested. ( S ee page 2 ) * * 25 q If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families, enter that percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 3090. Zf If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" "B" OType and Type handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: "A" "A" .5 x Tvn . Units Cd Total Units In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% Type "B" 1.0 x Type "B" Units Total Units S 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 rue, 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; 390 For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation, and improvement in an appropriate manner. Continued Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised August 1994 -79- . WOODLARD PARK FINAL PUD Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criterion be satisfied? If no, please explain Pre- h i r,a,Y ay F,�e, Not Ap- pit- C „l e Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation X X 1.2 Comprehensive Plan X X 1.3 Wildlife Habitat X 1.4 Mineral Deposit X 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance reserved 1.7 Energy Conservation X X 1.8 Air Quality X 1.9 Water Quality X X 1.10 Sewage and Wastes X X A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation X X 2.2 Building Placement and Orientation X X 2.3 Natural Features X X 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking X X 2.5 Emergency Access X X 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation X X 2.7 Architecture X X 2.8 Building Height and Views X 2.9 Shading X X 2.10 Solar Access X X 2.11 Historic Resources X 2.12 Setbacks X X 2.13 Landscape X X 2.14 Signs X 2.15 Site Lighting X X 2.16 Noise and Vibration X 2.17 Glare or Heat X 2.18 Hazardous Materials X A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity X X 3.2 Design Standards X X 3.3 Water Hazards X 3.4 Geologic Hazards X 54 • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: WOODLANDPARKPUD DESCRIPTION: 97 single family homes, 10 townhomes, on 35.05 acres DENSITY: 3.05 du/acre General Population 97 (units) x 3.5 10 x 3.2 School Age Population Elementary - 97 10 Junior High - 97 10 (units) x (units) x (persons/unit) = 339.5 32 .450 (pupils/unit) = 43.65 .120 1.2 .210 (pupils/unit) = 20.37 .055 .55 Senior High - 97 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 17.95 10 .050 .5 VICINITY MAP 07/18/95 19-94C WOODLAND PARK PUD Final 1 Biel • Woodland Park Final P.U.D., #19-94C July 24, 1995 P & Z Hearing Page 5 which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first rind that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (if the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made). If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article H, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Woodland Park Final P.U.D., #19-94C July 24, 1995 P & Z Hearing Page 4 5. Transportation: A traffic impact analysis was prepared in July of 1994. The newly installed traffic signal at Harmony/C.R.#9 is expected to operate at acceptable levels in both the short and long range future. In the long range future, it is anticipated that a signal will be warranted at the intersection of C.R.#9 and a future collector street at the half -section line. This is estimated based on potential development of Spring Creek Farms (NCR) and English Ranch, both located on the west side of C.R49. C.R.#9 will be improved to one-half of an arterial cross-section with this development. The improvement will occur on the east side of C.R.#9. Auxiliary right and left turn lanes are not required based on anticipated traffic from Woodland Station but it is recommended that the roadway be striped for three lanes. The third lane would be the continuous center two-way turn lane. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. With proximity to present and potential major employers, the P.U.D. meets transportation policies. 11. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In reviewing the request for Woodland Park Final P.U.D., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary, approved on February 6, 1995. B. The project earns 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. C. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. D. The P.U.D. meets the absolute criterion that, on a gross acreage basis, the average residential density is at least 3.00 dwelling units per acre. E. The P.U.D., while "not the same as", is compatible with the surrounding area. F. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and, with proximity to present and potential major employers, complies with transportation policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Woodland Park P.U.D., #18-94C, subject to the following condition: The Panning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D., plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (September 25, 1995) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at Woodland Park Final P.U.D., #19-94C July 24, 1995 P & Z Hearing Page 3 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: Throughout the history of this project, over four neighborhood meetings have been held. The fundamental compatibility issue is trying to reconcile the absolute requirement that the P.U.D. achieve a minimum density of 3.00 d.u./acre with the adjacent large -lot residential properties that are presently in the County. The solution that met with Preliminary approval is to provide large lots on the southeast portion of the site ranging in size from 16,409 to 25,205 square feet. Density is increased along County Road 9 with ten townhome units. In addition, 20 patio home lots (less than 6,000 square feet) are provided along the shared property line with Hewlett-Packard. The Preliminary P.U.D. achieved an overall gross density of 3.14 d.u./acre. Since Preliminary, three single family lots have been deleted. The resulting density is 3.05 d.u./acre. Neighborhood opposition remains. Those who spoke against the project make the argument that more buffering and transition is needed between urban and rural housing styles. These affected property owners further argue that the density should be reduced along the easterly edge to one-half to one acre lot sizes. Finally, there is a concern that the area to the east, below the Poudre River bluff, is naturalistic (dense vegetation, ponds, irrigation ditch) and provides habitat for wildlife and that urban -style development will negatively impact this sensitive area. In response, the P.U.D. provides a transition in lot size along the Thomas property. Although lot sizes cannot begin to replicate those found nearby in County M.R.D.'s (2.29 acre minimum) there are relatively large urban -style lots which reduces the number of lots adjoining Thomas property to six. Density is shifted to the southwest along County Road 99 and the H-P property. The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the P.U.D. and has found no impact on sensitive areas. By providing a mix of housing types and densities, the P.U.D. balances the competing objectives of exceeding 3.00 d.u./acre and transitioning between urban and rural residential housing styles. 4. Desijzn: The primary design feature of the P.U.D. is the preservation of the mature trees and large shrubs that surround the Strachan property. This vegetation will be placed within common tracts and not be contained within individual platted lots. Some thinning is recommended by the City Forester. The trees that must be removed from Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be transplanted to the north property line to contribute to buffering. The existing mature shrubs on the south property line will buffer the existing and future Hewlett-Packard facilities. The final landscape plan has been reviewed by the City Forester and found acceptable. • Woodland Park Final P.U.D., 419-94C July 24, 1995 P & Z Hearing Page 2 COMMENTS: Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N: FA-1 (County), Vacant (Nussbaumer M.R.D.) S: I-L; Hewlett-Packard E: FA-1 (County), Existing residential W: FA-1 (County); Existing residential W: E-P, Vacant (Spring Creek Farms) The P.U.D. represents a consolidation of the Strachan (17.9 acres) and Shields (18.4 acres) properties. These parcels were annexed into the City in June (Strachan) and July (Shields) of 1994. 2. Land Use: The Final represents a reduction of three single family lots from 80 to 77. This reduction allows for larger lots to be placed adjacent to the Thomas property in order to promote neighborhood compatibility. The resulting gross density is 3.05 d.u./acre which continues to exceed the required minimum of 3.00 d.u./acre. It will be recalled from the Preliminary that the P.U.D. achieves a score of 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. As a reminder, points were awarded for: d Being within 3,500 feet from a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood park (English Ranch). f Being within 3,000 feet of a major employment center (Hewlett-Packard). k. Commitment to construct homes with energy conservation features beyond those normally -required by City Code. m. Dedicating six acres within the P.U.D. to recreational use. (Preserving existing trees in tracts.) P. Devoting part of the total development budget on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by Code (clubhouse, day care, pool, playground). By achieving a score of 75 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart, the residential development of the property at a density of three dwelling units per acre is supported by the L.D.G.S. ITEM NO. 16 MEETING DATE 712419S STAFF Tell Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Woodland Park Final P.U.D., 419-94C APPLICANT: Chateau Custom Builders, Inc. c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNERS: R. & W. Shields 3910 S. C.R. 49 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: M.D. & D.E. Strachan 4108 S. C.R. #9 Fort Collins, CO 80525 This is a request for Final P.U.D. for 77 single family lots, 20 patio home lots, and 10 townhome lots (107 total lots) on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road #9, north of Hewlett- Packard, approximately one-half mile south of Horsetooth Road. The property is zoned R-L-P, with a P.U.D. condition. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At Preliminary, this P.U.D. was known as "Woodland Station". The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary which was approved on February 6, 1995. The request achieves a score of 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G. S. The P.U.D. preserves significant vegetation on the site. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Neighborhood compatibility is achieved with the reduction of three single family lots and an increase in the lot sizes along the southeast portion of the site. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMEN'i'