HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... 2/06/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 18-94B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS59. We feel a project like this would be a good representation of our city.
60. At the next meeting we would like to see the whole area mapped out, from NCR property
line to HP property line. We need to see a bigger picture.
61. We would like to see the wetlands preserved as wildlife habitat.
62. Would the City planners and the Council's Growth Management Committee come out to
our property for a tour?
A. This is possible.
63. Will this (density issue) be something that we can change?
A. The developer will not proceed with the process with anything less than three units per
acre. The Planning and Zoning Board might have to grant a variance. Plans for building
this site as a residential area have to be submitted by July 18, after that it would be easier
to develop this site as commercial due to City Council's new phasing criteria for
residential development.
64. What about reducing sidewalks to decrease density?
A. Can look at 28 foot streets vs 36 foot streets. There may be parking restrictions and
issues with the Poudre Fire Authority. These considerations require variances from the
Ctiy's Engineering Department.
46. We foresee a problem with traffic from the subdivision when turning left.
47. No one stops at the stop sign at County Road 9 and Horsetooth.
48. The problem is that the property was annexed into the City.
49. We want slow and reasonable growth.
A. The developer will consider three dwelling units per acre. Developer would be opposed
to two acre lots merging to a higher density. We could take the perimeter lots and make
them bigger. This development, as a whole, cannot be all large lot at rural -style densities.
50. You won't get support from the citizens if you do three units per acre. We are prepared to
appeal to City Council for a density ruling.
51. Due to the acreage this is no longer zoned agricultural.
52. This is a special area, only 13 families live here and we don't want 130 homes put in the
middle of it.
53. If you allow one acre lots it would be very costly to water a yard that size.
54. Will the water table go down? Where will the run off water go?
55. Where will storm drainage go? Will it affect the ground water?
A. Surface runoff flows into a ditch on the lower part of Bob's property. Storm water doesn't
affect ground water.
56. What about contamination of the water?
A. There should be no contamination of groundwater.
57. This is an environmental area.
A. The plans will have to be reviewed by The City's Department of Natural Resources..
58. We would like to work with the City and the developer to build a special case for this
area. The following is what we want:
a. two acre lots what will feather into 1/2 acre lots near County Road 9.
b. would like County Road 9 to be the natural borderline from urban to rural.
5
31. The developer can make money selling homes with larger lots so why doesn't he do it that
way?
A. City projects cannot go under three dwelling units per acre.
32. This is bad planning. Citizens should not let Council allow this. There is no transition.
33. Lot sizes should be at least one acre.
34. You should put bigger lots along the back and increase the density along County Road 9.
35. We don't want to be pushed out - we can't go any farther.
36. We could agree with having the following: low density, medium density then high
density toward County Road 9.
37. Where is the floodplain on this proposed site?
A. It is not in the flood plane..
38. Will there be height limitations for the homes?
A. 30 to 40 feet will be the limitation.
39. What will happen with the Nite Court connection in regards to Poudre Fire Authority?
A. We will need to do what Poudre Fire Authority requires for this location.
40. We would like you to leave the fire lanes as an easement and not connect it.
A. It could be a foot path or bike path.
41. If the connection is made to Nite Court people will be turning around in the cul-de-sac.
42. If this development is done as low density, it would decrease traffic problems.
43. We would like to see larger lots back to the East and feather the density out toward
County Road #9.
44. There are no parks, or greenbelts in your plan.
45. Developer should work with citizens to change the density in certain areas. Developer
needs to be a partner in determining compatibility.
4
17. Will the City be taking out existing landscape or our front yards to build roads?
A. No.
18. Does the City of Fort Collins abide by agreements?
A. Yes.
19. We would like to see two acre lots or bigger at this proposed development.
20. The property to the North will be developed eventually.
21. We feel that this development will influence what is to happen to the North.
22. We would like Nite Court to remain as it is rather than a connection be made.
23. People want variety in where they live. The City of Fort Collins has that variety, that is
why it is growing so much. Everyone should not be forced to live on three units per acre.
Large lots add to the variety.
24. We would like to address these issues , of minimum densities, at City Council.
25. Everitt Company does good work, and they build good houses. This development would
increase property values.
26. What is happening with the proposed density change from three to five dwelling units per
acre?
A. Plan was not adopted. The current requirement remains three Dweling Units Per Acre.
27. The City can't see this problem the way we (the citizens) see it. We must have a more
sensitive transition between urban and rural lots.
28. We have concerns about the noise, traffic, lights, and crime that this development will
bring.
29. What about preserving land in Fort Collins?
30. County Road 9 is viewed as the buffer between the rural area and the high density area.
We have not objected to English Ranch and N.C.R. because we believe County Road #9
acts as a good buffer. We are very concerned, however, with densities East of County
Road #9.
9
6. You said mixed residential, but the lot sizes you proposed are quite different from the
existing lot sizes. We are concerned about urban -style lots being incompatible with our
rural -style lots. Don't forget, we were here first.
7. We have some environmental concerns.
8. What about the drainage that you propose to go into the hillside. Will this contaminate
our water and wells?
A. The stormwater runoff must be handled by a system that meets the design criteria of the
City's Stormwater Utility.
9. Will there be a lane change made, or do our streets have to be made into public streets?
A. The project will rely on its own street system and not rely on existing streets that serve
your homes.
10. We would like to see a buffer between existing homes and County Road 9.
11. Maybe we should try to get the City density policy changed. As county residents, we feel
that three units per acre is incompatible with our existing rural character.
12. Is this a done deal, or do we have a chance to try and change this project?
A. Nothing is a done deal until approval is granted by the City's Planning and Zoning Board,
or City Council.
13. We would like to see the density reduced.
14. Where are the Larimer County representatives tonight, are there any here? Why don't we
have any representation as county residents?
A. This property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins, therefore, it is under the
jurisdiction of the City.
15. We are concerned about the transition between City and County.
16. We have some traffic concerns
a. Will there be traffic signals?
b. What will happen with our firelane, will it become a street?
A. There are no signals planned at this time. As far as the fire lane becoming a street, we
welcome your input.
2
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
DATE: June 30, 1994
PROJECT: Shields and Strackan Farms
PRESENTER: Eldon Ward
APPLICANT: City Scape Design, Brad Bennett
PLANNER: Ted Shepard
The meeting began with an overview of the planning process. The farms of Mr. Shields and Mr.
Strackan have been sold to Mr. Brad Bennett who intends to develop the property. The
Strackan Farm has been annexed into the City of Fort Collins. The Shields Farm is to also be
annexed into the City of Fort Collins. The existing property surrounding this development
consists of 13 homes on 54 acres. The residents' main concern is the density of the proposed
development. Mr. Bennett has proposed to build an average of 130 homes at approximately 3.5
dwelling units per acre with 7,000 to 8,000 square foot lot sizes.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
There are no greenbelts shown on the plan.
A. The lot sizes decrease with greenbelts so there are bigger lots and fewer greenbelts.
2. We don't see any places for the children to play. Will they be trespassing onto our
property to play?
A. The children can play in their backyards.
3. We are concerned about the liability if someone trespasses onto our property and gets
injured.
4. There are trees and a canal that these children would enjoy playing in, however, this is
private property and we don't want any trespassing.
5. This is an established rural area and you plan to put high density housing in the middle of
this rural area?
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 7
City to explore a cost reduction. The commitment to purchase
approximately 13 acres of open space and dedicate to the City is to
achieve 60 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S. If this requirement could be waived, then this would help
the economics of doing 2.00 d.u./acre.
26. It appears as if progress has been made. Poudre Ridge
homeowners will meet to see if we can reach a consensus regarding
accepting 70 half -acre lots at 2.00 d.u./acre. We appreciate your
conducting a new pro -forma analysis and paying Cityscape to design
a land plan for Option D. We will touch base on Monday morning by
telephone and coordinate with the Planning Department accordingly.
We all recognize that the City is player and stakeholder in that a
variance to City policy is required. This is a risk that is
acknowledged but the compromise is worth pursuing through the
City's review process.
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 6
21. Would 70 lots be economically viable?
RESPONSE: I am not sure at this time. I would have to run the
variables through my pro -forma. Also, I would have to ask
Cityscape to come up with a land plan. Since these tasks take
time, I cannot answer yes or no.
22. We ask that you perform the pro -forma analysis and come up
with a land plan. This seems to be a middle ground and there.seems
to be potential for a compromise.
RESPONSE: I will perform the analysis and pay Cityscape for an
option D that indicates 70 lots. I feel I must ask for a
commitment from Poudre Ridge that the compromise would be
acceptable and that you would not appeal a P.U.D. that features
2.00 d.u./acre to the City Council (assuming, of course, that it is
approved by P & Z). I would anticipate that a petition of support
would be needed to be presented to the P & Z Board.
t
23. Since not all families are here tonight, we must go back and
meet as group. We feel positive about the direction of the
compromise. After we meet, we will contact you by telephone.
RESPONSE: I will also meet with my attorney to gauge the
feasibility of a P.U.D. given the land use policies of the City.
We need a reality check. However, I feel we are moving in the
right direction'. Thequestions remain as to whether we are "way
out there" and whether. City policies can be flexible.
24. What is the downside of 2.00 d.u./acre?
RESPONSE: Economically, 2.80 works better than 2.00. Therefore,
I cannot totally commit to the compromise but I will commit to
running the numbers. I anticipate that selling 70 one-half acre
lots will result in less gross revenue than selling 98 lots. Half -
acre lots may have to sell for $70,000 resulting in a house that
would have to sell in the range of $350,000 to $400,000. The
absorption rate for homes in this price range is slower than in
lower price ranges. A slower absorption rate results in longer
carrying cost at a given interest rate. This is known as "interest
carry" and affects profit..
25. What about negotiating with the City to reduce land
development costs?
RESPONSE: This is unlikely given the "growth pays its own way"
philosophy. Repays that are due on existing utilities.are not
negotiable. There is one area, however, that I may approach the
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 5
16. We are worried about trespassing. Our ponds will become an
attractive play area. We have ditches, horses, and large
properties.
RESPONSE: I agree. A playground will help minimize this.
17. The City's plans assume that employees from H-P will live here
and that this will reduce traffic and congestion. On the other
hand, Linton is full so kids will be bussed to other schools
further away with available capacity. The transporting of kids to
school and recreational activities will more than offset any gains
of H-P employees living near their place of work.
18. I am concerned about the choice of living styles being stifled
in Fort Collins. With. the minimum density requirements, we can
never have neighborhoods like Indian Hills, Parkwood, or Prospect
Estates. These neighborhoods are considered very desirable.
RESPONSE: The City's land use planning must account for the fiscal
provision of City services. There is a significant benefit for all
tax payers if City services can be delivered efficiently. It has
been proven over time that a minimum level of urban density is
required to achieve an efficient delivery of City services., The
County cannot provide urban services. Historically, the demand for
increased services rises over the long term. Also, a minimum level
of density is needed if we ever hope to have a viable public
transit system that will attract ridership. Public transit will be
required over the long term to promote air quality and reduce
traffic congestion.
19. An imaginative plan would put density on the arterial, and
estate lots toward the east.
RESPONSE: Again, as a developer, my experience is that the upper -
end home buyers would be concerned about their property values by
being so closely located with homes/townhomes priced around
$125,000. The mix may not work on a parcel of only 35 acres. It
would be better to have a blanket layout of 2.00 d.u./acre rather
than mix housing types and lot sizes on 35 acres.
20. We would support a P.U.D. that had 70 lots at 2.00 d.u./acre.
RESPONSE: This is a significant breakthrough. Up until now, the
demand has been for one acre lots or larger.
r
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 4
10. The County approved our lots at 2.29 acres. The City requires
three d.u./acre. Where is the allowance for transition? The land
use regulatory system between the County.and City has failed us.
This is very frustrating for County residents.
11. I read in the paper recently where City Council member Gina
Janett indicated that certain properties in the City could be de -
annexed. Why can't these properties be de -annexed and the land
developed in the County on acreage -sized lots that are compatible
to our area?
RESPONSE: The County has different development standards now than
in years past. You will recall that the 2.29 acre lot size was
based on the health requirement for on -site septic systems. Lots
on these 35 acres, however,. would likely be required by the County
to hook up to water and sewer. County street standards in the
U.G.A. are similar to the City's. Right-of-way would still have to
be dedicated for C.R.#9 for an urban arterial street. Finally, the
acquisition costs are not affected by City or County jurisdiction.
These factors indicate that de -annexation into the County would not
result in the kind of development that you are envisioning.
12. Will you ask for a variance for acreage -sized lots?
RESPONSE: We are already asking for a variance to go from 3.00 to
2.80 d.u./acre. This will allow for estate lots to be located on
the eastern fringe of the P.U.D.
13. Would you consider 2.00 d.u./acre?
RESPONSE: This would have to be looked at very closely to see if it
made economic sense. Also, 2.00 d.u./acre is politically tenuous
in the current climate of Fort Collins.
14. The P & Z Board felt they were stuck on this issue. You are
encouraged to be creative and flexible.
15. We are still concerned that there is no play area for
children. Kids need a place to go.
RESPONSE: I am willing to provide a playground area that would be
turned over, to the homeowner's association so it does not become a
burden on City services. This playground could be fenced for
safety.
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 3
7. All three options look so generic. There seems to be a lack
of inventiveness and creativity. Why does it look so typical? You
should put your density along C.R.#9 and transition back to the
east with acreage -sized lots.
RESPONSE:
A. The layout of streets and lots is constrained by the
access points on C.R.#9. These streets can only be located in
certain locations given the requirements of the City's
Engineering and Transportation Departments. Another
constraint is the desire to preserve as much existing
vegetation as possible. Finally, there is a requirement to
dedicate additional right-of-way along C.R.#9 for street
widening.
B. Please keep in mind that the site is only 35 acres. The
kind of housing mix that you suggest usually requires much
larger parcels. Miramont is an example. With 35 acres, there
is only so much flexibility available. There is also the
concern that the acreage -sized lots may have to sell for
around $70,000 and feature homes ranging from $350,000 to
$400,000. These homes would be very close to homes/townhomes
at much lower prices. This kind of mixing might be perceived
by the upper end market as undesirable.
C. In previous, discussions, the neighborhood expressed an
unwillingness.: to.- have multi -family (townhomes) within the
project.
8. The P & Z Board expressed the need for a "Plan" for this area
or for "Policies" that addressed the urban -rural conflict. Based
on this, you should ask the Board for a variance to allow acreage
lots.
RESPONSE: Again, we are constrained by fixed acquisition and
development costs. We are also constrained by the political
climate in Fort Collins with a City Council that is very concerned
about density. The arguments for density are that the site is
located along an arterial street and next to a major employer. Our
three options, at 2.80 d.u./acre, could be perceived as a
transition area between urban development and your estate lots.
9. The L.D.G.S. says that development proposals must be sensitive
to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods. The three
options do not provide enough transition. The plan is not
aesthetic or unique. The plan does not respect our ecology.
2nd Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Woodland Station PUD
Page 2
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS:
1. Looking at Options A,-B, and C, it must be asked, is this the
best you could do?
RESPONSE: The options represent a balance between conflicting
objectives. On the one hand, there is an absolute criterion in the
L.D.G.S. that says residential P.U.D.'s must be at 3.00 d.u./acre.
These options, with 98 lots, achieve a density of 2.80 and thus
require a variance from the P & Z Board. On the other hand, the
Options include "estate lots" (from the urban perspective) on the
eastern fringe. Economically, there are fixed land costs and
development costs that must be factored in or the project is not
viable.
2. As you are aware, our position is that we prefer acreage lots
to protect our existing rural character. This is why we moved here
and invested in our homes and properties.,
RESPONSE: Acreage lots would be economically viable if the land
acquisition costs were lower. However, given the market price of
the land, a certain amount of density is required, otherwise the
project is a losing proposition.
3. There is a project further south, in the County and outside
the U.G.A., that is selling acreage lots ranging from $98,000 to
$147,000. This appears to be very economically viable.
RESPONSE: I can only comment on my land costs and land development
costs. My guess is that the project you reference had lower land
cost and does not have to construct urban -style improvements.
4. Your economic costs do not matter to us. We live here. Your
project is not compatible.
RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that homes on the estate lots could
easily range from $200,000 to $300,000.
5. These economic factors do not account for the natural beauty
of our area. There is an ecology in our area, with our ponds,
etc., that promotes wildlife and rural atmosphere.
6. The development of these 35 acres affect all of Poudre Ridge,
not just the immediate abutting owners.
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D.
DATE: November 10, 1994
APPLICANT: Brad Bennett, Chateau Custom Homes
CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins
The meeting began with a review of the existing plan, a review of
three optional plans, and a discussion regarding the direction from
the Planning and Zoning Board. The lots colored in a dark beige
represent the only lots that are under 10,000 square feet in size.
Under all three options, the lots next to the Thomas property are
15,000 - 18,000 square feet in size.
SUMMARY
The meeting resulted in a commitment from the Poudre Ridge
homeowners and Brad Bennett to investigate the feasibility of a
P.U.D. that featured 70 half -acre lots at 2.00 d.u./acre. Mr.
Bennett needs to run a pro -forma analysis and obtain advice from
his attorney on the political reality of dropping below 3.00
d.u./acre. The Poudre Ridge group will meet separately to try to
arrive at a consensus that 2.00 is acceptable, and, if so, offer a
petition of support to the P & Z Board. If Mr. Bennett's analysis
indicates that 2.00 d.u./acre is not viable, or if the Poudre Ridge
group feels they cannot support 2.00, then Option C will be
presented to the P & Z Board.
11. What about the rest of County Road #9? When will the arterial
improvements be completed between Horsetooth and Harmony?
RESPONSE: Generally, the balance of the unimproved roadway will be
constructed as development occurs. The City could, however,
improve those sections of the roadway that are adjacent to
undeveloped parcels as part of a capital improvement project. Such
a project must be weighed against other projects throughout the
City that are competing for limited capital improvement funds.
This decision has not been made yet.
12. Will any trees be removed along the C.R. #9 frontage?
RESPONSE: Yes, we expect to remove the first row of junipers in
order to make room for underground utilities. The loss of the
first row will still leave a hedge of trees since the stand is very
wide at this point.
13. Will there be other improvements along C.R. #9?
RESPONSE: Yes, we plan -on providing an attractive streetscape that
may include fencing and entry signage. We view the trees as an
important amenity. We plan on saving as many as possible to create
a dramatic entry for our project.
14. Speaking as an individual, I prefer Option C-2. I do not
pretend to represent the neighborhood but feel that C-2 is a
compromise that I can live with.
15. It is doubtful that the neighborhood will reach a consensus.
Some neighbors may find the Options acceptable, some may not. If
a majority supports one of the Options, a member of the minority
may elect -to appeal a P & Z decision to City Council as would be
their right.
16. We will take these Options back to the larger group and
discuss in more detail. We cannot commit, as a neighborhood, one
way or the other, until we convene as a neighborhood group. We
will let the Planning Department know of our decision as soon as
possible.
RESPONSE: As stated.at the last neighborhood meeting (Nov. 10th),
I am willing to provide an active, improved playground area that
could be turned over to the homeowner's association. On Plan C-2,
this area could be just north of Lot 33. The trees in this area
could be thinned to accommodate playground equipment. My fear is
that I offer the playground to mitigate the concern and the P.U.D.
is still opposed by the neighborhood. I would like to work
cooperativelywith the neighborhood group to arrive at a consensus
that is acceptable to the City.
3. The City places too much emphasis on the 3.00 d.u./acre
policy. The policy does not work. Families, with the financial
means will move out of the urban area anyway to live on acreage -
sized lots in the County. These families are forced to move out
because there is no choice of lot sizes in the City.
4. We have heard all the arguments about the City planning for
fiscal efficiency and ability to deliver urban levels of services.
Frankly, these arguments place too much emphasis on money and
ignore qualitative attributes of lifestyles that existing residents
have chosen.
5. It is a shame that this prime agricultural land is to be lost
to urban development. This land will never be reclaimed for
agricultural purposes. This land is rated "prime" A-1 and A-2.
6. The City is discouraging the creation of neighborhoods with
individuality. All neighborhoods will look the same.
7. It was frustrating to not be able to talk about density during
the annexation hearings. The P & Z Board told us we could not
discuss density until the P.U.D. stage. Well, after annexation,
with the P.U.D. condition, the density is set at 3.00 d.u./acre.
This put us in a "Catch-221-1' which is frustrating for the affected
neighborhood.
8. We are not trying to fight development per se. Rather, we
want to influence the nature and quality of the development.
9. What is the absorption rate for Plan C-2?
RESPONSE: My estimation is about four years.
10. Will County Road #9 be widened with this development?
RESPONSE: Yes, the developer is obligated to construct the "local
street portion" of the arterial street cross-section on the east
half of C.R.#9. The developer is joined in this effort by the City
which constructs the "over -sized portion" to bring the half -width
up to the arterial standard. The City's obligation is financed out
of the Street Oversizing Fund. The developer acts as the
contractor and pays for the full cost of the project. After
inspection and acceptance by the City, the developer is reimbursed
out of the Street Oversizing Fund.
THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D.
DATE: November 30, 1994
APPLICANT: Brad Bennett, Chateau Custom Homes
CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins
The meeting began with a review of a plan that featured 70 lots
(2.00 d.u./acre). This plan will not be submitted to the P & Z
Board because it is not economically feasible and may not be
politically acceptable to the City. Instead, four new options were
presented that attempt to incorporate "clustering" while at the
same time coming as close to 3.00 d.u. as possible. These four
options are summarized as follows:
Option C-2:
98 lots,
2.80 d.u./acre,
(no patio or
townhomes)
Option C-3:
78 lots,
12 patio lots,
20 townhomes
= 3.13 d.u./a
Option C-4:
82 lots,
20 patio lots,
10 townhomes
= 3.19 d.u./a
Option D-2:
99 lots,
2.82 d.u./acre,
(no patio or
townhomes)
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. Before we discuss the merits of each option, I would like to
express our frustration with having to be boxed in by City policies
that seem arbitrary and do not reflect the unique conditions of our
area. Although H-P is to the south, there is significant open
space and natural features in our neighborhood. The Poudre River
floodplain, the ponds, and the open space areas combine to create
an ecological area that has value. Developing the Shields and
Strachan Farms at 3.00 dwelling units per acre seems like an
artificial requirement that is imposed upon us by a City Council
that we cannot even vote for.
2. We are worried about no active play area. This will steer
children to trespass and play on our acreage -sized properties. We
have ponds, horses, roosters, peacocks, which do not mix with
children. We are also concerned that, although we have been here
for over 30 years, these new urban residents will find our
lifestyle objectionable and we .will be considered the nuisance.
urban design, inc.
Policy 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;
Development of Woodland Station is expected to begin in the spring of 1995, and
continue through 1998.
urban design, inc.
WOODLAND STATION PUD
Statement of Planning Objectives
August 22, 1994
Woodland Station PUD is proposed as a neighborhood housing area that strives to
reconcile the City's minimum density requirements, with the concerns of the neighboring
residents. The site is planned so that:
- Traffic generated by this PUD is not directed onto streets serving the previously
existing homes;
- Existing trees are protected to the extent practical;
- The larger lots included in the Woodland Station plan are located along the north and
east boundaries, while smaller lots are located internal to the site; and
- The density is as low as City Policy allows.
The applicant's project goals are consistent with the adopted Goals and Objectives and
the Land Use Policies Plan of the City of Fort Collins. Applicable policies include:
Policy 3 The City shall promote:
a. Maximum utilization of land within the city;
d. The location of residential development which is close to
employment, recreation, and shopping facilities.
Policy 12 Urban density residential development - usually at three of more
units to the acre - should be encouraged in the urban growth
area.
Policy 74 Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban
design elements) should be provided between residential
neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the
concept of a mixture of land uses.
Policy 75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
and gazed at the flood plain of the wild and scenic Poudre
River?.... Have you walked along the Fossil Creek Inlet
ditch?.... Have you seen the magnificent old windbreak?....
Have you seen the eagles and blue herons that soar here?....
This area, east of County Road 9, is special, and is deserving
of special planning, just like our foothills.
This site cries out for something more. The proposed plan is
completely out of sync with the established rural nature of
the neighborhood. All residents of Fort Collins, who are
familiar with and comment on this unique area east of County
Road 9, say how much they enjoy the scenic, rural, open
character of the area; and how rare it is to see this type of
landscape in Fort Collins. It would be a shame to destroy
this type of landscape everywhere it exists within the Urban
Growth Area. We are confident that over 90% of the citizens
of Fort Collins would agree that diversity in lifestyle and
development is better; and specifically that this special area
should not be covered by a non-descript, 100 lot subdivision.
We believe that this site should not be compromised and
desecrated forever by an uncreative, incompatible development.
Let's put a development here that we can all be proud of for
years to come. The Poudre Ridge Neighborhood stands ready to
work with the developer to create a more compatible
development. Thank you.
cc: City Council
Eldon Ward, Cityscape
Ted Shepard, City Planner
i IE @ IS ow 19
October 27, 1994 NOW - 41994
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Poudre Ridge Neighborhood
RE: Proposed Woodland Station PUD
Thank you for listening to our neighborhood at the October
24th planning and zoning meeting.
The development proposal presented to you was totally
insensitive to its surroundings. our neighborhood, and the
City, deserve so much more than the plan proposed on this
unique site.
It was apparent the proposed plan also created a dilemma for
the P&Z Board. It seemed that in your hearts and minds you
knew this wasn't the right plan for this area. In good
consciousness, nearly everyone at the meeting knew the three
unit per acre dictate was not right for this infill site.
The developer, Brad Bennett, and his planner, Eldon Ward, are
two of the best at their trades, and they are capable of doing
so much better if allowed to do so. Their hands are tied by
City rules that dictate this type of incompatible development,
regardless of the unique or special nature of a specific
neighborhood. The plan before you was born from an approach
that tried to comply with a generic density standard, not from
an approach that strived to create the most livable, the most
harmonious, the most visually appealing and the best suited
development for a unique site.
We neighbors hope that our City has not reached a point where
this type of uninspired development is dictated on a site that
has so much more potential. Our city will look monotonous if
every pocket of established, rural lifestyle is to be covered
over with three homes per acre.
Have you visited this site?.... Have you walked down the
gravel lanes?.... Have you walked along the Poudre ridge line
wn r)tl T-A TO In 00' •rnnl nnLT 7nerw,r"1
DENSITY CHART'
Criterion
2— —tut — an existing or approval neighborhood shopping center; or
---- _ _ _ _ _ _
^_000feetofanapproved. but not constructed neighborhood shopping center -----
b
650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six (6] dwelling.units
NL%Y,
per acre on a gross acreage basis)
C
4000 fact of an existing or approved regional shopping center
d
3500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community park: of
------u
20mo
203500
feet of a publicly owned but not developed, neighborhood or community
yown--------------------------------q,2
_
W
park.
10
2
2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory educ
laws
f
3000 feet
of a major employment center
9
1000 feet of a child care center
20
h
"North" Fort Collins
o
5
j
The Central Business District
20%
A project whosc boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
30mo
Omo 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 - 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* ode, a 59a bonus may be tamed �or evervma reduction in energy use.
10
j
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. Eater 1/2 of that
percentage as a bonus.
5
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.
O
If pan 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 S 100 per dwelling unit invested.
p
If pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
required by City Code, enter a No bonus for every S100 per dwelling unit invcstcri. ( s e e 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 30%.
z
f
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
"B"
O
and Type handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
"A"
Type .5 x Tvpc "A" Unim
m
Total Units
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30170
Type "B" 1.0 x Tv2e "B" UniLa
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 is 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 is 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-
DENSITY CHART (conth .,jed)
Criterion Earned
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 7517o or more of the parking in a structure;
6176 For providing 50 - 74910 of the parking in a structure;
V)
391a For providing 25 - 49% 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 109c.
OV
m
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:
590 For connecting w the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle pathAane;
517o For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this
Density Chart;
5L7a For connecting to an existing City bicycle nil which is adjacent to or traverses the project.
TOTAL
7 5
*K: Energy Criteria: An'Energy Score' of G-70 qualifies a home buyer for
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. 486 sq.ft. @ $85/sq.ft.)
Pool ......................$ 85,000 (25 meter)
Playground ................$ 20,000
Decorative Walls/Fences...$ 25,000 (1100_lf. @ $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 -
1 IUD/_a ni,�
('TAT in Al
Pi.=L//h a AJAR V O ii n
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
I APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the cntenon
applicable?
Will the Enteric
be satisfied?
If no, please explain
.4
a
Yes
No
A1. 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
I
I
1.e Lands of Aericultural Imoortance
1.7 Enerov Conservation
iz I 1
1.1
1.8 Air Qualitv _
I ✓ I I
I
1.9 Water Quality
it/ I I
✓
I
1.10 Sewage and Wastes
I 11
I
1
1 WConservation
1A2.1
1.12 Residential Densitv
I I
I
2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMP,^,TIPILIiY CRITE;�IAi
Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transocrtation
1
I
I
I
2.2 Buildine Placement and Orientation
/
I
1
I ✓ I
I
2.3 Natural Features
I
I
I
I I
I
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking
2.5 Emergency Access _
2.6 recestrlan Circulation I
I
I I
I
I
2.7 Arc.-litecture I
I
I I✓
LEVAT�sas AV,1�• T AL
2.8 Building Height and Views I
I
I I
I
I
2.9 Shading I
✓
I
i l
1/
2.10 Solar Access
VI
I -
2.11 Historic Resources If
I
Iv
I
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 Landscape
✓ I
2.14 Sicns I
I
2.15 Site Lighting
I
✓
2.1e Noise and Vibration
2.17 Glare or Heat
2.18 Hazardous Materials I
IV
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity
3.2 Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
3.4 Geologic Hazards
_
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of For Collins, Colorado, Revised 1994
-61-
A-9UCE5r
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: WOODLAND STATION PUD -Preliminary
DESCRIPTION: 98 single family units on 35.05 acres
DENSITY:
General Population
2.8 du/acre
98 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 343
SchoolAge Population
Elementary - 98 (units) x
Junior High - 98 (units) x
Senior High - 98 (units) x
450
(pupils/unit) =
44.1
.210
(pupils/unit)
= 20.58
.185
(pupils/unit) =
18.13
ESCRIMON LAND USE BREAKDOWN
EHOU&I RANCH \
zax�x0 RLP
arnirx-"tea:. •.nr n.�w r»x...�m
00
NUBBBAI6l1 MI0 \ w v`r�nmR.Rrwaraxwmari.M `n sxr'-.. °i^'
xoNIHO FA-1 (c00urr) 1 r w •emar M1x as P,YI r w »mm .,,. ,» x.. 1 aw R.m r w etsxr r ts�n rs ..r s..
F uF.
n o»rt mn t�im�i ,u�iroun ,i .. exev� r 1nm w.0 rrw Rare' tv.v c� n r»c
I r w OOeuex'.n eaa ns w w am'or wr
tgLmrw».r+rwi..bMxa»»wrmrvnrv.e _
a.•r.�w.n ammrat.a r�v»r x.v. oevam Y...a .x Y A
O
n i xe xs i 20 i •,•� •,.
I �-• s,�k r ss --_� - � i nersau rvxss � •w
SO
I ev
rra nwn � z_
I VICINITY MAP
re i n I re
,O. a NHMES 1 * I 1F I I s't �I ! t �I 1,u: mn TNwAa Fa O 0 `_.. 1
s y
I Iml tel ia•nl ie m: ui ul \ \ nn qc1--
taMK.E FAMLY _•�•�
ZONING M-t (COY MI . ; M; MI i i0 ��
-- —.-- �A16161RA-PLiYOEI li� i•- ❑ C C
�❑ 0 i n I h�I j O u�roan aeai9n. ',®
0 t I x s• s a x e e iO: n Ix o O
Q I I.IIIfI I �M1�iii� 1�
b' i. I � to
.
a r —---woo
�. Aga n ^----_=__------------------- ----- --- --- ------
dmmt
20 PAW..Es sq(51ynoul 11 TOUOHDO
REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE. OOr . 60aws'
P STOWKEUEY SUBDIMION_ --� LEGM AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
NEwLE'rM xP•cNARS- — —� o ExsnNc mE¢s OPTION E
Q PROPasso mEls
yy, »xi G MC SOUR ESS MR Of PRFPYUibx.
LM OB-'12-8•
.M' �N51a»t�P
P PCCE55191LIIY RMIP! Oyu. v,». pL
I101C1 m ]L
O _
a ,aa 200 300 1 a y
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: WOODLAND STATIONPUD
DESCRIPTION: 80 single family homes, 10 townhomes, 20 patio homes
on 35.05 acres
DENSITY: 3.14 du/acre
General Population
80 (units) x 3.5
30 x 3.2
(persons/unit) = 280
96
School Age Population
Elementary - 80
30
Junior High - 80
30
(units) x
(units) x
.450 (pupils/unit) = 36
.120 3.6
.210 (pupils/unit) = 16.8
.055 1.65
Senior High - 80 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 14.8
30 .050 1.5
orse o0 oa
a
a�
�y
EP
I
I
IL
VICINITY MAP
18-94B WOODLAND STATION PUD
Preliminary
11/08/94
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
recommended that the roadway be striped for three lanes. The third
lane wold 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.
12. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In reviewing the request for Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D.,
Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The project earns 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart
and satisfies the Interim Phasing Criteria of the
L.D.G.S.
B. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the
L.D.G.S.
C. The P.U.D. satisfies the Solar Orientation criteria.
D. Concept E promotes neighborhood compatibility by shifting
density to the southwest and providing larger single
family lots on the north and east.
E. The P.U.D. does not impact the sensitive areas identified
by the Landscape Opportunity Study and protects the
existing mature vegetation on the site.
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 makes the following recommendation:
Approval of Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D., #18-94B.
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
C. Neighborhood Facilities and Services
Concept E includes a neighborhood recreation center along County
Road #9. This area, formerly two single family lots, will feature
a clubhouse, 25 meter pool, daycare, and playground. This center
should alleviate the concern that children would migrate toward the
ponds, open space, pastures, and floodplain located on private
property to the east.
9. Design:
The primary design feature of the P.U.D. continues to be the
preservation of the mature trees and large shrubs that surround the
Strachan property. Most of this vegetation will be placed within
common tracts and not be contained within individual platted lots.
The trees that must be removed from Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be
transplanted to the north property line to contribute to buffering.
It is likely that the front row of junipers along C.R. #9 may be
lost due to underground utility installation. There remain,
however, a significant stand of existing trees behind these
junipers to preserve the "hedgerow" effect. The existing mature
shrubs on the south property line will buffer the existing and
future Hewlett-Packard facilities.
10. Resource Protection:
As mentioned, the 35 acres were included in the Landscape
Opportunity Study. This study identified sensitive areas along the
Poudre River from Mulberry Street to Harmony Road. The P.U.D. is
located west of and does not impact any of the mapped sensitive
areas.
11. Transportation:
A traffic impact analysis was prepared in July of this year and,
for background traffic data, it was assumed that NCR would develop
in phases at the northwest corner of Harmony Road and C.R.#9. The
newly installed traffic signal at Harmony/C.R.#9 will 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.R.#9. In addition, it is
estimated that a signal would be warranted at the C.R.#9/Hewlett-
Packard/NCR access drive.
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
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
City is to achieve a minimum of 3.00 dwelling units per acre. From
the rural perspective, the area has ecological value and an
established character featuring large acreage lots, livestock, and
low density.
The dilemma of trying to comply with seemingly competing objectives
of achieving minimum urban density and providing sensitive
transition to existing rural residences has framed the
compatibility issues of this P.U.D.
A second neighborhood information meeting was held on November 10,
1994 to discuss Options A and B. These options are no longer in
consideration and have been superseded. Minutes to this meeting
are attached.
A third neighborhood meeting was held on November 30, 1994 to
discuss four new options, Options C-2, C-3, C-4, D-2. Likewise,
these options are no longer in consideration and have been
superseded. Again, minutes are attached.
8. Concept E•
The new plan is known as Concept E. This P.U.D. features 10
townhome units in two 5-plex structures, 20 patio home lots, and 80
single family lots for a total of 110 units. The density is 3.14
dwelling units per acre. As with all previous options, the design
objective is to balance minimum density requirements and achieve
maximum neighborhood compatibility.
A. Multi-Family/Patio Homes
The inclusion of townhome units and patio home lots in the
southwest corner of the site is designed to allow larger lots to be
placed on the eastern and northern fringe. There are now only two
lots abutting the Thomas property to the east (18,316 and 19,808
sq. ft.), and only seven lots along the north property line (15,750
sq. ft. each). This is a reduction from previous options resulting
in larger lots next to the existing large residential lots approved
in the County.
B. Drainage Swale
There is a natural drainage slough on the eastern edge which begins
on the subject property and continues east onto the Thomas
property. This area has been set aside as open space and measures
28,473 square feet (.65 acre).
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
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 -
homes to achieve a minimum of G-80 on City's "Energy
Score" rating system which exceeds City minimum of G-70.
(For space and water heating, a G-70 home spends $ .245
cents per square foot, a G-80 home spends $ .173 cents
per square foot, an improvement of about 30%.)
M. Providing acreage devoted to active recreation.
p. Devoting part of the total development budget on
neighborhood facilities and services which are not
otherwise required by Code (clubhouse, daycare, pool,
playground)*
* Points for "neighborhood facilities" calculated as follows:
Clubhouse $ 40,000 (minimum 480 sq. ft. @ $85 per s.f.)
Pool $ 85,000 (25 meters in length)
Playground $ 20,000
Decorative walls $ 25,000 (1,100 lin. ft. @ $24 per l.f. avg.)
Landscape $105,000 ($220/tree + $60 sq.ft. irrigated turf
$275,000 / 110 d.u. _ $2,500 x .01 = 25 points
By achieving a score of 75 points on the Residential Uses Point
Chart, the residential development of the property at a density of
3.14 dwelling units per acre is supported by the L.D.G.S.
7. Neighborhood Compatibility:
The first neighborhood meeting was held on June 30, 1994. Minutes
to this meeting are attached.
significant citizen input was provided at the October 24, 1994
Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Seven residents from the
neighborhood spoke in opposition to the P.U.D. Photographs were
presented which depicted the natural features of the surrounding
area. The speakers asked the Board to consider providing better
buffering between urban and rural -style residential areas.
The fundamental compatibility issue in development of this property
is density. From the urban perspective, the site is located not
only within the Urban Growth Area but also within the municipal
limits. An absolute requirement for residential P.U.D.'s in the
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
wall, or bluff, parallels the river to the west and forms a natural
dividing line between the developed areas and the floodplain.
There are several existing residences located up on the bluff.
These homes are located in the County most of which developed as
"Minor Residential Divisions" (M.R.D.Is) .
At the toe of the bluff is the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch and small
ponds. There are significant gravel extraction operations
including a batch plant located in the valley floor. East of
property, below the ridge, is a residential development containing
about 25 single family detached and mobile homes.
The site is also located within the Poudre River Landscape
Opportunities Study area. This study identified gravel reclamation
areas, wetland restoration areas, ridge protection areas, and bird
preserves. The P.U.D. is located west of the ridge and
approximately one-half mile west of the nearest bird preserve.
County Road #9 is identified on the City's Master Street Plan as an
arterial street and forms a "hard edge" on the west. Hewlett-
Packard forms a similar boundary on the south. The "soft edges"
are located to the north and east. The north abutting property is
the former County -approved Nussbaumer M.R.D., presently vacant, and
expected to develop in a residential manner in the near future.
This parcel, eight acres in size, is now annexed into the City,
zoned R-L-P, without the P.U.D. condition. The large triangular
area, bordered by C.R.#9, H-P, and the Poudre River bluff is the
affected planning area and represents the meeting of proposed urban
development with existing rural residential homes approved in the
County.
6. Land Use•
Since the entire parcel is included in the Preliminary P.U.D.,
there is no overall Development Plan. The P.U.D. is subject to the
new Interim Phasing Requirements for residential development.
These measures amended the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S. to require a P.U.D. to earn a minimum of 60 points for the
base density of 3.00 dwelling units per acre.
The P.U.D. calls for 110 units on 35.05 acres for a gross density
of 3.14 dwelling units per acre which complies with the minimum
density requirements in the L.D.G.S. The P.U.D. earns 75 points on
the Residential Uses Point Chart. Points were awarded for the
following:
d. Being within 3,500 feet from a publicly owned, but not
developed, neighborhood park (English Ranch).
Woodland Station P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-94B
February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background•
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N• R-L-P; Vacant (Nussbaumer Property)
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. October 24 1994 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing:
on October 24, 1994, the Board considered Woodland Station
Preliminary P.U.D. and postponed the decision to November 14, 1994.
During deliberations, the Board directed the applicant to consider
lowering the density to below 3.00 dwelling units per acre, and
redesigning the layout in a more creative manner that enhances
buffering. In addition, the Board directed the affected neighbors
to be realistic and not expect this P.U.D. to feature acreage -sized
lots.
3. November 14 1994 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing:
On November 14, 1994, the P.U.D. was continued for one month at the
developer's request.
4. December 19,_1994 Planning and Zoning Board Hearin
On December 19, 1994, the P.U.D. was pulled from consideration by
the applicant, at the request of Staff, due to the 10 acres of
potential off -site open space being under contract to a party other
than the developer. Without having the potential open space under
contract, the P.U.D. did not achieve the minimum of 60 points
required on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.
5. Context Within the Section:
The P.U.D. is located within a square mile section that is
geographically dominated by the Poudre River floodplain. Hewlett
Packard occupies the entire southwest quarter. The Poudre River
ITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 2/6/95
STAFF Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D., #18-94B
APPLICANT: Chateau Custom Builders, Inc.
c/o Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: R. &
W. Shields
M.D. & D.E.
Strachan
3910
S. C.R. #9
4108 S. C.R.
#9
Fort
Collins, CO 80525
Fort Collins,
CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 10 townhome units, 20
patio home lots, and 80 single family 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 gross
density is 3.14 dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R-L-P, with
a P.U.D. condition.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The request achieves a score of 75% on the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the L.D.G.S. which satisfies the Interim Phasing Criteria.
A substantial number of points are earned for providing
neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
required by Code. Neighborhood compatibility is achieved but
remains sensitive due to adjacent large -lot residential properties.
The P.U.D. preserves significant vegetation on the site. The
project is feasible from a transportation standpoint.
The Preliminary P.U.D. was first considered by the P & Z Board on
October 24, 1994, postponed to November 14, 1994, continued to
December 12, 1994, and continued again to January 23, 1995.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT