Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWINDTRAIL ON SPRING CREEK PUD PHASE TWO PRELIMINARY - 66 93B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 2/28/94 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Windtrail on Spring Creek P.U.D., Phase Two, Preliminary, #66-93B APPLICANT: Mr. John McCoy c/o Jim Sell Design 117 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Mr. John McCoy Windtrail Limited Liability Company 3665 J.F.K. Parkway, Building One Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 35 single family lots on 16.3 acres located on the east side of Shields Street and east of Sundering and Hill Pond Townhomes. The parcel is directly south of Spring Creek and is zoned R-P, Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Preliminary P.U.D. complies with the Windtrail on Spring Creek O.D.P. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria and is supported by the variable criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. A variance from the absolute requirement that density be a minimum of three dwelling units per acre, on a gross acreage basis, is recommended. The development is compatible with the surrounding area. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. A condition of approval regarding modification of the existing F.E.M.A. floodplain map based on upstream improvements is recommended. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 21. Will fill dirt be brought in like last summer? RESPONSE: No, there is enough fill on the property now. The fill dirt will be spread around. 22. Can construction traffic use CSURF property on a temporary basis rather than our streets? RESPONSE: We will work with CSURF on this. 23. The problem with development is that the public improvements seem to lag behind the impact of the new construction. We need improvements to the Hill Pond/Shields intersection .before the impact of the new residents is felt. The added traffic burden must be handled to accommodate the new impacts prior to the residents moving in. 24. If there is to be a trade with CSURF, then there should be an amended master plan on Tract J and an amended master plan on Wind Trail. This should be done with the full public process. 25. Will the develper consider a maximum height on the north of 30 feet? RESPONSE: We will consider this in the context of today's market. 26. What are the estimated costs of the lots and houses? RESPONSE: The lots will range from $30,000 to $35,000. The houses will likely range .from $150,000 to $200,000. 27. Will the access path that connects the trail to the homes be public? RESPONSE: It will be considered by the residents and neighbors to be a public path. The path will be owned, however, not by the City of Fort Collins, but by the homeowner's association. Or, the path may be within a drainage easement that is dedicated for drainage and access purposes to the City but with underlying ownership remaining in common with the association. This is not resolved yet. 28. My recommendation is against side lot access to the trail. This tends to have a negative impact on the two adjacent lot owners who will feel compelled to build six foot privacy fences. Access to the trail should be out in the open, not hidden between two side lot lines. RESPONSE: This is a good comment. ti 12. The timing is awkward. The approval of Wind Trail Townhomes was smooth and non -controversial due to the implied "promise" of open space being brought into the neighborhood. Now, the open space is not on the table. This has the appearance of bad faith. RESPONSE: During the deliberations regarding Wind Trail Townhomes, the developer consistently represented that if the deal with the city fell through, then the area would be considered for single family development. 13. What are the unanticipated costs associated with the sewer? RESPONSE: The sewer depth on Shire Court is too shallow. This results in bringing in sewer from the east which is a greater distance requiring more pipe, manholes, trenching, etc. 14. The source of the sewer should have been known to you prior to negotiations with the Department of Natural Resources. 15. What about a lift station to satisfy the sewer depth problem? RESPONSE: Lift stations were considered but are cost prohibitive. 16. The developer -is cautioned that it is pure conjecture to assume that there will be a local street connection across CSURF Tract J to a signal at Rolland Moore Park and Shields. Decisions regarding CSURF property cannot be made by the developer. At this time, the possibility seems remote. Unless a local street connection is in writing, it is conjecture. 17. The developer's consultant is cautioned to not color up areas on the renderings as open space that are not under the developer's control. 18. If "Armageddon" (the project up the road known as Spring Creek Village) gets approved, the traffic on Shields will become impossible. 19. How will the developer enforce the preservation of the open space on the platted lot and the installation of the split rail fence 15 feet inside the north property line? RESPONSE: It is our intention to place the 15 feet outside the split rail fence as a landscape easement within the platted lots. 20. Based on our experience in Wallenberg, this concept will not work. The fence location is appropriate but this should be a property line, not an easement line. The 15 foot landscaped area should be dedicated to the homeowner's association and held in common, not contained within individually platted lots. A possible compromise would be to adjust the difference so that the yard area increases by 7.5 feet and the common open space decreases by 7.5 feet. Otherwise, fencing restrictions within platted lots do not work. U at the easterly line of Sundering Townhomes and extends west to Shields. Discussions are ongoing and final resolution must be approved by the State Board of Agriculture. 6. Will the homes be two-story or one-story? The cross-section on the plans shows a one-story home. RESPONSE: It is likely that the homes will be two story structures. 7. Will there be a height limitation on the homes? One-story units would have less impact on the Spring Creek Trail. RESPONSE: We are looking at perhaps a height limitation of 35 feet. 8. The developer needs to be very specific, height limitations can be rigged depending on where you establish grade as the basis of the measurement. 9. The height issue could be mitigated if the City and F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Agency) would work to resolve the discrepency between the latest improvements to Spring Creek and the outdated F.E.M.A. floodplain maps. If the area were removed from the floodplain maps, then the City would not require the homes to be elevated a minimum distance above grade. Also, another benefit would be that the homeowners would not be required to purchase flood insurance. RESPONSE: We are aware of the issues between what the City has done to the floodplain and the lag time in changing the F.E.M.A. maps. These are good comments. Please keep in mind that many of the existing homes in the area are two story. We do not want to restrict the height of homes on certain lots to one story as this would be considered overly restrictive in today's marketplace. 10. If the homes had a passive solar character, this would be desirable. RESPONSE: The orientation of the proposed layout is north -south which allows for southern exposures. The opportunity exists for both passive and active solar. 11. What happened to the open space that was being considered for acquisition by the City's Department of Natural Resources? RESPONSE: When first approached, the City was not interested. Then, later, the City became interested. As we researched our land development costs, it became apparent that we face unanticipated costs for installing a sanitary sewer system. This raised the price of the open space which made it difficult for the City to acquire. Part of the equation is that the City was being asked to purchase land that has development potential versus a floodplain or floodway or wetland area that is not developable. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Wind Trail, Phase Two: Single Family DATE: December 8, 1993 DEVELOPER: John McCoy CONSULTANT: Kay Force, Jim Sell Design CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard The meeting began with a description of the project. The request is for 37 single family lots on 15 acres. The site is directly south of Spring Creek and the Spring Creek Trail, and east of Hill Pond Townhomes. The project is north of Wind Trail, Phase One which is a townhome development adjacent to Sundering Townhomes. QUESTIONSt CONCERNSo, COMMENTS 1. What is the timing of the signal at Shields and Rolland Moore intersection? RESPONSE: Not sure at this time what the schedule is. 2. Do you have written permission from CSURF to cross Tract J of the C.A.T. master plan for construction traffic or for tieing in a local street connection to the future signal at Shields and Rolland Moore? RESPONSE: We are discussing a variety of issues with CSURF but we have not resolved the issue of crossing Tract J yet. 3. The existing intersection of Shields and Hill Pond Road needs improvements. Right now, there are sight distance problems and no left turn exit lane for heading onto southbound Shields. 4. Why signalize the Rolland Moore intersection and not the Hill Pond Road intersection? RESPONSE: A signal at Rolland Moore will serve the traffic at the park during the summer and future development on CSURF's Tract J. A local street connection will allow Hill Pond residents to gain access to this signal. 5. What is the proposed trade between the developer and CSURF? RESPONSE: We are proposing to trade the eastern portion of our Overall, Development Plan (about 15 acres) for an equal amount of land on the western portion of Tract J. The area on Tract J begins I i Land Use ~ . Windtrail on Spring Creek P.U.D. consists of 13.0 acres of Tract A, ;:•'• t• • which will be single family detached development, as well as 3.3 acres of Tract D, the existing Spring Creek Open Space. Tracts A, B and D represent a cumulative density of 3.2 units per acre. Tract C has not yet been developed. Land Use Policies Land -use policies achieved by the proposed development include: - Policy 12-- cumulative density of at least 3 units per acre. - Policy 22-- contiguous to existing development. - Policy 46-- energy conservation through solar orientation. - Policy 80-- development has access to neighborhood center (Spring Creek Shopping Center); is close to com- munity park (Rolland Moore); water and sewer service are existing; easy access to employment (Centre for Advanced Technology ); development is on the Transfort route; alternative transporta- tion is available by the Spring Creek Bike Trail. S - Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your com- ments. Sincerely, JIM SELL DESIGN, INC. Kay Force 5 , January 3, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board Members Planning Department City of Fort Collins RE: Wind Trail on Spring Creek PUD Planning Objectives Dear Board Members: Wind Trail Townhomes is a 16.3 acre planned residential development of 35 units, providing a density of 2.1 units per acre. It is an infill project bordered by CSU Research Foundation, Hill Pond on Spring Creek 1st & 2nd filings, and the proposed Windtrail Townhomes. The development is within walking distance of a neighborhood shopping center and Rolland Moore Park. Access & Circulation Access and circulation consist of an extension and upgrade of the existing Gilgalad Way, as well as a stub to the south to the proposed "Rolland Moore Drive", the signal controlled intersection on Shields Street, as shown on Hill Pond on Spring Creek O.D.P. Until this development occurs on the CSURF property, a 20 foot temporary fire access will be provided to Shadowmere Court in Windrail Townhomes. Bike and pedestrian access to the Spring Creek Trail will be a trail connection east from the Gilgalad Court cul-de-sac to the existing trail. The fire access will also remain as a permanent bike/pedestrian access for residents of Windtrail Townhomes. Jim Sell Desi` - K� ��� air u P�A;urtlain Avi: rg4 1 ,�dliin,Gok;racY-, fYi.x- �`'�I �t 19'LI DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 teat«an eunn0«oa«ovw negnoornooa snooangc,fiotw of c b 10% 650 teerolan ezenrq nawtsroo. C 10% 4000 feet of an emmq or 000roveo regional sncoarq center. 0 d 20% 3500 rear of an e°snng weservea nm rgnbomcoa w,M« ,n• con, commoancommunto,,, a 0 �__(__� ^ e 10°Io t00p lactate scnao�.meannga mereawremenn orme comounory aaucorania.•s orme Srrnea Ca«000. O f 20% .7oog reetoramrn«arrrowvment center. e.s. u. •�• (,. A �`. a 0 g 55% r000reetaacn,acarecirw 6 h 20% Tsortn'rcnCalma 0 1 20% T OCermu&mness0isrttcr. O �waleerwase o«x,0«vu emeguou ro etdnlrspurbon aeveafxwx.Gem may t» ean,ea m tdlows OX—For worernwnme woos.ry bgunagrynm 010 conngurN, .. j 30% t0ro t5%— For walerm t0 to 30%cwVAr , wnme woowW For 30 -T m ccu 20ro25%—FowOOfownw�o« mov �.m30ro4D%%co' Vitt'. . 25 to 30%—for«oiern wooem IxxnaaN nm 40 to 50% conrpuN. k ttncon m oengnmareo murw rxgeerwii recceran ww.sOwwwwusageetltwrntagnmeooarananaaneewresenapy Mrams«mraugn commneo erwgycw,senvnon n,eaauM Ueycra marom,dNraaWsa Oy Cooe.a 5%bOMurr,pywearns0 for every 5%reauctxo in erwgt use. I • Cacuate 01% oanw ror every 50 o ocAosa n"wood R1 C«waretM oarcenropeamerrxa a«esnmewotetxma«eowoteobrecswn«t«ue.entwt/Iamaowcentopem°o«nn M rneapalaan C�rxnm to weserwrq oen Canal antra aoen space mar meee ero CANS mrwn,m reauremennmCZsate the OMCenropo n otmuooen taaceacraaperometarn asysaomwm a«eoge.enw nvs oarcentagemanonu O tteonofinerot«aeeiO tallOgotnaMspenranneprtoomooapupeCIr«wttatllrlleswrvU OR fatOlnerwW rsouea b/CiN Coos. enrer2%oava t«ewry S100 osrowe�t�nq wr�rweneG p n panor me taro aeveroornenbssoper nro txspnron negrtporraoa lansnes ana sarwces wr,an «eraronww,» rearsa w C4yCooe. ene a,%bo nu «eveNSt00 awe Ingo oe rrnenea na cammmmxeostq nimebaseaoasosansa oercentageart+e roatnun+oeraavenv,gvrtsr«aw ncomer«nres enter tnat MQ Owofiotoge as a oprxa uo to a rnmurxxn of 30%. Z ea COMM" nt 0 oertq mad to aeveroo a aoeonea OWCenrog0 of me tO" asr Of OWW q n for ryO6 Wc,a Type T fgnakappea rautng m asIoW by Ine ON of Fan Collin caamie me pone m Iokw Otype A'— 3hr,w W ty0o$-1.01er,er T sry In no Cme wxw me cod, bw,W Oanw be vemK ew 30%. If ""«aalr4rn prc o"mnRxrr an nebte txYoirq «pbCa a bor%a rtay as aatrMa to r rno fOtlOweq: 3% — Farprewtlkg«rtxllgon+gaunlue nrlur,Ces la.a erw,t«rrw,ratl«wwe. oosner.c tllCarafnlC onosocKAWc, laawseloid 3 3% — Fa n VnictiuiiiiIwd ben keeolrgwfm the 0 OCIW aloe ouap,g«oaee. wnseovaio" tofu U" 3% _ Forsxmavga000rleWdrn. wlursg «place.tarwtY leoarollf mnvxt«+p.preferwn«,«aRrspraenwrnan approcrtae morcw. If o oonl«, «a1 amerooureooura+gn Itte rr%11,p1e fO NV prolecta «owae0 ulasrQ«x,C wllnk, ny Oulalrq «n an wwrb D«r4ng ftructsreoaanoacasavwerotry o«n«vsrncnae.°ow,su may o. eamsomfolbwa t 0% — Forpowatrq 75%«m«e dlM paso,gnasnss«tae: 6% — F«ptowurg 50.74%afe*0010 gncVrcIUfw 3% — Farotgwang 25-40%of"polMrq nafmctve. U N a conmmwrta bong rr,o0oropnfwao approv oukxraftfftea@qumn"Nponet«rneawo"unft WfWaCCot CN % TOTAL 80 —30— -ACTIVITY-Residenfi—al DEFINITION 0� All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, '.townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes; and multiple family dwe.la.ings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec- reational uses as a principal use;. uses providing,.meeting places and places -;.for pub.lic-.assembly with ,i.ncidenta.l::office space; --and chi ldxar..e-centers. a ` Each of the following applicable criteria must be CRITERIA answered "yes°.and implemented withsth the devel_.op- . ment plan. 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project.-,., at-1east three.: 3 dwelling, units per acre (calcul:ated :for -:residential..portion:of.4he site only)? ❑ 2. "DOES 'THE 'PROJECT EARN -THE MINIMUM - :........ .PERCENTAGEPOINTS.AS CALCULATED ON THE'FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI- DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED ---- CREDIT FORA RESIDENTIAL -PROJECT — --- -- :,SHALL-,BE BASED ON THE'.FOLLOWING: _::, ❑ 30=40 PERCENTAGE POINTS:=­3-4 DWELLING UNITSJACRE; 40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS:= 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS"= 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 60-70-PERCENTAGE POINTS— 6-7 DWELLING.UNITS/ACRE 70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE. 0 Activity A: ALL CRITERIA ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA CRITERION 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 1.6 Lands or Aqricultural Importance 1.7 Enercv Conservation 1.8 Air Qualitv 1.9 Water Qualitv APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY the crttenon 1will the criterion applicable'? I be satisfied? Yes FNo If no, please explain ' 9 reserved A 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular. Pedestrian, Bike Transportation I ✓ 2.2 Building Placement and C 2.3 Natural Features 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and 2.5 Emergency Access 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation 2.7 Architecture 2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shading 2.10 Solar Access 2.11 Historic Resources 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape 2.14 Sians 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 54 - RP � �_---- ----------- WILL_ 0 Bmma --- _- ` POND �3..Li1 1 O �� TRACT D) Q •` -^ - `.__,_ E AN / 01GT"GLE EEtiT TRAIL a 11 i� ae n a I a 234 33 36 __ . _�a0 I a 26 I I 24� \ ( 1 I // /� �, -��.. •i �l Lc �-?J -•-_ '�' .,,� "j lil Ti aft, HILSPILypo/ .J-' •�/ �'mm, f NO �`\� /// / \ V 1+ li \ -�I r `• I e_ '^•fu".� .l �7^ tue"" L _I Q •j �`m"�"'.ov -� d.. ti.. a \` n �' `1 0 TI TFRAC,\� � ...r,,. \�(✓ � } t� �J'Kj I 1�7tb1 `Pt -I - .r.v� ��� �_` • • . • • ' . K� y"� `! I I I I I PLANT •. \ PROJECT 6TATISTIGB LT---tl-[T---LI� ce ....�."�" `�_ - r • + r , r I ' `V \ 1 . dr, :te a\ \ \ p ?� el el / /i � /EWUERMC' ti)It�JIkA'I�B —� (' — � 6iJ a a��' �,.!' . ' �•~� I —_{per- v �>� \�Ifd\ . a a a + a a r a a a —~—� RELIMI OWNER'S CERTFICATION NOTARY PLANNNiO A ZONING APPROVAL SOLAR ORIENTATION — - PLANT KEY WINDPLON 8PR21O C PA1.D. ' RELQIPlARY SITIE & I mu ors., w:�'lE.�� �. �T'.�:.7.R'Cs".�°°".1°"— OW O �� CSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION PLAN SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: WINDTRAIL on SPRING CREEK PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 35 single family units on 16.3 acres DENSITY: 2.15 du/acre General Population 35 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 122.5 School Age Population Elementary - 35 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 15.75. Junior High - 35 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 7.35 Senior High - 35 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 6.475 Design Affected Schools Capacijy Enrollment a Bennett Elementary 546 483 Blevins Junior High 900 754 Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404 11 Llvl: WINDTRAIL on SPRING CREEK 4W PUD, Phase 2 = Preliminary North NUMBER: 66=93 B Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66793B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 7 In addition, future plans call for the closure of the Shields Street/Shire Court intersection after a local street connection is made from Windtrail to the south into Tract J of the C.A.T. As can be seen, future development will be planned to provide additional access points for Windtrail P.U.D. to the east and south. Until this development occurs, access to Shields Street will be gained via Hill Pond Road and Shire Court. In the short term, until a traffic signal is installed, these arterial/local street intersections will operate at level of service C/D with delays for left turn exits onto Shields Street during the peak times. The traffic impacts associated with Windtrail P.U.D. have been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the request for Windtrail, Filing Two, Preliminary P.U.D., Staff finds the following facts to be true: 1. Windtrail on Spring Creek, Phase Two, Preliminary complies with the Overall Development Plan. 2. The Preliminary P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria and Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. 3. The Preliminary P.U.D. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Windtrail, Filing Two, Preliminary P.U.D., #66-93B, subject to the following condition: 1. At the time of Final P.U.D., the area presently contained within the 100-year floodplain of Spring Creek, as indicated on the official map of the Federal 'Emergency Management Agency, shall be removed from the 100-year floodplain by applying to and receiving approval from FEMA for an amendment of the official map. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66-93B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 6 < however, must remain within compliance with FEMA's map, although outdated. Therefore, in order to proceed to Final, the developer must officially amend FEMA's floodplain map to remove those affected portions out of the Spring Creek floodplain. (This amendment procedure is not without precedent as it was done on the vacant 21 acres across the creek.) Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D., the area presently contained within the 100-year floodplain of Spring Creek, as indicated on the official map of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall be removed from the 100-year floodplain by applying to and receiving approval from FEMA for an amendment of the official map. 7. Solar Orientation: Of the 35 total lots, 31 meet the requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. These lots are oriented within 30 degrees of a true east -west line, or have a minimum of 50 feet of unobstructed open space, or right-of-way, adjacent to the south lot line. This results in a compliance rate of 88%. which exceeds the required minimum of 65%. 8. Transportation: A traffic impact analysis was performed for the 35 acre tract in conjunction with Hill Pond East Preliminary P.U.D. in 1992. This traffic study assumed single family development for 112 single family homes. This assumed build -out is more intense than the land use of Windtrail P.U.D. As mentioned, both Hill Pond Road and Shire Court are local streets. Hill Pond Road would be extended to serve the site. Future plans for Windtrail O.D.P. and CSURF's Tract J call for a local street connection to the east to an ultimate intersection with future Centre Avenue, a collector street connecting Prospect Road with the Centre for Advanced Technology. The timing of construction of Centre Avenue is unknown. As mentioned, the City's Transportation Department is searching for funding for a traffic signal at either Shields/Hill Pond Road or Shields Street/Rolland Moore Drive. This signal will alleviate the delays in making a left turns to and from the site. Plans for Windtrail and Tract J call for a street connection. The purpose of the connection is to allow cross access to the traffic signal on Shields, no matter where it is located. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66-93B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 5 The developer is negotiating with CSURF to obtain the westerly portion of Tract J in exchange for the easterly undeveloped portion of Windtrail on Spring Creek. In fact, a conceptual plan has been reviewed by the Planning Department. With or without the potential land trade, the developer has indicated that it would be desirable to re-route construction traffic off Hill Pond Road. Staff has reviewed the Preliminary P.U.D. against the recently adopted neighborhood compatibility criteria in the L.D.G.S. Staff finds that the 35 single family lots in this area would be compatible with the surrounding residential development. 5. Design: Treatment Along Spring Creek The primary design feature of Windtrail on Spring Creek, Filing Two is the sensitive treatment along Spring Creek. Due to the ponds, the Spring Creek Trail is at the southern edge of the open space easement. The area that separates the lots from the trail will be placed in the common area and not within the individually platted lots. The minimum separation is 25 feet from back of lot to the trail. In most cases, this separation is greater. The setback area from the trail to back of lots features meandering spaces treated with berms, and a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees. Fencing is restricted to patios only, not the perimeter rear lot lines. Trail Connections There are two trail connections to Spring Creek Trail, located on the north and east. Both connections are within open common areas and do not run through a narrow gap between two side lot lines. 6. Resource Protection: There is a large stand of mature deciduous trees in the northeast corner of the site. Most of these trees will be preserved since they are located in common area that buffers the trail. At the present time, the official floodplain map of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates portions of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Spring Creek. Although these maps are considered official, they are outdated due to upstream improvements by the City's Stormwater Utility. The site now lies entirely out of the 100-year floodplain. The City of Fort Collins, Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66-93B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 4 The Transportation Department has investigated this concern and plans to install a traffic signal on Shields at either one of two locations. A traffic signal is warranted on Shields at either Hill Pond Road, or the future extension of the access drive that serves Rolland Moore Park. At this time, it is considered highly unlikely that a traffic signal would be installed at both intersections. Unofficially referred to as "Rolland Moore Drive", this street would have to be extended to the east from the park to justify signalization. A signal at this intersection would serve the park traffic that builds up during the summer months and would create sufficient gaps in platoon flow to allow safe ingress, and egress at Hill Pond Road. Signalization of this intersection would allow the closing of the Shields/Shire Court intersection and would fit into the "signal progression" on Shields better than a signal at Hill Pond Road. The difficulty with installing a signal at this location is one of timing. • Absent any development activity on CSURF's Tract J of C.A.T., it is unlikely that a signal would be installed at Rolland Moore Drive. If development on Tract J appears unlikely, then a signal at Hill Pond Road is the next best alternative. B. Shields/Hill Pond Intersection Improvements The Hill Pond homeowner's association has put in a service request with the Transportation and Forestry Departments to remove sight obstructions at the Shields/Hill Pond Road intersection. This service request has been accepted by the City and work will begin in early March to remove several tree trunks that are causing the problem. The City Forestry Department has scheduled the work. C. Access to the Spring Creek Trail There was a concern that pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Spring Creek Trail be out in the open and not hidden between two fenced lots. The developer has addressed this concern by placing the trail connection in an open space tract that will be under the common ownership of the association. D. construction Traffic There was a concern that construction traffic using Hill Pond Road would cause a disturbance to the peace and quiet in the neighborhood. Construction traffic would best be brought in across CSURF's Tract J via a temporary access road. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66-93B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 3 Staff recommends a variance to the absolute criterion. This recommendation is based on the following finding: 1. The density for Phase Two of Windtrail on Spring Creek is consistent with the O.D.P. which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in November of 1993. The O.D.P. was approved based on the overall density of the 35 acres supporting a density that is greater than three dwelling units per acre. For example, Windtrail Townhomes Final P.U.D., approved in January of 1994, represents a density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre. Combined with Phase Two (22.53 acres), the overall gross density is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. It is Staff's finding that Phase Two is consistent with the O.D.P. Staff, therefore, recommends a variance from the absolute criterion that the average residential density be at least three dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis. C. Variable Criteria - Residential Uses Point Chart The P.U.D. was reviewed by the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The project earns a score of 80% on the point chart. Points were earned for being within 4,000 feet of an existing regional shopping center, being within 3,500 feet of an existing community park, and being within 3,000 feet of a major employment center. In addition, the project earns credit for being contiguous to Hill Pond and Sundering Townhomes to the west, and Hill Pond on Spring Creek 2nd Filing (Wallenberg) on the north. In summary, the score of 80% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. supports the proposed density of 2.14 dwelling units per acre at this location. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held December 8, 1993. Minutes of this meeting are attached. The primary issues raised at this meeting were traffic circulation, future traffic signal on Shields, access to the Spring Creek Trail, and coordination with CSURF on development of Tract J of the Centre for Advanced Technology. A. Traffic Circulation/Signal on Shields There is a concern that there needs to be a traffic signal on Shields to allow residents of Hill Pond, Sundering, and Windtrail to gain safe access to and from a busy arterial. Presently, left turn exits are difficult from Hill Pond Road and Shire Court without the benefit of a traffic signal. The concern is that Windtrail Phase Two will add traffic to a difficult situation. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary, #66-93B February 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; Vacant (Spring Creek and Hill Pond on Spring Creek 2nd) S: R-P; Vacant (Windtrail Townhomes Final P.U.D.) E: T; Vacant (Tract E Centre for Advanced Technology O.D.P.) W: R-P; Multi -family (Sundering Townhomes) This 16.3 acre tract is part of a larger 94 acre tract known as Hill Pond on Spring Creek Master Plan approved by the City Council in 1980. This original Master Plan was divided by Spring Creek. After approvals for Hill Pond and Sundering Townhomes, south of Spring Creek, a 35 acre tract remained. On November 15, 1993, Windtrail on Spring Creek Overall Development Plan was approved covering these 35 acres. On January 24, 1994, Windtrail Townhomes Final P.U.D. was approved. 2. Land Use• A. Overall Development Plan The 16.3 acres are included in the 35 acre Windtrail on Spring Creek Overall Development Plan, approved on November 15, 1993. The site is identified on the O.D.P. as Tract A and designated as "Low Density Residential (Single Family)". The proposed P.U..D., therefore, is in conformance with this Overall Development Plan. B. Absolute Criteria The request for 35 single family lots on 16.3 acres represents a density of 2.15 dwelling units per acre. This proposed density does not satisfy the absolute criterion of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. which requires that the average residential density in a Filing be at least three dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis. The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the L.D.G.S. if it can be demonstrated that the proposed P.U.D. is equal to or better than a plan that could have met the three dwelling units per acre minimum.