HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHBROOK PATIO HOMES @ FAIRBROOKE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 7-94 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSNAME ADDRESS
✓l 5
%713 �r-.��fn �l c 4 ��i col .,
L.
;2�1N �eciQr�c>c�cl �r-
294-4 Ce�ood Or-
NAME ADDRESS
�1elt �.,� 1701 �/jr
ka�� 1 I f2f Ab�,
Zaoo G��.e..J�-y Ct
—
� 41(z o (j/ A&rAIZ-'I
2q�(o
0,3l 0 covev" fr%7" coa v_`f
3 DVS
f
dNoi
v
ADDRESS
2q�;31 �i�yr way ��-
A,P--lt'v K.ects ►^w ev
a
'IMA
vZ3�J
/+
ZZo
NAME
_ . 7. 1 .j-
ADDRESS
D �
�-JoL-C/fjC3av�K�,�
111, f& haCI.C!JC
m
.
D3
roi
�b s
We the undersigned Fairbrook Homeowners, are absolutely against the proposed
rezoning of property in the Fairbrook tracts G and H, for the following reasons.
1) We purchased our homes with the full understanding that this property was
zoned for church use - not zoned for Higher Density duplexes.
2) We feel the property is correctly zoned now - for church use.
3) Safety for our children and the increased traffic is a very real concern, Bauder
School is across the street of your proposed exit and entrance.
4) Bauder School may not be able to handle any additional students, it is already
one of the largast populated schools in the city.
5) Duplexes would be incompatible with the neighborhood - we are a
neighborhood of single family homes! We need a church with what it can bring
to neighborhood - not the negative impact of duplexes.
6) With the proposed building of the duplexes our property values in the area will
drop.
NAME
17
41a
1
ADDRESS
,�331
C;�
W
a360
CoVn u-
c� /
�r, G t; ; /Lc( CT,
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING__
Did You, Receive
Written Notification
of this meeting?
Correct.
Address.
Name -Address Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
-JL--ri &'"-kR 94 00AM L-- � z4 �Ovtrd r
V/
I)Orl S6oevAo.Ker 2318 W. Pros �tc- A J, 8052-6
dU,—,.T/e!4 Or 6
CIEE�Ujcen
how -A3)5� d"Mh(&a
,a d b Fz, A a3 � ����
Lb 4 SU-Sd'n (CA c2ld �lfl-ewll4ru'
�.
�33PAP,
C-t ';?c35-4 L
�
&'tA6C cmd Mih&.' hailiCk -Z;5)bCos)Cn*Lj COLi Vi RQEd4
X
a400
x
2 2- 2 5 60 Len CT
L
d, ru /A 66
.. . ..........
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING v
Did You Receive
Written Notification
of this meeting?
Correct
address.
Name Address Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
� /
J/i/�5 ep e ne, C / Z4
U"14.
✓
.1 2z �e&
6 0
✓
� II
� l,An0.�rno- a33 Cever�, .
�lh1t� Z� Zl �-
E H/tN f3_ RlleDEIS o?3QO W• PPorPecT f �_�
✓
2Q W G
L/
Val al�w 3 7 (Z/O,Doa° - C
� C G ! �- 01501 00v Ft? 20
Alt%4A 6tJe,6 r ZZZ 0 (_ee�a rw-oeek I� �. , 8oa'c4
J
Sc orT" cs� p�..JGro+✓ 0?3�7 �.OLleu�ooO J72, FC. eosz4
n� ZZ(3 805
V/
O D
(� 5
✓
✓
f Q6Sz
•^ �-x1 o III 1Z z'7.19 (;i> V E�v �
'�
/�
/� 222,5 v n r l r4D5 z
13. L iqIVb/Z 23Ly Coven K Cr 805�,6
✓
VCXLAA c C
ee (-a�61 C'�c�
rWaac�
i�� 8D5 a(o
15. We are submitting a petition.in opposition to this proposal.
16. Bauder Elementary School is over -crowded already. Where will
these children go to school? I don't think that they will be
able to go to Bauder. I am also concerned about the safety of
the children as they walk to school because of the additional
traffic.
The School District will be given the information about this
proposal and they will determine where these children will go to
school. The children will be crossing to the west side of
Hampshire Road before they get to the local street for this
development. They shouldn't be walking past this development
because they would end up on Prospect Road. There is a path up to
the grounds from Hampshire, south of this local street. We will
have the traffic study look into this issue of school children and.
cars.
17. If we want to send letters, where do we send them?
You can send them to the Planning and Zoning Board
c/o City Planning Department
PO 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
4
Prospect Road and have been told that we could have access.to
City water if the line goes in.
The water line will be extended as Prospect Road is widened, with
this development and with the City's capital projects.
10. What about positive drainage from the backs of your houses,
won't it drain onto our back yards if the distance is only
15'?
We will not be draining onto your properties. All of the drainage
will be collected and conveyed to the detention pond to the east.
11. We are concerned that this was supposed to be a church site
and now it is houses. We bought our houses thinking that this
would be a church someday. How could the City sell the
property to a developer for houses when a church was
interested in the property. It appears that the City is only
thinking about the taxes generated, that would be greater for
houses than a church.
Bids were accepted for the property and the City accepted the
highest bid. The was no development approval for a church, only
designation of a potential land use as a church, on the Master Plan
(Overall Development Plan). Please contact Suzanne Edminster at
the City Finance Department for details about the bidding process.
12. I have concerns about the widening of Prospect. If the City
doesn't widen their portion, how can you say that Prospect
Road will handle the added traffic from this development? The
street would narrow down on both sides of this development and
create bottlenecks.
The traffic study will give some indication about the number of
trips generated by this use and where those trip ends will be
directed. •If this development significantly impacts Prospect Road
beyond the frontage, say at the intersection of Prospect and Taft
Hill, the developer may have to do off -site improvements. The City
is looking at constructing these improvements and the widening
project within.the next few years.
13. I am concerned with the density of the proposal. It is too
many houses on one piece of property.
14. There are a lot of geese on the property now. Will any
studies be conducted to protect them? A Seven Springs Ranch
the City left fence posts/power line poles for the eagles to
perch on.
We will contact the Natural Resources Division to see what City
requirements are regarding geese.
3
5. How can you call this low density? The zoning for that
property is low density, please explain how 7.5 houses per
acre can be called low density.
The RL zoning district allows 6,000 square foot lots, with 60' of
width and certain setbacks, in a standard subdivision. The density
of that sort of project would be between 4 and 5 dwelling units per
acre. This proposal is higher density than many of the new
subdivisions which are around 3 dwelling units per acre, but it is
lower than townhouses which are typically around 7 to 9 dwelling
units per acre. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance
allows people to propose alternative uses and densities in all
zones. Approval is based on the merits of the individual project
and on how well impacts of the project are mitigated, ie with
buffering, screening, setbacks, transitions, etc.
6. We have concerns about the architecture and whether it will be
compatible with our houses. We also are concerned about the
closeness of the houses to our backyards on Coventry Court.
We are also concerned about the storm drainage given that the
lots appear at the same elevation as ours and we have a
basement flooding problem already. We want to make sure that
this problem is not compounded by this development. The
developer should be aware that there is high ground water in
the area and that he may not be able to have basements.
The houses are proposed to be brick and the designs will be
compatible with the existing houses. We have some pictures that
you can look at. The setbacks we are proposing (15' rear lot) are
not less than what would be allowed in a standard subdivision. Our
drainage plans are not complete at this time, but we will not be
allowed to add to the problems that exist. The drainage report
will be reviewed by the City Stormwater Utility staff and will have
to be approved prior to any construction. This project will
actually collect the drainage from the backs of the lots on
Coventry Court (as well as the lots backing to those) and convey
flows to the detention pond east of these developments, by way of
a drainage channel or pan between the two properties.
7. Will the drainage channel be grass or concrete? Will this be
a green belt between the two subdivisions?
Yes, it will be grass, although it may have to have a concrete pan
in the bottom to convey flows, depending on the slope.
8. There are surface springs on the property. There may be a
problem getting stormwater over to the detention area.
9. Will the water line in Prospect Road be extended to Taft Hill
with this development? We have been waiting for a number of
years for that line to go in, we live on the north side of
OA
Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary
Fairbrooke Tracts G and H
The following are comments, concerns, and questions expressed at a
neighborhood information meeting held on January 27, 1994 at Bauder
Elementary School. The proposed project is for 46 single family
paired houses (attached patio homes) on 6.1 acres, located at the
southeast corner of Prospect Road and Hampshire Road.
Note: All responses are by the applicant, unless otherwise noted.
1. What will the units cost, per side?
The basic house will be approximately $125,000. Some units will
have custom extras and basements and will be from $140,000 and up.
2. There is a great concern for school children going to and from
Bauder and the increase in traffic from this project. The
increase in traffic will also negatively impact this
neighborhood. The City is supposedly studying the problem now
but we haven't heard any results. .
Staff:. I will contact Rita Davis at the City Transportation
Division to see what the status is regarding the study.
3. Why aren't you taking access directly off of Prospect Road?
Is it because it is cheaper and easier to access off of
Hampshire Road?
We have been directed by the City Transportation Division to locate
the access on Hampshire because this is a collector street and it
is meant to carry, local traffic to the arterial, as opposed to
directly onto Prospect, which is an arterial street. Only a
certain number of access points are allowed directly on an arterial
street.
4. What sort of widening or other improvements will be made to
Prospect Road with this project? Does your plan show the
future width or existing width? Is the future width like
Prospect east of Taft Hill?
We will be responsible for widening Prospect Road, along our
property frontage, to current City standards for an arterial
street. This includes the pavement width, curb, gutter, and
sidewalks on our side of the street. The width is like Prospect
Road east of Taft Hill, with four travel lanes, a center lane and
bike lanes.
1
STEWART$,ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
March 14, 1994
Ms. Kirsten Whetstone
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Kirsten:
This is to request that the Planning and Zoning Board consider a variance
to the Solar Orientation Ordinance for Northbrook Patio Homes P.U.D.
Fifteen of the proposed 42 units are solar oriented which is 36% of the
units. Due to the site being small (6.12 acres) and not having much flexibility
of design because of the limited access points, a variance is necessary. The
units that Mr. Mackey is proposing to build are very energy efficient.
The variance will not be detrimental to the public good. The P.U.D. is
an "infill" project and, therefore, will have other positive benefits for the
public.
The plan is equal to or better than a plan that would not need the solar
variance because another plan would lower the density a significant amount,
and we are trying to increase the density of the Fairbrooke Overall Development.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call.
Sincerely,
�li.
Richard A. Rutherford, . E. & L.S.
President
jrr
James H. Stewart
and Associates, Inc.
103 S. Meldrum Street
P.O. Box 429
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
303/482-9331
Fax 303/482-9382
4"bENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit
It All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
a
2O.16
2000 feel of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center.
b
1O%
650 feel of on existing transit0" fie tl iG
C
10%
4000 feet of an existing or opprovoet r eglonol shopping c onlec
d
20%
3500 too I of on existing or eserved neighborhood pork community park of community facility.
zo
U)
a
10%
1000 feet of a sci meeting all the requllemenh of Me compulsory education ksws of the slate of Colorado.
QIf20%
3000feelafarojaf employment center.
co;
9 rJ
g
�o
1000fee1 of child care center .
h
20%
'Nodh'Fod Collins.
I
20%
The Central Business District.
.
A project whose boundOryisconhguous l0 existing urban development Credit maybe earned as follows:
0%— For projects whose property boundary has O to 10% contiguity. I
o
3O/o
10 to 15%—For praleali whose property boundary has 10 to 201Contiguity,
15to20%—FaProjects whose property boundary has 20to30%contiguity, 1
20I0 25%—for projects whose property boundary has 30 to 40%contiguity.
2510 30%—FOl projects whos property boundary has 40 to 50%contiguity;
O
'
k
It It can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non renewable energy useage either through the application of alternative energy
systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond Mal nOfmafly requiled by City Code,a5% bonus may be earned
for every 5%reduction in energy use.
/
Calculble a l%bonus for every 50 acres Included in the project.
m
Colculale the percentage of the total acres In the projeCI Mat ale devoted to tecreolional use, enter 112 of that percentage as a bonus.
n
It the applicant commits to preserving permanent ousile open space that meets the Citys minimum requirements. calculate the percentage
Of l his open space acreage to the total development acreage. enter this percentage as a bonus.
O
If pad of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public ttOnVt facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code.
enter 2%bonus for every$ 100 pet dwelling unit invested.
P
If port of the total development budget Is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which ate not otherwise required by City Code.
enter al%bonus lPr every$100 per dwe lling uni I Invested.
If a commitment is being to
v Jl
Q
made develop a specified percentage of the 10101 number of dwelling un"s for law Income families, enter that
percentage as a bonus, to maximum 30%.
up a of
z'
B a commitment If being made to develop specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type'A' and Type'B' handicapped
housing as Cie fined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows
0.
r
Type'A7— .5times Type A'unils
ataT lunch
co
co
Typer'B'-1.Otlmes Type'B"units
oo-i 51 unTs
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%. '
ti the site or adjacent property coalalns an historic building or ptoce. a bonus may be earned for Me following:
3% — For preventing or mitigating Outside influences (eg. envirorsrnenlOt land use. Prosthetic. economic and social locion)odveno lads
S
preservation.
3%— For assuring mat new structures will be in keeping with Me chatocler of Me building or place. while avoiding total units
3% — For proposing adoplive use of the building a plooe Mal will lead to its aanhnuarsce, preservationand improvement in an
appropriate manner.
II a portion or all of the required parking in the mutripfe family project is Provided uroergroundwithin the building or In on elevated parking
shuclure as an accessary use to the primary structure. a bonus may be earned as follows
t
9% — Far providing75% an more of the parking ina structure.
6% — For providing 50.74% of" parking in structure: _ ..
3% — For Providing 25 49% of the porting inostructure.
U
It ocommrhnenl is being made to Provide ooptovedoulamatie fire eanguishlrp Mloms fa Me dmelfing units. enter a bonusol 10%.
TOTAL 90%
-30-
�c ask WIC) ROMP l
ACTIVITY: Residential Uses
DEFINITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached
dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family
dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and
sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and
non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use; uses
providing meeting places and places for public assembly with inciden-
tal office space; and child-care centers.
CRITERIA ` Each of the .following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the development
plan.
Yes No
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average resi-
dential density in the project at least three (3)
dwelling units per acre (calculated for residential
portion of the site only)?
2. DOES THE PROJECT SCORE A COMBINED TOTAL OF 100
PERCENTAGE POINTS OR MORE AS CALCULATED IN THE �j( ❑
"DENSITY CHART" THAT FOLLOWS? /�
-29-
'�6eT�Beoa,� Pr rw ��Es
a-fT.�/.PQ�os�
-e :7- 941
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the criterion
applicable?
Will the criterion
be satisfied?
If no, please explain
r .
A
s
a 3
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
✓
✓ ri4nX /Y ve5 In'6111
1.2 Comprehensive Plan
V✓
C %5 S al
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
✓
% G' CCP/YJ IOCCU Oyu
1.4 Mineral Deposit
✓
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
1.7 Energy Conservation
%/I
I
1.8 Air Quality
✓
1.9 Water Quality
✓
✓
1.10 Sewage and Wastes
✓
✓
A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation
✓
✓
2.2 Building Placement and Orientation
2.3 Natural Features
V1✓
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
✓
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
✓
�/
I I i I
I I
' HA � pKOhl'�Gj' �OhD i J _s_ tu1
. cq
Wel.k •------�klcicea.uMrl ---_- _---- -- --- -- -- - ---------
II 6owH4
JT
r i I I •4 �11 i � � a. \\ �—Yp ��} (�q—. _ �` � \ LL' :I \-n6
11.81'\ 1 .�\ IDr,• 1 e
'1 4
01 Icy'
(,
, \�_
_
`1— -i 1°b•'f; T a M lb off.
00
I \
�-k4ryp I .�- ._ __ i lore'
I - 11WII.k -I o5'
I .. .. 7 .. .. GONNN Gi icN % kYlbl
f LO'.— .. 9 uhldY ES r>'ti�'1}ldi 1 ... 'o -a G°IJG.'{,IALk FAkE psiH (tmtilM
-35^\ _ N/ �:Alk U P.. 'i g 5 40 I'_5 VgtviiMINW
�r r I m .r� � °d _ - 3 __ ire - d5' 3C' _b°.. ' 'N•
40,
\ 3.
0�� 3i 32 31 .
�._ I111j IYpphl I
4-0
IIPWj,1
&I / OS ,1J Z94 ,1 35, 95• - �t_.. - b� � j1`1�
i \
/ A1� P y0oIUIICn�`. �Z
WO
�J
•
APPENDIX A
Table 1
Trip Generation
Daily
A.M.
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Tract G from Leigh,
Scott, & Cleary Report
100
2
2
10
10
Current Proposal
42 Patio Homes
320
6
18
22
12
•o
0
r
d
10
•o
r�
0
LLi
CL
x
C2
W
C7
LLI
x
r
Q
G
MEMORANDUM
To: Gary Mackey, Nebarado Construction
Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates
Rick Ensdorff, Fort Collins Transportation Division
Fort Collins Planning Department
From: Matt Delich 000
Date: March 4, 1994
Subject: Fairbrooke PUD, Tract G traffic study
(File: 9417MEM1)
Tract G of the Fairbrooke PUD is proposed to be changed
from a church/day care to 42 patio home (duplex) dwelling
units. When the Fairbrooke PUD Master Plan was submitted in
1985, a traffic study was prepared by Leigh, Scott, & Cleary
(LS&C) evaluating the impact of various properties/tracts
within the Fairbrooke PUD. I have reviewed that study and
performed comparison analyses. The LS&C report assumed a
church use in Tract G.
Table 1 shows the expected trip generation from Tract G
under the former plan and the proposed plan. It is expected
that there will be an increase in travel with the proposed 42
single family dwelling units. The new trip generation is
approximately three times that shown in the previous proposal.
However, other tracts within the Fairbrooke PUD have shown
reductions in the number of dwelling units which will result
in a subsequent reduction in generated vehicle trips.
Based upon my review and analysis, the basic conclusions
of the Fairbrooke PUD traffic study are still valid.
Operation at the intersections along Prospect Road will be
acceptable with stop sign control. It is not likely that
signals will be warranted at the Prospect/Cedarwood or the
Prospect/Hampshire intersection.
The proposed Fairbrooke PUD, Tract G will consist of 42
patio home (duplex) dwelling units accessing Northbrook Drive
from two cul-de-sacs as shown in Appendix A. Based upon the
tip generation shown in Table 1 and the traffic forecasts on
Hampshire Road in the LS&C report, the operation at the
Hampshire/Northbrook intersections will be acceptable.
i
Planning Objectives for Northbrook Patio Homes P.U.D.
Page 2
The site buffers the existing single—family houses from the arterial
street. An objective of the City of Fort Collins is to have a minimum density
of 3.0 units per acre and an overall density for a larger area of 6.0 units
per acre. A significant amount of the Fairbrooke P.U.D. that was planned for
higher density on the O.D.P. has been built with single—family homes. For
instance, Tract "F", the area west of Hampshire Road and south of Bauder
School,was planned for a density of 7.5 units per acre and was built with,a
density of approximately 3.0 units per acre. The density of 5.9 units planned
for Northbrook Patio Homes P.M. will raise the overall density a small amount.
STEWART&ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR NORTHBROOK PATIO HOMES P.U.D.
Northbrook Patio Homes P.U.D. is a proposed planned unit development of
42 paired housing units located on Tract "G" and a part of Tract "H", Fairbrooke
S.I.D., at the southeast corner of West Prospect Road and Hampshire Road.
The site contains a gross area of 7.07 acres, including half of West Prospect
Road and half of Hampshire Road, which results in a gross density of 5.9 units
per acre. The zoning is R.L. which has a historic density of 6 units per acre.
Each unit has its own lot and will be sold as a single unit. The units will
be owner occupied.
The units will be single —story brick units with approximately 1500 square
feet of living space which is compatible with the neighborhood. The lots
backing up to Fairbrooke Subdivision Second Filing were deepened to 130 feet
to enlarge the distance between the units and the existing 2nd Filing lots
which are 100 feet deep. The units will have a 35—foot rear yard.
The site is at the intersection of West Prospect Road which is an arterial
street and Hampshire Road which is a collector street. The site will access
the collector street. Most trips will be.north to the arterial street. Trips
south will be on the collector street to either West Stuart Street which is
also a collector street or to Drake Road which is an arterial street. The
additional traffic will not have significant adverse impact on any of the local
streets.
The site will require the construction of Prospect Road along its north
property line as well as the construction of the water line in Prospect Road.
This will result in adequate street capacity and adequate utility capacity
for the entire neighborhood.
The site will have good pedestrian access to the existing detention pond
open space and internally to Prospect Road.
The site is an infill project which will hold vehicular use down as much
as possible. It will not produce any air contaminants, soil erosion, or
lighting glare.
The all —brick units will be energy
the same unit as will be constructed on
homes in the Parade of Homes.
The site has all the units facing
provide a cohesive neighborhood within
affect on the existing neighborhood to
an existing public open space, which is
School. However, most of the expected
not have school —aged children.
efficient. In the 1993 Parade of Homes,
this site scored the highest of all
in from the boundary lines which will
itself and will not have an adverse
the south. The site is adjacent to
the detention pond, and to Bauder
buyers will be "empty nesters" and will
A variance for compliance to the solar orientation ordinance will be
requested.
James H. Stewart
and Associates, Inc.
103 S. Meldrum Street
P.O. Box 429
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
303/482-9331
Fax 303/482-9382
1
�^• �j-��
:9'LY
Iti E••eM
it IFY%/i'
•
Wal
�
i� I � I
II
j
11
I
4 +
pt,Kct // r//
_ /
«» w
000
i qr
iu
a
0
iiiy�i.W
u�4rpa�
UNP�itzv •IN4,1 YXNIly
DFUAt LOLDMII i nNu DNdIL
.
_ __
pKP6pfI6 90AD-______.1__ _
12
NokrNBXpo
Ppo
l4/ a jai' G�VBN
`TkY GOpK
fID tli
O
O
0
R ® Is O fYDKQKiiN KEK !
�� rv. Ile /W4XY YCL M 4+0Ym W4 � /
_ — � RlF '^I war M ,ar•[l pW .Y eN '
4 ffe.11� 1•!• I. rvW le.
,¢
6 D4'Iti 0> .I. arv3e1 KYM aYY4 Wf'K }W1ie .
` Xou4 1' R 9K 41Ye•. '
G
Y
o
�
I/
le MIND
o 1°w De Im ♦m _ _ _ 1 '�1' L{/1 6AN7hGAp� �D{ D[K,4EK� - ! ...0 ••••••
1 I I 1 1
•AN
I
�
A.4•'H1nMG•{4>�
1
J
113
IISI
II` I )Lill
y3
Y
Ili f�l
ijll Sal
��
A4'
I
' "'B '"tNa• 'I
8f.9e' I
I
1�
4M n,Kr {LWp li
ppFpppfKc li I
/
Col
GOvgNTky \
� Lrt
`e' yty
• �1 N
i6alOT" all �'y'y .n�� .�
�.'i'n.00
ii:.r .. .:Ts ole•`iw i iii iuII iv
lll
•: s er rs ve n .c i r`os• m� . nG.rl N.
y 1..
Ln�•�
�o�
"Puttbc
e`sn.rl w. s. ry ✓i.��... ....I r i. zo ....
41941*
-. 1,,:
MM4r
.
toi4
I
Ir 1
101
10
WUHF PkosPkG1 GOAD --------' - - - - - - -- C •'�,�`'+` I
i @ 51�1 -�c 6'vGRI c1i —Lr--n 6 � J / °I % ,•.
1t•W } �- le J{<i c_ BFYAt WLfIN ., 51 Q a '
fiAAt'B' I a sl I � r •�,1� 'd, j�� _ 1 L., �,, � - i
f b
J Mop WV, yNG
01040 yo 100 {q 6rL'G4f _
tYV. bLDGt. CNVEl01'f; PlAli
I.b
x
O o
4,0- PAiA:
W -
_ A •
N"MC W L'E'4PFMW
'1R— MFV5B .K YAJN PM4 P.U.D.
Q
G
. 1 ,pf, .` o� •fit
N�
NG) GFBA
c.l'L {L
Y -
x Y S
Of-. AFsA
1.01 AD WO YA CAW nwpx4t 4 OMPI-OIFt-
x
J
crul tONNU
RL
N72
O 1 V
P7DP04" U4
DUPLEX rA{Ip Ibm"
C€'I
p9
"
b'AMN11} PIW
cpuNGLiW 'N CYIbI,
ND, M UYIY+
H DUP•EYCh, MN UNItS
W b
I.
�
_ LL1L,. NNx
S
•�
dKos Po f (.II
NGi MNefY
0.6 UNlfe/AG.
$ O
Ai fmww
rIr4L)
4Foy4 D6N41YY
n,9 UM}4/AL.
Q
yg �'
BLvy. Nt
YL' FIAr
1•. � K
BEUFoena
•L/ UNIt
4jjl
�..
PAFtluy
'P OPP-*Olt. zfUl./UNM
N
II �
'4.sD'xlttM
utGt"'Nnm LYrI_
GOYEKA(a� 6kEAK➢OWW:
'
u+'
DEvmbtty s'FEEt R.o q.
49,9 yD 4P 19 V.
-y4e.11: t1uWNp poctPF1N} a+,bD04{ a4%
Bvl4t
uNpu {AW fr Vf• •i
OPEIJ sPAcb iRALtro p,B.4ID14.215
4{ Ob Y•
/�
A L1ND,aUPG W wfs IIb.trBt 4! 43 /• p ¢
'tOtAL— 16L,6vi Ivo% JL
1. {µdc 'A','B'a h' 4Ff ryGN 4Pau `G• VO � u
4 v }KAGt 'v' 14 uu4•, ufapt a
vwxApc nA4GnN1. � s< i
ry : FuF lef va• Ru1.11 1Nm 44.1 _ yL
F-tN"W0 Lot MlV4 city 4 q Ida I 11W W. '��. ^M "'•'�'.-Sy-�yr� i O
M*Wld wilpA.
ra DP 4y UN114 Mrbr 9dlAF cFNe}a. "'• ", ,,,••I^,,,,,
19,/44 19%of UM4 AAf •sNF OFIGN}W. • ' _row - '. ,.,,
H
LL
a
PROSPECT
w
•lOkla ■:IOki:l4I0l:aJarwMA:[•
!\IN:Mlble]Am151DR:
Northbrook Patio Homes @ Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminary, #7-94
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
DU/acre and the proposed gross density of 5.9 DU/acre is
supported by a score of 90% on the Residential Density Chart.
2) Sufficiently mitigates potential land use conflicts and
represents a compatible land use with the surrounding area.
3) Is in conformance with and satisfies the applicable criteria
of.the All Development Criteria of the LDGS, provided that a
variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance is granted.
4) Achieve many of the goals and purposes of the Land Use
Policies Plan in that the proposal 1) is an infill development
which is conveniently located.near parks, employment centers,
public transportation, bike trails, and other residential
uses, 2) provides a diversity of housing types• in the
community, 3) is an infill property with existing utilities
and services, and 4) encourages alternative, modes of
transportation.
Therefore, based on these findings, staff recommends approval of
Northbrook Patio Homes PUD, Preliminary #7-94, with a variance to
the requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
Northbrook Patio Homes @ Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminary, #7-94
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
5. Neighborhood Compatibility
A neighborhood meeting was held on December 2, 1993. Minutes to
this meeting are attached. The primary concerns were physical
characteristics of the houses, density, traffic, drainage and
ground water, school capacity, and landscaped buffers and setbacks.
Staff finds that the single family nature of these patio homes,
building orientation on the site, and landscaped buffer areas
provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding land
uses. Staff believes that neighborhood compatibility issues have
been addressed.
6. Transportation
Access to the site is from a single entrance on either Prospect
Road or Hampshire Street, to be determined prior to final approval.
A traffic impact analysis was .submitted with this development
proposal. The proposed development is feasible from a traffic
standpoint.
Transportation Staff has recommended that access off of Prospect
would be acceptable and may be more desirable considering possible
conflicts between vehicles and school children. The trade-off
would be that these residents would have to access the arterial
street system to drive to schools (Blevins Jr. High), parks, and
shopping (Drake Crossing), rather than to use Hampshire Road, which
is a collector street.
Local streets within the development are proposed to be dedicated
as public right-of-way (ROW) and built to City standards for 36'
wide streets.
7. Stormwater
A preliminary drainage report and drainage and grading plans were
submitted and have been approved at this stage by the City
Stormwater Utility. All flows from this development will be
conveyed and released into the existing detention pond directly
east and adjacent to this property. There will be no on -site
detention.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that Northbrook Patio Homes PUD, Preliminary:
1) Meets the absolute criteria of the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the LDGS as the overall density is greater than 3
Northbrook Patio Homes @ Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminary, #7-94
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
"(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is
equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision
for which a variance is requested".
Staff finds that the variance request is justified. Under
requirement (1), the infill nature and pre -determined development
pattern, small size of this site, existing adjacent streets and
development, and limited point of access qualify as conditions
peculiar to the site which causes a hardship to plat additional
solar oriented lots. Staff finds that the variance can be granted
without substantial detriment to thepublic good and without
substantially impairing the purposes of the LDGS.
In addition, under requirement (3), Staff finds that the plan
contains features that render it equal to or better than a plan
that could have met the 65% solar orientation. These features
include high energy efficiency of individual units (these units
have one the highest "energy scores" tested in Fort Collins), the
higher density provided by paired housing, and provision of an
alternative housing product.
4. Desian
The proposal is for 42 attached paired patio homes on individual
lots. The average lot size is 4000 sq. ft. with a front yard
setback of 20' and.rear yard setback of 5' for interior lots and
15' for other lots. The proposed side yards vary from zero lot
line to 51.
All lots front on a local street. Access to the development is
either from Hampshire Road or Prospect Road, when this has been
finally determined. Each unit is on an individually owned lot with
a two garage attached garage. All landscaping, outside of the
individual building envelope, is maintained by a homeowner's
association.
All homes are brick with pitched roofs and wooden trim and accents.
The homes will be ranch style, single story. Building height will
not exceed 201. Where possible, houses will have full basements.
A private patio area, with privacy fencing is provided for each
unit.
A brick column and cedar fence is provided along Hampshire Road and
Prospect Road. Pedestrian access is provided at the ends of cul-
de-sacs and between lots 28 and 29, which will connect to the
existing trail on the City open space/detention area to the east.
Street trees are provided along Hampshire Road, Prospect Road, and
internally, one tree per lot. Landscaping and berming are provided
along Prospect Road to enhance the arterial streetscape.
Northbrook Patio Homes @ Fairbrooke PUD — Preliminary, #7-94
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
and other residential uses, 2) providing a diversity of housing
types in the community, 3) development of infill property with
existing utilities and services, and 4) encouraging alternative
modes of transportation. In addition, the design achieves
compatibility with the existing, Surrounding land uses through
enhanced landscaped setbacks and building and street design and
orientation.
3. Solar Orientation
The Solar Orientation Ordinance requires that 65% of the lots
within a single family PUD or subdivision be oriented to within 30
degrees of a true east -west line. The Preliminary Plan indicates
that 15 out of a total 42 lots, or,36$, are considered to be solar
oriented. An additional 13 lots would need to be solar oriented in
order to meet the 65% compliance requirement.
The applicant has submitted a variance request for relief from the
strict requirement of 65% orientation compliance (see attached).
In summary, the applicant states the following:
A hardship is caused by preexisting site parameters, specifically,
a) This is a small infill site located at the intersection of an
arterial and a collector street. Properties to the north, south,
east and west are currently developed.
b) Access is restricted to one location, either off of Prospect
Road or Hampshire Drive, and essentially two cul-de-sacs through
the development are dictated.
According to the Solar Orientation Ordinance:
"When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize
variances under this Article upon its findings that the
following requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been
satisfied:"
11(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or
other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to
the site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the
strict application of any provision of this Article."
11(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties
with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be
caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any
provisions of this Article."
Northbrook Patio Homes @ Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminary, #7-94
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RL; existing single.family homes
S: RL; existing single family homes (Fairbrooke PUD)
E: RL; existing City Stormwater detention pond
W: RL; Bauder Elementary School
The property is Tract G of the Fairbrook (Master Plan) ODP which
was approved in 1982 for apartments, townhouses, and a church site.
The entire Fairbrooke ODP includes approximately 100 acres south of
Prospect Road and west of Taft Hill Road. Tract G was designated
as a church site on the ODP in 1982 for, at that time, an
identified user. The ODP was amended administratively to allow
single family residential development.
Tract G is one of two remaining tracts to be developed, as 80% of
the Fairbrooke ODP is built out. Tracts F and H, to the south and
west of this site, were designated for townhouses/patio homes (7.5
DU/ac) and apartments (12.0 DU/ac) respectively. These tracts have
since been developed with single family lots at a density of
approximately 3.0 DU/ac.
This site was previously owned by the City of Fort Collins, as:a
result of a failed special improvement district. The property was
recently sold to the present owners for residential development.
The site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
2. Land Use
The request for 42 paired patio homes on 7.07 acres represents a
gross density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). This
proposed density is supported by a score of 90% on the Residential
Density Point Chart of the LDGS. Points were earned for proximity
to transit (on Prospect Road), a neighborhood park (Blevins Park),
a school (Bauder Elementary), a day care center (at Prospect and
Fuqua Drive), contiguity to existing urban development, and for
energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by the
City Code. The proposal was also evaluated against and meets the
applicable criteria of the All Development Point Chart of the LDGS.
The proposed plans achieve many of the goals and purposes of the
Land Use Policies Plan. The proposal is an infill development and
staff believes that the proposed project meets the goals of 1)
encouraging residential development which is conveniently located
near parks, employment centers, public transportation, bike trails,
ITEM NO. 17
MEETING DATE 3/28/94
STAFF Ki rsten Aet ztone
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Northbrook Patio Homes at
Preliminary, #7-94
APPLICANT: Dick Rutherford.
Stewart and Associates
103 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Gary Mackey
Nebarado Construction
c/o Stewart and Associates
103 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Fairbrook PUD,
This is a request for a preliminary PUD for 42 paired single family
patio homes on 6.12 acres. The project is located on the southeast
corner of Prospect Road and Hampshire Drive. The zoning is RL, Low
Density Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The request for 42 paired single family patio homes on 7.07 acres
is in conformance with the amended Fairbrooke Overall Development
Plan. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land
uses. The proposal complies with applicable All Development
Criteria of the LDGS and the proposed gross density of 5.9 DU/acre
is supported by a score of 90% on the Residential Density Chart of
the LDGS. Staff is recommending a variance to the Solar
Orientation Ordinance, based on the pre -determined development
pattern, existing streets, and configuration of this infill parcel.
The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The
proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT