HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOX HILLS 2ND FILING RF SITE PLAN REVIEW - 36 93C - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSi
site generated traffic and the planned .signalization of this
intersection.
7
required to stop and wait for an acceptable gap in the eastbound
traffic.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS
r-
i.
Based on the findings of these technical analyses, recommen-
dations for required roadway improvements can be identified. These
recommendations account for development within Wildflower Ridge and
.Fox Hills. The following is a brief summary of the above findings
-and a general description of the recommended improvements for the
analyzed elements of the roadway network serving Wildflower Ridge
and Fox Hills.
- In the short range future (1995) with full development of
Wildflower Ridge and Fox Hills, a westbound left -turn lane is
required on CR 38E at the Red Fox Road intersection. No other
_ auxiliary lanes are recommended.
All traffic movements are expected to operated at level of
' service A under both short and long term conditions. This will
provide excellent operating conditions.
No specific improvements are appropriate on Red Fox Road
given.the distribution of residential traffic to a number of access
points.
- Site traffic is not anticipated to noticeably impact the
CR 38E/Taft Hill Road intersection given the moderate volume of
P
•
r.
2
If the subdivision is going to be built, however, then at
the very least the county should consider taking these steps:
■There must be a guarantee that construction vehicles stay
on main roads, such as County Road 38 E.
■There should be a sign at the intersection of Windom and
County Road 38 E that says "No Through Traffic."
■There should be two new stop signs to slow and discourage
the flow of through traffic. One should be at the intersection of
Windom and Baxter. The second should be at either the
intersection of Windom and Powell, or the intersection of Windom
and Dalton.
■There should be a subdivision entry gate installed at
Windom and County Road 38E that forces drivers to slow down,
similar to gates at other subdivisions in Fort Collins.
Finally, let me raise one more question. It is logical when
looking at this proposed new subdivision to ask if this is just a
back door way to force the extension of Overland further south to
County Road 38 E. Residents of Springfield Subdivision have
opposed this in the past because it would increase traffic in
their residential area. It would be unfortunate if there is a
hidden agenda in which the county first approves a new
subdivision without adequate road access, in order to justify a
later extension of Overland, despite the opposition of residents
in the area. I do not know if this is the intent of the county. I
would hope that there is no hidden agenda. But the consideration
of a subdivision with apparently such limited access does raise
the question.
0
01
Statement of:
David H. Morrissey
3919 Windom St.
Fort Collins, Colo. 80526
Home: (303) 226-3044
Office: (303) 491-5986
(Department of Technical Journalism - CSU)
Dec. 1, 1993
Concerns About the New Subdivision:
As presently designed, the subdivision does not appear to
have adequate access to main through streets. It appears that
there is access to a single through street, Highway 38 E to Taft
Hill. My concern is that this will result in residents of the new
subdivision taking an alternate route by driving through an
existing residential area -- the Springfield Subdivision.
How big a problem will this be? Unfortunately, a big one.
If there are 35 new residences, and they have an average of
2.5 cars per residence (which is the national average) then we
are talking of 87 or 88 new vehicles driving in this area. The
problem of increased traffic will be compounded greatly if
children in the new subdivision go to Olander Elementary. This
would mean that parents driving children to school would drive
through the Springfield Subdivision several times daily. Most of
this increased traffic would be channelled down Windom Street, to
Dalton, to Mead and out to Horsetooth.
It also appears likely that this will result in increased
heavy construction vehicle traffic on Windom, and in the
Springfield Subdivision, as the subdivision is being built.
This increased traffic is a concern because there are many
children in the neighborhood. They play and ride their bicycles
in the street. Children in the Springfield Subdivision also walk
to and from Olander Elementary School. Many of these children
walk by themselves without parents. Already cars ignore the 25
mph speed limit and travel on these streets at excessive rates of
speed. Speeders have included construction vehicles from building
now going on in the area.
For these reasons, this proposed subdivision is a matter of
serious concern, and it raises several questions.
■Has the county considered this lack of access to the new
subdivision?
■Has the county considered the likely harm this new
subdivision will cause an existing residential area?
■Has the county designed any traffic flow pattern for the
new subdivision that will not harm the existing residential area
of the Springfield Subdivision?
If the county has not addressed these questions, and if
there is no plan to deal with this greatly increased traffic flow
in what has until now been a quiet residential area, then this
new subdivision should not be approved. The lives and safety of
the children in the Springfield Subdivision demand no less.
r
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Did You Receive
Written Notification
of this meeting?
Correct
.address.
Name Address Zip
Yes
No
Ycs
No
A//`,-�
Pv e4 eP!'
.✓klll fJoJA
.w o✓ D/ 6/5zo M
�14t/ 10 /�lOtt 26,5 �ql9 ill,,vd sr " ,
• d P-vC�uYj
llickw C t; 'dC40A.' i ri vc i r"�E
V,
I�y�ti o zll v vv, c CTz I
I v � b Ni C'i�-7�M L•�KSef% �%�D5 U��%�h'1 �05 �(o
z
V
A,+13�I' 50,x&
15. Will the architectural covenants and guidelines for these
houses be similar to those at Taft Canyon? That is what we
expect. The lot sizes, house sizes, and quality should be the
same as those at Taft Canyon.
The covenants will include an element for architectural control,
similar to the Taft Canyon covenants.
16. Are the County proposals approved yet?
No, they are scheduled for sometime in January and early Spring.
17. Will there be a turn lane on CR 38E constructed with this
proposal?
It is very likely that the traffic study will indicate that a
turning lane will be necessary for this development and it will
then be constructed.
18. I have concerns about storm drainage.
A storm drainage report and a drainage and grading plan will be
submitted for the City's review and approval. Developed flows will
have to be conveyed off the property and into an approved detention
pond to be released at the 2 yr historic rate.
19. We would prefer it if the road connecting Taft Hill
Subdivision to this one were kept low key. It shouldn't be
any wider than 28' and it should be built as a "lane" without
curb, gutter, or walk. It really serves the purpose of a
second point of access for emergency vehicles and doubles as
a pedestrian/vehicular access for neighbors. It is not a major
road and most people will use CR 38E rather than winding
through the Taft Canyon Subdivision to get to Taft Hill or
38E.
c
7. How are you going to prevent people from cutting through our
subdivision (Springfield Subdivision) to get to Horsetooth
Road? People already cut through because the left turn at
Taft Hill and CR 38E is impossible. What are you proposing to
do about this, because you will become part of the problem.
The County and City are working on installing a signal at that
intersection, which should eliminate the need for most people to
cut through Springfield Subdivision. I'm not sure about the timing
of the signal, but it could be in place prior to any houses being
built here.
8. Construction traffic should not be allowed to cut through
Springfield or Taft Canyon subdivisions.
We agree.
9. We would request that the City, County, or this developer put
up signs saying "No Through Traffic" to help cut down on the
problem.
10. Is there some way that you could redesign the entry way to our
subdivision (Springfield) to slow traffic down as it enters
from CR 38E? It is such a large expanse of asphalt that the
traffic is still moving 50 mph when they come down our street.
We want you to think seriously about things that you can do to
help us with the problem that we have with traffic on our
streets and to make sure that this development does not
contribute to the problem.
We will look into some of these ideas and talk to the County about
the possibility of signs.
11. A signal at CR 38E and Taft Hill Road would really help.
12. I did not receive notification about the County subdivision
proposals to the west of your proposal.
The City sent out letters for this proposal, not for the County
subdivisions to the west. You may be out of the notification area
for the County projects.
13. Would development of the County section (Fox Hill 1st) also
trigger extension of the road into Taft Canyon?
Yes, that property also needs two points of access according to the
Fire Code.
14. Who is the owner of this property?
Springfield 6th Filing Joint Venture.
2
Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary
Fox Hill Annexation and RF Cluster Plan
The following are comments, concerns, and questions expressed at a
neighborhood information meeting held on December 1, 1993 at
Johnson Elementary School. The proposed project is for 33 single
family lots on 35 acres, located south of County Road 38E and west
of Taft Canyon subdivision.
Note: All responses are by the applicant, unless otherwise noted.
1. How does this property get contiguity to the City to qualify
for annexation?
There is a 10' strip of land, which is in the City, along the
western border of Taft Canyon subdivision. The City acquired it
and annexed it for the purposes of constructing a City Trail at
some time in the future.
2. Could this develop in the County?
The property is eligible for annexation, and the County would
recommend that the property be annexed and developed in the City.
There is an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County
which directs that this kind of development occur in the City if
the property is contiguous to the City and is within the Urban
Growth Area.
3. Will CR 38E be widened? What is the ultimate width?
This development will be obligated to dedicate additional right-of-
way for CR 38E and to design and construct improvements (or pay for
improvements to be completed at a later date). On the Master
Street Plan, CR 38E is designated as a future 6 lane arterial.
4. My concern is that the traffic will increase in the area. It
is already out of control.
5. I am concerned that further development in the area will
provide incentives for developers, City Council, and Larimer
County to connect Overland Trail to CR 38E.
6. Do we have a choice as neighbors about the connection into
Taft Canyon?
The connection has always been planned to provide a second point of
access for this property. The right-of-way has already been
dedicated on Taft Canyon side to the property line in anticipation
of the connection and the street is stubbed in.
1
0 0
FOX HILLS, SECOND FILING
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
December 6, 1993
A tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, Colorado,
considering the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33 as bearing
N89058'12"W is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears
N89058'12"W 2656.37 feet, and again S00156'00"W 522.51 feet from the East Quarter
Corner of said Section 33, and run thence along the East line of said Southwest Quarter,
S00056'00"W 2128.05 feet to the South Quarter Corner of said Section 33, thence along
the South line of said Section 33, N89040'39"W 607.46 feet; thence N00° 1 1'08"E 2566.99
feet along the East line of a roadway as described in Book 1899 at Page 636 to a point on the
Southerly line of County Road 38-E; thence along said Southerly line, N85000'00"E 272.87
feet; thence SOUTH 466.41 feet; thence EAST 361.97 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 33.1707 acres, more or less.
�o 0
urban design, inc.
existing vegetation, with the intention of little or no maintenance being needed.
(7) Most of the lots and building envelopes are oriented to East, South, and West
for maximum solar orientation and as a buffer for winds.
(8) The vast majority of the open space land is one contiguous piece, except for
a secondary access road dividing the open space. In addition, this open space
ties into the City open space to the Southeast and to open space tracts in the
county portion of the development. Any new plantings in the open space areas
will feature native plants that will enhance the wildlife habitat.
(9) By placing the homesites on the upper plateau, they are adjacent to existing
and proposed development immediately to the West, while preserving a large
amount of open space between this development and the neighboring Taft
Canyon Estates. In addition there is approximately 130 ft. of open space buffer
between County Road 38E and the first lots. This cluster plan does provide
public access to the open space by accommodating a proposed 10' wide city
bike/hike trail.
(10) No farm animals are to be allowed in this development.
Construction of Fox Hills is expected to begin in the spring of 1994 for the county
portion of the development. This application, the city portion is expected to begin in late
summer of 1994 and may continue through 1997.
M4 0 0
urban design, inc.
FOX HILLS SECOND FILING
RF-Foothills Residential
Cluster Plan
Statement of Planning Objectives
December 6, 1993
The proposed Fox Hills Foothills Residential Cluster Plan consists of 33 single family
homesites on 35 acres on a portion of land immediately West of Taft Hill Estates. The
primary site access is off of County Road 38E via Red Fox Drive, with a secondary access
from Taft Canyon Estates via Luther Lane. The topography of the site consists of a relatively
flat lower plain adjacent to Taft Canyon Estates, an upper plateau adjacent to Red Fox Drive,
separated from the lower plain by 20-30% t slopes. The home sites are clustered on the
upper plateau, primarily around cul-de-sacs accessed from Red Fox Drive.
The site is largely surrounded by development consisting of Taft Canyon Estates to the East,
Westridge Estates to the South, Fox Hills PUD (a county subdivision) to the West and the
Proposed Wildflower PUD (a county subdivision) also to the West, and North of Fox Fills PUD.
t
Fox Hills Second Filing meets all the objectives for a cluster development under the R-F
district as outlined below:
(1) The use is for single family residential.
(2) The overall gross density is .94 du/ac with a net density of 3.56 du/ac. It is
proposed that the open space portion of the community be dedicated to the
City of Fort Collins. This is beneficial to the city as it will connect to existing
City open space to the South -East, and also provides a more convenient means
to provide a City bike/hike trail from CR 38E to the City open space.
(3) Building envelopes are indicated on the site plan, with front setbacks of 20',
side setbacks of 5', rear setbacks of 15', and corner side setbacks of 20'
unless otherwise indicated. The minimum lot size shown is 7,000 sq. ft. with
the lots typically ranging from 8,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. or larger.
(4) Extreme care was taken in the site design to respect the topography and
preserve the natural features of the site. Most of the homesites are clustered
around cul-de-sacs that are situated between the existing ravines. In addition,
the sites are situated to take advantage of prime views while at the same time
providing solar access to many of the lots.
(5) All utilities are available on site or can be obtained with relative ease.
(6) This plan does minimize the visual impact by preserving the hillside, native
vegetation, and the natural drainage features. In addition, the proposed
landscaping in the open space areas is intended to be harmonious with the
EXISTING
LARGE LOT BF
ZONING COUNTY A
I
I
I
WESTRIDGE ESTATES
ZONING COUNTY FA-1
III \ HI6BONSNO
1 jli 2 \ III ZO/!N COUUNTYTY R
_ 3\I
f I
I
' II
/
I
(
I
II II
— s1 II 11
�1
9li
10
Ili
11
12
ji
�------
15,i11 14 II II 11 11 1� 1 1 111
I
I
L__
ii
II
II 11
16
I
II
II i _
1 20
122 21
\ 1
21 11 2. 1 \
1
_� 111 p1125 1 j I I
I
_
361, 111 II 1
_ZB
fl
/12'
4
��•,
31 q
\ q 32
P� `I 33
I
I j
1 1' I I
II Ii
PANT LIST
wloT un um
I
I
I uw.s me Tw
I erfvm rare
I rov�fwnwf
I a
I � �
mM Iit InfT rl I e`"'iea mlartY feet
1 rRa•
I v`ifo� dui
n .,
`ofrw :w
Iv�illR M a -
a/[Pdf.WLL�v
I _
I
i�.�TyauQ -
I umnum a
1 41f Pf
1
I
I
BSS OR CONTAINER TREE — DRYLAND
No, 10 X.YL
1
1
1
I
i \
11 i4� mn wn� I�wif
1 n iw nm aw:f
11 1 n�m sa
CONTAINER SHRUB - DRYLAND
MOT TO SLLLL
wloT un um
I
I
I uw.s me Tw
I erfvm rare
I rov�fwnwf
I a
I � �
mM Iit InfT rl I e`"'iea mlartY feet
1 rRa•
I v`ifo� dui
n .,
`ofrw :w
Iv�illR M a -
a/[Pdf.WLL�v
I _
I
i�.�TyauQ -
I umnum a
1 41f Pf
1
I
I
BSS OR CONTAINER TREE — DRYLAND
No, 10 X.YL
1
1
1
I
i \
11 i4� mn wn� I�wif
1 n iw nm aw:f
11 1 n�m sa
CONTAINER SHRUB - DRYLAND
MOT TO SLLLL
IF®X IHMIS
HCOND 3MMG
RF—FOOTHILLS
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
_
1 y
MiF 6
r Yew
Ipy
r L
a IN zoo
-
- no. 2 of 2
EXISTING
LARGE LOT OF
ZONNB COUNTY It
I
1
i
I IFROP Iw, I\
1 I 1 11jL\ ��MAI(1rE
ZONNB CQIMTY p
I 1
T
l I I
I '1\ ii 11 i
F-=---il
1
l� til
I \\ \ I
YIEOTRDOE ESTATES
ZONING COUNTY FA-1
SIGNATURE BLOCK LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.xuY.'.•Yi,'n
eu...Nn
YMXrgwMwn•�na. v'eewe
•.wT Yle..un v.m w .4vn
Y wFIMw..
�- T --- VICINITY MAP
I\ i EZMTNO 1114" FAMLY
1 1 2 ! \ 1{ ZOOMS COUNTY R
�
i
I
_LI I
i------- I
___
!�
�� i
I I � I• I
1�__ J
---
112
3 �
11
'
III II
11
I
I I I
`�
I II' III
t5 '
� 14 i
LEE
II, 17 iel �Jl-j Ll `J
I�
I
I Ij�
I
--
Lm
24-
pal
1I
128 -
sL______-
ry'26
IM 27 P —
/ pa eEvsvr
/
I-
�•11 fR
I 31
LEGEND
mog msw,
I
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
[wnr wr •uYa � ur e..
m M
.a M e..n
It n
C•itys IJ19
RF-FOOTHILLS
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER PLAN
sr".. rnoo
m aYt.e•
111. H_
0 Im 2M
slm 1 v 2
1 1
1 �
I �0
If "
1 �
U
a �.
Fawe!1 PI.
d 9
C C C
COUNT`( ROAD 38E
Boxier Pi
Spring Creek County F3EE 1 S
Dam
v`
SITE
a
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
E ■
M��MIeamm.I
�¢
a
ITEM: FOX HILLS 2nd 4 N
RF Site Plan Review 40
NUMBER: 3 6=93 C North
1 X L1.��. rv^, MILL, Ana riling '®
RF SITE PLAN REVIEW North
NUMBER2.6-93C
Fox Hills Second Filing RF Cluster Site Plan, Final; and Fox Hills
Second Filing Subdivision Plat, Preliminary, #36-93C
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Fencing
Fencing on lots adjacent to the open space are limited to 4 feet in
height and shall be an open style with natural colors as per the
established Fox Hills covenants.
Architectural Character
Building elevations must meet the requirements of the Fox Hills
protective covenants and will be approved by the architectural
review committee. Building materials will be brick, masonry,
stone, tile, wood siding; in earth tones. Building designs are
encouraged to be compatible with the natural slope of the site to
minimize the amount of grading and disturbance.
4. Transportation
The City Transportation Department reviewed the plans and site
access study and concurs with the conclusions and recommendations
as presented in the Recommendations section of the study. The
project is feasible from a traffic stand point with road
improvements as spelled out in the study.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed cluster development plan and
preliminary subdivision plat are in compliance with the RF
Foothills Residential District requirements.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of Fox Hills Second Filing RF
Cluster Plan, Final and Fox Hills Second Filing subdivision plat,
Preliminary- #36-93C.
Fox Hills Second Filing RF Cluster Site Plan, Final; and Fox Hills
Second Filing Subdivision Plat, Preliminary, #36-93C
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
obligation for improvements to County Road 38E, although the timing
of these improvements has not yet been determined. The short cul-
de-sacs will be constructed to the City's 28' wide standard and the
main street, Red Fox Road, is 36' in width. Luther Lane is 36' in
width where lots have frontage and 28' in width as it crosses the
open space area. The final engineering details of Luther Lane,
including extent of a sidewalk, will be determined prior to filing
of the plat and utility plans.
Grading and Drainage
Over -lot grading and other disturbances to the site are to be kept
to a minimum during construction of public improvements and
individual homes. All disturbed areas beyond finished construction
of buildings and hard surface improvements and envelopes are to be
reseeded with native grasses or otherwise landscaped in a manner
compatible with the natural character of the site. Building
envelopes have been shown on the site plan to define the area
within which homes or other structures may be placed. Building
envelopes are larger than anticipated building footprints to allow
design flexibility, and to accommodate porches, decks, terraces,
and other accessory structures. The City Stormwater Utility has
reviewed the grading and drainage plans and finds them acceptable
for preliminary approval. Final grading and drainage plans will be
submitted with the final subdivision plat.
open Space Tracts
Tracts A-F on the site plan will be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. The large 21.16 acre open space tract
will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins as natural open
space. The City will maintain this area and will eventually
construct a portion of the City Bike Trail through this area.
The proposed landscaping in the open space area consists of a
variety of trees and shrubs which thrive in the relatively harsh,
dry micro -climate of the Foothills area. The developer will be
responsible for establishing and maintaining the landscaping in the
City open space area, for a period of two years. Long term
maintenance is anticipated to be minimal as these areas are to be
maintained in their natural state with no mowing, pruning,
trimming, irrigation, or weeding expected.
Landscaping
All landscaping on individual lots will be maintained by the
individual homeowner. Landscaping of the common tracts, including
the entrance sign, will be maintained by the HOA.
Fox Hills Second Filing RF Cluster Site Plan, Final; and Fox Hills
Second Filing Subdivision Plat, Preliminary, #36-93C
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: County R; single family homes (Springfield Sub);
S: County FA-1; single family homes (Westridge Estates);
E: County R; single family homes (Taft Canyon Estates) and T,
Transition (a strip of land along the entire west property
line of Taft Canyon Estates);
W: County R; proposed single family lots (Wildflower Ridge
PUD) and County FA-1; approved single family lots (Fox
Hills PUD 1st Filing).
This property was annexed into the City as the Fox Hills Annexation
on March 1, of 1994 and placed in the RF, Foothills Residential,
Zoning District. The proposal is the second filing because the
first filing was approved in the County and is located adjacent to
this property, to the west.
2. Land Use
This request is for final approval of an RF Cluster Plan.
Development in the RF Zoning District may occur as a standard
subdivision with a minimum lot size of 2.29 acres and/or through a
"cluster development plan" with the residential portion designed at
a density of 3-5 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). A cluster
development plan in the RF zoning district is intended to preserve
the scenic quality of the foothills and to insure that development
is compatible with physical features, constraints, and
environmental quality.
The proposed cluster plan includes 33 single family lots on 35.11
acres, which is in conformance with the maximum allowable gross
residential density of 1 DU/ac. The net density for the
residential portion of the cluster plan is 3.57 DU/ac, which is in
conformance with the allowable range of 3-5 DU/ac for net
residential density, which excludes open space areas.
3. Desicxn
Access
Access to the site will be from County Road 38E onto the existing
Red Fox Road and from a connection to Luther Lane in the Taft
Canyon Subdivision. Additional ROW for County Road 38E is
dedicated with the subdivision plat. The developer will have an
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE 3/28/94
6gi
STAFF Kirsten Whetstone
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Fox Hills Second Filing, RF Site Plan Review -
Final, and Fox Hills Second Filing Subdivision
Plat- Preliminary, #36-93C
APPLICANT: Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Springfield Subdivision 6th Filing Joint Venture
213 Smokey Street
Fort Collins, CO 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A request for final approval of an overall RF Cluster Plan and
preliminary approval of a subdivision plat consisting of 33 single
family lots on 35.11 acres. The property is located south of
County Road 38E, west of Taft Canyon subdivision. The property is
zoned RF, Foothills Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is seeking approval of two items: 1) final approval
of the overall RF Cluster Plan for Fox Hills Second Filing and 2)
preliminary approval of a subdivision for the same property. The
proposed cluster plan and subdivision plat are in compliance with
requirements of the R-F, Foothills Residential Zoning District.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT