HomeMy WebLinkAboutORCHARD PLACE PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 40 93A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSNEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
�lip maoof
Written You o in�ation
this meeting'?
aaa«r .
Name
U
Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
//Address
/ S. 1! T
Fas�y
`�
l e at �'• tat
f oafQ�,
8os 2/
v�
2d / 1,
r
They are 700 to 800 square feet in size. The two story layout
helps to separate the rooms and gives a feeling of more space.
14. Will there be any control on the construction of these
buildings? I have seen some pretty shoddy construction,
especially the apartment buildings to the west. You wouldn't
catch me inside those buildings, they are death traps.
The Building Department will inspect the buildings during
construction. Construction will have to meet the Uniform Building
Code that the City has adopted.
15. I am opposed to any more development in this area. There is
too much traffic, congestion, and pollution in this area. We
don't want to leave our home, but we may be forced to if all
of this development occurs. We live on Orchard Place east of
Taft Hill and it is a quiet neighborhood now we want it to
stay that way.
16. Orchard Place, east of Taft Hill is a very dark street. We
could use some street lights on our street.
Staff: I will contact Light and Power and ask them about -adding
street lights on Orchard Place. Of course, there maybe some people
who like it.without lights. So we would have to explore this issue
a little more.
17. You need a lot more inspectors in the City of Fort Collins to
control the amount of junk that is going in all over town.
The Planning Department keeps building junk and this City is
just not what it used to be.
18. Why isn't the City Council member at this meeting? He has
been to the other for the project across the street from this.
I don't know. I suppose you could call him to discuss your
concerns with this project.
19. I don't have a problem with this development at all. These
young kids have to live somewhere and it makes sense for them
to live near CSU so they can walk and ride bikes. I live to
the east, closer to CSU and enjoy living around the•students.
It looks like a nice development proposal. It looks like a
nice place for someone to live.
8. I feel that this density is too high. It should be one or two
homes at the most. There is a lot of traffic and congestion
on Taft Hill Road and this will, just make it worse. There are
a lot of students in this area. Our street, Orchard Place,
(on the east side of Taft Hill) is a quiet street and we want
it to stay that way.
9. I have concerns about the density. The apartments in the area
are not as dense. I think the density should be 8 to 10
DU/acre. What about parking? You should be providing 1 space
per bedroom at a minimum. We have the Sunray Apartments and
find that there should be parking for every student living in
these units, because they will all have cars.
We have provided parking based on the City requirements for 2 per
3 bedroom, 1.75 for 2 bedroom, and 1.5 for a one bedroom unit. We
show that we need 15 spaces. There is the possibility that a
young family will live in'the 3 bedroom units and might have 2 cars
at most. This property is close enough to CSU that biking is an
option and students who do not own a car may find this an
attractive place to live because they can walk, bike or take the
bus to class, shopping, parks and restaurants.
10. Where will the children play? There is no park in this area
that is easy to get to. The school yard is across Taft Hill
so that would be out of the question. Has the City considered
a park in this area?
We are providing some back yard area (about 3,000 sq. ft.) north of
the units which will not be divided with fences, which can be used
for active play. Also each unit will have a private patio area..
Staff: Within 2,000' of this property there are three parks,
Roger's Park is to the northwest, Avery Park is to the south, and
City Park Golf Course is to the north.
11. The schools in this area are overcrowded. Where will these
kids go to school?
Elementary age children would go to Moore Elementary School. The
School District will be made aware of this proposal and will be
able to coordinate enrollment accordingly. I am not sure where the
other students will go.
12. The traffic on Taft Hill Road is horrendous. There is way too
much traffic in this area. It is almost impossible to make a
left turn out of our street. The City should have put the
signal at Orchard Place east of Taft Hill. We need a signal
to make a left turn.
13. How large on the units? They look pretty small. I can tell
you that they are too small for two people to live in.
SUMMARY
The following are QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and RESPONSES expressed at
a Neighborhood Meeting for Orchard Place PUD. The applicant
proposes 8 townhouses on .53 acres, located on Orchard Place west
of Taft Hill Road and north of Elizabeth Street. The property is
zoned Medium Density Planned Residential. The proposal would
therefore be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, and must meet
the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System.
MEETING PLACE: Bethel Baptist Church
MEETING DATE: August 16, 1993
MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNER: Kirsten Whetstone
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS
1. How many units are you proposing?
Eight townhouses.
2. How many bedrooms per unit?
Three will have 3 bedrooms and 5 will have 2 bedrooms.
3. Will these be rentals or owned separately.
These will be rental units.
4. What is the total square footage of the building?
6,808 square feet for the estimated total floor area, including the
upstairs.
5. What will the rents be?
We will be in the average market range for rents, approximately
$250.00 per bedroom.
6. Will they be all wood siding or will there be some brick?
We are proposing to put brick on the fronts of the units.
7. What type of fencing are you proposing?
Solid cedar fencing around the sides and back. There is a mobile
home park and storage facility adjacent on the back lot line and
parking for the apartment buildings on the.west so we want to
provide some screening for the townhouse residents. There is a
single family house to the east which we want to provide screening
and landscaping for between the two properties.
I -,
ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: B:ORCHARD.WS
Date: 09-08-1993 Reference Number: 240596
13. INTERIOR FINISH
Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 "5
Uncarpeted Floor Slab (1.yes, 2.no) 55 2
Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 0
Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4
14" ADDITIDNAL MASS
Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness
(1-3) (sq ft) (in.)
58a 0 58b 0 58c 0
59a 0 59b V 59c 0
Volume of
Cond. Space
(cubic ft)
60 57936
15, INFILTRATION
Type of
Infiltration
Measurement
(1-3)
61 1 6�
Infiltration
Value
(ACH or sq.in)
.4
16. HEATING EQUIPMENT
Heating Heating Electric
System Type System AFUE Furnace Input Demand Control
(1~7) (%) (1000's Btu/h) 1. yes. 2, no)
63 4 64 100 65 100 66 2
17, DUCTS AND PIPES
Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0
Attic Duct Insulation (1.yes, 2,no) 68 2
Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 0
Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (1.yes, 2.no) 7(-.) 2
18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER
Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 3
Water Heater Efficiency (%) 72 78
ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: B:ORCHARD.WS
Date: 09~08-1993 Reference Number: 240596
7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING)
Area
(sq
ft)
31a
216.5
32a
176
33a
140
34a
16
35a
0
36a
0
37a
0
38a
0
Area
(sq ft)
43a 1.60
44a 0
45a 0
Orientation
Glazing Type
Wall Entry
(1-6)
(1-21)
Line #(24�30)
31b
1
31c
4
31d
24
32b
5
32c
4
32d
24
33b
5
33c
3
33d
24
34b
3
34c
4
34d
24
35b
0
35c
0
35d
24
36b
0
36c
0
36d
24
37b
0
37c
0
37d
24
38b
0
38c
0
38d
24
9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY)
Door Insulation
(R~Value)
43b 4,4 43c
44b 0 44c
45b 0 45c
Storm Door
(1.yes, 2.no)
2 43d
2 44d
2 45d
11. FRAME FLOOR
Wall Entry
Line #(24~30)
24
24
24
Floor
Area
Insulation
Floor Location
(sq
ft)
(R-Value)
(1~3)
49a
148
49b 20.5
49c 3
50a
0
50b 0
50c 1
51a
0
51b 0
51c 1
12. SLAB
FLOORS (ON OR
BELOW GRADE)
Exposed
Floor
Area
Perimeter
Perimeter Insulation
(sq
ft)
(ft)
(R-Value)
52a
3834 �
52b 368
52c 3
53a
0
53b 0
53c 0
Under
Slab
DePth
Width of Insulation
insulation
Below Grade
Under Slab
(R-Value)
(ft>
<ft)
52d
4,5
52e 0
52f 14
53d
0
53e 0
53f 0
ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: B:ORCHARD.WS
Date: 09-08~1993 Reference Number: 240596
1, 8ENERAL INFORMATION
Property Owner's Name
::,roperty Address
Zip Code
Telephone Number(s)
Home Builder's Name
Model Name or Number
Development Name
Energy Rating Company
Building Plan Rating:
Energy Rater's Name
Energy Rating Date
Site Visit Rating:
Energy Rater's Name
Energy Rating Date
1 HANK LEWANDOWSK1
2 ORCHARD PLACE
3 80521
4
5 LEW LTD.
6
7 ORCHARD PLACE P.U.D.
8 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES
9 DON RICHMOND
10 9-3-93
11
12
2" BUILDING STRUCTURE
Year Constructed 13 1993
Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 7242
Housing Type (1-5) 15 1
Apartment Only: Level Type (1~3) 16 0
Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 2
Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 1
3. CEILINGS/ROOFS
Roof Entry Gross Area
Line # (sq ft)
[19] 19a 3982
[20] 20a 0
[21] 2 1 a. 0
Ceiling/Roof
Insulation
(R~Value)
19b 40
20b 0
21b 0
Ceiling Type
(1-2)
19c 1
20c 0
21c 0
4^ RIM AND BAND JOISTS
Area Joist Location Joist Insulation
(sq ft) (1~4) (R-Value)
22a 302 2213 1 22c 19
23a 2b 23b 2 23c 19
5. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS
Wall Entry Gross Area Wall Location Wall Insulation
Line # (sq ft) (1--4) (R~Value)
[24] 24a 5400 24b 1 2 4 c 19
[25] 2 5 a 168 25b 2 25c 19
[26] 26a 0 26b 1 26c 0
[27] 27a 0 27b 1 27c 0
City of Fort Collins
ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program ~ Version 2.0,4
DETAILED ENERGY
REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING
Owner:
HANK LEWANDOWSKI
Reference
#:
240596
Address:
ORCHARD PLACE
Data
File:
B:ORCHARD.DAT
Zip:
80521
Run
Date-
09-08~1993
Phone:
Year
Built:
1993
Builder:
LEW LTD~
Rating
Firm:
RICHMOND ASSOCIATES
Model:
Plan
Rater:
DON RICHMOND
Devel:
ORCHARD PLACE P.U.D.
Rating
Date:
9-3-93
BUILDING
CHARACTERISTICS
Conditioned
Space Area:
7242
so ft
Total
Glazing Area:
549
so ft
ENERGY SCORE
Air Infiltration
Rate;
0,40
AC/h
***********
Eff. Thermal Capacity:
15642
Btu/F
* E - 77 *
Util. of
Direct Solar;
0.68
***********
BUILDING ENERGY SUMMARY
Load
Efficiency
Energy
----- L ---------
Consumed
Fuel Cost
----------
Energy Cost
-------
KBtu/sf
----------
%
KBtu/sf
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/sf
Elec Space Heat 19"1
100.0
19.1
138.3
12.31
0.24
Elec Water Heat 3.4
78.0
4,3
31"2
12.31
0.05
Building TOTAL 22.5
23.4
169.5
O^29
COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING
Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat Load
Btu/hr-F
%�
KBtu/sf
%
KBtu/sf
%
KBtu/sf
MMBtu
Ceilings/Roofs
92.7
8
2.0
8
0.4
6
1.6
11.3
Frame Walls
260.1
22
5.6
21
0.6
9
5.0
36.1
Masonry Walls
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
Rim/Band Joists
15.1
1
0.3
1
0.0
0
0.3
2.4
Windows/Skylights
291.2
24
6.3
24
4.2
61
2.0
14.8
Sunspace
-
~
~
~
-
~
Doors
30.0
2
0^6
2
00
0
0"6
4.7
Foundation Walls
~
-
Frame Floors
7.2
1
0.2
1
0.0
0
0.2
1.1
Slab Floors
170^5
14
3"7
14
0,0
0
3"7
26.6
Crawl Sp/Unht 8smt
~
~
~
~
-
Infiltration
342.8
28
7.4
2B
0.0
0
7,4
53.4
Envelope TOTAL
1209.5
100
26.0
100
5,3
76
20.8
150.4
Active Solar Spc Ht
-
-
-
-
~
Internal Gains
0.0
0
1.6
24
-1.6
-11.9
Duct/Pipe Losses
-
-
-
-
Furnace Losses
-
~
~
~
Space Heating TOTAL
X.
100
6.9
100
19.1
138.3
COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING
Electric 4.3 KBtu/sf = 31.2 MMBtu
Solar - -
Water Heating TOTAL 4`3 KBtu/sf = 31.2 MMBtu
-ity of Fort Collins
ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program ~ Version 2.0.4
*******************************************************************************
ENERGY RATING RESULT
*******************************************************************************
Owner: HANK LEWANDOWSKI
Address: ORCHARD PLACE
Zip: 80521
Phone:
Builder: LEW LTD.
Model:
Devel: ORCHARD PLACE P.U.D.
Reference #:
Data File:
Run Date:
Year Built:
Rating Firm:
Plan Rater:
Rating Date:
240596
8:ORCHARD.DAT
09-08-1993
1993
RICHMOND ASSOCIATES
DON RICHMOND
9-3-93
*******************************************************************************
ENERGY SCORE:
(Least ||
Efficient) E-0 10 20 30
***********
* E ~ 77 *
***********
40 50 60
E-77
v
v
~|---- |---~|��--| (Most
70 80 90 100 Efficient)
*******************************************************************************
This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing
the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute
any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy
features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs,
or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house.
DEj,-3S I'r GVAA,,(z1
u r I A n i yd > 1.
Iv '✓r 1 o i
DENSITY c:HART
Maximum
Criterion
Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Earned
Credit
a
20%
2"1e4110(m e.enrgaaM v d rte.pl,bahood tIapp"fer,t«.
�O
b
10'k
ASOleeldms.ekgnonw dap.
C
10%
4" Teel of m 0." a apar ,dga,a a,dpp,np Cefv«.
We
d
20%
0500l"Iofonsetk,gaietefwdn«gloatoodpakcomrrvv/ypanacarrvr..NfodAty.
A
('O
10%
low leel of a Trig* rn "ON"repltemenh of the convlwry odic~4ows of SId. of Colorado
IO
Q
f
209'0
]OOOfeetdorrtaaempbyrrrnlcent«.
S%
g
1000 fool Of Octal cad cent«.
h
20%
7loftn•fan Gak,k
I
20%
it»C«,na Aar supine.
A paeclwtgw baurdoY a tonnguotn b dnttvgtfew, de.+toorn.nt GedN froybe *arra a lolkr+s
1
a
30%
0% -Ia palech Wore Moo" bo ndoty nor 0 to 10%connguor.
HIb15%-f:naapctl-t.aoo«tybarrdaynor10b20%cmtp,.ty,
IS to 20X-Ia 01016ch-now aapeM bDxx*NV for 201000%cwtgtnly.
2010 25%- IN poncll W,ow OfoonM bpaooy has 00 to 40%COm,guty,
b
2SIo00%-fa pogC11wb01 aoa«Mbw,nbNrol/Ob50%CAnlyjuty;
k
rNCOn be Oemaralydea Nollttr SCI 19v Covn1 reduC*Igndenewuple*nMngy ts.ogeell+«Iluatgn N,e aopf0anondonertgllv9 energy
IN 0-O 5%10"vc0nCCnIn twgVuprgyConte.wlonrr,ept,/dt beyond N,dr,annatyfeaLfea by CXy Code. a 5% bmtn navy be ewdd IN every 5%tedyctkx,nen«py tn*,
(I
COkxideat%bons to* . 500ae1 nakded n«d proldd,
m
Calculate "percentope of lMlaid OO«n"Wated"ad devdea b 10al*01bnp1 ten.«*w V2 Of Mo' pert«dpg* Cl a ban;
n
r Me appncant car'" b ptew vvg pennarnt aewe oven toot* Plot M
ofNYo open Wove oa000010 rk'ild dMbiaae M1nl Oage. ent«rv1 P«Centog*ad a boles teQts*flter,tt glad NrPMenlOpd
a
VPWOf entotal d"1013nenlbudget abbeWon' ortrrqyoomoOdPuplpea,wlOdNetwe,khwenot OWWwltereaufedbyCllyCgdR
WOO, 2%bona fa*vary St00 p«a Wgthe netted
P
r pal of the lot* dMbprnenl budget It 10 be IPenf at ns.Q/ootopd I0dh41 and w vloel vhkh a* r d oKMrvAy r
enl«a1% banur'a e.«y S 100 P« 0.011ng Ur OW" ted eatsldbyCltyCods.
4
d lM v
ra car "t m Wf ll behg ode toOe..tapd WeOeed p««, clag* told rribe, CC «kq urm IN low lnCOnr bd tl
D«cenbgemobofxs,to bafr�aomyrr,al.x)%. rr"l,S«gl
Z
racOrryrvmrntabekq moos bdaebp o oeaned p«cenlogd of ltr k"MRoer ddw.lkptnalalype•A"and lype•B•naya ypdd
housing ce delned by" CrvdIon Colum cdalds and bons of Idb s
O
r
TypeA•_. SNmet Type A ur t
co
TYPO Ir-10 knos Typolrurth
IZ
Into core Ytae the CO bown b. ged« Rwn ]0%.
r 1he W. a agocenl poPeMmn am inn flex c btA6,ga Pbcd. d bows maybe eared fa rr rdbwr,P
0% - Ta petentkgarrNlpokq otstld*N4encdlNPerrvain«rhy,laotse. ad,th rsoar,ofrya and social talalloUwwbth potefvdlpry
.
S
J%-fa OlwV WW`t d'uc"o'"'be 0keepq,vth 0-4 dgd wt« " bulanp a place. who* faMang total tne,
5.. - faaapaegadapKvv olmealkxyapbCeftotW k"dbermnanua,C*.
Opproprole fnOaw. Vetwll leon and lrrrttay< IIn a,
ra Parton 0' all of me reuv aed ON" In"mufWAe lanty ppjed a Why, lt
Nm4ded urdwgFNXjd hr buldna a to m eW.Vt*d paWp
WLC"e ar w OcCepary tO* b" pinory't X"O. aborns mn fy be vaned as loflpwk
t
9% - fopovkNg75%an,od der pahgna dnuCklre.
A% _ TaprO,AW,g S0.7e%derpm"nolhtlCk*e;
J% - iopNAd1ng25eo%dt,epoll nhpnowe d.
u
NO Conrv-lnenla b«ng rnoce b aavd*000,ov*d oubmatla fke*Av,P.aly,g 101d IN R,d a.. &,g tNh enl« o bons of .
TOTAL I
..-,T- r � — . . 1 � G - u` I I,— . i L-O<-C (; ". V,
P ►G�.I�S A,0 E-i7 F-PEV- YSco�. o-�l E7eo--&Y cosT oP
40 Pet As SOECC—v C_cGl- of 3.Z9 Pe`s,? 474.. TIU.K,
fltEP Z�.S% �P-GY GosT �bUC-1-1C)o. — P.-I+JGSf'o1J
ACTIVITY ° Residential Uses
DEFINITION
OlrAa4d yiace
1/
rH
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings,
townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group
homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing
homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec-
reational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places
for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA. Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment plan.
Yes No
I. On a gross acreage basis, is the
average residential density in the
project at least three (3) dwelling
units per acre (calculated for
residential portion of the site only)?
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON
THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI-
DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED
CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SHALL BE BASED ON -THE FOLLOWING: 0
30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
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.
0-6 au Pam- fk)d PIFIF
Ahi► it-- fD-93A
ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
IS the Criterion coallcoble?
Will the criterion
be Satisfied?
'
If no, please explain
e��'`��.�' oa
Yes No
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Comparability
✓
,/
2. Neighborhood Character
V
✓
3. Land Use Conflicts
✓
✓
v
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
✓
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan V✓
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
V
t/
✓
7. Utility Capacity
�/
✓
8. Design Standards
✓
✓
9. Emergency Access
t/
40. Security Lighting
✓
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13. Significant Vegetation
✓
✓
14. Wildlife Habitat
✓
15. Historical Landmark
✓
16. Mineral Deposit
✓
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
✓
20. Water Quality
✓V
21. Noise
✓
✓
22. Glare & Heat
4.;23.
RV
Vibrations24.
Exterior Lighting25.
Sewages & Wastes✓
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
✓
✓
27. Site Organization
✓
28. Natural Features
✓
I
29. Energy Conservation
✓
✓
,/
I
30.Shadows
✓
✓
31. Solar Access
✓
✓
✓
I
32. Privacy
✓
33. Coen Space Arrangement
✓
�/
I
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
t/
✓
I
nicular Design
✓
✓
ruin9
✓
�/
I
ive Recreational Areas
✓
✓
t/
I
ate Outdoor Areas
✓
I
✓
I
estrian Convenience
I ✓estrian
Conflicts
L
✓
nascaping/OpenAreasnascapingfBuildings
✓nascapingrScreening
I ✓
✓dic
Access
�/
i
-12-
RICHIMOND ASSOCIATES
Architects/Planners 420 WEST OAK STREET FT COLLINS, CO 80521
(303) 224-3140
DESCRIPTIQN.-OF.__LAND_USE_CONFLICT_AVOIDANCE_&,_MITIGATION
In an effort to make the project as unobtrusive as possible to
the existing residential area, the project will provide a
landscape screen and r-rivacy fencing as a physical and visual
buffer between the existing single-family residence to the east.
of the site and the multi -family structures to the west. The
existing 'barrier fence to the north of the site will remain.
Tree plantings, landscape shrubs, and berms will be added to the
south of the site as a buffer between the Orchard Place R.O.W.
and the proposed parking area, Architecturally, the multi -family
units will be oriented to face Orchard Place; the two-story units
will be of minimal height, and the one-story handicapped unit
will located on the east end of the complex. Thus, there will be
a graduation of building height from the existing single family
residence property to the east and the multi -story housing
property to the west.
DEVELOPMENT_ PHASING_ SCHEDULE
Construction shall begin: October 1, 1993.
Completion of construction, incl,iding landscaping: May 1, 1994.
RICHMOND ASSOCIATES
AvehitectslPlannes-s 420 WEST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, CO 80521
(303) 224-3140
PLANNING OBJECTIVES: ORCHARD PLACE P.U.D.
CITY -LAND -USE -POLICIES -ACHIEVED
--POLICY 1: Provide affordable housing. with a projected annual
growth rate of 3.5 percent to the year 2000, the
quality of life will be, in part, dependenton the
availabilitv of affordable housing.
This project involves the construction of eight new
dwelling units.
--POLICY 3(a): Achieves maximum utilization of land within the
city.
--POLICY 75: Provides for a mix of housing_ densities in the
residential area.
This project is located adjacent to the existing_
Sunray multi -family housing development, the
Skyline Mobile Park development, and a
single-family residence.
--POLICY 80: The project is located near the core area; within
proximity to City Park; and water and sewer
facilities can be adequately provided.
--POLICY 82: The direction of this residential development is
into an area in close proximity to existing high
density residential use.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSED OWNERSHIP
All blaildinas and open spaces of the Orchard Place P.U.P. will
be owned by a single party.
Future ownership of the planned unit development. will be of a
single -ownership nature.
DEECRIPTION_OF_RATIONALE _BEHIND _ASSUMPTIONS _&_CHOICES
It is the assumption of the applicant that the Orchard Place
P.U.D. will be compatible with the existing neighboring land
uses. As a mlilti-family housing project, it maintains the
residential cohesion of the neighborhood, as well as providing
eight new dwelling units.
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: ORCHARD PLACE PUD
DESCRIPTION: 8 multi -family units on .53 acres
DENSITY: 15.09 du/acre
General Population
8 (units) x 25.6 (persons/unit) = 198.4
School Age Population
Elementary - 8 (units) x .120
Junior High - 8 (units) x .055
Senior High - 8 (units) x .50
(pupils/unit) = .96
(pupils/unit) = .44
(pupils/unit) = .40
Design
Affected Schools Ca aci Enrollment
Moore Elementary 546 485
Lincoln Junior High 740 617
Poudre Senior High 1235 1009
_LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
i FEET
F_RON_T ELEVATION
TPEFT
BVILDU{6.NOTES
Y6t INUM IIILOIN4 HEIGHT b 0'
BUILDING FLTEIIIME: 6 LEPEIDINI.
cr1O urxu V LNINaLBE
II' ROOF PITCH
rx. xuDvn0.E
COLDER BAR" TUBE'
REAR ELEVATION
A FEET �
i i 0
m
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
MG!""
Me6LL¢
CM L)
�xiST. GMEO _ c
r.. TIN
�r
I
(R-M r-)
l MA45-�> —) . r,hYaP� ZrL404
t,c Sp 1,O
�1oh2 a
v il_•
P NNINO ANO ZOMNO
CMTIFICATION
711.1
111
V
G�
tiM
=s
y�
=C
LL.
w
U
z
�
d
0.
aw
�I
A
a
a
�
a
z
x
�-
U
q'
F
°a
Fr
9
®o.m.mvm
ICJr
wL
9341
v¢r
la4
A
M•unicipaI
`
W. Oak
St
ye
Briar
od Ct
—
, W. Olive o
W Olive
Cr-
Golf Course
U�
St.
Woodford
8 0
Vi
Ct
w� ■
W.
M.agnol is
a
L
Ct
m
�
Ci f Y
W. 16 el b e r St
WEST MULBERRY
La
0
WouCt uc
o
U
_
h�AAHo
n 0)
er Ct o
G
Dole
Ct
u,
o
o
=
Or
W laurel
St.
ZiwoN,Crestmor
o
W
Crestmore
'^�
G
T, er
b
13
a
o
Gt �iP
Ct
o
U
Ct
c
a
0 hard
P
Pl
N
Broadvie
c
>
r c h
Pl
Q�d
Or d '
PI.
PL
m
'
T
a
c
o U1
= W P lu S
�
CD
T
-3c
�
m
L.
L
o�
`n
�- - —
s
c o PO l a r Dr,
J Tamarac
Or
n y Dr o
Dr
�: 9a
E t- Crabtr e
}=
o y J CI arvie�
trid PI. T 0 y o.
D U
M Bradbu,ry, Uc = e SP nafie
W La k�
f.Knotwood Ct Eve r green
Or
W.
El izabet h
0
o
0
E
Lcesdale
°
3�c
`
ro
"
Ct
o
Ct
o —
G
p,ve•
od
Of.
U
SK. r,Dr
>
�W
QQ
0
010 5 rIn
}a
t
a.
`6
\ar
Dr c
'
`=
Ct
er .
O�10,l
,
C t
T
"
tN
G
c
c
e a
cO P
Cn
LakE
W ' C2
C, CDn
ITEM: ORCHARD PLACE PUD North
Preliminary & Final
NUMBER: 40=93, 40=93A
Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary and Final- #40-93
October 4, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Place PUD Preliminary and Final- #40-93, 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 (November 15, 1993) 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
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 of
time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2,
Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decisions,
of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of
this conditional approval; however, in the event that the
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 11final
decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's
decision resolving such dispute.
Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary and Final- #40-93
October 4, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
at the Bethel Baptist Church (see attached summary). The primary
concerns were the land use as multi -family apartments, density in
the general area and on the site, recreational opportunities for
the future residents, and traffic.
The applicant has addressed the comments by providing a fenced open
space area in backyards to be used in a similar fashion to those in
a single family neighborhood. There will be no outdoor storage of
cars, boats, or RV's in the backyard area as there would be no
vehicular access to the rear yards. The project is in close
proximity to the new neighborhood park for this area called Roger's
Park on Mulberry and Pear Street, as well as to Avery Park which is
to the south on Taft Hill Road.
The applicant has demonstrated willingness to design the project to
be architecturally sensitive to the neighborhood, by adding
architectural details and a residential type siding to the rear
elevations and by planting additional landscape materials to
enhance the buffer area.
Staff finds that the proposed project is compatible with and
sensitive to the existing neighborhood and surrounding land uses.
5. Transportation
This development will gain access from Orchard Place, an existing
City street which intersects with Taft Hill Road. Transportation
has reviewed the project and does not have concerns at this time.
This project is feasible from a transportation standpoint, in that
the number of trips generated by 8 townhouses is not significant
when compared to the number of existing background trips on Taft
Hill Road. The project does not trigger any improvements to Taft
Hill Road or any need for Orchard Park/Taft Hill to be a signalized
intersection. There is adequate parking on site according to the
City parking standards for residential projects.
6. Storm Drainage and Engineering
The Stormwater Utility and Engineering have reviewed the drainage
and utility plans and are recommending a condition concerning
completion, approval, and execution of the utility plans and
development agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed density is supported by the Residential Density Chart
The project meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the
LDGS. Staff finds the land use and design to be compatible with
the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Orchard
Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary and Final- #40-93
October 4, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Although the solar orientation ordinance pertains to single family
and duplex lots only, it should be noted that 100% of the units
meet the definition of a solar oriented unit. The project was
evaluated through "Energy Score", a home energy rating program, and
the proposed plans received an E-77. The City Energy Code requires
a minimum of E-65. An E-65 has an energy cost of $.40 per square
foot and an E-77 has an energy cost of $.29 per sq. ft. Therefore
there is a minimum of a 25% reduction in energy usage/cost. The
building inspection department will have to verify these findings
during the plan check process. A note has been added to the plans
and a hold will be placed on the building permit until these
figures are verified.
The maximum building height will be 26 feet. The buildings will be
frame construction with earth tone, narrow profile, lap or groove
siding with contrasting trim. The roofing will be asphalt
shingles. The second story is proposed to be cantilevered over
the ground floor to add additional architectural character and
interest to the rear elevation.
The developer will provide each unit with a concrete rear patio and
will install a 10' section of 6' high cedar fencing between each
unit. The rear and side yard, behind the front building envelop
will be fenced with a 6' high privacy fencing to screen the outdoor
storage and neighboring parking area from the rear yards. Side
yard fencing will taper to 3' at the front property line.
Twenty shade and/or ornamental trees will be planted in the front,
side and rear yard area of the units. Foundation plantings, both
front and rear, will be provided by the developer. All maintenance
of landscaping, including any landscaping in the public right-of-
way, will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
Buffering along the north property line, between the mobile home
park and outdoor storage area and the proposed townhouses, has been
enhanced with additional trees. The single family house to the
east is buffered from this project by existing vegetation, added
tree plantings, and fencing. Additionally, the single story
handicapped unit is on the east side of the building, closest to
the existing single family dwelling to provide a more gradual
transition from single family to multi -family land use.
Exterior lighting will be limited to front and rear porch lights
similar to those found in typical single family neighborhoods.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility
A neighborhood meeting was held for this project on August 16, 1993
1
Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary and Final- #40-93
October 4, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: M-L; existing mobile home park and associated outdoor
storage (Skyline Mobile Home Park);
S: R-M-P; Bethel Baptist Church;
E: R-M-P; existing single family house and
R-L; vacant (approved Glenmoor PUD for 20 townhouses)
and Moore Elementary School;
W: R-M-P; existing multi -family apartments (Sunray PUD).
The property was annexed in August of 1967 with the West Fort
Collins Annexation. The property is currently vacant and
unplatted. A subdivision plat is part of this proposal. This is
an infill development project.
2. Land Use
The proposed land use consists of 8 multi -family townhouse units on
0.53 acres. The proposed density of 15.08 DU/ac is supported by a
score of 117% on the Residential Density Chart of the Land
Development Guidance System. Points were awarded for proximity to
a neighborhood park (Rogers Park), a neighborhood shopping center
(Cedarwood Plaza), a school (Moore Elementary School); and
contiguity to existing urban development. Additional points were
awarded for a 25% reduction in non-renewable energy usage and for
provision of 1 (12%) fully accessible handicapped unit. The plans
were evaluated against the applicable criteria of the All
Development Point Chart of the LDGS. Staff finds that this
project meets the criteria of the LDGS and that the land use and
density at this location are acceptable.
3. Design
The site plan consists of one eight-plex building with two story
units (the handicapped unit will be one story). Each unit has a
private patio and an individual entrance. A laundry facility is
also provided in the center of the building. Five units will have
two bedrooms, including the handicapped unit. Three units will
have three bedrooms. The buildings are oriented with a southern
exposure. Parking is provided in front of the building. All units
take access from the local street, which is existing and
constructed to City standards.
i
ITEM NO. 24
MEETING DATE 10/4/93
STAFF Kirsten Whetstone
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
-,
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary and Final #40-93
APPLICANT: Richmond Associates
420 W. Oak
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: LEW, Ltd.
PO Box 271035
Fort Collins, CO 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A request for 8 multi -family townhouse apartments on 0.53 acres,
located west of Taft Hill Road, on the north side of Orchard Place,
directly east of Sunray Apartments. The property is zoned R-M-P,
Medium Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This project consists of a request for 8 multi -family townhouse
apartments on 0.53 acres of unplatted, vacant property. All units,
except the handicapped unit, will be two stories with two and three
bedrooms and private patio areas. All of the units are south
facing and the project is designed to exceed the City's Model
Energy Code by 25%. The site is located west of Taft Hill Road on
the north side of Orchard Place. The proposed PUD meets the
applicable criteria of the All Development Point Chart of the Land
Development Guidance System and the proposed density of 15.08
dwelling units per acre (DU/ac) is supported by a score of 117% on
the Residential Density Chart. A condition regarding completion,
approval, and execution of the utility plans and development
agreement is being recommended.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT