HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSWATERGLEN PUD LOW DENSITY POINT CHART #1* — OCTOBER 5r 1994
Is
Ok
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit
IfAII Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credlt
a
20%
2000 tool of on odsting oapplovod nolghbahood shopping center.
b
10%
650 foolol modsling lranel slop.
C
10%
4000 fool oton existing or opprowd roglonol shopping center, '
d
20%
=tool of onod$IN or morvod nolphboihood park convnunityponcorcotmwNtyloUlily.
20
W
e
10%
1000foolate sclwol.moolingo4lhotoqulsomontsofthe compulsoryoducallonkrisofthe S10:0ofCalao" .
f
20%
=teal of a major omploymont contor.
f�
�+
g
5%
1000foal of o c,Ad core center.
2
h
20%
'Natty Forlcoolns.
20
.I
20%
The Control Business District. '
r
Aprolocl whose boundary Itconliguous to existing urban dowlopmont.Godll maybe owned as follows:
'
0%— For prolocts whose property bourxlwyhas 0 to tax conllgulty,
J
e
30 /0
to to t5%-Fa proloclswhosopr000dybouxlaryhas 101o20%contiguty,.
hm OiHbour4oryto3OloAOt%Ltenllp
'20Iosrg,N%—F«
pprrooclswha w M
25 to 0O%—Fa piojocls whos property Iwundoryhos 4O to 5O%conllWty;
k
Ull conbo domorulrolod lhol lhopfo)oci v4B ioduco non•ronowoblo omtgyusoago ollhor lhroauq0h Iho oppriCwllol of ollornolivo onorgy
sysloms ofm llxough Cotyllod owgri,cosotvation rnmutof boyaxT that normally required byatyCode,a5%bonus may be earned
to wmq 5%ioduclbn in energy use
I
Calculate al% bonus [of ovory50acres lnchsdodInthe piolocL 2
2
m
Calculate the percentageofBwtotaloaosIntheprojectBallwedovotod10lowoalkxwluw,onlorll2atthatporcontogoaobonus,
10
n
U Iho opp0eont comW Il to preserving perrnanont oBrllo opon spoco ttwt moots tho alYsrnlnlmumtoqukomaNs.cakulolo gal poreoNdgo
ollNsoponspocaouoogololholotoidwolopmontowoogoonlorlNsporeoNogoosobonuL
O
epal of Iho lolaldovalopnwnt brdgot h io bo spenton nolgtsborhood public honstt tocl4tioswNchwo not othoewlso toqukod by alyCodo,
.onlor2%bonusfawory$100potdA OlgsNihvoslod
'
P
gpail of Iho total development Wdgol Is to be spent on nolghbahood loclGllos and servkosvMChao not otherwise requited tryalycodo.
onlora l%bonus lot dwolting ksvoslod
every$100 pot unll
q
IlocanmllmoM4bohgmoda lodovolopospocirsodpotconlogoollholololrxrrnborofdwollhgusBsforkswlrlcofmfon-tlos,onloifhol
poicontogoosabonu%uptoamodmumol3O%.
Z
IroconNlmontlsbokgmodolodowlopaspocinodporconlogooflholotainlunborofdwollinguNlsfoTypo'AondlypoT*hondkappod
housing a dofhod by Iho alyof Fal Collim oolculolo the bonus os tollo vs:
Of
TYpo'K— Spmos 7 s
W
TypOW-1AI4nos TypoWuNis
0 ofun'fi
.
Inrw coso dull lho conbinod bonus bo groolor llon3O%,
It Iho silo orodjoconl pioportyconlolmon historic bullohg or pioco,o bonus maybe odrnod for the following:
J%— FoprmnikvorNligolhgoutsidohfiuoncos(o.g.orn4"moNoLksndao,00slholi-ocotlomlcan WJdfolows)odyorw IoUs
5
.. ptosorsalion
J% — FwmwrlrpgsolnowsltucluoswiAbohkoopingwllhlhochaoclorollhobullcingorploco,whllowotding lololunlls
B% — For propos4sgodoplW use of lbo bWWksg aplmo thol wiR food to lls conlingnco.piowrvaikxsondimpraromonl h on
oppropdolonxwmt.
dapodlonoonorthoroqukodporkkVhthenvAllploforNlyproloctbp(ovldodundorgrourKLvA nIhobulldk)%orironofovolodpaking
sliuchuo aonocoossoryuw to the primoryslnxlua,o bonamoybo oornoda IoBowc
t
9%—Fwprovkfing75%wmaoofihoporkinghosiruckuo:'
.67. — fa ptovk lnp 50.74%ol lho poikWQlno sinsclwo; ,
WwidlIW 25.49% of the poking Ina struchuo.
foeonxnllmonikbaingmodo loprWdoopprwoowlomolkreoadingul"ngsysionufalhoNvpWnguNlsonloraborusor10%L.
L37.—for
ON 106.2 ACRES = 4.8D.U./AC.. TOTAL 54
REQUIRED 40
* ASSUMING NEIGHBORHOOD PARK,AND COOPER SLOUGH ARE ACQUIRED BY THE
CITY AS AGREED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PUD REVIEW.
-30-
Waterglen PUD -
October 24, 1994
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background•
Final, #71-93B
P & Z Meeting
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: ig; existing farmland
S: il; existing farmland, light industrial (Imu-Tek Animal
Health)
E: il; existing farmland, light industrial (C & W. Fort Collins
Feeds, defunct Matrix)
W: FA-1; existing farmland in Larimer County
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Waterglen P.U.D. -
Preliminary, with 10 conditions, on April 25, 1994 for 577 single
family and multi -family residential dwelling units, a neighborhood
convenience shopping center and a mini -storage site, a neighborhood
park site, and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area.
2. Land Use•
This is a request for final P.U.D. approval for a mixed use
development on 166.8 acres. The proposal consists of 477 single
family and 100 multi -family residential dwelling units on 120.7
acres, 7.7 acres for a neighborhood convenience shopping center and
a mini -storage site, a 12.1 acre neighborhood park site, and the
Cooper Slough natural drainage area on 26.3 acres. The request is
in conformance with the approved Waterglen P.U.D. - Preliminary and
meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.).
The gross density for the residential portion of the site (577
dwelling units on 159.1 acres) is 3.63 dwelling units per acre.
This density figure includes the neighborhood park site and the
Cooper Slough natural drainage area. The applicant has requested
that the City purchase both the park site and the Cooper Slough
area. If City acquisitions should occur then these areas would be
eliminated from the residential density calculations. In that case,
the gross residential density would be 4.78 dwelling units per acre
(577 dwelling units on 120.7 acres).
The condition of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that there is a
series of 16 General Notes on the Waterglen P.U.D. Preliminary
Details, Notes & Information sheet that is attached to the
Preliminary Site & Landscape Plan dated 4/2/94. Due to the evolving
status of the development proposal, many of these notes must be
revised on or removed from the Site & Landscape Plan. The General
2
4.0 REFERENCES
Fort Collins Code, Sections 20-21 to 20-29; Article II, Noise..
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978.
HMMH,1993. "Review of Mid -Coast Noise Study", by Harris Miller Miller and Hanson,
Inc., March 15, 1993.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 772. Procedures for Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 13
3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The modelling effort described above indicates that a barrier approximately 10 feet
high will adequately protect the nearest residences to I-25 from noise levels considered
objectionable by the FHWA for design purposes.
Since the Fort Collins Noise Control Code is designed to prevent the generation
of unreasonable noise at a development site, it is not clear that it can be applied to noise
? which is generated at I-25, a source outside the jurisdiction of the City. Moreover, given
that the future traffic on I-25 in the year 2015 will not be substantially greater than the
current traffic along some of the City's major arterials, it is possible that application of
this stringent noise control requirement would constrain residential development in other
parts of the City if applied to all new developments. Therefore, this analysis is based on
the commonly -used criteria noise levels specified by the U.S. Federal Highway
Administration and the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) in designing noise
barriers to protect communities from highway noise.
It is recommended that a barrier approximately 10 feet high be designed as part
of the development to run along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the P.U.D.
To make this barrier most effective, it should continue to the southeast corner of the site,
and wrap around to the south of multi -family buildings I, J, and K in Dunattar
Commons. The barrier can be designed as a berm (appropriately landscaped), as a
masonry or poured concrete wall, or a combination berm and wall totalling ten feet or.
more. The mini -storage units near the northeast corner of the P.U.D. can be incorporated
into the barrier design, as long as they, in conjunction with an earth berm, are at least
ten feet high.
It is further recommended that the owner investigate the possibility that some
portion of the cost of the barrier may be borne by CDOT. CDOT builds noise barriers
to protect communities from noise along the interstate highways in Colorado, but the
criteria they use to determine if a barrier is cost-effective will most likely deny State
funding for this project at this time. However, when I-25 is eventually widened to six
lanes the environmental studies carried out at that time by CDOT will investigate noise
impacts to adjacent communities. Since The Waterglen P.U.D. will be adequately
protected by a ten -foot berm as of its opening, future additional noise protection due to
improvements to I-25 may be the responsibility of the CDOT.
The train noise analysis shows that the northwest portion of the development will
experience noise levels which will approach but not exceed the FHWA and EPA noise
impact criterion. Significant future increases in train traffic may require some additional
noise shielding, but this is not required at this time.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 12
2.4 Projected Train Noise Levels
The Burlington Northern operates a main line which passes close to the northwest
corner of the P.U.D. site. Discussions with the Burlington Northern Railroad' revealed
that the line is used currently by 10 trains per day, and that they operate at a speed of
25 miles per hour in the area. The trains consist of from 50 to 100 cars. To determine the
impact of these trains on the property, Ley (h) values were computed.
The approach is based on solving the following equations (HMMH, 1993):
Leq = Lmax + 10 log (N * (1.51) + d)/ V] - 37.2
where:
Lmax = Maximum noise level during a train passby (see Appendix E)
N = Number of trains per hour
D = Distance to receptor from track centerline, ft.
d = Train length, ft.
V = Train speed, mph
Table 2.6 summarizes the results of the analysis. The closest lot property line is
approximately 420 feet from the rail line. At this distance, the average hourly Leq is 65
dBA, given current conditions. This falls . within the Leq = 67 dBA EPA and FHWA
criterion discussed earlier. Should train traffic or speeds increase in the future noise
levels may be expected to increase as well, and the northwest portion of the
development may be subjected to levels exceeding the criterion levels. No forecast of:
traintraffic was available from the Burlington Northern at this time.
Table 2.6 Train Noise Analysis
Distance from
tracks
(feet)
Hourly Leq (dBA) for
number of trains per day indicated
5 trains
10 trains
15 trains
20 trains
300
63
66
68
69
400
62
65
67
68
500
61
64
.66
67
1000
59
62
64
65
1500
57
60
62
63
' Mr. R.M. (Mike) Renner, Roadmaster, Burlington Northern Railroad, 2401 East Vine, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 11
The most practical solution to the reduction. of noise at this development is to
design a barrier along the entire eastern property line which will reduce exterior noise
levels below the FHWA sound abatement criteria. The model was exercised with four
different barrier heights: 8,10,12, and 18 feet, so as to recommend an appropriate design
height. The results of the modelling are shown in Table 2.5. As can be seen, a ten -foot
barrier (measured from existing ground level) along the east property line is sufficient
to bring the projected future noise levels below the FHWA criterion level at the
individual lot property lines closest to I-25.
Table 2.5 Model Results, Year 2015
Receptor
Modelled Noise Level (Lq(h), dBA)
(values in bold type exceed FHWA criterion)
No Barrier
Barrier Height
8 ft.
10 ft.
12 ft.
18 ft.
R4 Multifamily
67.3
66.4
65.8
64.9
61.5
Bldg. H
R5 Thornhill Place
69.8
67.2
65.8 .
64.1
59.9
lot #10
R6 Thornhill Place
69.5
67.5
66.3
64.7
60.3
lot #21
R7 Berwick Court
69.5
66.6
65.0
63.3
59.3
lot #10
R8 Berwick Court
69.2
67.2
66.0
64.3
59.9
lot #18
R9 Celtic Lane
66.1
65.4
64.8
64.2
60.7
lot #1
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 10
�.�' r�'re��"'�-.ipFSs'"q"�'�``�c�`'Si i3t:
\�clo
4"NORT
1` y,
I
e LEGEND
?,.` • ROADWAY LOCATIONS: 1 — 6
`\\ ■ BARRIER LOCATIONS: B1 — 87
♦ RECEPTOR LOCATIONS: R7 — R9
• � 1
'X ; 1 1\ ♦ — ♦ ROADWAY
IQ
BARRIERS
Ld III
IF I
co
F I [P
I 10 n
I igJ 5M
HIM
- .� . .I , BA•.. R9
.I. IF -.-I..Be
ARM
—— -------- -- ----
--------j--------------------- _—_---------- _ --
Figure 2.1 Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Mode SCALE
2.3 Projected Highway Noise Levels.
A noise model of the Waterglen P.U.D. and I-25 was constructed as shown in
Figure 2.1. It was calibrated to current conditions by using the traffic counts obtained
during -the noise measurement period and comparing the.model noise results to the
measurements. Because traffic differed while measuring at each of the three noise
measurement sites, the calibration run was repeated for each location. The STAMINA
input and output files for the calibration runs are reproduced in Appendix B. The
calibration consisted of building into the model an existing barrier (the Vine Drive
overpass), and adjusting the so-called a -values of the model. These'parameters are used
to modify the decay rate of noise with distance to account for the type of terrain between
the source and the receiver. a -values of, 0.5 are appropriate for flat, open, soft terrain,
such as a plowed field. The calibration results are shown in Table 2.4, below. The model
is considered well -calibrated since the differences between the measured and modelled
values are less than one decibel in all cases. The human ear is not capable of discerning
differences in noise levels of less than one decibel, except in the most stringent
laboratory conditions.
Table 2.4 Calibration of the Waterglen Model
Location
Measured L q
(dBA)
Modelled Lq
(dBA)
Difference
1 (R1)
69.1.
70.0
+0.9
2 (R2)
70.3
70.1
-0.2
3 (R3)
65.9
66.4
1 +0.5
Using this calibrated model, several runs were made using future traffic. An initial
run with no shielding gives a baseline case. This would be the noise levels expected at
the receptor locations within the P.U.D. close to I-25 in the year 2015 if no mitigation
measures were taken.
Mitigation measures for noise are possible in three areas: control at the source,
control along the path of the noise, and control at the receptor location. Control at the
source would include the use of enhanced mufflers, engine shielding, lower -noise
emitting tires, or special surfacing on I-25 designed to reduce tire -pavement noise.
Control along the noise path includes the use of barriers and berms. Control at the
receptor would consist of special sound -proofing for residences near I-25.
Noise control at the source is beyond the scope and authority of the developers
of Waterglen P.U.D. or of the City of Fort Collins (beyond the City's ability to control
excessive noise from individual vehicles on city streets). Noise -proofing of residences
along I-25 is possible, but it does not address the issue of outside noise levels in the back
yards and other exterior locations.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 8 OF
This is a considerably larger proportion than normally used for planning purposes for
peak -hour highway traffic (5 to 7 percent heavy trucks is considered normal). However,
in order to be reasonably conservative, a 10 percent proportion of trucks for the peak
hour in the future is used in this analysis. The resulting hourly traffic on I-25 and Vine
Drive is shown in Table 2.3."
Table 2.2 Traffic Counts During Noise Measurements
Vehicle
Type
Actual Counts
One -hour Equivalent Volumes
I-25
northbound
I-25
southbound
East Vine
Drive
I-25
northbound
I-25
southbound
East Vine
Drive
Counts made while measuring noise at Location 1 (14 minutes)
Cars
109
103
9
466
440
38
Trucks
19
9
3
81
38
13
Total
128
112
12
547
479
51
Counts made while measuring noise at Location 2 (15 minutes)
Cars
120
106
29
478
422
115
Trucks
19
14
5
76
.56
20
Total
139
120
34
554 .
478
135
Counts made while measuring noise at Location 3 (15 minutes)
Cars
116
135
13
463
539
52
Trucks
17
19
4
68
76
16
Total
133
154
17
531
615
68
Table 2.3 Future Peak Hour Traffic (Year 2015)
Roadway
ADT
Peak Hour Traffic
Cars
Trucks
Total
I-25 southbound
14,600
1,183
131
1,314
I-25 northbound
12,600
1,021
113
1,134
E. Vine Drive
3,000
243
27
270
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment
Page 7
2.0 NOISE ANALYSIS
2.1 Noise Survey Wig
A brief noise survey was carried out on March 24-25, 1994 to establish a baseline
for an analysis of the potential additional noise to be generated by vehicles on I-25 and
trains on the Burlington Northern line. Measurements were performed using a Quest
Model 1800 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, calibrated at the site with a model
CA-22 Calibrator. Appendix A contains detailed worksheets and photos of the
measurement sessions, whose results are summarized in Table 2.1, below.
Table 2.1 Field Noise Sampling Results
Location 1
(near S.E. corner of
property)
Location 2
(along east
property line)
Location 3
(100' west of east
property line)
Time of day
14:02
14:26
14:44
Maximum (dBA)
77.6
79.8
74.9
Minimum (dBA)
45.7
49.8
52.8
L (dBA)
69.1
70.3
65.9
These readings indicate that noise levels in the vicinity of the east property line
generally approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (Table 1.1). Since traffic
is expected to increase from current levels, this situation will get worse without
mitigative measures.
2.2 Projected Traffic Levels
Traffic on I-25 is the predominant source of noise along the eastern boundary of
the Waterglen P.U.D. As stated earlier, traffic levels in the future are expected to increase
above current levels. During the measurement period, traffic counts were kept, including
the number of heavy trucks (see Table 2.2). These large vehicles produce a large portion
of the total noise along a highway, and the proportion of heavy trucks to the total traffic
volume is an important parameter in estimating future noise.
Total daily traffic expected on an average week -day in the year 2015 was obtained
from the City of Fort Collins Transportation Department. These numbers are subject to
some adjustment as the overall city modelling process continues. It is assumed, based
on advice from the City staff, that peak hour traffic will make up 9 percent of the total
daily I-25 traffic in the year 2015.
As can be deduced from Table 2.2, the average number of heavy trucks on I-25
during an off-peak afternoon hour currently approaches 12 percent of the total volume.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 6
:1 Table 1.2 Fort Collins Maximum Permissible Noise Levels **
Land Uses
Maximum Noise [dB(A)]
Maximum
Maximum
Noise
hourly Leq,
Reading
see Note.
Residential use areas zoned R-L, R-L-P,
R-L-M, R-M, R-H, R-P, R-M-P, M-L,
M-M, or T
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
55
60.1
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
50
50
Business and commercial use areas zoned
B-P, B-L, B-G, H-B, or C
7:00 a.m..to 7:00 p.m.
60
65.1
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
55
55
Industrial use areas zoned I-L and I-P
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
70
75.1
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
65
65
Industrial use areas zoned I-G
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
80
85.1
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
75
75
Note: The Fort Collins Noise Code states that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted may be increased by ten (10) decibels
for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes in any one -hour period. If
the maximum reading is as shown above, the maximum hourly Leg is .
computed as the energy mean level over one -hour which corresponds to 45
minutes at the maximum reading level combined with 15 minutes at the
maximum reading level plus 10 decibels, which effectively adds 5.1 dBA to
the maximum reading level.
** The City of Fort Collins noise control criteria are part of the Fort Collins Code
prohibiting nuisances, including unreasonable noise. The maximum permissible noise
levels refer to noise generated within a property or on the City's public right-of-way. In
this case, the noise is not generated by the developer, nor is it reasonably controllable
at the source by the developer. or by the City.
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment
Page 5
Table 1.1 FHWA Design Noise Level/Land Use Relationships
Land Use
Design Noise Level
Description of Land Use Category
Category •
Leg
A
57 dBA
Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are
(exterior)
of extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need, and where the
preservation of those qualities is to continue
to serve its intended purpose. Such areas
could.include amphitheaters, particular.parks
or open spaces which are recognized by
appropriate local officials for activities requir-
ing special qualities of serenity and quiet.
B
67 dBA
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(exterior)
rooms,'schools, churches; libraries, hospitals,
picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
and parks.
C
72 dBA
Developed lands, properties or activities not
(exterior)
included in categories A and B above.
D
-- .
Undeveloped Lands.
E
52 dBA
Residences, motels, public meeting rooms
(interior)
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums. ......
Source: Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 4
No Text
EAST VINE DRIVE
...• _
i 4
-�••
�,
'*•.•
•'�.
!
•
■
■ �\
■
■
OUT'
0 N
Figure 1.1 Waterglen P.U.D. Vicinity
Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 2
WATERGLEN PUD M'--TI-FAMILY POINT CHART - OCTIOBER 5. 1994
ti
t
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit
IfAtl Dwelling UnitsAre Withln:
Credit
a
20%
2000loot of on oxlsfkpa app(ovod nolghbahood shopping center.
b
10%
650 mot of as existing transit slop.
C
10%
4000foot ofonoWSlingaoppromdtoglaldstoppingconlor. '
d
20%
fool of on oAskV or ioso"d nolphbahood pork, cwaiunlry park or conrimnIty facility.
20
LU
e
10%
1000(ootal0schocl,mooling 09 the rogWromonls of the ompulioryoclucolfon km of the 51010 of cololorlo.
f
20%
3000loot or a major ompkxyrnont center.
g
5%
1000 loot of a died tole cantor.
5
h
20%
'NOWFat Co9kss.
20
1
20%
The Control euslnoa District.
r
Aproloclwhose boundoWs contiguous to oxlslhg ulbondovelopmonl.Crodll maybe oanod as Idbws:
.
0%— For ptoloctswhose propoMboundoryhas 0 to lox coNlaulfy,
1
30%
10 to 15%-For ptoloclswhose aoporly boundary has 101020% conlaullr.
:15107.0%-For project & whose properly boundory has 20 to 30%canlg ry
201025%—Fa rkoloUswhoso proporry boundoryhos 3g to 40%coNigaty,
231030%—faFxalltlswto$ Property bt bowUM has40 to 50%contiguity;
k
If If con be dontomiraled that he proloclwl9 toduco ron•ronowoblo otorgy uso°go either IN h tno application of alternative energy
sysloms at llvough commgod onotgycansolvvlton rsoauros Wyona that normally required lyClty Code, a 5% bonus maybe owned
got evory4%1odudbn In energy wo.
I
Colculoloa l% bonus faovoryWacres lr4WOd In the prolocl
m
Colculolo the percentage of Ro total acres In the project lnolore Covoiotllofodootbnd use, enter v2 of that porcontogo as a bonus.
24 .
n
If the applicant cpfMNls 10 prosoMng pormanont o0sllo opon space that moots the Clly3 mWrry xnroquk°monts,wkulolo the percentage
of INsopen space ocroago to the total dovolopmoN acreage, odor INSporcoalogo as a bonus,
n r r
O
If pail or the loll dovolopmeN budget Is to be Mont on neighborhood public IF"I facilities wNchao not otherwise roquked byaryCed0.
. onlor2%baxulaovorySI00pofdw RUVWllrHoslocL ,
'
P
a part of the total development budget is lobo spent on noighborho°d fgd911os and sonkoswNch°ro n0lolnotwlso roqukotl byCllyCalo,
Intel l%bores la dwollIng lm
ovory$100pot uNi osled ,
Q
ila cornlroN lhWing maoamo volop o spodrsedpercentage of the total numbor of dwoPxsg w9is(alawhcoml families, odor that
lOanloxirtxrmof3M
porconlogoosaborws,up
Z
It a commlttront is boing modo todovolopa spodflod porconlogo of the total rwmbor of dwolMg uNts for Typo *Kand Typo hondicappod
lou*V as clothed by the Gryof rat Collins. cofculato Iho bonus as followa:
O
f
Typo'K— .51lmos Tvpo'A kJNls
iofdwuii
M
{ .L�
Typo'0'—tollmos TypO•munlls
oTT°Ts ss
In no c= "U lho conUnal bawl bo gt ootor lion 3M
If Ilia silo or odloconl property contains anhlilakbu9ding or place. a bonus may be orirnod for the fotlov
3'%--,.F.or provonling amitlgolhg oulsido Influences (o.g.or4omoniol kuxlss o oosth°lic, ocwwwc and social (odors) adrorw tow
3
prosolvolion
3%— Faauakiglnolnowsiruclurosw9lbolnkoopingwlth91ochoroclor°flhobuOdingadaco,wNloavoldinglolduNts
3% — Fa proposing edoplNo use of IhI Writing a Plato lholw9ilood tolls codkwanco.prosomlbnaldjmprovomonl In on
opproprlalom0nnor.
Ifis patlon oro9 of Iho requited parking In the mWllplo famllyprojoct Is provided undorgrwncI v t1111n Iho
strucluoasonoccossoryusolothopthorysllwlwo,abonusmoyboo°modostotows: bNkklGor loon elevated poking
t
9% - Fapiovklkbg75%crmorooflhopaWnglnaslimk#o.,
.676 — Ta provkJkv W.74%ot iho polkinglno slruclwo:
3%—FaptovidN25.49%oflhopotkkVInailmu Ao.
u
IfacasvNlmenlls Wltlgmodoloprovidoopprovod WIOMIICruooxiingutsNngsyslohufathodwg9kiguNl4ontorobonusoflg%,
100 D.U. ON 14.57 ACRES = 6.86.'D.U./AC. TOTAL. 69
TOTAL POINTS REQUIRED = 60
-30-
WATPP(:T.RM PTTT) T.(1W Tlb'.M1—TrPV UhTATrP r uADm ss')* llrMnn t-
0
1994
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit...
VAII Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
a
20%
2000foot of on orlslksgw oppovod nolghbothood 9WpItV center.
.
b
10%
650 fool of on oWsting lronsll slop. .
C
10%
4000 foot ofon oWsling w oppovod iogl«sal shoppino center. '
d
20%
=foot of on 0XIslhg wlosotwd nolghtwthood pork convnuNtyponofconnuNWocWfy.
U/
a
10%
1000foololoschoo6moolkvot:lwtoqultomonlsotllwcompulsonyoducat{onkswsoflho SloloofColorocio. ,
CmI
i
20%
3000too I of a=lot omploynwnt center,
W
Q
55%
100010010fochwevoconlor.
2
h
20%
'N«th•FoilCollins.
20
•
.1
20%
The control oushoss msirlct. '
t
Ap01oal whose boundaryls conliguous to orltlhputbon dow10pn0n4Crodl moybe oarnod as, followc
'.
0'%—F« plolocls whose propody boundoryhas 0 to lax contiguity,
J
30%
10 to 15%—For poloctswtwso proporty bounclaryhas 10 to tax contioully,
:,S to 20%— For praochwhow popsrlyboutaoryhot20 to 30%conllgwly,
20lo 25'%—Fw polociswhow popotlybourKkuy MA 30lo 40'%coNlgtAly,
25lo307.—Fw pioloclswhospopoflybou=fy hos40 to 50•%conllgWty,
k
vU can be domonsltotod that the poloc: Willoduco non•wnowablo onotgy usoopa ouhor tNouph Ow oppraotlonol allotnoilvo onofgy
mloms«avoughcomrNOodonorgycor4otwtiontswawtosboyandlhalnormaRytoqu4odbyCltyCodo.o5%bonustnayboo«nod
1«owry5'%roNtclbnhonotpywo.
Calculate a 1%bwus for owry50 ouoslnGxlod In Me ptolocl.
'Z . 8 6
m
Calculate Rio porcentogoof the total octoshthe project that «odevoted 10 u Ibnoltno,ontor7oftatporconlogowebonu
0,36
n
A lho opplkonl canYrAls to posoMng porrswnonl oflstto opon spew Ilal mools tho GlysmlNmum wquifomonly colcutalo Iho polconfogo
ollNsoponspocoocroogololholololdovolopmoNocroogoontoflNspotconlogowaborws,
n , ,
O
vput of Iho lolal dowlopnwnl budgol Is lobo spordon nolghbwhood publk:liorW[ IoclAtloswNchworat OlMtwlso roqukodbyGlyCod0.
. ontos 2%bonuslor ovory$1gO pot dwoUkV Wl kwostod
p
If pod of the lotoldovolopmonl budget is to be spent on nolghuorhood laUAtlos and wMcoswNchme not otherwise toqukod by0tyCoao,
i%bonus for
ontora ovory$100 pot dwollirsg uNl hvoslocL
q
Ira cornallmont liboltV made 10dowlopa spowtsd potconlogo of the lolot nunbor of dwoong uNls f«krwlnconno fonsWo; onto, lhol
pocconlogoosaborus,uploomodmumof307.
Z
Ira commamonlbboliVrnodo todowlopo spoUOodpamontogooflho loIoIrumborofdwoAing uNlstor Typo'K0ndTypo R•hondkdppod
hoWN wdothodby Iho Glyof F«I CoAkss, calcuiato Iho bores os foAowc
Or
Typo'A'— Stlmos Tfololmsu
M
LL !
Typo•o•—tollmos Typo rounds
o0—ro nfs
,
hno coso sha0lho combinod bones bo groolot tlwn3g76.
If the silo or ocgoconl propottyconlolm anhlsloric bulldtng or ploco;o bonus maybe earned Iw the follovMg:
3% — For prownang «millgolhg outside hAuoncos (04 onW«vnoNol ksnd wo,aosllwl"onorrk ondsoclof toct«s) gWmw lolls
3
posohallory
3%— Forassuthg that nowslntcluroswI0 be In koopkVWlh She Uwroctorof the bulltling«ploco.whilts"CAM lold uNls
3%.. — FwpoposlnoodoplkrowootthobWk%VwplocotholwAlloodlollsconlhuoncopownvlionandimprovomonllnan
oppoplolom f.
Ira podton well of the roqulrod porkhg In the mutllplo farnIty poloct Is povlood undorground wilhln the Wlldhg.«In an olovalod potWng,
slrucluto wanoccossorywo to Iho pharysiluchu0. a borAu moybo ownod os lolbwc
t
g7L — Fwpravlsl'vsp75%wm«oofthopw6lnpinosttuchuo:'
G7G — F«povklksg SO.747GofthoposWnglnoslructwo. ,
3% — Forpo,4dhg25.49'%of AsopoiWQInaslruchuo.
u
Itac«svnilmontbbohgmodotopoNdooppcwodoulomalb0roozlhpulshingsyslonufwlhodwg44vuNls,onlorabomso11g7G.
UP TO 507 D.U. ON 143.6 ACRES = 3.5 D.U./AC. TOTAL 45.22
TOTAL POINTS REQUIRED = 30
* WOULD APPLY ONLY IF THE CITY DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE PARK.
AND THE NATURE AREA.
-30-
Watergl final PUD
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE'CRITERIA ONLY
•
CRITERION
Is the criterion
applicable?
Will the criterion
be satisfied?
.
If no, please explain.
c a
4
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
Ix
x
1.2 Comprehensive Plan
x
x
1.3. Wildlife Habitat
x
x
1.4 Mineral Deposit
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
1.7 Enercv Conservation
x
x
1.8 Air Qualitv
x
x
1.9 Water Qualitv
x
x
1.10 ewace and Wastes
x
x
A 2: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular. Pedestrian. Bike Transoortation
x
x
2.2 Buildine Placement and Orientation
x
x'
2.3 Natural Features
x
x
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking
x
x
2.5 Emergency Access
x
.
x
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation
x
x
2.7 Architecture
x
x
2.8 Building Height and Views
x
2.9 Shading
x
x
2.10 Solar Access
x
x
2.11 Historic Resources
x
x
2.12 Setbacks
x
x
2.13 Landscape.
x
x
2.14 Sicns
x
x
2.15 Site Lighting
x
x
2.16 Noise and Vibration
x
x
2.17 Glare or Heat
I
x
2.18 Hazardous Materials
x
x
A 3. . ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 ' Utility Capacity
x
x.
3.2 Design Standards
x
x
3.3 Water Hazards
x
x
3.4 Geologic Hazards
x
x
54
1 I T1rF' <A fPl )V - 7r-I N�I_�_
r
:I IT"
1.3
Activity. A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the criterion
applicable?
Will the crteron
be satisfied?
If no, please explain
LL a
a S
Yes
No
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1 Solar Orientation
1.2 Comprehensive Plan
1.3 Wildlife Habitat
1.4 Mineral Deposit
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas
reserved
reserver!
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance
_
1.7 Energy Conservation
X
1.8 Air Quality
1.9 Water Quality
1,10 Sewa6 a and Wastes
A 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular Pedestrian Bike Transportation
2.2 Building Placement and Orientation
2.3 Natural Features
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking
2.5 Emergency Access
X
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation
Architecture
r2.7
2.8 Building Height and Views
2.9 Shading
2.1 0 Solar Access
2.11 Historic Resources
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 Landscape
2.14 Signs
2.15 Site Lighting
2.16 Noise and Vibration
2.17 Glare or Heat
2.18 Hazardous Materials
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity
3.2 Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
3.4 Geologic Hazards
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
"�
-61-
SOUTH ELEVATION
c�v�v rp��
(C(D V V 1P.edVllLledVV1. 9 5llO n�ir"
EAST ELEVATION
(CO VlMN09 Sll _E
L41T Sr r$
�+.
BRC SWG
77S77}ODUTTHv�vELEEVTATT(IONTp��7 gT7�7 T��7/�v
LI�11Ce ll tilM l.f)1lAJlSllall HH(G
rvrORMVON MO% rn•m�. mEu,.o•�•, ('� O O o
HSOtE STRWT R
PSPNALi y1rvf1E5
urban design, Inc.
4A55 PT C OSED
5 G TO MATLX OB5CRVAT PREA
RCS NM WT5
WE11A10/ WATER
OUA y POND
MUMM RESTROO1S
TYPICAL END vELLvEVATTIIO�N� /(v T� �7y�y7T�w TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION TYPICAL �EvL7EVVA�TION7i� T�sT-
1V1mVu 5ll DnV GIE lV dV 11llill 1U�oAo�v1�1T®p�Ty(�y1NUv�7®vT(liyll775TL�IRVAll O V
2 ll R lV C ll lSJ RE
. INCLUDES RESTROOM5 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
w,la rjIT{wsjlEIl1peTITImf
J1 O �S/ OLLI/ O
BUILDING ••�.o.„
ELEVATIONS
NJI 9\l 1 1O 1 l 1'21311 till\(;l.l: I ��Illll.l 11(1)�III:ti
NOT TO SCALE
5OUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION L WDDC YYI .TM .O OMn.M1MLL. WLMO
DA'Y (CAIRN MDA=HD IEXH5` (G FIDUSIE) NOT TO SCALE
i3 I
ii rill h
i
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION
®IFIEIIcCIEPCILNIE HOUSE E (ADAMIID IEMSMG HOME) NOT TO 5GALE
]`®URFILEM NOT TO SGALE
MATERIALS L CO QBSI
9GNCUS TO BE AS TONEERGwSS LAMINATE, DART(
GREY. MN 09 COMPATIBLE FARM TONE
pRfC[ TG DE OER, TORE REG, NNI OR COMP/.TBIE
E. TOM.
EI.NG TO E, IIGIRER MON TANS, WARM GREYS. OR
MONNI REWFEM TONES.
]Elly BE DARER COMPAVG-E COLORS.
•NOTEv
UPoN COMPLETION OF MCXITELTURAL
C.O.
MA NE REOUE:TED RE -MANE
CXANOEI51 MAY I REQUESTED RS.M .G
.TACT MATERIALS. COLOn S. AND
ARCXRECJMTED OEfuLT.
WAUIGN DOOR
VGm TDYM1aWE9 AS PEn
crtY SIGN cooE.
Citys ape
walaeIrpRel 11
TIUID.
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
�• �. I� I�'
III]I
5A
�mallPTO
2le;il
,I
• •
• i/I l�ij .; . i .� •- , A. ,ij, . •�,�, C�'
{Ili
als yen vi 1 ••'• � +
� 1%
..
'PM Iffalm
�•
1
C•itys aPe
nDD
Emma
,`a 6VOu.�
i Ms�(
r
4,
111YOU I (MAIPUNI MI DOA I \NInWIM\I"I' I"I W.M�
� I
FT
- - -=�_ _
-- - --- D K V1G1La - - - - -- ;
our
roecen
ll l/i�� ;tom /�'' j •�" .�' �T / D j / D ��' - s \J / H
l" \/'l T�� s •; � n 4a/ • 4 MLAE7DRY./ � \ 'V`. a 1 . �, �4 \ I 1
/ I / g �' / �• N ice. / \
4Aau&
J I
K I OHO r
y
sInn. E
1, isr TM I
4 -DAY -
�D' FEL[ POOL CARE
aua
a Been. nW5 r-- •
�nma esa-
__—--- — --- — --- _--- — --- —___—_EAST VINE DRIVE •leas
------------- — ----- _
urban design. na.
1-112-1
��1�C�II��TI I7�1VC�IrIrn111�
LEGEND �o lSJ oLU/o
s el.. v.0 MULTI —FAMILY k
a n.rocurm r.mw x.ce VILLAGE CENTER
_ FINAL SITE PLAN
n nns, ociasue — ro._
' . nu•curm .aces a.m —
Doanr w _
n.. bbr�s o so Igo = —
>e
i
ELGI ` 'R uj
u
RO
5L�
EA2GN N TUR/
p RFPRES[NTS LRClA
of FIIE rouovmc srmw
SPFUS•
<mrbKlNr .Xfeb
S.eketnm SvveeMrty
gscryM /ruttme
ca... .tmm•r.
R w L.S.om
RM �r
`wwN Swx
Rb.f Qvus
Sdv g2
Seh w.t.
(+ilu G.ruR
Layate Wb.
be.tu Wb.
Sy�wY.vyoa oulJ.n[r6
W¢.tern !ro.bvrty
,q •J , r b - •••• 1
%. '� •+ .fit .in � �• � q �,,:
US OR CONTAINER TREE
u 11
p �p a ��pii ��d r)� o�� �•�^C;`�-\,�I
���0, Oi�1OI Ili •� �.IT•?ZlvJ7alu� �'IJ�,I///nil
��t IWW
C7SMM01,
�fl COnR .eus.
N/
4 F7F�J9(yx�j�
LEGEND
Ii�IV I C�N
.®nm wn
rurQ�nm .cress .w
SR1�11rt yi].
1[W RTYO/fJrtY YS•5
® flY�IYIIMMI5l1 f(105
CitySffope
W�ates-��len
LANDSCAPE
rr
�'
J
r
/� a' �-I --_3 t -L j; =C S 1 L i—Z -C 3 1 L 2 -C 3 1 '�_� • Ne T�;'� ; I rr s,u<¢
IS: M _ --_—.—.-EEki °'
_Jaf�f=
%AtsFiCl
PART'n N11�! u M a711
�;
r ,• i �. 'H �1 � tr---I -�' ram- �Q<'� : I i
ToTaT-4iTCD
,r =,]•'Y J„ ']=Y , Jb•Je, bJM<•]N •� ;IDY 1Yt 3%=93 •=9< �SeJ � Mx� 3G / � : , � <,
— —
o i FOIL nm9��B�
Y{�
}�f3f' =x, x36
tact v�
�-= w
` � � n .0. TM,oy. xsx I v' z <, ;: I 'w-�_ •3�'=� I - � i I __--t--%�-' $ �, vv N I
RM
,es =1 lqw�, w6
�' of
1�pi�J` r, h
20sNcxw mzo,�=m OCT'll Kf1 w. i
aN
141.
urban design,n ac
,
Inns" ,w"a.
wnzaarpRem
a r�mu � T IrIrnI I
LEGEND 11 olLJ ollUo
aeoa=°,ms FINAL SmE & r
� ams LANDSCAPE PLAN � SS Ruf �
_ o �Y
�¢�An, aA�Awv. pu.Aros . I..x v=I,yp/G<rtY "2.3
2 FA.walmecSvm D HOME M7M5
Development Area
PLANT LIST
=Zz—
Parlr Arne
PI -ANT
as
IT
Cooper Slough Natural Area
PLANT LIST
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
ress—sd.—cen
APPROXIMATE CONSTRUCTION
PHASING PLAN
V
V
IV
III
VI
IX
VII VIII
IWO
NORTi
20F6
40FS
Fieval. lu4NDSCaJet Ptah - MULln-FANIELY AREAB I
VOLUum CENTER
5 OF 0
BUILDING MEVATIONS I
urban design, Inc,
$OF 6
BU=WG ELLVATIONS
avm
C I I
1
i g City Limits
SITE
Vicinity Map
WATERGLEN PUD - Final
North
Project Number: 71-93B
1
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have
had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the
Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this
condition until the date such decision is made.)
If this condition is not met within the time established
herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final
approval of this planned unit development shall become null
and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that
the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting
of rights. For purposes of calculating the running oftime for
the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 21 Article II,
Division 3, of the City Code, the Iffinal decisionle of the
Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this
conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is
presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to
be included in the development agreement, the running of time
for the filing.of an appeal of such Hfinal decisiones shall be
counted from the date of the Boards decision resolving such
dispute.
8
NO
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
* The proposal is in conformance with the approved
Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary.
* The proposal meets the applicable all Development
Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System.
* Changes to the layout of the Site Plan were not needed
based on the final drainage reports and natural areas
studies.
* All conditions of preliminary P.U.D. approval have been
met.
* This property is exempt from the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District; therefore, all signage for this
development is subject to the strict interpretation and
requirements of the City Sign Code.
Staff recommends approval of the Waterglen P.U.D., Final - #71-93B,
with the following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit
development final plan upon the condition that the development
agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the
planned unit development be negotiated between the developer
and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the
second monthly meeting (December 120, 1994) of the Planning and
Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit
development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not
so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly
meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The
Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it
shall first find that there exists with respect to said
planned unit development final plan certain specific unique
and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of
the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique
hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and
provided that such extension can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to
be included in the development agreement, the developer may
present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such
presentation is made at the next succeeding or second
succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table
7
_N 0
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
Site Plan due to potential impacts on the storm drainage facilities
were not needed.
The condition of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that the proposed
daycare in an existing structure in the neighborhood convenience
shopping center portion of the development is located in the
revised Boxelder Creek floodplain. This daycare facility must be
relocated outside of the floodplain., has been addressed with the
developer's commitment to elevate this structure a minimum of 18"
above the 100 year flood elevation for Boxelder Creek.
Work in the State highway right-of-way will be required to
construct the noise mitigation berm and storm drainage channel.
Approval by the Colorado Department of Transportation is required
before any work can be done in the highway right-of-way.
6. Resource Protection:
The condition of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that the written
documentation in regard to the impacts of the proposal on the
wildlife habitat and water quality, quantity, and temperature of
the Cooper Slough, which would include proposed mitigation efforts
to address such impacts, be approved by the City Natural Resources
Department prior to .submission of final P.U.D,. plans for any
portion of the development. The City reserves the right to make
changes to the layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be
warranted due to impacts on the natural areas in the development
has been met with the submittal of sufficient documentation that
has been evaluated and approved by the Natural Resources
Department. A letter from Karen Manci, dated June 16, 1994, is
attached to this staff report. Changes to the layout of the Site
Plan due to potential impacts on the natural areas were not needed.
The condition of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that there are lots
and proposed homes in some areas around the Cooper Slough that
potentially infringe on the wetlands on -site. The developer must
provide mitigation measures, in the form of 1 acre for 1 acre, for
any disturbance to the wetlands., has been met with the
reconfiguration of lots and the overall increase in size of the
wetland areas.
FINDINGS of FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Waterglen P.U.D., Final, staff
makes the following findings of fact:
6
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Street and Right -of -Way Width Variance:
The current street design standards and City Code require local
streets to be 36' wide, flowline to flowline, within a 54' right-
of-way. A request by the applicant to vary the right-of-way width
on standard width local streets from 54' to 48' was granted by the
Planning and Zoning Board with the preliminary P.U.D. approval.
The applicant also requested a variance to the street and right-of-
way widths for Waterglen Place, a portion of Elgin Court, and the
four cul-de-sacs served by Elgin Court. The request was for 28,
wide streets in 40' rights -of -way. The Planning and Zoning Board
approved a street width variance to 28' for Waterglen Place, the
portion of Elgin Court north of Lot 32, and the four cul-de-sacs
served by Elgin Court. The condition of preliminary P.U.D.
approval, that the variance request to change the street right-of-
way width from 461 to 40, for 28' aide local streets not be granted
until such time that an ordinance changing the City Code is
approved, has been addressed by the applicant with all local
streets having 48' wide rights -of -way shown on the final
subdivision plat.
4. Transportation:
This development will gain primary access from Waterglen Drive, a
collector street, and Elgin Court, a local street, that will both
connect to East Vine Drive. City Code requires that East Vine Drive
be improved to North Lemay Avenue, to the west, with this
development. The condition recommended by staff with the
Preliminary P.U.D., that the applicant be required to provide
necessary off -site street improvements as described in Section 29-
678 (6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, with provisions as
allowed by the Director of Engineering, was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board. This condition will be formalized in the
Development Agreement following the Board's approval of the final
P.U.D.
5. Storm Drainage:
The condition of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that the preliminary
drainage report be approved by the City Stormwater Utility prior to
submission of final drainage reports and plans for any portion of
the development. The City reserves the right to make changes to the
layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be warranted due to
storm drainage impacts on the development has been met with the,
submittal of sufficient documentation that has been evaluated and
approved by the Stormwater Utility. Changes to the layout of the
5
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Landscaping:
The final P.U.D. indicates that the landscaping will be installed
in compliance with the minimum sizes and phasing schedule as
required in the L.D.G.S., including the plant materials in the
Cooper Slough, drainage areas, natural areas, perimeter buffering,
and common areas. Therefore, the condition of preliminary P.U.D.
approval, that the landscaping be installed at the minimum sizes
and phasing schedule as required in the L.D.G.s. unless the City,
after consultation with the applicant, agrees to allowing smaller
sized landscape materials in natural areas, the Cooper slough,
drainage areas, perimeter buffering, and common areas prior to
submission of the final P.U.D., has been addressed with the final
P.U.D. development review request.
Parking:
The developer is providing four off-street parking spaces for each
single family residential lot (two in a garage or carport and two
tandem spaces in the driveway). There will be 211 parking spaces
provided for the 100 multi -family dwelling units. This number of
spaces is considered to be adequate for a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom
multi -family dwelling units.
signage:
This property is exempt from the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District; therefore, all signage for this development is subject to
the strict interpretation and requirements of the City Sign Code,
which is administered by the Zoning Department.
Noise Impacts:
There is concern about the noise levels that may be experienced on
this site due to its proximity to Interstate Highway 25. Primary
concern centers around the residential portions of the development,
especially the residential dwelling units east of Waterglen Drive.
The applicant is providing a 10' high earthen berm, with
landscaping on the top of it, along the entire eastern boundary of
the P.U.D. Based on evaluation of the Noise Impact Assessment
prepared by Balloffet and Associates, Inc., staff believes that
this noise mitigation measure is sufficient to bring the highway
noise to acceptable levels in the development.
4
Waterglen PUD - Final, #71-93B
October 24, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Notes on these plans will not be considered to be final and binding
until the Final P.U.D. plans are approved and recorded, has been
addressed with the information provided on the final P.U.D.
submittal documents. There are, however, some statements in the
General Notes on the Site Plan pertaining to the City's possible
acquisition of the neighborhood park site and the Cooper slough
natural area that may have to be modified and accepted by both the
City and the developer prior to recording the Site Plan.
3. Design_
Architecture:
The single family manufactured houses will be one-story in height.
The multi -family residential buildings will all be 2 stories high
and contain 4 dwelling units each. The multi -family building
materials will be light tan/warm grey (or compatible) earth tone
wood siding with darker earth tone trim, deep red/brown (or
compatible) earth tone brick as foundation accents, and dark
grey/brown (or compatible) earth tone asphalt/fiberglass laminate
shingles.
The convenience store and retail building will be one-story in
height. The building materials will be light tan/warm grey (or
compatible) earth tone wood siding with darker earth tone trim,
deep red/brown (or compatible) earth tone brick as foundation
accents, and dark grey/brown (or compatible) earth tone
asphalt/fiberglass laminate shingles.
The mini -storage units and the kiosk structure (at the north end of
the Cooper Slough) will be one-story in height. The building siding
materials will match the residential units and the door finish on
the storage units will be similar to the residential garage doors.
The two conditions of preliminary P.U.D. approval, that the City
reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan
and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center at the time of review of
the final P.U.D., in conformance with the design guidelines of the
City's Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Policy Plan and the
All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S. and that the City
reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan
and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed mini -
storage area at the time of review of the final P.U.D., in
conformance with the All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S.,
have been met with the City's evaluation of the required submittal
information for the final P.U.D. development review request.
H
ITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 10-24-94
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Waterglen P.U.D. - Final - #71-93B
APPLICANT: Vine Street Partnership
c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road, suite 105
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Vine Street Partnership
4875 Pearl East Circle, Suite 300
Boulder, CO. 80301
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for final planned unit development (P.U.D.)
approval for a mixed use development on 166.8 acres located on the
northwest corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25 and bounded
by the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north -and west sides. The property
is zoned IL - Limited Industrial with a planned unit development
condition. The proposal consists of 477 single family and 100
multi -family residential dwelling units (a total of 577 dwelling
units) on 120.7 acres, 7.7 acres for a neighborhood convenience
shopping center and a mini -storage site, a 12.1 acre neighborhood
park site, and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area on 26.3
acres.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for Final P.U.D. approval:
* Is in conformance with the approved Waterglen P.U.D.,
Preliminary;
* meets the applicable all Development Criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.);
* has met all conditions of preliminary P.U.D.;
* is exempt from the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District; therefore, all signage for this development is
subject to the strict interpretation and requirements of
the City Sign Code.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT