HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS • •
ITEM NO. 11
MEETING DATE 7/26/93
ii/11/.11;11141-1111
STAFF Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Cobblestone Corners Preliminary P.U.D. , #55-87E
APPLICANT: Joe S. Shrader and Associates
Andrea Dunlap and Ed Seier
c/o Robb, Brenner and Brelig Architects
125 South Howes Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
OWNER: Joe S. Shrader and Associates
1810 West Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO. 80307
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 34 patio home and
townhome units on 5. 02 acres. The site is located on the west side
of Shields Street, approximately 1, 300 feet south of Horsetooth
Road, and south of Skyline Acres. The site gains access by an
extension of Wabash Street. The zoning is r-l-p, Low Density
Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval With Conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The request for patio homes and townhomes conforms with the
approved O.D.P. The density of 6. 77 dwelling units per gross acre
is not supported by the earned credit on the Residential Uses Point
Chart. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the
proposed density. Based on input from two neighborhood meetings,
buffering elements have been designed along the sensitive north
property line. In order to further promote compatibility, Staff is
recommending a condition of approval to enhance the treatment in
the buffer area. A variance is required since the number of duplex
units do not meet the 65% compliance rate for solar orientation.
Staff recommends approval of this variance due to the plan being
equal to better than a plan achieving a compliance rate of 65% for
all units. A temporary emergency access point is provided via
Richmond Drive until Wabash is connected to Troutman. The P.U.D.
is feasible from a transportation perspective with the improvements
recommended in the traffic impact analysis.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-E; Existing single family (Skyline Acres)
S: R-L-P; Vacant (Mountain Ridge Farm O. D.P. - single family)
E: R-L-P; Vacant (Four Seasons O.D. P. - mixed residential)
W: R-L-P; Vacant (Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. - single family)
This 5. 02 acre parcel was included in the original, 224 acre
Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. , approved in 1987 . While there
have been several minor amendments to this O.D.P. since 1987 , the
subject parcel (Parcel 2D) has remained unchanged and designated as
"Church Site, Alternative Use - Patio Homes" . There has been no
development activity on this parcel.
2 . Context Within the Section:
The square mile section surrounded by Horsetooth Road, Shields
Street, Harmony Road, and Taft Hill Road represents a fast-growing
area in the southwest quadrant of the City. The entire northwest
quarter (160 acres) is an established residential area (Imperial
Estates and Westfield Subdivision) approved in the County. These
two subdivisions are contiguous to city limits but remain
unannexed. Skyline Acres (38 acres) is also a large-lot
residential subdivision, approved in the County, but annexed into
the City in 1986 and zoned R-E, Residential Estate.
Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Overall Development Plan covers 224
acres. This O.D.P. is largely single family residential with
opportunities for multi-family, neighborhood convenience, and
business services. Within this O.D.P. , The Gates at Woodridge and
the Overlook at Woodridge P.U.D. 's have been approved for single
family homes. These P.U.D. ' s also establish a re-alignment of
Harmony Road to replace the dangerous Taft Hill/Harmony
intersection with a new Taft Hill/County Road 38E/Harmony
intersection.
In the center of the section, Webber Junior High School and Johnson
Elementary School are combined into one campus. A major pedestrian
path, with underpass under re-aligned Harmony Road, will feed these
schools from the west. These schools are adjacent to Westfield
Park, a 15 acre neighborhood park that has been acquired by the
City but remains undeveloped. Regency Park P.U. D. and Westbrook
P.U.D. are primarily single family neighborhoods immediately
surrounding the two schools.
110 •
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Seneca Street is the north-south collector which, although
partially built, will extend north to Horsetooth Road. An
extension of Troutman Parkway will be the east-west collector and
intersect with Seneca at the elementary school and neighborhood
park. A recreational path is planned on the east side of the
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Pineview P.U.D. remains a current,
valid neighborhood shopping center at the southwest corner of
Shields Street and Troutman Parkway.
3 . Land Use:
A. Overall Development Plan
As mentioned, the subject 5. 02 acres are included in the Mountain
Ridge portion of the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge O.D.P. (Parcel 2D) .
This O.D.P. was approved in 1987 and amended in 1991 to accommodate
changes in the Woodridge P.U.D. filings. The designated land use
for Parcel 2D has consistently been "Church Site - Alternative Use
- Patio Homes" . The request, therefore, for 34 dwelling units in
a patio home and townhome configuration conforms to the approved
O.D.P.
B. Residential Uses Point Chart
As a P.U.D. , the request for 34 dwelling units on 5. 02 acres,
representing a density of 6.77 dwelling units per acre, was
reviewed by the criteria of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S. The project earns a score of 54% on the point chart.
Points were earned for being within 2 , 000 feet of an approved
neighborhood shopping center (Pineview P.U.D. ) , by being within
3 , 500 feet of a reserved neighborhood park (Westfield Park) , and by
being within 1, 000 feet of a child care center (Noah's Ark Day Care
- 3601 South Shields) . In addition, points were earned for
commitments to energy conservation (Method Two) and for providing
an improved, passive recreational area.
Credit cannot be earned for contiguity to existing urban
development. The definition of existing urban development is:
"Any subdivision approved in the City which has been recorded,
once all engineering improvements (water, sewer, curbs,
gutters, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage
facilities) are installed and completed. "
Although 40% of Cobblestone Corners ' contiguous boundary is
adjacent to Skyline Acres, an existing residential subdivision,
credit cannot be earned due to the fact that Skyline Acres is not
"approved in the City" . Further, by being approved and developed
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
in the County, Skyline Acres does not contain "all engineering
improvements" as expressed by the definition.
Also, Cobblestone Corners has 33% of its boundary contiguous to
Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. , First Filing located across Wabash to
the south. This P.U.D. has received preliminary approval from the
P & Z Board but is not in final form and has not been recorded.
Therefore, by definition, Cobblestone Corners cannot earn 30
percentage points on the Residential Uses Point Chart for
contiguity to Mountain Ridge Farm, First Filing.
Also, while credit cannot be earned for being within 1, 000 feet of
a school meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education
laws of the State of Colorado, Cobblestone Corners is within 2 , 000
feet of two schools, Johnson Elementary and Webber Junior High
School. Further, this distance is considered to be within the
School District's designated walk-in area and there is no crossing
of an arterial street.
The score of 54% does not reflect a sufficient amount of earned
credit to match the request for a density of 6. 77 dwelling units
per acre. The proposed density, therefore, is not supported by the
performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart.
Staff recommends a variance be granted from the requirement that
the project earn the minimum percentage points as calculated on the
Residential Uses Point Chart. The point chart specifies that 60 to
70 percentage points must be earned to justify a residential
density of 6 - 7 dwelling units per acre. Since a score of 67%
would be required to justify the proposed density of 6. 77 dwelling
units per acre, a variance is required to develop 34 units on 5. 02
acres under the L.D.G.S.
According to the L.D.G.S. , the Planning and Zoning Board is
empowered to grant to variances to the strict provisions of any of
the 10 point charts upon finding that either:
1. The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal
to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for
which a variance is requested; or
2 . The strict application of any provision would result in
peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or
exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such
property, provided that the variance may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the purpose of the L. D.G.S.
• 410
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Staff finds that the variance from meeting the requirements of
obtaining a score of 67% on the Residential Uses Point Chart is
justified by virtue of the Preliminary P.U.D. being equal to or
better than a residential project of lesser density. The positive
aspects of the 6.77 dwelling units per acre within Cobblestone
Corners Preliminary P.U.D. contribute to implementing fundamental
land use policies as well as helping to preserve the integrity of
the Overall Development Plan. These benefits are summarized as
follows:
1. From the Land Use Policies Plan, policy number 12 states:
"12 . Urban density residential development usually at three or
more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban
growth area. "
Cobblestone Corners, at 6.77 dwelling units per acre, satisfies
this important land use policy in a key square mile section on the
City' s growing southwest fringe. It is this density that will help
justify public investment in the future development of a
neighborhood park, two schools, utility infrastructure, and
arterial road improvements on the perimeter of the section. Since
the cost/benefit of any service is directly related to population
density, urban density should be encouraged in the urban growth
area and city.
2 . Also from the Land Use Policies Plan, policy number 75 states:
"75. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing
densities. "
Cobblestone Corners Preliminary P.U.D. offers a housing type rarely
found in the urban growth area or city south of Drake Road and west
of College Avenue. Combined, this area represents 11. 5 square mile
sections. The list of similar type (patio home/townhome) projects
for such a vast area is surprisingly short: Willow Grove at
Cunningham Corner, Villages at Four Seasons, Rangeview, Silver
Plume, Casa Grande, and Belair at Regency Park. By creating a 5. 02
acre niche of moderate density housing, adjacent to an arterial
street, the project satisfies the policy that neighborhoods in the
urban growth area offer a mix of housing densities.
3 . Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. was originally approved in
1987 and contained an estimated 1, 304 dwelling units on 224
acres for a gross density of 5.82 dwelling units per acre. In
1991, the O.D.P. was amended to reduce the estimated number of
dwelling units to 996 for a gross density of 4 . 4 dwelling
units per acre. This amendment represented a loss of 308
units. Cobblestone Corners P.U. D. represents an attempt to
i !
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
build-out the O.D.P. in accordance with the Overall
Development Plan. By preserving the patio home/townhome land
use, the P.U.D. helps to preserve the integrity of the Overall
Development Plan.
(By way of background, The Villages at Harmony West O.D.P.
(adjacent to Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. ) was twice amended
(1987 and 1991) to reduce residential density within this square
mile section. As originally approved in 1981, the Villages at
Harmony West contained 561 units on 96. 3 acres for a gross density
of 5.82 dwelling units per acre. This O.D.P. was amended in 1987
to reduce the number of units to 473 and reduced again in 1991 (to
accommodate the Westbrook P.U.D. ) for a new reduced total of 300
units. Over 96. 3 acres, the new estimated build-out residential
density is 3 . 11 dwelling units per acre. )
Clearly, Section 34 has undergone a high degree of planning
activity since 1981. The development of this square mile area,
while on the City's fringe, is allowing the City to grow in a
sequential fashion. With an approved network of collector streets,
two schools, a neighborhood park, regional drainage facilities,
water and sewer services, and an approved neighborhood service
center (Pineview) , this area is developing in an urbanized form.
Cobblestone Corners Preliminary P.U.D. , at 6.77 dwelling units per
acre, contributes to and enhances this urbanization. With moderate
density and a patio home/townhome design, the P.U. D. offers a mixed
housing element in an area dominated by single family detached
homes at roughly three dwelling units per acre. Staff, therefore,
finds that Cobblestone Corners Preliminary P.U. D. is equal to or
better than a P.U.D. of lesser density and recommends approval of
the variance from the requirements of Residential Uses Point Chart
of the L. D.G.S.
4 . Neighborhood Compatibility:
Two neighborhood information meetings have been held for
consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D. The minutes of these
meetings are attached. It is anticipated that additional meetings
will occur prior to consideration for Final, subject to the action
by the P & Z Board. The neighborhood compatibility issues are
summarized as follows:
A. The fundamental concern, on a macro level, is the concept
of placing moderate density housing adjacent to rural
residential housing. Cobblestone Corners is 6.77
dwelling units per acre and Skyline Acres represents one
unit per 1. 5 to 2 . 0 acres. Many neighbors expressed a
strong concern that placing these two residential uses
next to each other is inappropriate.
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
Although there is a difference in density, Cobblestone
Corners represents a form of single family housing. The
patio homes (duplexes) and townhomes (four-plexes) are
offered on a single family home ownership basis. This
P.U.D. is not an apartment or rental project with onsite
manager. In order to provide a prescribed level of
maintenance and to control encroachments, the buffer area
between Skyline Acres and Cobblestone Corners will be
held in common under control of a homeowner' s
association, not individual lots.
In addition, the L.D.G.S. states:
"No land use is automatically excluded from a specific site.
Rather, criteria are established which ensure that each land
use will be compatible with adjacent land uses as well as
foster a healthy growth pattern for the community as a whole.
The ever-changing residential market place has responded to
the need for flexibility far more quickly than has traditional
zoning. Under the L.D.G.S. , a minimum density is set to make
certain efficient service delivery. The maximum density
depends on market conditions, the performance of the site plan
and its location relative to criteria which reflect factors
important to neighborhood capacity and City form. Beyond the
minimum levels of performances, the L.D.G.S. requires a high
level of design to ensure neighborhood quality. The system
offers the developer flexibility to choose how to respond to
a variety of performance oriented design criteria to achieve
approval. "
Based on this working philosophy, the placement of two
residential uses, at varying densities, does not warrant
automatic rejection but requires an analysis of the
performance of the design elements that mitigate impacts and
promotes compatibility.
B. The remaining concerns, therefore, fall to the quality of the
buffering designed to mitigate the impacts of the proximity of
the moderate density housing. These concerns include all the
components of a buffer area that must perform the mitigation
function. These elements include landscaping, berming,
fencing, lighting, and building height and materials. The
buffer area lies primarily along the north property line. A
description of these elements are discussed in the following
section.
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
5. Design:
A. Setbacks
The critical setback areas are along the shared property line
between Skyline Acres and Cobblestone Corners where there are two
existing single family residences at the dead-end of Richmond
Drive. Conversely, there are four structures along Cobblestone's
north property line. Of these four, the middle two (duplex and
four-plex) are directly opposite the two homes. For these two
middle structures, the setbacks from the north property line are 30
feet for the duplex and 25 feet for the four-plex. These setbacks
result in a 50 foot separation between existing and proposed
structures.
At the east and west ends of the P.U.D. , along the north property
line, the setbacks are reduced due to the relationship to pastures
and outbuildings versus existing homes. The setbacks for these end
structures are 10 feet for the westerly duplex and 15 feet for the
easterly duplex.
The two cul-de-sacs are setback from the northerly property line by
20 feet on the west and 23 feet on the east.
B. Fences, Landscape Material, and Berms
As with the setbacks, the critical area is along the north property
line. A six foot high, solid wood fence is planned along the north
line to totally screen the two cul-de-sacs and portions of the
structures. Where these fences end, berms, ranging in height from
two to four feet, will be provided. Combined with these berms is
a variety of plant material designed to provide a solid screen at
maturity.
Staff is concerned about the selection of plant material on the
north property line and the impact on solar access to the two
residential lots to the north. Plant material, designed to offer
buffering and screening, should not have a negative impact on the
distribution of natural light on the two properties to the north.
Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval:
At the time of Final P.U.D. , the selection of plant material,
designed to promote buffering and screening along the north
property line, should not have a substantial negative impact on the
adjacent properties to the north in the distribution of natural
light or preclude the functional use of solar energy technology.
Four foot high solid fences are used at the side and rear property
lines to further the sense of separation and create privacy for the
410
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
dwelling units. The fencing objective is to use one kind of
fencing along the perimeter and also provide privacy among the
individual living areas.
C. Height
The four-plex structures are a ranch style product one-story in
height. The total height is 22 feet. The duplex structures are a
mix of one and one-half and two stories in height. The intent is
to place the one and one-half story units along the north. These
heights range from 22 to 27 feet.
D. Architecture
All structures will feature brick accent treatment on the
exteriors. Pre-finished lap siding will complete the wall
structure. Roof material will be textured asphalt shingles. All
units will have a two car garage and two car driveway.
E. Lighting
As mentioned, particular attention has been paid to totally screen
headlights from the two cul-de-sacs. Building security lighting
will be down directional, with sharp cut-off fixtures, designed to
not cast illumination offsite.
F. Pedestrian Circulation
A sidewalk circulation system will be provided traversing the site
from west to east. The sidewalk will lead to the gazebo located in
the open space area to the east, and then connect to the perimeter
sidewalk on Wabash Street near the Shields intersection.
G. Evaluation of Buffering Elements
In summary, Staff finds that the treatment of the area between
Skyline Acres and Cobblestone Corners represents a serious attempt
to provide an attractive visual and acoustic screen that promotes
privacy where needed. The use of berms and landscaping has a
beneficial effect on promoting neighborhood compatibility.
Staff remains concerned, however, that there is not enough solid
massing of landscape material, berming, and fencing to fill in the
gaps and provide a consistent solid screen along the sensitive
north property line. In order to establish a buffer treatment that
further promotes neighborhood compatibility, Staff recommends that
the following condition be added to the Preliminary P.U.D. :
. 111
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 10
At the time of consideration of the Final P.U.D. , the fencing,
landscape, and berming treatment along the north property line
shall be enhanced so that a solid screen of material, at maturity,
shall be provided adjacent to the living areas of the two
residences to the north.
6. Solar Orientation:
Because of an exemption in the definition, the requirements of the
Solar Orientation Ordinance apply to the duplex/patio homes only,
not the four-plex/townhomes. There are a total of 18 duplex/patio
homes. Six of these comply with the orientation requirements for
a compliance rate of 33 . 3%. The Solar Ordinance mandates that 65%,
or 12 units, comply with the siting criteria. Therefore,
Cobblestone P.U.D. must obtain a variance from the 65% compliance
rate for solar orientation.
As mentioned earlier, the Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to
grant variances to the L. D.G.S. based on two criteria. Staff
recommends the variance be granted based on the finding that the
plan as submitted is equal to or better than a plan that would
provide for 65% compliance.
All 16 four-plex/townhome units comply with the solar orientation
requirements. Due to an exemption found in the Ordinance, these
four-plex/townhome units cannot be counted in calculating the
percentage of solar oriented lots. If these 16 units were
applicable, then 22 out of 34 lots would satisfy the solar
orientation requirements for a compliance rate of 65%. If the four
buildings, each containing four units, were arbitrarily divided in
half, then the result would be eight duplexes which would then meet
the 65% compliance rate.
Staff finds, therefore, that for the entire 5. 02 acres, there will
be substantial compliance with the spirit of the Solar Orientation
Ordinance which renders the P.U.D. equal to or better than a plan
that technically satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance.
7. Transportation:
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. , as a part of Mountain Ridge Farm
O.D.P. , was formed on a piece of land defined by a logical
extension of Wabash Street as potentially extended through Four
Seasons, east of Shields. Wabash Street, (local street) is
designed to extend southwest to Troutman Parkway (collector
street) . Troutman Parkway will then be extended west to intersect
with Seneca Street (collector street) at the shared property line
411
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 11
between Westfield Park and Johnson Elementary School. This street
network, while not fully constructed, allows good internal access
for the square mile section and relieves local traffic from
impacting surrounding arterials.
There will be no vehicular access into Skyline Acres via Richmond
Drive. This connection is a temporary second point of access for
emergency equipment. As such, this access will be abandoned at the
time that Wabash extends to Troutman, granting a legal, second
point of access to the west. Because this temporary connection is
a key element in promoting neighborhood compatibility, Staff is
concerned about its ultimate design and recommends the following
condition of approval:
At the time of consideration of Final P.U.D. , the design of the
temporary second point of access into Richmond Drive shall be
reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority for compliance
with the Poudre Fire Code. In addition, the design of the area
impacted by the temporary fire access shall be provided addressing
the permanent condition after removal of the temporary
improvements.
The original traffic impact analysis for Mountain Ridge Farm was
conducted for Mountain Ridge Farm, First Filing, Preliminary P.U.D.
(April, 1992) . This analysis assumed that Parcel 2D (Cobblestone
Corners) would develop as a five acre church site. In an updated
analysis, it has been found that patio homes will generate more
traffic on both a daily and peak hour basis relative to the former
church use. The absolute increase in traffic, however, is very
small.
In the short term, the Shields/Wabash is a tee intersection and is
not anticipated to be signalized. Rather, this segment of Shields
will be signalized at the collector intersection, Troutman Parkway.
Consequently, eastbound left turns from Wabash to Shields will
experience delays during the peak hours due to the lack of a
traffic signal. Until Wabash is extended to Troutman Parkway to
provide alternative access, the Shields/Wabash intersection is the
only access point. In the long term, as Wabash is extended from
Four Seasons to Shields Street to create a four-way intersection,
a traffic signal may be warranted.
According to the Mountain Ridge Farm Traffic Study Update, (Delich,
1993) , the following improvements are recommended at the new
Shields/Wabash intersection:
A. Southbound Shields right-turn deceleration lane
B. Northbound Shields left turn deceleration/storage lane
C. Eastbound Wabash left turn lane and right turn lane
D. Westbound Wabash one lane
E. West half of Shields Street to the arterial cross section
s s
Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. - Preliminary, #55-87E
July 26, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 12
The Transportation Department has reviewed the traffic impact
analysis. The proposed improvements are expected to mitigate the
traffic associated with Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. These
improvements will be designed at the time of Final P.U.D.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the request for Cobblestone Corners Preliminary
P.U.D. conforms to the current Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Overall
Development Plan and promotes residential policies as found in the
City's Land Use Policies Plan. Staff also finds that the request
satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. In
addition, Staff recommends the following two variances be approved:
1. It is recommended that a variance from the requirements of
earning a score of 67% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of
the L.D.G.S. be granted based on the finding that the P.U.D.
is equal to or better than a plan providing lesser density.
2 . It is recommended that a variance from the requirement of 65%
of the duplex/patio home lots being in compliance with the
Solar Orientation Ordinance be granted based on the fact that
the plan is equal to or better than a plan that achieves 65%
compliance.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Cobblestone Corners
Preliminary P.U.D. , #55-87E, subject to the following conditions:
1. At the time of consideration of Final P.U.D. , the design of
the temporary second point of access into Richmond Drive shall
be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority for
compliance with the Poudre Fire Code. In addition, the design
of the area impacted by the temporary fire access shall be
provided addressing the permanent condition after removal of
the temporary improvements.
2 . At the time of consideration of the Final P.U.D. , the,
fencing, landscape, and berming treatment along the north
property line shall be enhanced so that a solid screen of
material, at maturity, shall be provided adjacent to the
living areas of the two residences to the north.
3 . At the time of consideration of Final P.U.D. , the selection of
plant material, designed to promote buffering and screening
along the north property line, should not have a substantial
negative impact on the adjacent properties to the north in the
distribution of natural light or preclude the functional use
of solar energy technology.
`./ _ _ .,►. arv.I"vr, r0.1. _ - v ---v.
►tlnnison•Drive 1 '�
OM I. mr 1 "'l t r (Dora St. Q I Y
I
a ,Bimingiao, \
O^ a; Sioux Blvd. a�
1 Eff�ngh°m St 4 -\ o
u
Dr. 4 � o C w a) OttgWCl d rn • Nez Perce Way a c
Devonshire ter S'eedford p t. ! dvr in —�'\ �co
;,� �, Clr C a d x C
Grande o .E in in 5�V% v`
L. 3kcheshire St. `c
�\ �,a5a U y G> 3 c
1 E G�.t<`entine C} E �a .
Derby Cl. o �' _ �Vd t� '� 7 a, v
_ o >
I�w to Live o v O ,C n• �' ' a
Newcastle Gt• a o• c9 fl
Linr.se ... w ,) 0 4
Y v•Ames ;A., w` <pr -u1FeL1LT Cunni,)9
ct. = C t. nIS. .N o d ()redo o Dr. 40
Oron�on -a St. a;� o c ••� 4,
d v �'
�K^nt Ct. 3 Ci• Enfield _ v E d McWilliams Pl. �6O �I
a� o
E m o Pot erson P. :
•Churcnill Y Ct ! °o Dr. R�°
`.Q' D E
•w U 3 m ��ford IDr. 2�y o
5-
IIIMN r 01.. mg mg . N. HORSETOOTH RD, ♦ W. Hors eto_ of
�'
J Ot\�e °�' • fox C o a Arbo
J v� �, 0 1 4 r4 Brook Drive ��dy '
Jim et\ > 1 Ord �c -�" Opt GR.�
S
_ o 1 E ���k
` I
C
�,
H y J c' 1 -• •• o•
o Wesifr Id Drive d 1 g o
0 — -N.
U 1 �Vil
o (
0
• 1
Westfield Dr - ci --•
ct
o Q J
�� CD Marble C
1 1 �t Cl)
I
Butte Pass Dr 0 c:
0,4
7 r.1 c.) C7 U C
ton Rd. o srs o z 6 C
/15. ,.o On,S. �-Fco
OP �gc 04. O� o Kremm\0 ig 0 it I10, 1
�� .�� �%� C,, ��� �'Deer Gec'h
Ve ` \� L S one- v'Howk
o�Blues ��! �, Ots 7 t.
Z. CI),,00 Ct .o Ct. Lp
AO envtev+ Ct. iu os • ;Q S 2 . v 82.
Dij V .a o. Po c) C� / C • ��U
y .061/4. wC' a 4v.. ` c �/ ,i / "' 2.‘ T3
ITEM: COBBLESTONE CORNERS-Preliminary//
North
NUMBER: 5 5-8 7 E
1-- -
' i
OCIV1:10100 '81.411100 '121
xrnA :-;ii go
131:13N1:100 3N0113319800 3-8' ±
14 al at",ii
1..:1, CC tigt
o
'
§
13331111 2013,19 HIrlos
— — —I — 1—
— —"\
1 r r g 1g 0 . 1
I.I E ii i
WI
\ 15 3 .1 11 !
\ 11.; A!! 11 i
1 E •lig e i CD Z
\ g 1
t \
1. :•:.i i . r 1,
P' 111 il 4,
5: i 1!ia 12 1 i:i i I::'
11\\ \ 2.:a,
i k" '.!2 2 P la 11
• li \
11 4 ii i 1 hi T 1,1 .,,121, 1
11
11 \ ,
zip ,gli
\ ! it ei, ! I,
-1;6 i ,: i newi q, ii, 2.0 ti IV i il
ici I r -I- 1 \
'1'3 1 111111 11-;1!1 I 1 F 1! !it 1i1 1 1111 I Ii i
ilvt/ i 1 .! 1. •-. 1.ii It1h li
0
41i;1 ; i 111 1 1 1',E 1 11si q i 1,,A 1.
\ 0 ..11'3 1•1'1. i1 'L.." 1,1 1.. Eld 1? 1
2 r
fe.\\ ---1 -.-'-. i,1;
'',' !i I i!
f, I L \ / 111,,i iliiiH 1:;.. • .; -,”i ii 111:h 9,if li„I !
110 \ \
\\ i IIP'i .. . ii ; ! 4,iii;k i liai liffi I,la i
it im2le 4e Ili;
-
. :. . ^ . -- 1 , :'
(11-31 O.
I .#". , - rr -1 tr".M'-,,-
1 • \ . ,, .
„. _.
W I IN_ 1
4ck.4\0
\
MOM - i
\ \ c,.-;7 tr•-A. —2...,'-1-_‘,,..}-,--H---
.-__---r- Ti , /,'_-- ;.!, • ., !
- - - ---,
1 - = ------ 2
P
• I VOX WAIF / II i it
le i! i 1 11:11
L ___ r /IA°
oi MO t
A.., -- • , ReE
5 lg IP ; rgiil
1 ii
, ,..„, 1 g 14.31 i I 411P4741114:11frT
/ 2
t
5 11 I PA/ 1 1
.
Al* 1110 /
O r_ f I - , . g fgk F5I g 1
i E iE iii i
Pg.II glii *kik itlik !
i i 2',t it i i
E li i i s i i
I
1 II f. i Ili 42 i 4 A Iis :s M244
1
00Ytl0100 'BN11100 J. 9,r .5
'xt., ', a.n.d gi e 'W
_ =_ =w " _ 8113NHO0 3NO183700 E!$!E$3 + e it
SH1VI.lOSSV,A3"IdIN W�3 Sy „- 4 '• ti jo rim w
i
0
133tl1S$13MY H1fO
M.
L�l
a
o
w' a CO
\
\! It \ \ IH
Iii
4 \ 1 s s as fi
a i I a
. s L UiI
W = F O it' 5 E g2 36 g
I H ,
y pYGFEEQP. _ o :it44Fs ,k",‘eirl 0
;sue _ ;
Pio o1 . :
-.1 .....0
1 dra\V‘17- \
to ie. e ,
_ ,
_ ,,
ie, 0 ,. - 40.\ „
_1 .,,,„ „4 -0,0 4 , ,
ONOVIHOM
-1 -
7.
>q'
,,,,,41. _— O. 4114 Anidiroir:. .
a.
1 , q!, 1.4-•011111 M. .
V.4144r1 r ipoza 4i,-- - - _
jri.H........ .
. .. , .0 i,
0 ; kQ 1.w_,� 1I 107 o • I
_,
,
...inx D0M I49 F„�=
\
___ __0
CIO
as o�o Goo / +� ! | r §
A ■ ; | § | | \\ /
r e
L!
1'1r
\I« »
y ± « -
d ` .. '
/ }
MI
il
I
!i
` )\
\�I \
_. �
a|
,m \
! \
((
/
§
-i0
I- E
§ 1-
i!J
o :
% ! o =
< 9, ^
: .
�y !
-17 r ^ \
d »\ ,
• •
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: COBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD
DESCRIPTION: 34 patio units on 5.024 acres
DENSITY: 6.77 du/acre
General Population
34 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 108.8
School Age Population
Elementary - 34 (units) x .120 (pupils/unit) = 4.08
Junior High - 34 (units) x .055 (pupils/unit) = 1.87
Senior High - 34 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 1.7
Design
Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment
Johnson Elementary 568 566
Webber Junior High 900 834
Rocky Mounain Senior High 1312 1191
4E.f'TINE C0 Of.r ,"REL/P9, - 0• D_
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
Will the criterion
Is the criterion applicable/ be sahstied?
CRITERION
QO40`4'''.c4 4 Yes No If no, please explain
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatability
2. Neighborhood Character // V
3. Land Use Conflicts / ✓
4. Adverse Traffic Impact 1 / _
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan / /
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity ✓ /
7. Utility Capacity I r/
8. Design Standards / V
9. Emergency Access / /
10. Security Lighting // bi
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 / Y
21. Noise // /
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations /
24. Exterior Lighting /Vi I/
25. Sewages & Wastes ✓ (
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization // 1/
27. Site Organization / d
28. Natural Features I/ /
29. Energy Conservation
30. Shadows ✓
/ /
31. Solar Access / / .CC( CoNo i Tidr) or A'PPR4 LAL
32. Privacy / ,/EE uNo eT,en! di" APP*OVAL-
33. Open Space Arrangement 1/ V
34. Building Height // //
35. Vehicular Movement / /
36. Vehicular Design / ✓
37. Parking / /
38. Active Recreational Areas /i .1,
39. Private Outdoor Areas )/
40. Pedestrian Convenience / /
41. Pedestrian Conflicts // /
42. Landscaping/Open Areas • //
43. Landscaping/Buildings ✓. ✓/44. Landscaping/Screening ✓ JfE non)o i n or) ,i k f►PPRoURL
45. Public Access ✓ / ✓
46. Sians
-12-
•
ACTIVITY: Resicentic I ..ses
E3
DEFINITIO\
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.
CRTERIA: Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment plan.
33 Yes No
1. 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 ❑ SEE yqe/Anla
,� SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 0R64 vEiT
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.
J
71
—29—
i DENSITY CHART •
Maximum
Earned
Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit
a 20% 2000 feet of an erunng or apaovea reignpomooa snooping center
/NE V iE w o?O
b 10% 650 feet or an existing transitaoo. --
C 10% 4000 feet of on existing or aoprwed regional snooping Center .--
CI20% 3500 feet of an existing or reserved negnbomooa parK corn county park or Community facility I_,ES TF/It-D _/A 0
W e 10% school.
i000 feet of a meeting au the requirements of me compulsory eauc anon awl or me Stares of Color000
Qf 20% 3000 feet ofa moor emoav*rtentcenter
mg 5% 1000 feet ofa chile.care center N01Hfs fug 34,01 S. SN/EL.04 S
h 20% 'Norm'Fort Catlin,. w-
i 20% The Central Butness District. —
A profeut whose boundary is ccrttguous to exefktg urban aeraaament Credit may be earned as follows
0%—For Protects whose property oourk7ary nos 0 to 10%contlgulry
0 10 to t5%—For protects whose property oounaov nos 10 to 20%conngurty
J 30/o 15 to 20%—For orotects whose Properly oounaary has 20 to 30%contiguity
20 to 25%—For orotects whose Property boundary has 30 to 40%contguny
25 to 30%—For protects wnos property boundary has 40 to 50%contputry.
It rt can ate oemonstatea mat me protect will reduce non-rere3waae energy useage either through me apdtcdnon of arternoti e energy
k systems or mrougn commrttea energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by City Cooe.o 5%bonus may ce earned
S.-
tor even,5%recuction in energy use.
I. Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 acres incruoea in the protect.
m Catcutote me percentage of me total acres in me protect that are devoted to recreational use.enter V2 of that percentage as a bonus
If the acPricont commits to presenting per rdnent offs to ooen space mat meets The Cirys mnrmurn requirements.Calculate the percentage
n of this open space acreage to me total aevelooment acreage.enter this percentage m a bonus
if port or the total devefaonent budget 1s to be spent on ne.gtloorhood puolrc transit faclllies which are not otherwise required by City Cooe.
0 enter 2%bonus for every S100 per awelhrnq unrt nested
If part of the total deveroornent budget Is to be scent on neighborhood fodltttes and services which are not otherwise required by Cry Coate.
P enter a 1%bonus nor every S100 per awaiting unit Invested
. Cr) it commitment is being mode to develop a specified percentage of the total number of awaiting units for low income families.enter that
q percentage as a bonus.up too maximum of 30%.
Z tt a commitment is being mace to aeveloo a specMed percentage of the total number of dwelling units to Type'A'and Type'8'ronotc❑ppea
housing as aefinea by me City of Fort Collins calculate the bonus as follows
O r Tripe'A"— .5tmes Type'4-units
Tota units
C13type"Er—1.0 Imes Type'B'Tok>r arts
es....ir�r urvh
to no case Shalt*combs-ea Writs be greater than 30%.
“he site Or ad$ocern property contains on historic buldUtg or place.a bonus may be earned to the following:
3% —For preventing or mmgalvtg covets influences(e.a•mmarmanta lard use.oe het c ecarnomie and soOd factors)adverse to its
preservation:
S 3% — For assunng ttaf new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or dace.while avoiding total units
3% — For mooing oda",use of Me bukang or place that will lead to its continuance.preservation and improvement in on
coproowro marry.
.
If a potion l of the reaured in the e militate family protect is provided underground.wraith the binding a Nial elected oanang or a
strums.as an CCce3soy use to the primary structure.a bonus may be earnea as follows
t 9% —Far crdvalrg 75%or more of the parting Ina structure
6% — For providing 50-74%Otte ping in a stuctre:
3% —For providing 25-49%of the Dorking in a structure.
U It a commnrnent a being roe to crowds approved automatic fire exrtnguehxng systems for me d vellng units.enter a bonus at 10%.
TOTAL gy2
-30-
• •
Co
MEMORANDUM
o To : Joe Shrader, Deines Lumber
Andrea Dunlap, ReMax
Fort Collins Transportation Division
u C, Fort Collins Planning Department
From : Matt De l i ch Date : May 24, 1993
w Subject : Mountainridge Farm Traffic Study Update
(File : 9331MEM1 )
It has been proposed to change the site development plan
for Mountainridge Farm in Fort Collins , Colorado . In the
previous Mountainridge Farm development plan, the northwest
quadrant of the Shields/Wabash ( future) intersection was
proposed to have a church site . This parcel is proposed to
be changed to a residential use, containing 40 patio home
dwelling units . Figure 1 shows a schematic of the site plan,
showing the location of the parcel that will contain the 40
dwelling units .
In the Mountainridge Farm Site Access Study, April 1992 ,
the land use on the subject property was a church. Table 1
shows the trip generation for the church site as reported in
the site access study. Also shown in Table 1 is the trip
generation for the 40 patio homes . The patio homes will
generate more traffic on both a daily and peak hour basis
relative to the church use . However, the absolute increase
c0 in traffic is very small .
Figure 2 shows the Phase 1 peak hour traffic at the key
intersections with the 40 patio homes on the former church
LLi site . This graphic corresponds to Figure 6 from the site
n_•
access study. Table 2 shows the peak hour operation at the
key intersections . Calculation forms are provided in Appendix
• A. The key intersections will operate similarly to that
=.� reported in Table 3 of the site access study. Left-turn exits
-- a with stop sign control from the minor streets will operate at
w level of service E using the unsignalized intersection
o a technique from the 1985 Highway. Capacity Manual . Based upon
Z recent research (provided in Appendix B) , these left-turns
•
° operate at levels of service C and D during the peak hours .
• This operation should be accepted .
_ Figure 3 shows the Phase 1 and 2 peak hour traffic at the
key intersections with the 40 patio homes on the former church
site . This graphic corresponds to Figure 7 from the site
cr
ZE access study. Table 3 shows the peak hour operation at the
key intersections . Calculation forms are provided in Appendix
•
C . The key intersections will operate similarly to that reported
in Table 4 of the site access study . Based upon the recent
research, all intersections will operate at level of service D or
better .
At the new Shields/Wabash intersection, the following geometry
is recommended: 1 ) southbound Shields - one through lane and one
right-turn deceleration radius and tapers (radius >40 ' and taper =
240 ' ) ; 2 ) northbound Shields - one through lane and one left-turn
deceleration/storage lane (325 feet including taper) ; 3) eastbound
Wabash - one left-turn lane (50 feet) and one right-turn lane ; and
4) westbound Wabash - one lane . This development will be required
to build the west half of Shields Street to an arterial cross
section. Assuming that existing Shields Street is centered in the
right-of-way, there will be 41 feet of pavement adjacent to the
Mountainridge Farm property . Wabash Street intersects Shields
Street 80 feet south of the north property line . Some of the
southbound taper paving will occur along a portion of Shields
Street that is not adjacent to Mountainridge Farm. The other
aforementioned auxiliary lanes can be striped on the new pavement
area .
It is concluded that changing the church site to 40 patio
homes will not significantly change the operation at the key
intersections .
Table 1
Trip Generation
Daily A.M. Peak P .M. Peak
Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips
in out in out
Church Site 190 2 1 9 8
40 Patio Homes 235 3 15 15 7
1The southbound through and right-turn volumes do not warrant
a full width deceleration lane based upon criteria in " Intersection
Channelization Design Guide, " NCHRPR 279, TRB, 1985 , Pg 63-65 . The
taper will allow right-turning vehicles to enter the taper slowing
to 15 mph to make the turn.
1
4
• •
4z
_ SOUTH SHIELDS STREET
1-- NO SCALE
1
A' k.
i� 1
.♦i , • I
4,
4 • ;s e 1
It. .•p.
40 Patio ppQ�•Oii '
Homes ,.pyp•;•;•k
(former I•. . ;O. � -44, •
Church site) iD♦'\;;�;�i♦O 4S'y
�♦i♦i♦ii♦ii♦i♦i�i♦� •4.? . fe-
6...._t%,O., Pha: e 2 T
.-I.
w) I-
z
• a
1 m
I-
0
• Vi cc
Phase 3 ;
•
\-----L. SENECA
-h :
Johnson
Westfield Park Elementary
\‘ School
s
I j
.
L____. _____.1, .. ..
MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM SITE PLAN Figure 1
V
• •
N
N N C. �189/393
" 168/593
r-122/138 HORSETOOTH
128/38
536 314—; rn � o
19 29� `V
to tr)
to
CO
N
\i0
CO CO
07°'
PgP 29/16-- f
At. 7/5—\
Mountainridge
Farm/ o
I
I co
rn
N --133/75
�--23/20 TROUTMAN
Ir
Lop
.-
AM / PM N
PHASE 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
411
•
Table 2
Phase 1 ( 1995 ) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service ( * )
Intersection AM PM
Horsetooth/Shields [signal ] C C
Shields/Troutman
WB LT E (C/D) E (D)
WB RT C B
SB LT A B
Shields/Wabash
EB LT E (D) E (D)
EB RT A B
SB LT A A
( * ) Level of service considering recent research pertaining to
vehicle delay .
Table 3
Phase 1 and 2 ( 1995) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service ( * )
Intersection AM PM
Horsetooth/Shields [signal ] C C
Shields/Troutman
WB LT E (C/D) E (D)
WB RT C B
SB LT A B
Shields/Wabash
EB LT E (D) E (D)
EB PT A B
SB LT A A
( * ) Level of service considering recent research pertaining to
vehicle delay .
a
S •
N
N to
O
LN 189/393
""' " 168/593
lr--123/142 HORSETOOTH
128/38
536314� �r �
19/30--�
cc 00
co
ID
00
• r
rn▪ c0
- co
,I �
P�Pg 1 44/28-'
/14 11/7
caul
Mountainridge
Farm/
/
NCri
\ sik
COLo LC)
N
133/75
r—23/2o TROUTMAN
00
AM / PM
PHASE 1 & 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
411
•
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Cobblestone Corners
DATE: June 15, 1993
APPLICANT: Ed Seier and Andrea Dunlap
REPRESENTATIVE: Merle Haworth
CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard
I . Description of Changes and Details on Revised Plans
Merle Haworth, Architect, described the latest changes to the
Preliminary Plan which, on June 7 , 1993 , were submitted to the
Planning Department for formal review. These changes are
summarized as follows:
1. There are four buildings along the north property line. The
two buildings that are opposite the Birdsall and Leidholt
residences (B1,B2 and B7, B8, B9,B10) are setback from the north
property line by 25 feet, a distance that equals the setback
for the two existing homes. This creates a separation between
buildings of 50 feet.
2 . The two buildings that are opposite rear yards of the two
residences (Al, A2 and Bil, B12) are setback between 10 and 15
feet. This narrower setback is based on input from the last
meeting that there is less of a need to provide buffering next
to pasture and rear yard areas than the actual houses and
outdoor living areas.
3 . There are three options for home buyers in Cobblestone Corners
P.U.D. The primary purpose of this is to establish a commonly
owned open space to control the buffering of the two existing
residences to the north.
4 . There will be berms ranging in height from six to three feet
along those portions of the north property line where there is
sufficient width. These berms are primarily designed to
buffer the two existing homes. Retaining walls may be
necessary to achieve this height in the given width of land
area.
5. The building height of the duplex buildings will be one and
one-half to two stories. The height of the four-plex
buildings will be one story. There will be some windows on
the north side of the buildings. Since there are no
basements, the structures will not be elevated above existing
grade. Solar access to the north will not be restricted by
buildings. Evergreen trees will be selected to not exceed
heights of 25 to 30 feet to protect solar access.
• •
6. Individual lot fencing will be allowed but controlled by the
protective covenants. Fencing will be limited to one uniform
style and restricted in height to three or four feet. Homes
with a property line on the west perimeter will be allowed to
construct a six foot privacy fence because of anticipated
residential development on the balance of Mountain Ridge Farm.
II. Response to Revised Plans From Neighborhood
1. The fundamental concern is to keep our neighborhood separate
from Cobblestone Corners. Skyline Acres is very different
from high density urban development. We have a rural
character. We have wells, irrigation ditches, horses, two
acre lots, and a quiet street. The neighborhood would like to
keep its privacy by discouraging any pedestrian or bicycle
connections. If a convenience store is built at the corner of
Horsetooth and Shields, then Richmond Drive could become an
easy access for walkers or bicyclists. We would like to make
our neighborhood inaccessible to any development to the south.
2 . We have been advised by our attorney that our livestock
represents an attractive nuisance. If a child finds his or
her way into our pasture and suffers an injury, we are liable.
Presently, our livestock is fenced in by a three-wire fence.
This will not keep out mischievous kids. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the developer to construct a fence that deters
trespassing.
3 . After a second point of access is gained by Wabash being
completed to Troutman, the temporary access at Richmond should
be completely blocked with no pedestrian or bicycle
connection.
4 . A visual barrier is important. Presently, we enjoy an
unobstructed view to the south. We do not want to look into
other people' s homes. We want privacy. Every effort should
be made to totally screen the new project from our front
porch, house, and backyard living area.
5. The plans should show more detail on the evergreen vegetation,
height and location of berms, and height and location of
fences.
6 . A typical six-foot cedar stockade fence is inadequate for
fencing livestock. These fences also do not hold up well over
time due to wind and vandalism and require maintenance. Fence
design must be carefully considered.
7 . Fence design must consider security, wind, aesthetics,
structural integrity, livestock abuse, and privacy. The fence
design will be key in determining compatibility.
• 111
8 . Acoustical buffering must be combined with the fence. Massing
of berms and landscaping must designed to help keep our
neighborhood quiet.
9 . The proximity of the cul-de-sacs and the potential for
headlight glare are a concern. Streetlights should be kept to
a minimum and not cast illumination into our neighborhood.
Berms and landscaping should totally screen headlight glare.
High pressure sodium lights are preferred over mercury vapor
lights.
10. The two cul-de-sac bulbs should be shifted south so that there
is more area for buffering along the north property line.
11. Construction traffic should use Wabash not Richmond.
12 . The outbuildings and existing trees should be located and
shown on the plans for reference.
13 . A reference point should be made in the field so the neighbors
can get a feel for how the building setbacks relate to the
north property line.
The applicant, architect, and neighborhood attendees agreed that
these are the key issues that can be addressed on the P.U.D. It was
acknowledged that plans are preliminary and subject to future
revisions.
There are other issues that need to be addressed outside the P.U.D.
process. These are water main pressure, location of fire hydrants,
and street repair. The neighborhood agreed that these issues must
be taken up with the appropriate City departments independent of
the P.U.D. process.
0410
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Wabash Street Patio Homes (Cobblestone Corner)
DATE: May 27, 1993
APPLICANT: Ed Seier and Andrea Dunlap
REPRESENTATIVE: Merle Haworth, Robb, Brenner and Brelig Architects
CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
The meeting began with a presentation by Merle Haworth describing
the details of the proposed development. The project is being
submitted as a Planned Unit Development to be considered in its
preliminary form at the July 26, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board
meeting. The request is for 34 patio homes on five acres with
access gained from Wabash. As proposed, there is a temporary
second point of access to Richmond Drive for the sole purpose of
fire and emergency equipment, not public traffic.
1. What is the building setback on the north property line?
There are two homes in Skyline Acres that abut the proposed patio
homes directly on the north.
RESPONSE: These buildings are setback approximately 15 from the
north property line.
2 . We are very concerned about how close the northerly patio
homes are to our houses. Quite frankly, we do not want homes this
close to our house and yard. We do not want to look into people's
living rooms and we do not want people looking at us. We recently
moved from a subdivision in the southeast part of town where the
homes were built on very small lots and there is a real lack of
privacy. We moved to Skyline Acres so we could have some elbow
room and some privacy.
3 . The treatment of the separation area between Skyline Acres and
the proposed patio homes will be very important in terms of this
project being compatible with our homes. There should be an
environmental buffer or landscape buffer that preserves our
privacy. This should consist of 12 foot tall evergreens on 10 foot
centers for screening. Also, we have horses which will need
protection from kids and dogs. Without some sensitive treatment,
the P.U. D. will not work.
1
RESPONSE: We plan on looking at this setback area very
carefully. We are aware that there is a need to provide a
sensitive transition between the Residential Estate lots and the
patio homes. Different ideas are being explored and no one
solution has been determined at this time.
4 . We are worried about kids and dogs coming into our
neighborhood. The neighborhood is full of wells and ditches that
are still active which could be attractive to inquisitive kids. If
there are any accidents or injuries on our property, we are liable.
This puts us in a position of having to worry about security.
5. The temporary fire access road onto Richmond Drive is a
concern. How do we know that its really temporary and won't become
permanent?
RESPONSE: We do not desire to make the connection to Richmond
Drive. It is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Poudre
Fire Authority which needs two points of access into a subdivision,
or no home being more than 660 feet from a single point of access.
Until Wabash goes to Troutman, this single point of access is
measured from the Shields/Wabash intersection. The developers, the
Poudre Fire Authority, and the City of Fort Collins have no
objections to abandoning this connection when Wabash goes through
to Troutman. All plans, documents, agreements, etc. will state, in
writing, that this connection is temporary to be abandoned in the
future when Wabash and Troutman connect.
6. We are concerned about noise. We do not want our horses to be
spooked and we enjoy our privacy and our quiet country living.
There must be some kind of fencing on our south property line to
keep out noise. An eight foot fence may be necessary.
RESPONSE: We will consider different alternatives for buffering but
an eight foot tall fence is unlikely simply because it is not
allowed by the City' s Zoning Code. It may be that a six foot tall
fence could be just as effective if placed in the proper location.
7 . It's a real shame that this site has to develop. We have
enjoyed peace and quiet and "country living" for many years. We
have enjoyed the open atmosphere and the wildlife. We have watched
a red fox hunt on our property and in the adjacent fields. This
project will impact our quality of life.
8 . The P.U.D. does not provide any logical transition in density.
Since Skyline Acres is zoned "Residential Estate" and has two acre
lots, there should be a blend of density. It appears the placement
of patio homes on our southern boundary is too abrupt and provides
no transition.
2
4 i
RESPONSE: The developer has no preconceived notions as to how best
accomplish the buffering. We are willing to listen to any ideas
that provide a sensitive buffer area between your neighborhood and
the P.U.D. The developer cannot, however, reduce density to
provide larger lots on the north. The project is financially
feasible only as a patio home project, not a large-lot project.
9 . How will the developer deal with the high water table?
RESPONSE: All foundations will be engineered to account of the high
water table. There will be no basements.
10. We are very concerned about lighting. As proposed, there are
two cul-de-sacs on the north which may need streetlights. Any
extra illumination in our neighborhood will be seen as an
intrusion. The developer is encouraged to keep streetlighting to
a minimum and as far away from Skyline Acres as possible.
RESPONSE: We are willing to keep streetlighting to a minimum. We
may need to obtain a variance from the City' s Light and Power
Department on typical placement of public streetlights. We may
offer building mounted security lighting as an alternative to
traditional streetlights. We will work closely with Skyline Acres
and the City to keep illumination levels down.
11. What will the price be per unit and what are some of the
exterior materials?
RESPONSE: We anticipate the price per unit to be in the range of
$125, 000 to $165, 000. Brick accents will be used. The siding is
hardboard.
12 . We are concerned about stormwater runoff. Many residents in
Skyline Acres irrigate with raw water. We do not want our
properties flooded.
RESPONSE: Stormwater runoff will be routed to the eastern edge of
the property, along Shields. The runoff will be temporarily
detained in a pond and released, at a controlled rate, into the
swale that runs parallel to Shields. This controlled release rate
will be designed so that the runoff from the project does not
exceed the historic release currently coming off the property. The
City' s Stormwater Utility will require a Drainage Report, Drainage
and Grading Plan, and an Erosion Control Plan. All aspects of the
stormwater runoff system must meet City Code.
13 . What about the trees to the west of Skyline Acres?
RESPONSE: These trees will remain.
14 . Who provides domestic water and where is the source?
3
RESPONSE: Water is provided by the City of Fort Collins. The
source is from an existing main in the future Troutman alignment
which will then be extended down the proposed Wabash alignment to
serve the property. The water main system will be looped as per
City requirements.
15. Skyline Acres is served by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water
District and our main does not loop. Consequently, our water
pressure is low which could a problem for fire fighting. Also, our
nearest fire hydrant is clear out on Horsetooth Road. Since
Richmond Drive is providing a second point of access, perhaps
arrangements could be made for looping water lines and sharing a
hydrant with Skyline Acres to give us better fire protection.
RESPONSE: These are good ideas and would require the cooperation of
the City and the District. The developer is willing to work with
all agencies to see what arrangements could be made. The
neighborhood group is encouraged to contact these agencies to begin
the process. The developer is willing to participate in any
solution that provides a mutual benefit but would be reluctant to
provide a subsidy that corrects an existing situation.
16. Would the developer be willing to reduce the height of the
buildings along the north property line to one-story?
RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that, due to no basements, the units
need a second story element to gain square footage. The height of
a two-story unit would be 24 to 26 feet. It may be that some of
the units could be one-story depending on the market. It may also
be that some of the second story units could be angled so that the
narrow axis faces north. The developer will look into trying to
reduce height along the north property line.
17 . Will there be an association to maintain common setback areas?
RESPONSE: Yes, the setback areas, and other open areas as well,
will not be under individual ownership but under the control and
maintenance of an association.
18 . Will two-story units block our solar access?
RESPONSE: No, with proper setbacks, solar access to your properties
will not be blocked. Also, solar access is protected in the Zoning
Code. You do not need to have an active or passive system in place
to be protected under the Zoning Code.
19 . The units on the north should be pulled away from the existing
homes and private yard areas as much as possible. This may require
moving units further east into the detention pond area so that the
impact is on our pasture, not our home and private yard area.
4
410 •
RESPONSE: This will be considered to the practical extent possible
given the requirement to provide stormwater detention.
20. Along the north property line, the middle two units seem to be
the most objectionable. These units seem right on top of us. This
area needs a buffer, landscaping, berming, setbacks, or moving the
units. If this project is going to work, solutions are needed in
this area. We do not want to look into our neighbor's house.
RESPONSE: The developer will look into these solutions.
21. What is the developer' s time frame?
RESPONSE: It is hoped that overlot grading and laying of utilities
could begin by this Fall as a best case scenario.
22 . We are concerned about unnecessary traffic on Richmond due to
the second point of access. We don't want the appearance of
Richmond Drive "going through" to anywhere.
RESPONSE: The developer agrees and would construct the second point
of access so that it is offset from the direct alignment of
Richmond Drive. The intent is to not create a vista, or a sense of
Richmond Drive "going through" as seen from Horsetooth Road. The
proposed width of this emergency access is only 12 wide.
23 . It would help reduce unnecessary traffic on our dead-end
street if the existing "No Outlet" sign were perpendicular to
Horsetooth rather than parallel to Horsetooth. If the sign were
perpendicular, it would be more noticeable to motorists from a
further away. As it is now, motorists may have already made a
commitment to turn before seeing the sign.
RESPONSE: The Streets Department will be contacted to see if the
sign can be adjusted.
24 . Our final comment is that the treatment on the north property
line is crucial for this development to be compatible with our
homes and neighborhood. This area will need evergreens for year-
round color. We need buffering from lights and noise. Fencing
must be carefully placed. Our livestock must not be disturbed by
kids or dogs. Solar access cannot be blocked.
RESPONSE: This is a good summation of the issues. The developer
will try to address these concerns.
5