Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHBROOK PATIO HOMES @ FAIRBROOKE PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... APPEAL OF P & Z BOARD APPROVAL - 7-94 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGRES ti0- O UNITS/ACiZE Q i.0 UN ITS, ' LAND USE ANALYSIS`` -- - TRACT USA UNITS ACRES" Tract A undeveloped' 163 townhomes - -21.8 ac Tract 8 Filings 4.5,6 27 SF,2 patio.4 plex 6.3 ac Tract C Sommerville " .. 10 duplex units.4 SF-,;-"2.6 ac Tract O Filing 7 21 .SF. school 10.2 ac .� Tract E ``:-"Filing 1 71 SF 18.9 ac Tract F Filing 3 40 SF .9.7 act. Tract G undevelo pad chyrch.:use _ TractH. Filing 2 53 SF •.. S.O.ac. 10.9 ac (-Tract H undev-1 part " 28 apartments -2.4 ac Tract 1 _ developed detention..-_ 8.8 ac Tract J' undeveloped 10 townhomes 1.8 ac TOTAL 433 units 98.4 ac Gross ODP Density: 433 units. 98.4 acres - 4.4 unit cre -� i'` ,'• Gross=ODP Density Residential uses: 433 un"i .8 aces -5.4 units per acre ':(Excludes ciwrch, existing farahouse; school site, regional detention aci ity) LEGA L•;:DESCRIP.TION :A. part of. Tract "D Fa i rbrooke "S: I. D situate ;i n -the North } of Section-.21, _Township:7,North. Range 69 West of -the 6th P,M,; City of. Fort" Collins..County_ .,., of.Larimer, State of:Colorado.:"which."considering the North-=1ine'of the said North i='as-bearing.S'880 46' 03". E` and with -all bearings..containod herein relative thereto is contained within the":foundary lines whicF begin at a point:•"= on the North line of said Tract "0" which bears S 01.".°'13' 57" W 50.00 feet and again N 88° 46' 03" W 57.70 feet from the North} corner of -said -Section 21 and run thence S 01* -13' Sr' W 79.29 feet; thence S 40° 56' 16" E'79,22 --` feet; ,, -then ce.,S 650 25' 05" E 199.32 feet; thence S 01° 13' 57".W 343.73 feet; thence S 60° 13' 57" W 138.51._ feet to a point on the Northeasterly-l;ne of Cedarwood Drive; thence along the said Northeasterly line.along the arc of a 427.00 foot._radius curve to -the righta distance'of']36,71 feet; the long chord of`which bears N 39' 35:. 44" W 136.13 feet and again N 48° 46' 04".W :413.66 feet and again along the arc of a 213.00 foot radius curve -to the -right ..e distance ,of-`,185.88 =feet, ..the long chord -of which bears: N 23° 46' 04" W 180.04 feet and again N 01° 13' 56" E 80.00 feet and again along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 31.42 feet. the long chord of which bears N 46° 13' 56" E 28.28 feet to ta._point on :-.the_,South J ine. of ::Prospec:t - 1 Road,- thence=- S $8° -46' "�03" -E -3�44. 52 feet to the 1 poa;�t of beginning. TaVART&ASSOCIATES Plannii oiling Matter P,;ae Background - -- --- ------------ This is `a`request••for master -plan approval of the Fairbrooke PUD master plan, a 101 acre parcel located south of West Prospect Street,. bet,.veen Taft Hill Road and Overland `Trail. The site -is surrounded by the following zoning -and land uses: .North: Prospect Street; Bauder:,.Elementary School; R-L,-single-family subd ivision. .South:. R-L, single-family (Brown Farm Subdivision). East:. Taft Hill Road; R-L, single-family (Sonora Estates Subdivision). West:.;,., R-P,'�. R-L-P1, multi -family development, Aspen Heights, Stadium;: Heights, , Foothills West Subdivisions. The Fairbrooke PUD Master Plan proposal includes the following uses: j 1. 701.residential units (patio homes, townhomes and apartments) on 80 acres; 2. A.1.9 acre daycare censer site;,' . 3.•::::A 5-acre church site;' .4._,: An 8.2-acre.. detention area (in addition to the 4-acre City -owned detention area on.the•corner of Prospect Street and Taft -Hill Road); 5: Extension, of.'HampshireRoad, a collector street, to Prospect Street.' - Land Use Data - Tract A Townhomes 21.8 ac 163 units 7.3 DU/ac 'Tract B -Apartments 7 5 ar. 90 units .12.0 DUJac Tract C Daycare Center 1.9 ac -- -- Tract.,,D-: Townhomes/ 10.2 ac:.. 71 units 7.0 DU/ac Patio Homes Tract E Patio Homes 19.1 ac .:11.4 units 6.0 DU/ac Tract F Townhomes/ 12.4 ac 93 units 7.5 DU/ac Patio Homes Tract G Church, .: •.5.0 ac -- Tract H Apartments ...:.. 13.3--ac . ,'`160.units � - •' . 1,2.0 DU/ac . "Tract I Detention :.•::.-8.2 ac - .,.... •. �---:... Area :Tract J Townhomes =1.8 ac -10 units'.. .: 6.0 DU/ac _...TOTALS _. `_ ;; ,:.101.:.2.:ac:_.`7.01 .units 9...DJ/ac Notes: 1. No building to exceed 40-feet in -height. -- — - 2. Maintenance of. --private drives, parking lots, islands 'and open spaces to be undertaken by Homeowners. -Association. 3. -"Apartments" means possible condominium ownership, stacked units up to 2-,1/2 stories. 4. Curb cuts,onto the arterial street are to be limi�ed to.street.intersections. Planning; Objec-'Uives for the Fairbrooke PUD Master Plan, as provided by the applicant, are attachad to this memorandum. ' J �.' , • >• _�IMQ_gQl(1! :fMlIL7 NOYF.S .. � r / _ ' � .. 4-' � , _,TRACT G \� uwr 'ov MHO �� NIEW JESIUM 5.0 "on, 1 . - DEEDED' - 00000fl Ilov /rtr \ ^. '• CUM" TBAC[ ` s.ol..It I'•� z ` � t tiY prmwwarlrr.wm..Ywurpmr �.! •� i ' � II Us me __t '. � (��--- ..--'lJ��. f ; �„a'� ^' uncC2JeIc c 5 l ' •- `� >rj-'lam_-_= �•�.• -=... �• .� Q �'�� 1 • t .,,,> '- / A F 2�z Y' x. TRACT H` s I -; wj••' t-}y► ' ' _.wemm�l. k • _ TRACT I .. ti' tL RC - well I, nm nonm. ] . i1�IC+M 1. MttPat ow YM '\` t<lla ` If sr V1. r 7PIP -� -- %pia i r 'ate_ --.:=Nwy _ e a s1+�•� Q _ NWInM- �r-'. .����-/. � '�J: 1. �//��\\\11 MiYmdwel[u1mdMYlwwar balm Y. wY4ram. wYmrm tr lr tmwmm.{' �; ` �r/ J 1' [obw. m.n r wm.. YYt r m.rr. Yr s pY1NrY mwln Y rm.es j: � .,�� pfIMMM4nLRtdli{i[wVYmYMW{LnImllYmYlYfmYa'N•OYIIILLIWpn i �.61i mllal0 wYd YwM rMfIF • YW'CT ), 0 } _ M. ULM « M m llr0 Y M W1 Lnml ni t104, /10f M KI tm tl LY fSIP. I M. W{ w10 Ylm M ,1 [ 1'J. Yi M.n, cLt M msm• ur r {r OIMI e a , r _ rr '. W Ymm1 Y 13 4m. r.W W YIm 11{ W W lYn 0 n r YmYY•) PPm mu a MIX MI . s Ig t +.. miY a {YM.1 \Im m M YY TUY. S Y•w•Y' 4 N.m MI :IOR. la•tlwm UY M vn fYn. { fP0•N •-_ i•:1' {m.'La rV. - •.I OL4 M1)IOQ./fYIYaW,mM,OOY.) M•Y'm'a Ylm Ma90Y•fn'Y'w'R YYU M{ -••- WIYO.•r)m..l•.�Ia.I.aLr YarLrlLLl�rO..O.d0• OYY.Im -w It. m vM. ft l JgWirm•a Wv=I •FWI.)VYT f. 6m M: n.4 , � - .- tlmm.mLs v.r [s.araYs fb•IYNRfm.mm)II M11.fQSN..mA M. raa.. n•cw .. )n]. MI MC.).• •tea ' � ...: IOi m (r91. r s m®.a mmrl0 a "• . M1.'. .wv emrM OaP il. tvaTmt a.03.arr.iYYwO• M.Y IIn11101m.SStylY.. wSAa M.II<a4tN1Y�.. mli M1110O•)rlm•P .. . aaas a.MMe rr r aYa.r r ramo n�.rr. ifC a sOm w.m1 aa.. M. lmv. { w'm•ar 1. m.m 1m)i I.W:. aa'NN C O.LL nnl )+�:. .. •- .: �.:: O.aL ra. vYm olY.m.a WL Y mm mlL1m.0 aw v..r 11OY.) lt'w'Is S M 3W wn law •a. . ._ •l-1 m.lo®rsosm{s.r m>++. - -�1 fY'n•w..tb.m wn m.wmmxnu nllW YuoIY rWI Mam:.m1 .. !" 1. -� __ ---_ �. . {fm•mI a. ).w .wI w a m{PM m a fYYv [Yn SLAW, Lot. in.. � CO[t. 4UPW 4Y fJM •. IY�r 4Y.. d'd'P• 4 Y.m nR: M.Y. wIM 4n Wf Y+\m. f M4'IY t. W.b nn n a MV tm.mm r M PLM)m M"V r YY trw, auY, ram M r+rwn IMnww 4 wa . - . I _ orl.. Nm•v.4ID.m Ml r r>u.) b•IrP L lm.r rml r r>K. { Twtr b l+a nni r .. �• � . 1 - • MPalnlr Yly a' .1,., atilt. a m'1YIY f. Y.J MI Ya iI41y a Y•IYP a n.n nni r IMY. wYl'P.. r �.. 1� .-sr t. m.- MI M Y.m. \ NIYP .• Inb Iml r K'.w. { Y1'P .• m.m nn. I I:i. �' Ir' I� 41 "Y"Ll`1 �`f ml[ •OY'fY t. lw.m rinM WIN og!ILOW 9aMIG fmUIWIMr'M WUla vwW W'" fta ft f ', ,, -n 1YYt1f �T 1`� •" -.I =.ano0.wlnm Mrntmd MwWmnad MrW.ImY 4Y rno n: nP[f r0<Ir Yn nr("ls rj �1., LrHpm lmr M41)Ynlp.. d'V-w I. vLLw no O M wlpYI Y M Y 4W Mw{WIY• ll j uI1 "{ -J ��y M W. "0". WILL. rpa M YIn 11Y Y W a [ 11. M 41/ 4a:WI. f fYY t. 11•I.M ItfI m M I.I .•.. • I � ` I - "'•'� - .plw pWil.(pWaYMMw OinplW.I.YW M•dH LW m Mm.YmImYM4H 1[[11i.{Y•X'N �a \(' •• r4 W.Y H« 1. M Y m4v Y . IY[I Y IYO r[mrt Y ra. •N. raft vY .IR M IYm. a to W i W .UIS I, f f �A •1111'k �`\. III I' 1 M } M-]f�-•�. O. IYry. 11p. M my {IY PIP PA Ma -1. a O.W.T .. Ye.m IYfi WICA. nr M m1 tl M Y 1 - Y• I)11 •�I :. , I {Yff.lY•Y'Pt. Oam M1 NM.. na'. 1`<Yn \W rM.Mw 1Y[1. .19YPLMI,wI.nm. wln -W I[ • , � ,µ ,✓.>u1 ��IF�� J•. , yr'• I mM pwLrd MrWM.4rMMY Mnia.eaa..IYfM MM e.R Ilr.aaYMt.w..r Put •'- TH' • ate• •\�; :`. 1 �1;�!:r..L,�• tm ... wlRp 4«v[l •�. • r Y /( hM n 1 i III• a IIFFa ``11 • • M MW mi41v. vw arIXH Im.«/ rXa W P YY: �•I��, Y I� L1t angarW M PIP, '14w M.I Mr Pgm W[M,Y M ma M«.m 11Y WM. W�PIrNR I a !, 'r' ) , bCy1�� ,141)'{• �- i•`1 F. a..wlrM wwu. rrla .a/II't R,Ya. I I dAv[W.I'M p[dv 11*A WMIYY Mnp w It.,P w us. Mn.11PIP ad, PgWS. .wit wcl.{. •LI .. -•. - •' . - ' ! ': •-I' • • V11•IY 1. TI.)1 M M M m1Y M ✓i.M[OI PA1 N(In Y M m OY.ILY•J'ylm. Mnw i•MI Y •Syr �• `T(� rl. `'� PY'Y W . Wm PIP IS.. IIn. MY.m "IV M Y.Ia III, go OfVl.«LLI MWI 1000. YI�IY Ia1 1 , 1 !•'�•. 'IaY. /-/ ;�,{'�i `� . OamMVMII. KMM mM M4.Y'LY.[.r'YI Nn[pvXYWCaM.v r.W aIVIL'L .•.1{Y �. ,�` �•4 •. ���•~ %•[ )/4-w WI4a 11..`101 «.1.lIMYI[\. raL 4Y N11. w.H llnmM aYwlmYa.wILN • Il. �./ tfan1' • a/Ym<IIIwM IIUWPIIYali.[d1W..Yf1.YlYY'M•.'.L4imYlram 11«.'lY 1W Ml•LMY« I . `• � � I� Z ■ }Ir I'm Y YMMIn dl.li W.I YMHY:1vY .ILLI Y%MM MI. Y M ",I::IW W M4 Y•1 p L Ir1X • • ILA ��i t.� Y -4 /) \W,aO'O•VY.M.fi N1mM uu-I..L«.f.II. N•I lTI11m WY.WY. YIlm1«•Iw LVI 1•k />'r, i �.f \I. il� ��S �_ •111w Mg,wl \ m d tM1VIm'IV, WAI. 'Ift YX R I Yari MR NIf. Im.11 rmi ILN. WIIY 4:L a LW aa� _.� ._ -_ • i 1 '�r\ , [`. '!=', _� r m. o.IrLW./Y•.1'M•.. m1.m no mM.1 �� .�\ ./ • >e W Mr, m KIv«v RaT naW J.JV Wit, "p1 P LIV �•�� i f (1=��` ,W "it It. 11 Maap.n14Y11Yi..lIi I4M61tlY.W rPY Y. YIII[ryM i PIP «nl1.4.Yla j- _.' . ' .. •: VIl<IL1. 1 SCALE T'.150Q -iN .,Vr' •.1FAIRBROOKE P.U.D. Master Plan lgh..l 2a42, � VIM 11l d^ uxccn.�Ar.-A-i f 1 •' �-.•wmn of � _ e-__r_ fl ...........t..I. inn\ .`mow fl.nwlw Civxw�r� 1• - . The rerouting of Harmony Road between Shields and Taft Hill to align Harmony with County Road 38E at Taft Hill, is planned to be constructed with the next phase of Woodridge development projects. The developer's engineer is designing the project now in preparation for submitting development plans this summer. We think the street construction will begin later this year or next year. Plans for rerouting Harmony have been developing over the last 14 years. Rerouted Harmony is shown on the City Master Street Plan adopted in 1981. It was also master planned 2 or 3 years ago with the Gates and Overlook at Woodridge development projects. Portions of rerouted Harmony Road have been built with the approved phases of Woodridge. The City already has most of the right of way by dedication and purchase. A bicycle and pedestrian underpass is planned for connection the area west of new Harmony for a safe route to the schools. Reasons for the rerouting of Harmony are as follows: 1. to eliminate the current dead end of Harmony at Taft Hill. 2. to eliminate a saftey problem with anticipated heavy traffic using an existing intersectin with steep slopes on the approaches. 3. to align Harmony with County Road 38E, the main route to Horsetooth Reservior, to enhance the value of Harmony Road as an arterial street. When rerouting is completed, existing Harmony Road west of the new Harmony will remain in service as a minor street. It will serve for westbound traffic wanting to go south on Taft Hill and, likewise, northbound Taft Hill Road traffic going east on Harmony. At the time property on the southeast corner of existing Harmony and Taft Hill develops, the old Harmony may be replaced with street connections through the development. The rerouting of Harmony has been planned for all As mentioned above, commitments were made over the new Harmony constructed with each phase. let me know if you have any further questions. Mike Herzig x7662 End of Item 1. along, not "added later." years and needed parts of HPDesk Local Print for Kirsten WHETSTONE Start of Item 1. Message. Subject: Northbrook Patio Homes Sender: Georgiana DEINES / CFC52/01 FROM: Kirsten WHETSTONE / CFC52/01 Part 1. FROM: Kirsten WHETSTONE / CFC52/01 TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2. Dated: 05110194 at 0948. Contents: 2. In response to Councilmember Janett's questions on the Northbrook Patio Homes. * Solar Orientation is addressed at Conceptual Review as well as at Inter- departmental Review. The Northbrook Patio Homes' applicant and Staff did consider solar orientation. This property is a small infill site with existing streets on two sides. The property s is longer on the east west axis than on the north south axis. If the cul-de-sacs are switched, there is land enough for three rows of patio homes. A fourth row along Prospect would not be acceptable as the homes would be too close to the arterial street. This is in part due to the extra deep lots provided at the south to provide the additional buffer there as requested by the neighborhood. Staff believed that density, design, compatibility, and liveability would be compromised by forcing this plan to meetthe solar orient It has already been noted that these patio homes score exceptionally well on theEnergy Score tes very energy efficient. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board do not take the Solar Orientation Ordinance lightly. It is an important element.in our review and variances are not granted readily upon the asking. * School capacity can be addressed by neighborhoods by contacting Carol Agee at the Poudre R-1 School District. He has coordinated school enrollment since the 1960's and is intimately aware of the issues. The City Planning Department works with Mr. Agee on a cooperative basis, as allowed by State Law. The School District is included in development review routings and enrollment figures are included in the Planning and Zoning Boards's packet at the time of final. It should be noted that the approved Fairbrooke Master Plan, which was routed tothe School Distr townhouses in this area. The area has since developed out primarily with single family residences. Capacity is not a problem in the district, although there are some areas where distribution is an issue. also............. in response to Councilmember Janett's question on Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Harmony Road: - If traffic citywide is growing 30% faster than population, is the 1985 .traffic study by Leigh,Scott and Cleary outdated? Do we ever compare the traffic study projections from development reviews to subsequent actual traffic? Have we any data for existing Fairbrook developments vs original ODP? Yes we do compare original ODP projects with actual traffic counts. We require all phases of an ODP to be reviewed against the original traffic study. In the case of this proposal this area in the original ODP was intended to be a church site. Which would have generated about 100 trips on a week day. This patio home proposal will generate about 300/350 trips per week day. The original Fairbrooke ODP had multi -family development just to the south of this proposal and it eventually developed as single family. So when looking back at what was proposed and what has actually been built the overall traffic generated by this development including this change has been reduce. End of Item 41. HPDesk Local Print for Ron PHILLIPS Start of Item 41. Message. Dated: 05/09/94 at 1719. Subject: 5/10 Mtg questions Sender: Rick ENSDORFF / CFC52/01 Contents: 2. TO: Ron PHILLIPS / CFC52/01 Part 1. TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2. Councilperson Janett had a few questions about the Northbrook Patio Homes appeal. - What's the current status of the safe route to school study? Transportation Dept is working with the Bauder school administration to set up the safe route to school process. We began this process last year but where not able to coordinate with school administration and PTO. The Transportation Dept then had to move on to working with another school. We expect to complete the safe route to school plan for Bauder and implement any changes before next school year begins. -- Is there a controlled access plan for Prospect? No. We look at intersection spacing on arterials based on general guidelines. Those guidelines would include a minimum spacing of intersections on arterials of 1200 ft. Also we would expect a minimum spacing for any access from a signalized intersection of 350 to 400 ft. - Are there any directional traffic count data for Hampshire? Traffic counts taken on November 5 1993 indicate 2460 vehicles in 24 hours on Hampshire south of Prospect. Traffic counts on Hampshire taken on Nov.S 1993 just north of Drake indicate 2750 vehicles in a 24 hr period. Both of these counts are well within our range for collector street volume. - We need information on the blind corners? The Engineering Dept has looked at the issues of blind corners as raised by the neighborhood. They have found that there are 3 to 4 fences that do reduce the sight distance in the area of Hampshire and Coventry. These sight distance problems are existing and will be dealt with by the Transportation and Engineering Depts regardless of the outcome of this development proposal. - Are traffic problems (existing) due to numbers or speed? A speed study taken in Nov 1993 indicated a average speed for this section of Hampshire to be 30 MPH. The posted speed limit is 25MPH. As far as the traffic volume as mentioned above the total volumes are expected on a . collector street. I would expect the safe route to school plan to look at speeding as the major issue in this area. Start of fie-m 20, Message. Dated 05i0-al34 at _Z�UZ Subject> 5%1'0 Mtg. Questions Sender: Gina JANEI1 I CYCI01 Contants Z. IU Joe YKANrt / CYCS[i1.( Fart 1. FROM Gina .IANEII / C`C/wl lU- D1'STK1aUT7Uf`d Fart 1. Arapahoe Farm lownhomes - what's the plan to reroute Harmony ... Why "r When7 Was it added later---- Z. Northbrook Fatio Homes - what` ,ha current status or safe route to =cnooi studye Uoes it need to be finished prior to a decision on access via Prcp5pect or Hamlp5hlre' - =5 there c. c.oni•r'o:1etd access plan for 5rospec " What does it day about, this area': - hre there any diract'_onal t,raific count ❑etc. for Hampehire re: north -south traffic patierns' if so, what are numbers' - We need info. -on the blind c--rners— what the issue, and why isn't soi'ved�f - Are traffic problef,?s S,s ;is l� ing , [tie to numbers or speec? - if traffic citywide is growing 30% faster than copulation, is the i'J8i traffic study by Leigh no 1 '..leery outdatecP Uo we eVmr coMparC' the traffic study projections from deveiQ pvlent re iewS-to .sub5epuent acivai traffic' Have we any data for existing t-airbr•-ok developments vs. original UUr (traffic projections vs, counts:. it loots to me that the subdivision layouts could have had east -west streets )instead of north -south cul-du-sacs) that would have allowed development to meet solar orientation standard. While this 15n`i in the appeal, why did 5taf'f P&Z 5o readily provide variance! is this issue addressed at conceptual review? - School capacity - how can neighborhoods comment on school overcrowding and why isn't it a concern of City in development review procesa'l Should it be? Has School District ever brought this up? bina End of Item `Ga. ,•�(I/s' 1'� t �, 5 NAME ADDRESS �r- 2s44 ";rwo o d Or- NAME, ADDRESS s�� �I� � i / plol 2-3 Ll 2-2-c4o • f A 1 11 1 i I T Fa i*rd,'t 2313 CL 9 �''(Ace- a ki d WL i ot,,l VaIll 641 Ajila oL . /e\ut Or 3 - it'5 NAME ADDRESS �Noi(am= c� 2Z37 ()Pc/wrw�'✓ �- 23 ` 3�AIL+�tloo�L- jr _d tea- 7M; Wd► ZZo7 ccJl-hevve6l) De. NAME L f ADDRESS Ix Ll d 2-4o4 Oec6� fir. — — --------- 9,/Zz le� L4 Ct I A- --Iu rLI _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 wit"he- 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 ADDRESS ^ 331 �3 d �, �3c6 a3a� avn . c� CT Y " NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Did You Rcccire Correct Tvlof ritten Votification Address. this manrino7 Name Address ,DFANCOMWE ®®®® MEN -INIMMMEN 111111ml 11011101 - - :- MINE 'MEMO in MEN 14 + i-. . MEN NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Dld You Receive Correct written ";otitic3tton address". of thie Name Address Zip Yes n No � I Ycs No Cikn2-4Z,4 �CATtir a SDOZ( ✓ 1)04 S6ov.v.o KCr 2318 1,J• fros �+ Ack go52lo ✓ V IL n/ �o Re o1e21 (2u " CT (P0 . 0) \J h h w A3v U - & �a sG✓ 33 M 6dffl 4 r Qj JoEt_ �k 33� CA.�.rt Ct �05 a I I v4 '3U ��o savt 'oe . BYt(C? Qnj m l f i cn* v X X 8C)SQL X x I N` _(�4 I f I Ad J I lz j 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 41 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. 7 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 2 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 21, 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 ,ee -- 1 r �j jd j. t7i-------- .. e, Woou_- TIAnr --r.----------_ �,. vERq WbLK ;7^-.___ 5K_ 1ry17.Tq-..:�_�>--'— - 1� i_ ----------------- 4 �/ Is _ c -.. f 4ti'G' - �Kl6k GowH/� !' o tj — .. 00 c�`'C \ ib'Is'' II 'sly 1� 3 too' ' I 1 R9 &9�II ��1 +� tL If I ill p 1 1,®Uilrill� 3 ae' 4 1 to -I r 51' ti, 1 e a d on_C= -- I hJ I V s I � l3 � y�. y3' O r lez . I k---t-- 11on' o ML4 c p UST' I i LOW a : ton• i s If -14' 1Li vli Z, � J+ 1 I l' -kaMP I '..... \_ i e ri i i s F _ � LE4hv 106 l t ' 1 9 �ufrUiY h/ LOIlNEL iCN r, EYlbt fAkE f'l1N (ttt.tUo! POEa �':;7. i s ��zno io ec. C6TEICnINEu � �1 ' iIl $ QL' , �m 1. l' 1. r- '., ��t.,• .. 3j' _.p�'. tr)' .��• ��a \� � e i.. 9^. it lil It I ,ft I_ ..!`Cn/l 33 6 +}t �� 1. i • s. 35 �+s - _ LI ;�Ll �- - rto'u1Nli�'� vkEidaya s5n_ _1 _-. jjq / � 35• 5• iti 1ri '"y g4•Iti oo U 34B.11' 1 / PI c �IUFICS��, err ""J6 ✓ 4 APPENDIX A Land Use Tract G from Leigh, Scott, & Cleary Report Current Proposal 42 Patio Homes 0 Table 1 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out 100 2 2 1.0 10 320 6 18 22 12 u.i x C� J W O -13 �1 W S H h- d 10 0 OP 10 19 Cl) 0 M C-7 z Cr W W z z W _J U • z 0 a Cr Cr 0 LL z a ¢ U LL LL a MEMORANDUM To: Gary Mackey, Nebarado Construction Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates Rick Ensdorff, Fort Collins Transportation Division Fort Collins Planning Department From: Matt Delich 0*9 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 singles 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. 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.U.D. will raise the overall density a small amount. STEWART$,LSSOCIATES 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 1.07 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 efficient. In the 1993 Parade of Homes, the same unit as will be constructed on this site scored the highest of all homes in the Parade of Homes. The site has all the units facing in from the boundary lines which will provide a cohesive neighborhood within i,tsel•f and will not have an adverse affect on the existing neighborhood to the south. The site is adjacent to an existing public open space, which is the detention pond, and to Bauder School. However, most of the expected buyers will be "empty nesters" and will not have school —aged children. 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 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, 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 174,Pi'�idAt'ooK /;i 7-16 f 0i)y14 - 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 a I Z Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation ✓ -14nX /Y UCS /h 1.2 Comprehensive Plan V ✓ C !S S al 1.3 Wildlife Habitat ✓ _V?a. [Cea.y /ocG onJ 1.4 Mineral Deposit ✓ 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance 1.7 Energy Conservation I V 1.8 Air Quality✓ 1.9 Water Quality ✓ V ,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 V✓ 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parkin 2.5 Emergency Access ✓ 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation V I ✓ 2.7 Architecture ✓ 2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shadin ✓ 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 V✓ 2.18 Hazardous Materials ✓ A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity�/ V 3.2 Design Standards �✓ ✓ 3.3 Water Hazards ✓ 3.4 Geologic Hazards ✓V V DENSITY CHART Maximum Criterion Credit It All Dwelling Units Are Within: Earned ` Credit 0 20.% two feel Of an ewslingor approved neighborhood shopping center. b 10% 650feet ofonerlshngtransit irib,s11— D C 10% 4000 feet of on existing or opoiovod regional Shopping Conlin d 20% 3500 feet of an existing of eserved neighborhood park Community pork or community laCillry. WI a 10% 10001001 Of schoolmili all me requlremenh of me Compulsory education laws of The Slate of Colorado 1 < t 20% m 0000 fOel Of 0 major employment Center. y co; r a g S/O 1000feet old child Care tenter. h 20% 'North* TOO Collins. 20% the Central Business Distilcl. gpfaleCi whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development, Credit may be earned as follows 0%— For proleCllwhOse propeM boundary, no$ 0 to 10%contiguily J p 30 /0 101015%—TO, Projects hOse Property par indary has 10 to 20%conhguey, 1 :15 to 20%—For prole[ is whose PIOPe N boundary nos 201000%COnkguig 1 2010 25%—For prolects who» propeM boundary has 0010 40%contiguity, 2510 00%— Fail projects property boundary has 40 to 50%contiguity, O k It It can pe demonstrOted mot lie project will reduce nondenewable energy useage e4her through the application of allemOlive energy systems Or lhroughcomminad energy Commotion meos"efpeVond mat nalmallylequled by CiryCOde.05%banU1 for every 5%reduction in energy mcy be earned use, Calculate a l% bonus lot every 50 acres included in the project Fri CO'Culale me Percentage Of the Total acres In the prole[ I mat are deviated to reCrealiofWl use, enter 112 Of That Percentage as a bonus. n 11 the applicant cOmmih to preserving permanent Oasite Open space that meek the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open SPoCe acreage to the total development Overage, enter this Percentage Os a bonus 0 If part of the total dovelopnenl budget is 10 be spent On neighborhood public transit facilieeswhich Ole hol Otherwise required by City Code, enter 2%bonus tar every S100 per dwelling uni invested. P If part of me total development budget I110 be spent on neighborhood lOcll4les and whir l which are not Ome1wW required by City Code. enter al% bonus lot every S100 per dwelling unit Invested. V : q Ito Commitment If being made to develop a specified percentage of the total hamper Of dwelling lfMh fail low income lomilies enter Tull percentage 05 0 bonus, up To a maximum of JO%. _ �. B o commitment is being mode To develop o specified percentage Of the total number of dwelGrng urvh lot TWO Wand 1 housing as defined by me City of Fort Collins calculate the bonus 0. F as follow,,,YPe'B•hoMicopped Type•q•— .5times TypeWunih 1 otaT lurnh coType'B"-1.0 times Type V units . . OlTunits Inno Cosa shall the Combined bonus be greater man00%. If the site or adjacent popertyconfoins an historic building Or place. a bonus may be earned for me following 0% — For preventing at mitigatingoulede Influences le g. environmental. lard use, oeslhisi ecorspnic and social foClodl adverse tom S 0 % — Fol Ossuing that new structures will be in kem4rsg with the Character of the building Or place. while avoiding total unih 0% — For propos,ngodaptive useol the buiding Or place lhOtwillleOd lO Rs continuprnce. peservaticnandimplavemenl in an opploplatemonnel. If 0 Portion of all of the requited parking in the multiple family Plot" Is provided underground within the building, ail In an elevated parking structure as an atce=ryUse to the primary shuplure, a bonus may be earned OS follows: . t 9% — Fwpr 4dsg75%via 901meparvinginosMxture: 6% — Far providing 50.74% of the parking in a structure: 0% — Far Providing 25.49% Of the porkinglno 111uClure, u If a Commitment is being mode to pronde ooprOvub automatic fire eAnqurshing moms for me d Iltng units, enter a bonus of 10% TOTAL 90%. -30- fir ' ­7�cbk W io Ro%, ACTIVITY: Residential Uses DEFINITION; r u All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached .dwellings, town.homes, 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 pl,aces.for public assembly with inciden- tal office space; and child-care centers. CRITERIA. k 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 a portion of the site only)? 2. DOES THE PROJECT SCORE A COMBINED TOTAL OF 100 PERCENTAGE POINTS OR MORE AS CALCULATED IN THE �pf ❑ "DENSITY CHART" THAT FOLLOWS? (aJ -29- �W W iy�ii OI J'J , wI yy ruf 4 ~ J =� iuyW.•.r1 r G=o wl� rDP41Av � a1NNN �iNM1Y I I I I I 1 I le4 I I I pl4A( 4NNM4 1 flXu Dtf11l wooPK06PEGi Ohl ___-___1i__—___'_- , IF T' I __ see' 4bf:kr _1I� _._ •'• F.ks n' —_ — - s '. —9fs'••s . e xi F•�i .opMI-ht •'t I } 11 I '' It y'ufn 1 l DI • Iµ �i xl• 13m1. Oj •t'..'i'ngla' �I I eel•. � /\t l 1 h / I a eGU:I�• IDS • D b 4e .° ,0° 4I9 VwiurtY MAP 1 � \ ` OF111nHItLL jisw ID h © 11 Q u 0 \ ® ire:4Vm i[[e4 V`J - -- �� I. Y feYele Y4 K YNNYY erl M . rll ll' ` � � IIY W w• N W tl YW .t /w Y fltyl' \ 1.1. 1 Mo U. 4 01'lY'°> •1. MON 4rK rilu x.f'M N•M1v Ne se fILULL �e ? G�fIIC� 4 4N." WS OFNLIx111tIL Ir- 11 10 — DE4GueK "FUD PV"4F+N1 e F .. sir. lOt LAN74LAp� (ef DNvtwsf) 1-- f11Fvp,AI Ua'pbifev tlJy{x fANllr WOO pp 1 � , GoveNlK` icAW : l • x0� t M to yv Iw .m J DLVG ", WILL Nkxtf tYP. �dfi. EtIVEIOF'� MAIL - VIGIWIfY MAP c.u,Le:r•Itoa' -- /•tl'E WA: N O'Me M re111,OvM-4— ILFirDFcex FAt. Went. w - All AFlA L.IL Al - (We 49A 1,01 AL WIM Yi rnW Moy t 1 NAnP�FA ttut iLJIJU FL FFO PV Us OU%.LX fAf1G WMt4 _ �' 4 AMNaW hW 114, % J+1h •YI OUFtEYty , 11 JNI{506— l rcf d • WxY Go AiY t WC F _ (afI," vw xtf otusltf 6.0 uNrtr/a6. L2 p -y� 1. es yaw RLtrnIMW - At rlwl) gFo.,r GZNSIfY n 9 UMrisi aL Q — IIDfE -Q—tNmo.ty� lat Mtets uk rouF aunuflw LFgtin. YL or ♦v mA. MAO r ,R CFIrtFla. W4 • o9Y. tr UWte A" n F orlwrW. Dtvy. At W ru. Dfvr M6 v/UNIt U pdFxluy y Orr •.IF.11 slxLes/UNri to I'DOVAO 1WAKfDWW ; ' vE VWA1EV strS4f R.O.W, �a,910 yr 19 '/• DUILOIN4 FLctfr,wt B+,LM 4 Tc% bfW watt IFOc A,D,c ID-14,116 of OLY� I LINV.i IJ ff �W MIe _ IItrrI Dt 5 9? ), L iLfAl— g44,50t fi loo'/• '� � w o s o I. tNek A','D'.'e' o ° •+v pact 'v' � xwtrr, utlofn�fY a '" — ruF`er .•:. a wwn,nu it v •.. • j :a I : i :i :t•z•) ;m :l±yt 0 rem : r• •I* r 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 a'hd 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 or 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. Transportatio 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. ION 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 11(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 the public 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. Design 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 20'. 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:" "(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." "(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. -I 2. Lund 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/�— STAFF Kirsten utone City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrook PUD, 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: 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 80522-0380 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 7 the arterial street for local trips. Access to the collector street system is consistent with established policies and requirements of the City. Land Use Policies Plan The Board, in approving the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD, found that the PUD achieves many of the goals and purposes of the Land Use Policies Plan, as reflected in the Residential Density Point Chart, in that the proposal 1) is an infill development which is conveniently located near parks, schools, employment centers, public transportation, bike trails, and existing utilities and services, 2) contributes to the diversity of housing types in the community, and 3) encourages alternative modes of transportation by its proximity to a bus route and bike lanes. SUMMARY Staff believes that the Board did hold a fair hearing and approved the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD based on accurate evidence in the record. The Board did properly interpret and apply relevant laws and considered the requirements and criteria of the LDGS in making a decision. The Board found that all criteria of the Residential Density Chart and applicable criteria of the All Development Chart of the LDGS were satisfied by this preliminary PUD. The Board also found that the PUD achieves many of the goals and purposes of the Land Use Policies Plan. Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 6 such as fences, are oriented on the site. Member Klataske commented that removal of proposed fencing would open the project up and would be more easily integrated in to the existing neighborhood. The applicant proposes fencing only along the two roadways to provide privacy, screening, and a noise buffer for the residents and to upgrade the streetscape with an attractive design element. The Board did properly interpret and apply relevant criteria of the LDGS, which is the applicable code in this matter, in addressing compatibility and integrating the proposal into the neighborhood by discouraging elements which would prevent visual and physical integration of two compatible land uses. Traffic With regard to traffic, the Board properly interpreted Criterion A- 2.1, which states "Can the additional traffic generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems? The City Transportation Staff reviewed the PUD and found that the proposal was feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The street system is designed to handle the projected traffic, which is considerably less than what was originally projected, due to the reduction in density that has occurred in the Fairbrooke Overall Development Plan. Hampshire Drive is designed and constructed to City collector street standards. Prospect Road will be improved to City standards with this development. In approving the preliminary PUD with access on Hampshire Drive, the Board applied and correctly interpreted the LDGS. In finding that the PUD addressed all applicable criteria of the All Development Chart, the Board found that the PUD addressed Criterion A-2.1 and that additional traffic could be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems. The LDGS defines a collector street as one which collects and distributes traffic from residential areas to the arterial and major arterial street system. Collector streets are designed to carry 2,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day. The addition of 24 cars at the am peak and 34 cars at the pm peak will not have a significant impact on the total number of trips and will not cause the street to exceed these standards. In addition, access to the collector street reduces impacts on traffic flow delay for a future 4 lane arterial street with the potential of carrying high volumes of traffic. Access to the collector encourages the use of a collector street for the purposes for which it was designed and provides an avenue for integration of this project into the neighborhood as vehicles are not forced onto Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 5 2. Allegation: "The Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws." The Board properly interpreted and applied relevant laws in approving the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD. The authority of the Board, as contained in the Code and Charter, is to interpret the Code and apply the facts presented to them in making their decisions. The Board heard testimony from the applicant and audience and received written information from staff concerning the facts of the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD. There is evidence in the record that the Board did properly interpret and apply relevant laws, specifically the LDGS and the Land Use Policies Plan in approving the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD. LDGS In approving this PUD, the Board found that the proposal satisfied all requirements of the LDGS for a preliminary PUD, including the Residential Density Chart and all applicable criteria of the All Development Chart, specifically related to neighborhood compatibility and traffic. The Board's packet, as an appendix to the traffic study, included a plan showing the layout with access to Hampshire Road in addition to the plan showing access to Prospect Road. Neighborhood Compatibility/Integration of Neighborhoods The Board found the PUD sufficiently mitigates potential land use conflicts and represents a compatible land use with the surrounding -area. In approving the preliminary PUD, the Board reviewed all applicable criteria of the LDGS. Included in this review was Criterion A-2.2 for Building Placement and Orientation. This criterion addresses building and fence placement, and orientation as it relates to the function of the land use, neighborhood integration, privacy, and aesthetic considerations. The Board considered the buffer adequate for the type of use proposed. This buffer would facilitate neighborhood integration rather than segregation. Criterion A-2.7 for Architecture, addresses whether the architecture is appropriate for the uses and activities that are planned in the area. Member Cottier stated that the patio homes were single story and that the land use is compatible with existing homes. With regards to fencing, the Board discouraged the applicant from providing a solid fence around the entire perimeter of the property. Criterion A-2.2 addresses the way site plan elements, Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 4 Hampshire Drive was designed and. constructed to City standards. There are platted site distance easements on lots along Hampshire intended to restrict landscaping, fencing, and other impediments to site distance. Staff has recently become aware of violations to these restrictions and of compromised site distances at the alleged "blind" intersections. At this time there is not enough information to know whether there are blind intersections or not. Staff will continue to look into this matter. 4. The Board believed that a Prospect -entrance and perimeter fence as requested by the neighborhood would create an enclave and that access onto Hampshire Road opens the new development to the existing neighborhood. This reasoning follows good planning principals. Integration into the neighborhood means physical as well as social integration. Other neighborhoods in this area, including Fairbrooke I and II, open to the local street system and are thus integrated into the area as a whole. None of the neighborhoods in the Fairbrooke Area take access, let alone sole access, from the arterial street system. While the Board may have disagreed with the neighborhood on this point, they did not base their decision on false or grossly misleading evidence or facts. 5. It is not correct that the Transportation Division endorsed access onto Prospect Road. The Transportation staff provided information to the Board indicating that access onto Prospect Road was feasible from a traffic engineering viewpoint. Member Cottier asked specific questions regarding the feasibility of access onto Prospect. The entire Board was aware that access onto Prospect Road was feasible. Likewise, from an traffic engineering viewpoint, access onto Hampshire is also feasible. This evidence was neither false or grossly misleading. The appellant also alleges that the Board considered misleading evidence concerning the issue of water on the site. The applicant will be required to have an approved drainage report and drainage and grading plans prior to filing of the subdivision plat and issuance of any building permits. At this time, these drainage plans are preliminary. At the time of final the drainage plan must show that adjacent properties will not be impacted by this development. The City will also review any subdrain systems that are required for development of this site due to ground water. Therefore, Staff believes that the Board did hold a fair hearing and did not consider substantially false and grossly misleading evidence in approving the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD. Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 3 the south which includes a park, Jr. High School, neighborhood shopping center and grocery store, day care center, car wash, and restaurants. Integration into the neighborhood was the primary basis for the Board's decision. The following paragraphs address the above five alleged misleading points of "evidence". With the exception of item #4, the Board did not base the decision on this "evidence". 1. A "safe route to school" study was initiated for Bauder Elementary: Scheduling difficulties and a short time frame for data collection required the project be delayed. These difficulties have since been resolved and the process is underway again. It is anticipated that the study will be completed this Spring. This program is completely independent of the development review process. The program is coordinated by the City Transportation Division, but requires cooperation of the School District, School Principal, and the Parent/Teacher Association. "Safe Route to School" studies are not conducted as a reaction to development proposals. The LDGS does not require a "safe route" study prior to approval of PUDs. 2. The difficulty of left turns from local streets onto arterial streets is a fact and will be a greater concern in this area in the future as traffic volumes increase. It is not good transportation planning practice to force local traffic onto arterial streets, at uncontrolled intersections, when there is an option to access a collector street. Left turning movements at collector -arterial intersections can be controlled with traffic signals, when traffic volumes warrant them. 3. According to the developer's traffic engineer and the City Transportation staff, most of the traffic will access the arterial system at Prospect Road and continue north, east, or south via an arterial street. Some traffic will go south on Hampshire and it is desirable for this traffic to use the collector street to access the neighborhood shopping center, school, park, day care center, etc. As a collector street it is designed to handle the anticipated volume. Regardless of where the vehicles are going, traffic generated by a residential development of 42 houses does not represent a significant increase in traffic for Hampshire Drive. According to the traffic study, the am peak is 24 vehicles and the pm peak is 34 vehicles in a one hour period. Traffic counts show that Hampshire Drive currently carries .between 1,100 and 1,400 vehicles per day. Collector streets are designed to carry from 2,500 to 5,000 trips per day. Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke Staff Response April 28, 1994 Page 2 1. Allegation: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by staff and the developer.11 Staff Response: The Board did hold a fair hearing and the Board did not consider substantially false and grossly misleading evidence in approving the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD. The evidence in the record supports approval of the PUD. The Board heard testimony from the applicant and the public and received written information from staff that the PUD would be developed in such a manner as to conform to all requirements of the LDGS for the preliminary plan. In approving this PUD, the Board found that the proposal satisfies all requirements of the Residential Density Chart, meets applicable criteria of the All Development Chart of the LDGS, and achieves many of the goals and purposes of the Land Use Policies Plan. The appellant alleges that the Board changed the PUD's entrance from Prospect Road to Hampshire Drive based on the following "evidence": 1. Safety of the children was being addressed by an on -going "safe route to school" study. 2. Difficulty of residents turning left out of the project. 3. Most traffic from the project will move north to Prospect Road. 4. The Prospect entrance and proposed fence makes the PUD an enclave. 5. Traffic issues with the Prospect Entrance. In approving the PUD and recommending as a condition of approval, that the access be changed to Hampshire Drive, the Board made their decision based on criteria of the LDGS. Specifically, criterion #A-2.2 which addresses how a project is integrated into the existing neighborhood and criterion #A-2.4 which addresses specific design criteria and standards for public streets. All five Board member's commented in one form or another, that access onto Hampshire Drive improves and facilitates integration of this PUD into the existing neighborhood. Neighborhood means not only the immediate residential area, but also the entire section to MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council \ FM: Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner G \ TH: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Plannt ,and Environmental , Services • Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Directo RE: Staff Response to an Appeal of the March'28, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board approval of the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Preliminary. The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Notice of Appeal, regarding the Northbrook Patio Homes PUD, filed on April 11, 1994 and amended on April 25, 1994 by Robert Clay, resident of the adjacent neighborhood. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Abuse of discretion,,in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record; (2) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of Code and Charter: (3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its finding which was substantially false or grossly misleading; d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 April 25, 1994 Page 3 Amended Appeal - Northbrook Patio Homes The Board also considered the following misleading evidence; it was stated there was no water issue or concern. The information presented was that in fact a neighbor directly south of the project had EXTENSIVE water related costs and problems. (developer dismissed this as "that woman at the neighborhood meeting" when it was a different residents' problems that I related) Test holes were drilled on approximately March 2, 1994. On March 5th, myself and another interested resident measured each hole for depth and water. (weather was dry for 2 weeks preceding) We found STANDING WATER at 36" in the middle of the project, 51" and 58" respectively at the south and middle sections of the tracts. We know the developer has utilized a firm to find solutions to any water issues, but the City has not addressed the concerns of the neighbors directly to the south of the project. By stating NO water concerns staff completely ignored neighbors who MIGHT be impacted by the Planned Unit Development. I appreciate our ability to be heard by the City Council to hopefully find alternatives and solutions to create a compatible, integrated community. Sincerely, Robert H. Clay 2313 Cedarwood Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 303-490-1412 (H) 303-484-9183 (W) cc: file April 25, 1994 Page 2 Amended Appeal - Northbrook Patio Homes 4. Prospect entrance and requested Fence makes the project and "Enclave". FALSE - The Fairbrooke I, II and older neighborhoods prove this line of reasoning and statements to be patently false. Most Fairbrooke residents have close friends in other neighborhoods. The addition of fences and a different entrance WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOOD interaction. Fairbrooke II is completely ENCLOSED not only by a fence, but a GREENBELT as well. Neighborhood compatibility is accomplished by working with the current residents. Fences provide aesthetics and are important for privacy as well. Most projects the board mentioned are COMPLETELY FENCED. 5. Traffic issues with the Prospect Entrance. FALSE - City TRAFFIC ENGINEERING endorsed the Prospect entrance! Staff (Kirsten) from the start of discussion did not "like" the Prospect entrance and therefore DID NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE ALTERNATIVE to the Board. The Board decided on BIASED/INACCURATE information. Staff slides DID NOT SHOW BLIND INTERSECTIONS, those this neighborhood committee were most concerned with at the first meeting. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws, specifically, the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). Section I of the LDGS states "That any land use likely to occur in Fort Collins can, in most cases, be made compatible with any neighboring land use through careful design and buffering" The Fairbrooke Neighborhood Committee (I am a spokesperson) provided alternatives to achieve the above criteria, but we feel the Board failed to properly address. (see #4 above). Section II, Chart A-2, A-2.1 of the LDGS states" Can the additional traffic generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems ?" This section of the LDGS is what we feel supports the Prospect Avenue entrance and one the Board failed to properly apply in this approval. All of the reasons stated above support the LDGS as well as the following facts; 1. Many projects have egress on arterials. 2. Upgrades to Prospect will assure incorporation into the traffic network safely. 3. Developments to the east (detention pond) and north are NOT an issue. 4. Neighborhood compatibility and integration will be SMOOTHER with a Prospect Avenue entrance. April 25, 1994 City Clerk City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 re: Amended Appeal to the Decision of Planning and Zoning Board - Northbrook Patio Homes #7-94 On March 28, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board gave preliminary approval for the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke P.U.D. 47-94. I am appealing several of the decisions made in regards to this P.U.D. based on the grounds that the board failed to hold a fair hearing by: considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by staff and the developer as well as their own perceptions and did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. As defined in Section 2-46 of the code, I am a "party -in -interest" in several ways. First, I was identified as such by receiving notice from the city requesting my participation (as a property owner within 500 feet of the PUD) in a neighborhood meeting. Secondly I sent written comments to board members prior to the meeting and was a spokesperson for the Fairbrooke Neighborhood Committee at the meeting. P.U.D. entrance was changed to Hampshire Road entrance based on the following FALSE and MISLEADING evidence; 1. Safety of children was being addressed by an "On -going" committee/group studying the issues of traffic which will be GREATLY increased with the P.U.D. FALSE - No current study of a "safe route" is in progress. In fact, parents in the area have complained for over 2 years. Some parents were contacted by the city, NO action EVER taken. Both the principal of Bauder and the Bauder PTO have written letters stating their concern with a Hampshire entrance for the project. (copies enclosed) 2. Difficulty of residents turning left out of the project (on Prospect). FALSE - Currently any traffic turning left from the collector must wait, sometimes for many minutes. The developer will improve the roadway to four lanes, giving MORE opportunity to turn left. Secondly, the wait to turn left from Prospect at Hampshire is very congested at peak times. By moving the additional traffic from the project OFF the Hampshire left turn lane, traffic movement will be IMPROVED for Prospect and the collector. 3. Most traffic from the project will move north to Prospect. FALSE - The City of Fort Collins continues to grow south of the project. Most discount stores, hardware and malls are located south, to include the most convenient grocery shopping. Most of the traffic (as proven by local traffic from both Fairbrooke Developments) goes SOUTH, thereby increasing traffic especially at Coventry and Cedarwood BLIND intersections. (see #1) >p, City Cler City of Fort Collins April 15, 1994 Robert H. Clay 2313 Cedarwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Mr. Clay: This letter is in reference to your Notice of Appeal dated April 10, 1994, appealing the Planning and Zoning Board decision on the Northbrook Patio Homes. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal document and his findings are set out in the attached memorandum dated April 14, 1994. You will want to pay particular attention to the recommendations suggested in his memorandum. Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by the City Clerk of notice of the appeal to parties -in -interest. The City Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, at 6:30 p.m., and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed.no later than April 26, 1994. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO LATER THAN 12:00 NOON on Monday, April 25, 1994 to allow sufficient time for legal review and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed on April 26, 1994. Sincerely, Wanda Krajicek City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue e P.O. Box 580 0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 o FAX g (303) 221-6329 Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk April 13, 1994 Page 2 an allegation that the Board did not consider all the "evidence and precedents" and then a list followed indicating some arguments regarding traffic and other developments and one argument touching on the question of neighborhood compatibility. I believe that it would be very helpful for the City Council if the appellant would attempt to more specifically focus on the relevant provisions of the Code (most likely in the Land Development Guidance System) that the appellant believes the Board failed to properly interpret and apply. This is only a suggestion and I believe that, with respect to the allegation of the Board's having failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws, the Notice of Appeal meets the minimum requirements of the Code without that amendment, but I do believe that it would be helpful for the Council and, probably, helpful for the appellant in his presentation to the Council if he were better able to focus on specific provisions of the Code. WPE:meg City of Fort Collins DATE: TO: FROM: RE: City Attc iy M E M O R A N D U M April 14, 1994 Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorneyyj/ Notice of Appeal - Northbrook Patio Homes Section 2-50 of the Code requires that within five (5) working days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, I am to review the Notice of Appeal for any obvious defects in form or substance. The purpose of this memorandum is to report my findings. The Appeal was filed with your office on April 11, 1994, which is timely for the filing of the Appeal. The Appeal also contains, in its caption, a clear identification of the action of the board or commission which is the. subject of the Appeal, that being the Northbrook Patio Homes, Item No. 7-94 of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appeal also identifies the date of the action as being March 28, 1994. The Appeal contains the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant, however, I found no statement in the appeal which indicates the "relationship" of the appellant to the subject of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. Accordingly, I believe that the Appeal should be amended to show the relationship of the appellant to the subject of the action. The description of the relationship should clearly describe to the City Council how it is that the appellant is a "party -in -interest" as defined in Section 2-46 of the Code. The grounds as stated in the Appeal are: • The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by the staff and the developer. • The Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. I believe that these grounds comply with Section 2-48(3)(c) and Section 2-48(2), respectively. The Appeals also contains a summary of the facts in support of these grounds. However, with respect to the allegation that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, I had some difficulty in identifying the specific provisions of the Code which the Board did not properly interpret and apply. Instead, there was 300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520 PARENTTEACHER BAUDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY ORGANIZATION 2345 WEST PROSPECT BOARD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526 March 25, 1994 To Whom It May Concern, It has come to our attention there is a housing development to be built north of Coventry and east of Hampshire rd, in the summer: of this year. We are greatly concet:ned about the amount of traffic this will cause on Hampshire rd. Hampshire rd. is the maim access road to Bauder Elementary School. Chi.l(lrert are always :in this area, b,>fore and after school, as well as, on weekends. It is our concern that if the main "feed" to this development is placed on Hampshire rd. this will cause a great deal more traffic. to an already dangerous situation. Ne arcs therefore requesting that the entrance to this lot be placed on Prospect rd. to avert a possible tragedy on Hampshire. Your consi.deratiOn in this maFter is greatly appreciated. Roxie Ronkainen Vice -President C:hl:is Diehl Secretary 1 Ann Macbeth VIPS Coordinator Than]; You, The Pa rle/?sl ementary PTO hoard Erica L. lreckman President % L Joanna Leeke Marcia Williamson Treasurer Judy Pray t? t .P ,�,_ .t FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2N7 . (303) 482.7420 Bauder Elementary School Mr. Monte Peterson Executive Director March 24, 1994 To Whom It May Concern: 2345 West Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 William W. Bruss Principal Dr. Don Unger Superintendent I have been asked for any recommendations I might have in .reference to the proposed development on the corner of Hampshire and Prospect. As principal of Bauder Elementary School, one of my major concerns is, of course, the safety of my students while coming to and going home from school. One of the concerns in this regard is the amount of traffic that Hampshire is beginning to carry. It is a big, wide and beautiful street, but it promotes speeding. With Blevins Junior High at one end and Bauder Elementary at the other, this street is clogged with students from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. every week day. Add to this the increase in traffic from the surrounding day cares, church schools, school buses and private baby-sitters and traffic on this street increases dramatically. I would strongly recommend that other routes into and out of this new development be explored that do not involve Hampshire. It would not help the current situation, but it would certainly prevent making it worse. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, William W. Bruss Principal Bauder Elementary School WB/br April 10, 1994 Page 2 Appeal - Northbrook Patio Homes - #7-94 5. Traffic issues with the Prospect Entrance. FALSE - City TRAFFIC ENGINEERING endorsed the Prospect entrance! Staff (Kirsten) from the start of discussion did not "like" the Prospect entrance and therefore DID NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE ALTERNATIVE to the Board. The Board decided on BIASEDANACCURATE information. Staff slides DID NOT SHOW BLIND INTERSECTIONS, those this neighborhood committee were most concerned with at the first meeting. The Board also considered the following misleading evidence; it was stated there was no water issue or concern. The information presented was that in fact a neighbor directly south of the project had EXTENSIVE water related costs and problems. (developer dismissed this as "that woman at the neighborhood meeting" when it was a different residents' problems that I related) Test holes were drilled on approximately March 2, 1994.On March 5th, myself and another interested resident measured each hole for depth and water. (weather was dry for 2 weeks preceding) We found STANDING WATER at 36" in the middle of the project, 51" and 58" respectively at the south and middle sections of the tracts. Although a swale with concrete pad was added to the drainage plan, water concerns are still an issue. Secondly, the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws by changing the entrance to Hampshire without considering all the evidence and precedents throughout the city: 1. Many projects have egress on arterials. 2. Upgrades to the street will fulfill ALL traffic movements. 3. Development to the east and north are NOT an issue. 4. Neighbor compatibility is NOT an issue with Prospect entrance, integration will be smoother with the Prospect entrance. Finally, at the time of this filing, transcripts of the P & Z Board meeting were not available. It is difficult to accurately appeal based on the record of what happened at the hearing held by the board or commission, if the record is not available to reference. As spokesperson for the Fairbrooke Neighborhood Committee and a property owner within 500 feet of the project, I feel this appeal is necessary to have our concerns properly addressed. ely� 1 II r Robert H. Clay 2313 Cedarwood Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 303-490-1412 (II) 303-484-9183 (W) cc: file April 10, 1994 City Clerk City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 re: Appeal to the Decision of Planning and Zoning Board - Northbrook Patio Homes #7-94 On March 28, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board gave preliminary approval for the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke P.U.D. 47-94. I am appealing several of the decisions made in regards to this P.U.D. based on the grounds that the board failed to hold a fair hearing by: considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by staff and the developer as well as their own perceptions and did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. P.U.D. entrance was changed to Hampshire Road entrance based on the following FALSE and MISLEADING evidence; 1. Safety of children was being addressed by an "On -going" committee/group studying the issues of traffic which will be GREATLY increased with the P.U.D. FALSE - No current study of a "safe route" is in progress. In fact, parents in the area have complained for over 2 years. Some parents were contacted by the city, NO action EVER taken. Both the principal of Bauder and the Bauder PTO have written letters stating their concern with a Hampshire entrance for the project. (copies enclosed) 2. Difficulty of residents turning left out of the project (on Prospect). FALSE - Currently any traffic turning left from the collector must wait, sometimes for many minutes. The developer will improve the roadway to four lanes, giving MORE opportunity to turn left. Secondly, the wait to turn left from Prospect at Hampshire is very congested at peak times. By moving the additional traffic from the project OFF the Hampshire left turn lane, traffic movement will be IMPROVED for Prospect and the collector. 3. Most traffic from the project will move north to Prospect. FALSE - The City of Fort Collins continues to grow south of the project. Most discount stores, hardware and malls are located south, to include the most convenient grocery shopping. Most of the traffic (as proven by local traffic from both Fairbrooke Developments) goes SOUTH, thereby increasing traffic especially at Coventry and Cedarwood BLIND intersections. (see #1) 4. Prospect entrance and requested Fence makes the project and "Enclave". FALSE - The Fairbrooke I, II and older neighborhoods prove this line of reasoning and statements to be patently false. Most Fairbrooke residents have close friends in other neighborhoods. The addition of fences and a different entrance WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOOD interaction. Fairbrooke II is completely ENCLOSED not only by a fence, but a GREENBELT as well. Neighborhood compatibility is accomplished by working with the current residents. Fences provide aesthetics and are important for privacy as well. Most projects the board mentioned are COMPLETELY FENCED. .�./ City Cle City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, at 6::30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 Laporte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal filed by Robert H. Clay from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on March 28, 1994, regarding Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Case #7-94. You may have received previous notices on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. Written comments are also welcome. If you have any questions, require further information, or wish to submit written materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Agenda materials provided to the City Council will be available to the Public on Thursday, May 5, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. .Vxw,4�- Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: April 26, 1994 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chairperson Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 9 FAX # (303) 221-6329 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEWNUMBER: 4 DATE: May 10, 1994 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Kirsten Whetstone SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the March 28, 1994 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Preliminary. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or (2) uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On March 28, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to approve the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Preliminary with a condition regarding access. The Northbrook Patio Homes PUD is a residential development for 42 attached patio homes on 7.07 acres (6.12 acre net) with a gross residential density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre. The site is located at the southeast corner of West Prospect Road and Hampshire Drive. The property is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. On April 11, 1994 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by Robert Clay, a resident of the adjacent neighborhood. On April 25, 1994 an amended appeal was filed by the same individual. In the statement of appeal, regarding the Board's decision on the preliminary PUD, it is alleged that: 1) The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by staff and the developer. 2) The Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. The attached documents include the appeal, Planning Department response to the appeal, and the information packet received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the March 28, 1994 hearing. The procedures for deciding the appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City -Code.