Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIMPALA VILLAGE PUD PRELIMINARY - 6 93 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS1 Neighbors fight h"dusin r :g ,1a oject Low-income units planned nearPoudre High By KEVIN VAUGHAN The coloradoao i y [board hat's next a.. <. e F ns tg near tPoudreloHigh School cameplanhto deveopl56 units loflow-incouthorime .,under fire .Thursday night from area sing is scheduled to be considered residents. ;, _ the bity's planning and zoning Neighbors attacked the proposal on at its March 22 meeting. several fronts. and expressed fears that .the project would bring with it a new wave of traffic in an already congested .' tions: 'y" .• ■ The housing would be available "I've lived in this neighborhood for 11 only to families — single parents and years and I know what this congestion married couples and their children. does — it doesn't increase property val- ■ Residents would be required to ei- ues and it doesn't improve the quality ther attend college or hold down a of life," Sharon Winfree said. steady job. _.. _, Under attack was a preliminary plan ■ Nopets or junk cars would be al - by the Fort Collins Housing Authority ... lowed. to develop a tract of land it owns north Carter said negotiations are under Of Mulberry Street and southeast of way with the University of Colorado for Poudre High School. The housing au- modular housing that is now slated for, thority paid about $120,000 for a lo- demolition. Carter presented a slide I acre plot and has developed a proposal - show to the dozen or so residents who to convert 8.42 acres of it into modular attended the meeting, explaining how . housing that would provide homes to the authority takes dilapidated homes 56 low- and modarate-income families. and refurbishes them. - The housing authority provides rent "We take pride in going into neigh- : subsidies for families in need. About "`borhoods and upgrading the neigh- 300 families who are now being helped ...borhoods," she said. by the housing authority rent from `=; ,;:.Several of those at the meeting ex - landlords in the community. About 400 . �.pressed concerns about the amount .of ; other families live in homes owned by`'`,'trafflc the project would bring to -lie ; 'the housing authority. area. Access to the housing project is Tracy Carter, the housing authority's :.tentatively slated to be Impala Circle, .interim director, tried to allay neigh- • • but Carter agreed to look at the ' feasi- borsfears b _ y pointing out that tenants ' `would be governed by strict regula •1 ,See HOUSING, Page C4 — - -1 �_ ■ . .Housing i Continued from Page C1 it's in my back yard," Winfree ability of using Mulberry Street said, "but that this project was j instead. not well thought out." Carter said the development is • But at least one local property badly needed. owner backed the plan. According to housing authority Dan Richmond has owned a statistics, 1,835 families are al- home in the neighborhood since ready on the waiting list,for af- 1975. Although he moved out fordable homes. last year, he still owns the prop - But that didn't convince Win- .erty and said he may move back free and several of the others some day. ' who attended the meeting. I "This seems like a better deal "I'm not opposed to low- than an unsupervised subdivi- income housing and it's not that sion," he said. After inspecting and appraising twenty-three properties owned and managed by the Fort Collins Housing authority, myself and the other appraisers in this office are of the opinion that there is no perceived or measurable negative impact created by Housing authority properties against the surrounding privately owned properties. Sincerely., Ross B. Milliken, SRA RBM/sb Milliken Real Estate Appraisals 760 Whalers Way, Suite A-200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Ross B. Milliken, SRA Nancy D. Milliken February 2, 1993 Mr. Alan Fluharty, Accountant Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Mr. Fluharty; n ■r FEB 1993 RECEIVED FT COLUNs HOUSING Fax This letter is intended as a response to your question concerning any apparent neighborhood impact by the low income housing owned and managed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority. You questioned if, in my opinion, the properties owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority had a negative impact, either perceived or measurable, against neighboring privately owned properties. After considering your question, my conclusion is that, from my experience and the experience of other appraisers in this office, the Housing authority owned properties that we are familiar with do not have a negative impact on surrounding privately owned properties. In the month of January 1993, myself and other appraisers in this office appraised for Sank On@, Fort Collins, Colorado, twenty-two single family detached dwellings and one four unit dwelling that were all owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority. I personally inspected ten of those properties. In all instances, these properties were upgraded and maintained at least to the neighborhood standards and in most cases above the neighborhood standards. These properties appear well -managed, as no pets, non-functioning automobiles, trash or junk were allowed on the properties., The users of these properties were families and appeared to be quiet users. CITY OF FORT COLLINS 1715 West Mountain, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521 Telephone (303) 221-5484 HOUSING AUTHORITY FAX 221-0821 March 4, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 ATTENTION: Ted Shepard, City Planner Re: Proposed Development Impala Village Dear Mr. Shepard: This letter is to reiterate the assurances requested at the Transportation meeting on 3-3-93 concerning the Fort Collins Housing Authority's proposed development. The Fort Collins Housing Authority views Impala Village as an opportunity to make an aesthetic improvement to the current vacant land parcel, attend to the unmet housing needs of lower income families, comply with the City of Fort Collins Planning and Building and Safety Departments, while meeting the expanding housing needs of Fort Collins. Thank you for your efforts to mutually serve the housing needs of our community. Sincerely yours, Cit of Fort Collins H ing Authon Rochelle S. Stephens, Executive Director 1'!{UJLCT: _i/"1('LL fr(fAt- TYPE OF MEETING: IV E161(066 Naaa S.J FaX tl'ianl DATE: k�EQ- ql 1993 NAME 0 ,m �3, s w ADDRESS 1F'�-HNr�iiJ G L DID YOU AEcflvi WRITTEN NOTIFICATION os ? ARC Yav Am YOU YES/NO OWNER RENT' � Y A). A. /t..y. N.A. 1 h 0 �: $10 yes IX-5 ,JA /yGd V. can choose a variety of colors so the units do not all look the same. 37. Will the units be furnished? RESPONSE: No. In addition, the Housing Authority does not furnish garages, dishwashers, or air conditioners. 38. Does the Housing Authority own land around Blue Spruce and Conifer? RESPONSE: No. 39. What was the cost of the land? RESPONSE: The land was purchased by the former director several months ago. The cost was between $106,000 and $120,000. 40. Do you plan on mixing in any units to be rented at the market rate? RESPONSE: This is not our plan at this time. 41. The vacant field provides an open space amenity for the existing residents. This is a valuable and attractive feature for the neighborhood. Other uses should be considered for this parcel such as permanent open space or greenbelt. RESPONSE: The Housing Authority respects the attraction of the open space that is presently provided by the vacant ten acres. Please keep in mind that the Ricketts Subdivision was preliminarily approved for 35'single family homes several years ago. Clearly, the last owner intended that the land be developed in some fashion. Impala to meet minimum distance requirements between intersections. Also, Ramblewood access may be difficult to obtain since that project is built. The traffic impacts on Impala will be looked at and evaluated by the City's Transportation Department. 29. Could you get approval for 56 units and then come back and increase this number without public review? RESPONSE: No. Once a P.U.D. is approved, it can only be increased in density by an amendment. Amendments must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, through the public process. 30. Will the site be cleaned up and the chicken coops removed? RESPONSE: Yes, the site will be cleaned up and the chicken coops will have to be removed before any site work can be done. 31. What about the irrigation ditch on the north? RESPONSE: We will work with the owner about placing this ditch in a pipe as it flows across the property. 32. Will tenants be allowed to purchase any units? RESPONSE: No, our plan at this time is that the project will be exclusively rental. 33. What is the likelihood that by providing these units, that more low income and homeless people will be attracted to Fort Collins? RESPONSE: This is very unlikely. At this time, the Housing Authority has about 1,800 individuals (including about 750 families) on the waiting list. The proposed project will not satisfy this demand. The demand for our units is local and immediate, not from outside the community. 34. Our neighborhood already supports low income housing. The proposed project of 56 modular units will only hurt our property values. 35. Does the Authority do its own maintenance? RESPONSE: Yes. We have seven full time maintenance staff. This is about one maintenance person per 50 tenants. In the summer, we contract out for lawn service. 36. From the slides, it appears that these modulars could benefit from upgraded siding. Can the Housing Authority upgrade these units? RESPONSE: As mentioned, our plan is to not upgrade the present siding. These units will be put on our standard painting schedule which means new exterior painting every three to five years. We Many of our families "get on their feet" and move up and out of the system after the transition period. 20. Do you rent to emancipated youths? RESPONSE: No. 21. As a resident of Tenth Green, I must again emphasize that the project is too dense. This crowding will affect our quality of life. 22. Will there be any access from Impala Village onto Briarwood Road? RESPONSE: No. 23. The fence between the proposed project and Tenth Green should be eight feet in height. 24. What's the story on the possible closing of Impala Drive? RESPONSE:.Poudre High School is presently exploring options for expansion. One option is to utilize the land located on the east side of Impala Drive. This option may include a request to the City Council to close a portion of Impala Drive. All ideas are in the concept stage and nothing has been decided, or formally submitted to the City. 25. What about pets and junk cars? How does the Housing Authority deal with these problems? RESPONSE: We do not allow pets or derelict vehicles in any of our projects. 26. How much will rent be? RESPONSE: At this time, we are estimating that rents will be $250 for a two -bedroom unit, and $300 for a three -bedroom unit. Sometimes, we work with a formula that a tenant pays 30% of the monthly income towards rent. 27. Who owns the property now? RESPONSE: The Fort Collins Housing Authority. 28. I am worried about the number of kids in the neighborhood and the increasing traffic on Impala Drive due to this project. Impala carries a lot of traffic now so the proposed project will only make a bad situation worse. Lunch time traffic is already bad during school days. There should be alternate access points (Mulberry and Ramblewood) rather than load traffic onto Impala. RESPONSE: Please be aware that access onto Mulberry will probably not be allowed because any Mulberry access would be too close to 13. The existing homes in the area are traditional single family homes. The proposed homes are not traditional and not aesthetically pleasing. They have no style or traditional architecture. The concentration of these units will hurt our property values. RESPONSE: The Housing Authority takes pride in rehabilitating existing housing. These units, however, are in pretty good shape and do not need major exterior work. It would be expensive to re- side these units for aesthetic purposes. Exteriors will be stripped, powerwashed, repaired, and repainted but there is no room in the budget to re -side the units. 14. Will these modular units meet Code? RESPONSE: Yes, all units will meet the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the City of Fort Collins. 15. Why was this site selected? RESPONSE: The advantage of this site is the 10 acre size which allows the Housing Authority to develop it like the project at Mountain Avenue and Bryan Street at City Park. The size also gives the Housing Authority the flexibility to consider adding a daycare facility or offices to the site. 16. Are these modulars stored where we can go look at them? RESPONSE: Yes, there are six units stored behind the Pagoda restaurant on North College Avenue. 17. Does the Housing Authority manage any multi -family units? RESPONSE: Yes, at Mountain and Bryan, we own and manage 27 units which are a mix of one and two -bedroom units. 18. Where do your tenants work? If they work out east of the City, then that is where the housing should be, not clear over on the west side. Subsidized housing should be located near employment areas. RESPONSE: Like any neighborhood, our tenants work over a wide geographical area. Many of our tenants are non-traditional students. The site is accessible to Transfort for those tenants that do not drive. 19. Will extended family members be allowed to live in these units? RESPONSE: No. The only family members allowed to share a unit are immediate family members. Again, most of our families are single parent households. These families are usually going through a transition such as a divorce, or a parent returning to school. 7. The proposed project will harm our property values. RESPONSE: The Housing Authority has data from an independent appraiser which concludes that our projects do not have a negative impact on surrounding property values. Our projects are well - maintained. Tenants must obey the terms of the lease. In fact, we have a reputation for being tough landlords and we evict tenants who violate the terms of the lease. 8. With about 300 tenants and only 93 off-street parking spaces, it looks as if there will be parking spilling out in the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The parking ratios will be carefully looked at. Keep in mind that our tenants will also be able to park on the public street in front oftheir homes just like in any other neighborhood. 9. There is traffic on Impala all day due to the high school. There are accidents at the Mulberry and Impala intersection. We do not want another traffic signal on Mulberry at Impala due to this project. RESPONSE: The project will be reviewed by the Transportation Department for the need for a signal at Mulberry and Impala. 10. Noise is a big factor in our neighborhood (Tenth Green), especially with Ramblewood Apartments being located to the north. Students are noisy. The proposed project will be noisy and cause our neighborhood to be converted even more so to rental houses. RESPONSE: Ramblewood is exclusively a student rental project. The Fort Collins Housing Authority rents to diverse group of clients. Most of our clients are single parents that are either working or going to school. If noise is a problem at any of our projects, neighbors are encouraged to call the police, or the Housing Authority. Again, we are tough on tenants who violate the terms of the lease. 11. The homes in Tenth Green are east of the project. Already, we have trash blowing into our yards from the west. The proposed project will only make a bad situation worse. RESPONSE: We have inspected the site and agree that there is a lot of trash blowing up against your perimeter fence. Most of this trash is fast food wrappers and containers from the high school parking lot which will be blocked from your yards by our project. 12. The existing project on Impala has a problem with noise and trash. RESPONSE: Again, if there are any complaints, please call the Housing Authority at 221-5484, or call the Fort Collins Police Department. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Impala Village Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: February 4, 1993 APPLICANT: Fort Collins Housing Authority: Tracy Carter, Acting Director Jim Klein, Construction Manager PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. I am opposed to this project. The zoning is single family. I am against a P.U.D. to increase the intensity of the land beyond single family. 2. There is a raw water irrigation line running across the property. This could be a health hazard if someone were to assume the water was treated. What will become of this line? RESPONSE: This line feeds the irrigation system for City Park Nine. It will be placed within a platted easement and will continue to be safely placed underground. 3. How many persons are allowed per,unit? RESPONSE: According to the lease, there can be no more than two persons per bedroom. Of course, parents can share a bedroom and two children are allowed per bedroom. If the children are over five years of age, those sharing the bedroom must be of the same sex. 4. What is the breakdown on two -bedroom and three -bedroom units? RESPONSE: We are planning on 28 two -bedroom units, and 28 three - bedroom units. 5. What is the maximum number of tenants based on this breakdown? RESPONSE: The two bedroom -units could house 112 tenants, and the three -bedroom units could house 168 tenants, for a total of 280. 6. The subdivision bordering to the east is called Tenth Green, First Filing. It is a single family development of about 50 homes on 13 acres (3.85 dwelling units per acre). What you are proposing is too dense, too congested. This much density and congestion will hurt our resale values. a DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit IfAIIDwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 feet Of an existing or approved neighbor hood shopping center. b 10% 650 feet of an existing transit stop. /D C 10% 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center. d 20% 3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park. community park or Community facility, ZD W/ a 10% 1000 feet of a school. meeting all the requirements of the Compulsory educcronlows of the state of Colorado. /D f 20% 3000 feet of a major employment center. Fouvas 0-I Avmri +. F MAM% FACI&My A AS. ZD jM W g rJ% 10001eer olaChild cote center. h 20% 'NOrth'FortCollins Z� I 20% The Central Business District. A project whose boundary Is contiguous to exlshng urban development. Credit maybe earned as follows 0%— For projects whose property boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity; 30% 10 to 15%—For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity, J 15 to 20%—For projects whose property boundary has 20 to 30%contiguity,. I 20 25%— For 30 to projectswhose property boundary has 30 to40%contiguity 25 to 30%—For projects whos properly boundary has 40 to 50%contiguity. k II it can be demonstrated toot the project will reduce non-renewable energy useage either through the application Of onemative energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by City Code. a5% bonus may be earned rot every 5% reduction in energy use. Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 acres included in the project. m Calculate the percentage Of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus If the applicant commits to preserving permanent ohsite open space that meets the City's minimum requirements calculate the percentage n Of this Open space acreage to the total development acreage, enter this percentage as a bonus O It part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which ore not otherwise required by City Code. enter 2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. If port of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City Code, P enter al%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. I' ^ it a commitment is being made to develop specified of the total number dwelling for low income families, V�! 4 percentage of units enter that percentage as a bonus. up to a maximum of 30%. 30 If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type W and Type W handicapped I7 L housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: O r Type'K— .5times Type -A -units rotor icoType'B"-1.0 LL..LL!! times Type'B'units ot°T lunits In no case shotl the combined bonusbe greater than 30%. It the site or adjacent propertycontains an historic building or place. a bonus maybe earned for the following: 3% — For preventing or mitigating outside Influences (eg.environmental, land use, oesthefic. economic and social loctph)adverse to Its 5 preservation; - 3% — For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while a voiding total units 3% — For proposing adaptive use of the wilding or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation and improvement Inch appropriate manner. II a portion or all of the required parking In the muhiplefamiN project is provided underground. within the building Or in on elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure. a bonus may be earned as follows: t 9% — For providing 75% or moreof the porkingina structure; 6% — For providing 50-74% of the parking Ina structure; 3% — For providing 25-49% of the parking in o structure. u If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. TOTAL 1 -30- '= MPALA HS IG H7,r Vl«-A66 'F 0, D- ACTIVITY Residential Uses DEFINITION: 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 recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with inciden- tal office space; and child-care centers. Each of the following applicable criteria must be CRITERIA answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yes No 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average resi- dential density in the project at least three (3) dwelling units per acre (calculated for residential portion of the site only)? 2.1 DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS I AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR 171 I THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? r THE REQUIRED EARNED CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 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. -29- :TO PAI- R vlIzA de - OFP'1cE1n f►1n17,Eiv,j v E BUSINESS SERVICE USES POINT CHART E For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only Criterion the criterion ApplcdNe Yet No I II III IV Cde me Correct Score Muttipuer Ecmed Ixll AMaximum pplicable Points a. Transit Route XjXt2 0 2 — — b. South College Corridor XAfN 0 4 $ g c. Part of Center X 2 3 Q 6 d. Two Acres or More © X Q 0 3 6 6 e. Mixed -Use X 0 3 G 6 f. Joint Parking 1 2 0 3 — — g. Energy Conservation 1 213 1 fO 2 8 h. Contiguity IXI§ 0 5 / 0 10 i. Historic Preservation x 1 2 0 2 — — 1. 1 2 0 k. 1 2 0 I' 1 1 2 0 Totals 30 yZ/ v vi Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII g vu PROJECT NAME: =jtipALA HG/6Ny'.i VIt 1-466 P 0-1> PROJECT NUMBER: O& f Es. /, 1913 ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable7 will the criterion be satisfied? If no, please explain Qe„�'�F,� �o�,a`°°,E Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatibility 2. Neighborhood Character X xas€? 0" X s. 3. Land Use Conflicts x \ t':3 X 4. Adverse Traffic Impact X PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan X x PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Capacity X N X 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards X X ?z 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting Xr x 11. Water Hazardss:l[ RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slope Hazard 13. Significant Vegetation X 14. Wildlife Habitat X 15. Historical Landmark x 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands X ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality 21. Noise 22. Glare & Heat X X X x ? x aH 23. Vibrations X'; 24. Exterior Lighting x X 25. Sewage & Wastes xX SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization 27. Site Organization �( + x N ' x 28. Natural Features X 29. Energy Conservation 30. Privacy X 31. Open Space Arrangement x 32. Building Height x 33. Vehicular Movement k 34. Vehicular Design x X 35. Parking 36, Active Recreational Areas 37. Private Outdoor Areas X X X X "' X °saz `s ' �a_ X 38. Pedestrian Convenience x x 39. Pedestrian Conflicts x A >< 40. Landscaping/Open Areas 41. Landscaping/Buildings X X 42. Landscaping/Screening x X 43. Public Access 44. Signs -12- PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR IMPALA HEIGHTS VILLAGE, P.U.D. Impala Heights Village, P.U.D. is a proposed multi -family residential planned unit development owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority. It is located east of Impala Drive and north of West Mulberry Street. The site is an in -fill project since it is contiguous to existing development on all sides. It has existing utility services either onsite or very close proximity. Transfort provides bus service on West Mulberry Street. The density is 6.65 units per acre which is low for a multi -family P.U.D. This low density is not so imposing on the adjacent single-family subdivision. The main objective is to provide affordable housing to Fort Collins families. The Fort Collins Housing Authority has a waiting list for tennants, and this project would relieve this need with the proposed 56 units. The Fort Collins Housing Authority.is planning to construct a new office and maintenance building on this site. They have outgrown their present facility, and the City of Fort Collins Planning Board denied a plan to add to their existing building. The proposed building would have a community room that could provide day care at a future time. The units are modular four-plexes and duplexes. They will replace the existing single -pane windows with double -pane windows. Boiler rooms will be added to provide energy conserving hot water heat. The site plan is open enough to provide solar gain for nearly all buildings. There is very little shadow from one building onto another building due to the openness of the plan. It is planned to construct twelve units at the south end of the project in the last half of 1993 and the other 44 units in 1994. The construction of the proposed office and maintenance building is planned for 1995. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPOSED HOUSING IMPALA VILLAGE, m� REAR I\ muxa / FLOOR PLAN FRONT FRONT ELEVATION 05' 6' REAR ELEVATION REAR jl� 'w'o' :-��- 13 BEDROOM REAR ELEVATION IIIIIIlls9lIIIII'illllll!IIIIIIIII �I�III! IIIIIIIIII .. FRONT ELEVATION I'!III�IIIII!,�II�I;, IIIIIIIII', llllllllll IIIII'IIIN ��1� II Illlliii 2 - BEDROOM -� FOUR - PLEX 1 12'I6' SCALE : 1 / R• - I' REAR BEDROOM • ' DUPLEX u�„IIII IIII„�II, . III��IIII �! III''iillllll tz -- -- -------- ------- - ------------- 11 El --------- 'A112PLAN gpWIPS ","11.4 wl" v.T.Fmwv 2 PM rIHIL LAHV6L r6 R19 :U rFDM� fDAPA-w FLA4TlKq fM. aAeN -wt A L ww Af�A w" BE r v AN' 9- T16 mlRtoj 4" w E4 pm L,Rv I BOOM .21 I rl Povo ee n�cw Sep. e.i �P• Le+7 iSm n Sun .�y Te+ — 3G 9LB Ylllfb OVLY /busnmlw/ wxl. Biq. UfµeI—Sia�4ee F Wu Sr — Co ND�'i� NE b�p8 GP MaY4, iEPIlEk4, cBNnoBius, LLM PBF4 0�[ pv.s Nlu unF Bc Auauso Tuti PU.o. D Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 8 proposed uses within the P.U.D. do not require any street widening to existing streets. A sidewalk will be constructed along a portion of the P.U.D. abutting Impala Circle. The number of trips generated by the P.U.D. will not require a traffic signal at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Impala Drive. The project has been reviewed by the Transportation Department and is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the request for 56 multi -family units on 8.42 acres is supported by the score of 140% on the Residential Density Point Chart. The request for an office/maintenance, and daycare facility as an alternative use, is justified by a score of 72% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. In addition, the project satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. Since the project promotes privacy on the east and north and integration on the west, the P.U.D. is considered compatible with the surrounding development. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Impala Village Preliminary P.U.D, #6-93, subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of Final P.U.D., the office area shall include a "visitors only" parking area, separate from employees, to accommodate visitors and tenants. 2. At the time of Final P.U.D., the landscape plan shall demonstrate adequate landscape and buffering to shield the project from the impacts of the High School parking lot and tennis courts. 3. At the time of Final P.U.D., the office/maintenance building (or daycare as alternative use) shall be described in sufficient detail by architectural elevations indicating height, scale, bulk, materials, color, and style so that the building contributes to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way. 4. At the time of Final P.U.D., the number, location, and specification features of the offstreet lighting fixtures shall be provided and reviewed by the Planning Department for impacts on adjacent properties. Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Hope Lane to Mulberry Street and the existing Transfort stop. On the northwest, a seven foot path connects to the high school property. E. Architecture The proposed office and maintenance building will be constructed on -site. The office portion will total 3,200 square feet and be one story while the maintenance portion will be 7,200 square feet and be two stories. Staff is concerned about the architectural details of this building and recommends the following condition: At the time of Final P.U.D., the office/maintenance building (or daycare as alternative use) shall be described in sufficient detail by architectural elevations indicating height, scale, bulk, materials, color, and style so that the building contributes to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way. The proposed units are existing modular structures that will be moved onto permanent foundations. The 16 residential structures are a combination of one and two stories with only four of these being the two story building. The buildings will be painted a variety of colors. F. Lighting Since the P.U.D. strives to preserve the privacy of the Tenth Green Subdivision, Staff is concerned about the amount, type, and location of offstreet lighting. Consequently, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D., the number, location, and specification features of the offstreet lighting fixtures shall be provided and reviewed by the Planning Department for impacts on adjacent properties. 6. Solar Orientation: The requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance apply to single family and two family residential lots less than 15,000 square feet. Impala Village, while containing duplex units, will be platted as a one lot subdivision, totalling 8.42 acres. The P.U.D., therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. 7. Transportation: The project gains vehicular access from Impala Circle. This street has two segments which connect to Impala Drive. Both streets are classified as local streets. The trips generated by the Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 6 5. Design: As mentioned, the primary design objective is to locate the most active elements, office/maintenance building (daycare as alternative use) and playground area to the west side of the site. Such a location is the most accessible to Impala Circle and allows integration with existing Impala Subdivision. The specific design features are as follows: A. Fencing A six foot, solid wood, privacy fence will be constructed along both the east and north property lines. The purpose is to preserve a sense of privacy for Tenth Green, and to create a visual separation from Ramblewood Apartments. No fencing is planned for the west and south property lines. B. Landscaping/Open Space The P.U.D. designates a common play area within the detention pond which is bordered by Hope Lane and Impala Circle. Four existing cottonwoods will be preserved adjacent to the playground. Hope Lane features street trees on roughly 40 foot centers. Existing trees will remain on the southwest perimeter. Staff remains concerned about the impacts of being next to and downwind of the high school parking lot and tennis courts. The amount of buffering adjacent to the Poudre High School parking lot and tennis courts from buildings 12, 13, and 14 will he an important aspect in determining the livability in this area. Staff, therefore recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D., the landscape plan shall demonstrate adequate landscaping and buffering to shield the project from the impacts of the high school parking lot and tennis courts. C. Parking The residential component of the P.U.D. complies with the parking ratios as required by the Zoning Code. The office and maintenance building provides 14 spaces for 18 employees anticipated to be working at the facility. Staff is concerned about the lack of parking at the office available for visitors. Therefore, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D., the office area shall include a "visitors only" parking area, separate from employees, to accommodate visitors and tenants. D. Pedestrian Connections There are two, offstreet pedestrian connections. On the south, a seven foot wide path connects I Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 5 B. Compatibility Those attending the neighborhood information meeting expressed the concern that the proposed P.U.D. was not compatible with Tenth Green Subdivision. Impala Village will contain 16 residential structures and one office/maintenance building on 8.42 acres. Along the shared property line, there will be nine structures in Impala Village adjacent to nine existing homes in Tenth Green. No building will exceed two stories in height. The four-plex structures are oriented with the narrow end facing Tenth Green, not the long axis. The physical scale of Impala Village is compatible with Tenth Green. In addition, the most active areas, the office/maintenance building and playground, are located on the west side of project and thus shielded from Tenth Green. C. Design The neighborhood concern was that the proposed P.U.D. is not a traditional single family project. One of the primary design objectives of Impala Village is to provide common open space for all residents of the project. This design is distinctly different than Tenth Green which provides no common open space but single family homes on private lots. Impala Village is a traditional multi -family project with common parking, and central playground, and no private yards. The design of the multi -family arrangement respects Tenth Green by locating active areas on the west, screening parking lots, and by providing open space buffer areas along the east property line. D. Operations and Management The concern expressed by those attending the neighborhood meeting was that Impala Village would not be maintained like a traditional single family neighborhood. The Fort Collins Housing Authority cites the operation and management of the existing multi- family project at Mountain Avenue and Bryan Avenue as evidence that Impala Village will be a well -maintained project. With the potential of the office and maintenance building located within the project, it is likely that the project will receive the same level of upkeep as existing Housing Authority projects. Staff finds that the Impala Village Preliminary P.U.D. satisfies All Development Criteria Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Land Development Guidance System. The P.U.D. is found to not be an intrusive and disruptive development and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 4 e. For containing two significant uses (residential and office). h. For having contiguity with existing urban development. Thus, according to the two applicable point charts of the L.D.G.S., the proposed land uses contained within the Impala Village P.U.D. are appropriate at this particular location, and meet the objective of City Council in providing affordable housing. C. Daycare Facility - Alternative Use A daycare facility is being requested as an alternative use within the P.U.D. Child care centers are included in the definition of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. although the point total for density purposes does not relate to daycare facilities. Staff finds that Impala Village is a suitable location for a daycare facility since public services are in close proximity to the site. Also, there is an existing density of residential development that would benefit from the addition of a daycare facility to serve the neighborhood. The inclusion of a daycare facility as an alternative use within Impala Village Preliminary P.U.D. is an appropriate land use that is supported by the proximity of existing public services. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood information meeting was held on February 4, 1993. The concerns raised by the participating citizens were density, compatibility, design, and operational management of the project. A. Density The concern was expressed by the residents of Tenth Green that the project appears too congested, dense, and crowded. The project is 6.65 dwelling units per acre while Tenth Green is 3.85 dwelling units per acre. For the residents of Tenth Green, this appears to be a significant difference. The P.U.D. mitigates the transition in density by a combination of fencing, landscaping, and setbacks along the shared property line with Tenth Green. There will no vehicular or pedestrian connection into Tenth Green since there are no common open space opportunities between the nine abutting lots. By design, there is no attempt to integrate the two projects. Rather, the objective is to maximize the privacy of Tenth Green. The proposed P.U.D., at 6.65 dwelling units per acre, preserves the privacy of the residents in Tenth Green. While the density of Impala Village is indeed greater than the existing density of Tenth Green, the proposed P.U.D. is not considered to be an intrusive and disruptive development. Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 3 3. Land Use: A. Residential The request for 56 multi -family units on 8.42 acres was evaluated by the criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The project scores 140% which allows the proposed density of 6.65 dwelling units per acre. Points were awarded for the following: b. Being within 650 feet of an existing Transfort stop. d. Being within 3,500 feet of neighborhood park (Rogers Park). e. Being within 1,000 feet of school (Poudre High School). f. Being within 3,000 feet of a major employment center (Poudre R-1 Maintenance Facility and Administration Building). h. Being located in "north" Fort Collins. Having contiguity with existing urban development (Tenth Green First and Second Filings, Impala Subdivision). q. By committing to develop 100% of the dwelling units for low income families. As can be seen by the score, the project satisfies the locational criteria as well as the bonus criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart. It should be noted that the provision to reserve the units for tenants classified as "low income" satisfies one of the goals of City Council to promote affordable housing. B. Business Services The request for the office and maintenance building, with day care facility as an alternative use, was evaluated by the criteria of the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The project scores 68% which exceeds the required minimum score of 50%. Points were awarded for the following: b. For being located outside the "South College Avenue Corridor". d. For being on at least two acres of land. r Impala Village, Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 March 22, 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Back rog und: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-M; Existing Multi -Family (Ramblewood Apartments) S: R-L; Existing Single Family (Ricketts Subdivision) E: R-L & R-P; Existing Single Family (Tenth Green Subdivision) W: R-L; Existing Single Family (Impala Sub), High School Campus The parcel was included in the Maxwell First and Maxwell Second Annexation approved in 1963. In 1988, the project was part of the Ricketts Preliminary Subdivision, a request for 35 single family lots on 10 acres, with frontage on Mulberry Street. This Preliminary Subdivision was withdrawn and replaced by the Ricketts Final Subdivision, a one lot subdivision, on .43 acre, next to the existing house that fronts on Mulberry Street. The subject site has had no previous land development activity. 2. Context Within the Section: Impala Village is directly west of a single family neighborhood platted as Tenth Green Subdivision, approved in 1968. This neighborhood consists of 50 homes on 13 acres for a density of 3.85 dwelling units per acre. The common property line is shared by nine homes in Tenth Green. There is no proposed pedestrian or vehicular access between Impala Village and Tenth Green Subdivision. To the north is Ramblewood Apartments, platted in 1970. This project is primarily a student housing project. There is no proposed pedestrian or vehicular access into Ramblewood. West of the site are the tennis courts and student parking lot for Poudre High School. Pedestrian access is provided to the west. The residential project to the west is Impala Subdivision, approved as a one lot subdivision in 1974 on 1.75 acres. There are 11 single family units for a density of 6.28 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Impala Village represents an infill project within a mature neighborhood. While Tenth Green, Ramblewood Apartments, and Impala Subdivision are considered stable uses, the High School campus (tennis court and parking lot) and the area between the subject site and Mulberry Street can be considered transitional due to the high school's expansion plans. The general area is also characterized by large unplatted lots fronting on West Mulberry Street which were developed as rural residential prior to annexation into the City. The surrounding housing stock is mixed in terms of both age and densities. _ ITEM NO. 17 �., MEETING DATE 3/22/93 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Impala Village - Preliminary P.U.D., #6-93 APPLICANT: Fort Collins Housing Authority c/o Stewart and Associates 103 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for 56 multi -family units, with an office and maintenance building, on 8.42 acres located north of West Mulberry Street and east of Impala Circle. The request also includes a day care facility as an alternative use. The property is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval With Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The residential portion of the Preliminary P.U.D. scores 140% on the Residential Uses Point Chart. The office/maintenance building (with daycare as an alternative use) scores 68% on the Business Services Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. In addition, the request satisfies the All Development Criteria Chart of the L.D.G.S. The project has been reviewed for its intensity and potential impact on surrounding properties and the P.U.D. is found to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The project has been designed to promote privacy for the Tenth Green Subdivision and Ramblewood Apartments on the east and north but allow integration with existing Impala Subdivision on the west. There are three conditions of approval relating to landscaping, architecture of the non-residential structure, and offstreet lighting. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT