Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87G - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS I • ITEM NO. 13 MEETING DATE 12/13/9 3 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, Preliminary P.U.D. , 55-87G APPLICANT: James Company c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Arapahoe Farm, Inc. c/o G.T. Land Colorado, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Preliminary P.U.D. request for 72 townhome dwelling units on 10. 39 acres. The site is part of the Arapahoe Farm O.D. P. and is located north of Harmony Road and east of Seneca Street, approximately one-half mile west of Shields Street. The property is zoned r-l-p, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request conforms to the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. The land use is supported by the Land Use Policies Plan and the density of 6. 93 dwelling units per acre is supported by the score of 77% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L. D.G.S. The Preliminary P.U. D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. , subject to four conditions of approval recommended by Staff. As conditioned, the proposal is found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The traffic impacts have been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found acceptable. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT S Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L-P; Existing single family (The Gates at Woodridge) S: R-L-P; Vacant E: R-L-P; Existing single family (Regency Park 2nd Filing) W: R-L-P; Existing single family (The Gates at Woodridge) The subject site was contained within a large annexation, known as the Horsetooth-Harmony West, annexed and zoned in 1980. The parcel was again contained within a larger O.D.P. (224 acres) known as Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm which was approved in 1987. The subject site was indicated as Tract 1-C on the O.D. P. and designated as "Patio Homes. " In 1991, the Arapahoe Farm portion of the aforementioned O.D.P. was amended. This 1991 amendment is significant in that besides "Patio Homes" , the subject site was given two alternative land use designations: "Multi-Family" and "Convenience Center. " In the years 1991 and 1992 , The Gates at Woodridge P.U.D. , Filings One through Three, and The Overlook at Woodridge P.U.D. , Filings One through Three, were approved. These six filings represent 223 single family homes on 63 acres. 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 O.D. P. 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 and Overlook subdivisions have been approved. The O.D.P also establishes a re-alignment of Harmony Road to replace the dangerous Taft Hill Road/Harmony Road intersection. The new Harmony Road will intersect Taft Hill Road at County Road 38E. 410 Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 3 In the center of the section, Webber Junior High School and Johnson Elementary School are combined into one campus. A major pedestrian path, with an underpass under re-aligned Harmony Road, will feed these schools from the west. Both schools are adjacent to Westfield Park, a 15 acre neighborhood park that has been acquired by the City but remains undeveloped. Besides the Woodridge P.U.D. 's, there are three other City-approved residential projects in the section. Two of these are single family, Regency Park and Westbrook, and one is multi-family, Cobblestone Corners. 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 Johnson School and Westfield Park. A recreational path is planned on the east side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Pineview Preliminary P.U.D. , located along Shields, south of Troutman, remains a current, valid plan for a neighborhood shopping center. 3 . Land Use: A. Land Use Policies Plan The request for multi-family housing in this location is supported by the following policies of the Land Use Policies Plan. "12 . Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area. " "75. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities. " "80b. Higher density residential uses should locate within close proximity to community or neighborhood park facilities. " "80c. Higher density residential uses should locate where water and sewer facilities can be adequately provided. " "82 . Higher density residential uses should locate in planned unit developments or in close proximity to existing higher density areas. " i Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 4 B. Overall Development Plan As mentioned, the site is labeled as Tract 1-C on the amended (1991) Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. The land use designation is "Patio Homes (Alternative Use - Multi-Family) " and "Convenience Center. " Since townhomes are considered multi-family, the request conforms to the current O.D.P. C. Residential Uses Point Chart As a Preliminary P.U.D. , the request for 72 dwelling units on 10. 39 acres, representing a density of 6. 93 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 77% on the point chart. Points were earned for being within 3 , 500 feet of a reserved neighborhood park (Westfield) , for being within 1, 000 feet of a school (Webber) , and for being contiguous to existing urban development (The Gates at Woodridge 1st Filing and Regency Park 2nd Filing) . In addition, points were earned for providing active recreational areas and for providing parking within the structure. The performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. (77%) indicates that the proposed density (6. 93 d.u./acre) at this location meets a sufficient number of variable criteria to be considered an appropriate land use. 4 . Neighborhood Compatibility Part One: Two neighborhood information meetings have been held for consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D. The minutes of these meetings are attached. The neighborhood compatibility issues are briefly summarized as follows: A. 1991 O.D.P. Amendment The concern was expressed that the addition of "Multi-Family" as an alternative use on Parcel 1-C of the O.D.P. was not adequately advertised, discussed, debated or otherwise made known to all interested parties during the deliberations of the amended O.D.P. in 1991. The discussion of the 1991 amendments were dominated by the immediately impending Woodridge P.U.D. , and that the addition of "Multi-Family" on Parcel 1-C was given inadequate attention. It is acknowledged that the 1991 amendments were dominated by the Woodridge P.U.D. A neighborhood information meeting was held on February 28 , 1991 to discuss the amended O.D.P. The P & Z hearing for the amended O.D.P. was on April 22 , 1991. Minutes from both Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 5 these meetings indicate that the addition of "Multi-Family" as an alternative use on Parcel 1-C was discussed. Minutes to both of these meetings are attached. B. Traffic There is a concern that the project will have a negative impact on Seneca Street, especially with two schools, and Harmony Road. The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed development will gain access to Harmony Road from Seneca Street. With this development, (including Woodridge P.U.D. ) the Level of Service at this intersection will remain at "C" which falls within the acceptable category as defined by the Transportation Department. As an arterial/collector intersection, Harmony/Seneca is eligible for a traffic signal when warranted. In addition, as development occurs in the area, traffic on Harmony will be better controlled by a new signalized intersection at Harmony Road (re-aligned) and County Road 38E/Taft Hill Road. Finally, with an improved Harmony Road, there will be two lanes of traffic in each direction, with a continuous center left-turn lane, which will make it easier to gain access during the peak times. C. School Capacity at Johnson Elementary There is a concern that Johnson is over capacity at this time. With the addition of 72 townhome units, there will be more overcrowding. The planned addition of four new classrooms will not alleviate the fundamental overcrowding problem. Townhome units generate fewer elementary school children per unit than traditional single family homes. Both the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. (1987) and Villages at Harmony West O.D. P. (1986) are building out at less density that originally envisioned. These O.D.P. ' s have been available to the School District for facility planning since initial passage. Legally, neither the L.D.G.S. or the Land Use Policies Plan contain criteria that allow an evaluation of a residential development based on existing enrollments at the local elementary school. D. Compatibility/Blending/Greenbelt The fundamental neighborhood concern is how to mitigate the placing of townhome dwelling units next to traditional single family homes. The magnitude of the buffer area between the project and Regency Park is of critical importance in order to create a transition in density and housing type. Other considerations include the quality of architectural materials and the variety of building placement. !II 411 Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Of particular concern is the quality of the roofing materials. Combined, these design elements must be of a sufficient nature to accomplish the necessary buffering. A description and evaluation of these elements are discussed in the following sections. 5. Design: A. Setbacks There are eight single family homes in Regency Park, 2nd Filing, that abut Arapahoe Farm Townhomes along the east property line. Within Arapahoe Farms P.U.D. , Buildings G and J are the closest to the east property line. At the closest point, Buildings G and J are setback from the east property line by 47 and 46. 5 feet respectively. These two buildings are five-plexes. B. Landscape Material and Berms Within the easterly buffer area, there are two berms that are strategically located between Buildings G and J and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. These berms range in height from two to four feet. Landscape materials, both evergreen and deciduous, line the easterly property line. By design, there is no perimeter fence along this easterly property line. The intent is to accomplish buffering with berming and landscaping and not rely on fencing. Since a majority of the existing homes in Regency do not have perimeter fencing, there is an existing open character that is found to be desirable by both the neighbors and developer. At this Preliminary stage, this open character will be preserved. It is anticipated that future discussions regarding the preferences of individual lot owners may result in some fencing at Final. C. Height All buildings will be full two story structures. D. Architectural Materials The residential character of the buildings is accomplished by a roof line that comes down to the first story in the front and rear. This roof is broken up by dormers and chimneys. Siding consists of lap siding, shingle-profile hardboard siding, brick accents, and brick courtyard/patio fences. The roofing is a high definition composition shingle. i ! Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 7 E. Building Placement A significant design feature is that the garages are placed at the rear of the townhome units served by an access drive or "alley. " This allows the more attractive front of the units to be oriented outward toward the homes in Regency Park and the external streets (Harmony and Seneca) . The fronts of the units are served by an attractive loop street that remains uncluttered by a row of garages and driveways. The two buildings closest to Regency Park, Buildings G and J, are angled away from the easterly property line to minimize the bulky appearance of the two structures. F. Lighting Since the P.U.D. will be served by private loop streets, the light fixtures can be located and sized so as to minimize the impact on the adjacent residences. Private streets are not constrained by the minimum lighting requirements of the Light and Power Department. This is perceived as a benefit so customized fixtures can be installed and exterior lighting levels can be lowered in sensitive areas. As is customary, the number, location, and type of exterior lighting has not been specified at the Preliminary stage. Rather, such details are specified at Final, after fundamental land use and compatibility issues have been resolved. G. Pedestrian Circulation Hilburn Drive will not be continued west into the subject site. A five foot wide pedestrian path, however, will be constructed so that circulation remains between subdivisions. The balance of the project is well served by external sidewalks along Harmony and Seneca and internally along the private loop drives. 6. Evaluation of Buffering Elements: Staff has reviewed the extent of the buffering elements vis a vis the affected property owners in Regency Park. There are many positive attributes about the P.U.D. , particularly the enhancement of the site' s perimeter and streetscape by use of rear access drives for garages. While the O.D.P. and the point chart of the L. D.G.S. support the multi-family concept at this location, the Preliminary P.U.D. would benefit from the following modifications: A. Staff remains concerned about the extent of the setback area between Buildings G and J and the easterly property line. This critical area must provide for both sufficient distance and screening materials so that the transition from traditional single family housing to townhome housing is a smooth blending at a Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 8 neighborhood scale. Staff believes this buffer area could be enhanced. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. : At the time of Final P.U.D. , the size and extent of the greenbelt area between Buildings G and J shall be increased so as to further promote the buffering between Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. B. Staff applauds the use of berms and landscaping to provide visual and acoustic buffering between Arapahoe Farms Townhome and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. There is a concern, however, that there is a gap between Building F and the east property line that would benefit by additional berming. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. : At the time of Final P.U.D. , the area between Building F and the easterly property line shall be enhanced with a landscaped berm in order to promote visual and acoustical screening. C. There are two parking bays that face east. One parking bay consists of five stalls, one bay consists of six stalls. Staff is concerned that headlights and vehicle glare may not be sufficiently screened to promote neighborhood compatibility. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D. , the two parking bays that face east shall be screened by any combination of additional plant material and berming that effectively blocks headlight illumination and vehicle glare on a year-round basis. D. Since the use of landscape material in the buffer area plays a crucial role in the performance of accomplishing neighborhood compatibility, the size of the plant material is important. There is a concern that the plant material be of sufficient opacity so as to maintain the privacy of the adjacent homes, especially upon initial installation. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of Final P.U.D. , the size of the evergreen plant material, located between Buildings G and J and the easterly property line, be increased over and above the specified minimum of six to eight feet in height to eight to ten feet in height. Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 9 7. Neighborhood Compatibility - Part Two: In summary, Staff finds that the treatment of the area between Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Regency Park, with the suggested modifications as recommended above, will mitigate the transition in density and housing type. Further, the concealing of the garages, cars, and driveways represents an innovative approach that improves neighborhood aesthetics. Staff, therefore, finds that Arapahoe Farms Townhomes P.U.D. protects the character of the existing neighborhood. The P.U.D. is not intrusive or disruptive, and is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. 8. Transportation: Primary access to Arapahoe Farm Townhomes will be from New Harmony Road/Harmony Road intersection. Seneca Street intersects with New Harmony Road at a stop sign controlled "T" intersection. Secondary access is gained from Seneca via Regency Drive. The two access points on Seneca line up with the two existing cul-de-sacs across the street in The Gates at Woodridge P.U.D. According to the Arapahoe Farm Townhouses Traffic Study (Delich, 1993) , the operation at the New Harmony Road/Harmony Road intersection will range from Level of Service A to C. This is considered an acceptable level of service according to the criteria of the City of Fort Collins Transportation Department. The traffic study finds that auxiliary lanes are needed at the New Harmony Road/Harmony Road intersection. These right and left turn lanes will be required to be constructed separately or with participation of the Woodridge developer in conjunction with the obligation to build New Harmony Road. The traffic impacts associated with the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes P.U.D. have been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the request for Arapahoe Farm Townhomes Preliminary P.U.D. conforms to the current Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Overall Development Plan. Staff also finds that the request, with the recommended conditions, satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L. D.G.S. The score of 77% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. supports the proposed density of 6.93 dwelling units per acre. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Arapahoe Farm Townhomes Preliminary P.U.D. , subject to the following conditions: Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G December 13 , 1993 P & Z Meeting Page 10 1. At the time of Final P.U.D. , the size and extent of the greenbelt area between Buildings G and J shall be increased so as to further promote the buffering between Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. 2 . At the time of Final P.U.D. , the area between Building F and the easterly property line shall be enhanced with a landscaped berm in order to promote visual and acoustical screening. 3 . At the time of Final P.U.D. , the two parking bays that face east, between Buildings G and J, shall be screened by any combination of additional plant material and berming that effectively blocks headlight illumination and vehicle glare on a year-round basis. 4 . At the time of Final P.U.D. , the size of the evergreen plant material, located between Buildings G and J and the easterly property line, shall be increased over and above the specified minimum of six to eight feet in height to eight to ten feet in height. • • — — =I — --- � W� I GJ co C z '"t'y > C O I `+�n, .- 7 P. A J J Q(��e I X o y A tor (,`off CD c , Brook Drive + �' OJ�.��`°y o Bonito e I ,�, G` m• 0 d, ' o o�os• •pda o A. E i 'II' a c - 2 °6 De o _ v o cfpI ) o Westfield DriveI `_. D �r o Winter od CD I Ct. v� — Westfiel. Dr 2 — a o I Marble Dr dos - - -- - - - - I I ,_ .. `- Rune Pass Dr • F ,� C o �, 1 13 e o o .a.) x \q \ bear �+ � 2 �,`��� �'� Ceer Creep- �a^,K i`etir ,� #"• S one c�HOW Or Ct o Blu ate '�rtOb\a l ' LA A ° o •SKr t. Ct. %'Oo Ct .p° o� 0. S. - 2 ,(c N Lu Lone I G �U c� = Crcc Lam" .a �, .e:_ -a Ct / cn T �. tv 'lnIC G,•: Q ri �om�u r J • 2 Y•<,iSII . Hilburn c o A i;ff hi i o Dr. a��i o*`�R7�in LpCe j cc j AiGy:.0 mi Ni C.i Woodlonc U) HARMONY RD. 0 c o -C r \ C1 N i N7 E ; ' \ •- I Hochelle C„r. - CU a°\e 0 Dr (,) oc . o a o� N‘nsdare . D ♦tea Ashford Ln. ��=HeplPeW idhro 4ie_xo Whitehall ITEM: ARAPAHOE FARM /iiii TOWNHOMES - Prel. PUD North NUMBER: 55-87G r . • gig ,,,„ ,1 :a ;F 1 Ili! cgs I ii i 11i 1 i tip Pei :� i i; sib- - € at& � W E{ ifpp gF s € g E € 5 i €F 66 !# a, sA r p 5 dd §• !$ d'sas cayj,j 13 $ €� _ 3:i s "' L/'f 3 I 3 2 Z 1 !i [rg SII gybgy s#1 ,3111g7'6, g,11! h €i. �_ ww < g � c W N. 2l 3 �i lE . ! 21 839& 55 .2 = $$t'6 $=$ ^s'i tt tttt, N w " v a. 6 W �k F.^, : 0 8x� 8 -- 8G•9 S W Z t7 m . . 0 a c:d dd ! w w f r n r r x3 !O' ' F s spg$F°y w n o aI c gy '1 1 a31l 4- N �n a .g F WSm •�a , . .il ! , IFI3FF! F;i 11:11 E¢¢ rig d f FF,1;id l a'F' -'gig i''• dF6 gil I dg s i„ q FF9•ags:��il 9Ft %II?i pB dde: £iii:3 d: r tint C1. GaI s Eill t 11 e 1-5, It E - a5 \\ f(----------=-.--, --ztg-I-z--_:,A -- --1 --2-1,4 --, \ \, ..A, Qii> ......_, / I rTh___,/ I I 1r-1,71 5,, . \ Ai& ,- 4 \ 1g5/ i rI1 1 1 ^1 1\ , \N_______--t/ /r--if 416::-::----' / (L 1_-q--'/A-- iiiizf 9$= \ i 4 ': b ., \ \ ila 1 1 I ..-- , ‘'',WO ,10--t.,„ .-rev-#1-. -0 -.....--; -Li L Li 44„.......... .----,0,...., ..*:), 1 Its, * ' `r �� ♦ �;! ri♦♦�e 0),01 ® 1,-.4 4s. .., im 1' - . 1♦err ,00, \Nfivt-co. ., ,...tilt - 4/414,/. -4./11 fiiimm.`111". 1t)1111 a `4 1. ,„ L' \ \ \klkg V„S ,i4itl....4** '. .' -4`si ei. Vil COI Oa% I b 1 ' 4- vkI in � .� ♦ ♦ , ��`. *,0� 411004 ��j l� it I I qE \ 11 p\ * .\0411 1')...-- Ak.\ \\ A* ... � f It. *IIwill Ins or,.,,, R 11 ,..."......1.11.1,44 :..,, 'I It \,4. .ti,\ \\**40.#0.4„.*7\.44fr),/ta,"141.1v941 ..- ! 14407720 ; 141 1 p ____, . __ --_,/, s‘.... 1, ,,,,,,,, ,-,4 . .7414 "... v.'''''''. 110-as'Itititig,*i 0 ('''' \\ -• 4t# v E ssestgeo*. ii I / J 1 ,),,, v:1„..,,,,-, , .. •#.44,..,„.,,,,,, -41 . . , it. ibi A,lif, . �/ \\ // \mac?.N —.O` `�i�♦♦VIA - ---6`, a 'a/ ,ot,III Ill F--- y/ \tee o�Wit '1 ., °r,�, - u z ;41.1b 101� i/ 3 N 1124 , '-1- - / / a 'mot / / „4:.,, , -4,...wy,/ / ...,. / c =\c/ iir ' . (r-,. ,t„ ,41.1T / , ,2 '' tc, / \ i � N\\ _� *•S I \ \- / CO wz /,�' A\ \/� ® o ,.>V / w \ 1 tic. Icn / Cy Q' I --- h-ANE iy)\/ , /.y, r/!:z • • — o W a, s U /111 11 I IN 0 t r Ri'; 0) °�e sa 1 I 1i do N dal 111 o - 0 a 0 ,::: ,z, . v 1 a lb co fig m • `y m MJ� (� o i L°N v�. Z U d� in aam :-. m0_ �h m _Q ENI-I h Jj ✓ C-•.af1'• t(1°W _dam d }_I 3m �I m IIyy Z t- r7121 A K 1 °� Za Q ,41iiill 0 in I-- N= H �CwO J lham r, CS °Z IL Min() miQ n II! ,� °O ��7� `rrZ N Q { F- 1v=m maY r ll E ., ;tom 0 4 B" � Q N ill el*' 0 ty \• LL 111 ° 1 IL a Q al 9 0 a a 11 w��z CD W nw : a FI-Q} ° U Elg o0_-Ilc 0. N oi30 a3 I a IO civ 0_ cp0 `\\ S \ \i \AO ,1;N. \--, , , lEA .i�� •• ,;fir: , o 0 • 0 K KA _ v _ • Y , , \ l'+ u �f1 4.'.14. Y �::_• ' II III II 3 04 , ., I��Ei�W�lll Ill 1.. �` } '+-7iy - - :,T__ 1ninnnnnnam..mr-r Z — -" ti'i k*„ ., Pil ..1 .. .g,y 4 .,+. . ,.. ..,.t l =1 - . .r;.._a►, , ,.' . 4 ,o ter. ` . L Front Elevation r ''''''.!-,)fr'''':,::',.;'''' „ - ' 91 Pit-4-. v .- „-et. .- • r. —. ir 4,=rv� ¢ 0uO y Typical Side Elevation 0" z .liry " r t4,41. ,,,,,;(11: 4-.",-.' ILDI IL]El , i: is �,0:..' - 1 --�� — =�s�ls� ° _ 1iil'' IP/idl l 1 _—.i— . _ '�--_pm._—.i _I,,` o li b .. �yJ�-a , i �7ClL—fLa _ i__'_ . _ df.�c i°r �l_ _ Rear Elevation 6 Arapahoe Farms Townhouses Fort Collins Colorado James Company Knudson Gloss Architects Boulder Cobr.do Boulder Colorado r • • ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PRELIMINARY PUD LAND USE BREAKDOWN OCTOBER 25, 1993 Area Gross 452,776 sq.ft. 10.39 acres Net 370,704 sq.ft. 8.51 acres Dwelling Units 2 Bedroom Units 76 units TOTAL UNITS 76 units Density Gross 7.31 du/ac Net 8.93 du/ac Coverage Buildings 87,114 sq.ft. 19.24% Street R.O.W. 82,072 sq.ft. 18.13% Parking and Drives 75,476 sq.ft. 16.67% Open Space: Private 22,160 sq.ft. 4.89% Common 185,954 sq.ft. 41.07% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 208,114 sq.ft. 45.96% Floor Area Residential 92,500 sq.ft. Parking Demand: 2 Bedroom Units 133 spaces 1.75 spaces/unit TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DEMAND 133 spaces 1.75 spaces/unit Provided: Garage 152 spaces Open 62 spaces Other 0 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 214 spaces 2.82 spaces/unit Maximum Building Height 36 feet • • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD, - Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 76 multi family units on 10.39 acres DENSITY: 7.32 du/acre General Population 76 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 243.2 School Age Population Elementary - 76 (units) x .120 (pupils/unit) = 9.12 Junior High - 76 (units) x .055 (pupils/unit) = 4.18 Senior High - 76 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 3.8 Design Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment Johnson Elementary 568 573 Webber Junior High 900 977 Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404 • a 0 e urban design, inc. ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD Preliminary Plan Statement of Planning Objectives October 25, 1993 The proposed Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD is a part of the Arapahoe / Mountainridge Farm ODP, located on a portion of land designated for Patio Home or Multi- Family development. This project that achieves a number of the City of Fort Collins' adopted Goals and Objectives, Land Use Policies, elements of the Fort Collins Area Transportation Plan, and preliminary findings of the Neighborhood Compatibility study. The Arapahoe Farm Townhomes community is a somewhat unique approach to townhome development that has only been tried a few times in Fort Collins, most noticeably the Casa Grande project. It is unique in that the garages are in the rear of the townhomes, accessed by a common service drive or 'alley'. This allows the front of the units to be turned towards external streets, neighboring residences, and an internal loop drive. This allows a street scene to be created that is uncluttered by garage doors and driveways and provides a continuous greenbelt. As such, Arapahoe Farm represents an opportunity to provide a greater mix of housing types in this area than has been achieved in recent years. The proposed townhomes are intended to help bridge the affordability gap between what is currently available, and what the market desires. Arapahoe Farms provides an excellent opportunity to create a mixed-use community, but on a scale small enough that it doesn't overwhelm the adjacent single family residences. To further create a mixed community, the units are being designed to appeal to two separate market segments, professionals who are first time buyers, and those that no longer need a larger single family home. Key design concepts employed to better define neighborhood character include: Providing garages that are accessed off a private service drive or 'alley' thereby allowing the fronts of units to face adjacent streets and neighborhoods. - Clustering the units around a private internal loop drive that helps to provide a larger, usable open space area that is centrally located to all units and acts as a buffer to adjacent single family residences. This produces an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development. - Providing an internal loop drive for visitors that provides direct access to most parking areas without the need to travel down the service drives. Providing almost twice the required parking to alleviate the parking shortages found in some multifamily developments. The elements of the site plan are designed to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of Arapahoe Farm and the adjacent residents. • Clikyr ., ‘13 e urban design, inc. - The units all have private fenced in patios for entertaining and gardening. - The architecture of the buildings is also designed to be compatible with the neighboring residences. The roof line comes down to the first story in the front and rear, punctuated by dormers and chimneys. The architecture has a traditional feel to it with the siding materials consisting of lap siding, shingle profile hardboard siding, brick accents, brick courtyard fences. The roofing material that has been selected is a high definition composition shingle. Other architectural components include bay windows, arched windows, and covered porches. - The elements of the site plan are arranged in a favorable relationship to the existing topography, exposure to sun, wind, and views. The Arapahoe Farm PUD Plans were prepared with a number of other planning goals and concepts in mind; giving special attention to elements affecting neighborhood compatibility. These concepts include: I. Create a successful PUD that integrates with surrounding land uses. Work within the framework of the existing community and public improvements with the potential to share amenities, storm drainage improvements, and/or other common elements. Create an area of alternate housing that is well planned, aesthetically pleasing, and integrates well with adjacent land uses. II. Provide land use transitions and creative relationships between uses. - Plan the site as a transitional use between the existing single family uses and potential future neighborhood commercial uses on the west side of Harmony Road. The Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD is also consistent with applicable Land Use Policies, including: Policy 3. The City shall promote: a. Maximum utilization of land within the city; d. The location of residential development which is close to employment, recreation, and shopping facilities. Ity2, e urban design, inc. Policy 12. Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area. Policy 26. Availability of existing services shall be used as a criteria in determining the location of higher intensity areas in the City. Policy 75. Residential areas should provide a mix of housing densities. Policy 78. Residential development should be directed into areas which reinforce the phasing plan in the urban growth area. Policy 80. Higher density residential uses should locate: b. Within close proximity to community or neighborhood park facilities; c. Where water and sewer facilities can be adequately provided; d. Within easy access to major employment centers; Policy 82 Higher density residential should locate in planned unit developments or in close proximity to existing higher density . areas. Construction at Arapahoe Farm is expected to begin in the spring of 1994, and may continue through 1996. • Arapa• Farm Preliminary PUD ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY Will the criterion Is the criterion applicable? be satisfied? CRITERION ' \�� ,�� Yes No If no, please explain NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatability X X 2. Neighborhood Character X X 3. Land Use Conflicts X X 4. Adverse Traffic Impact X _ X PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan X X PUBLIC FACILITIES &SAFETY 6.Street Capacity X X 7. Utility Capacity X X 8. Design Standards X X 9. Emergency Access X X 10.Security Lighting X X 11.Water Hazards X RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slope Hazard X 13.Significant Vegetation X 14.Wildlife Habitat X 15. Historical Landmark X 16. Mineral Deposit X 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas X 18.Agricultural Lands X ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19.Air Quality X X 20.Water Quality X X 21. Noise X X 22. Glare & Heat X 23.Vibrations X 24. Exterior Lighting X X 25.Sewages &Wastes X X SITE DESIGN 26.Community Organization X X 27. Site Organization X X 28. Natural Features X X 29. Energy Conservation X X 30. Shadows X X 31.Solar Access X X 32. Privacy X X 33. Open Space Arrangement X X 34. Building Height X 35.Vehicular Movement X X 36. Vehicular Design X X 37. Parking X X 38.Active Recreational Areas X X 39. Private Outdoor Areas X X 40. Pedestrian Convenience X X 41. Pedestrian Conflicts X X 42. Landscaping/Open Areas X X 43. Landscaping/Buildings X X 44. Landscaping/Screening X X 45. Public Access X 46. Signs X X i -12- • *DENSITY CHART Maximum • Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 feet oran among or000roveanecinrnorno03snooairgcenter O • b 10% . 650 feet of on a m oDrarrsrrstoe. 0 • C 10,o 4000 feet or an everting Cr aoOrovea reOtonat snooant center Q • d 20% 3500 feet of an ensnng or reserved neKrOorncoO DOrk comrnun",oorc or communrry ro0iM 0 02 We 10% . 1000 feet of a school meeting at me'eau recompulsoryents of me compulsory education q a or m a e stare of Cor000. 1 o COf 20% 3000 feet oromaaremoavmentcenter • 0 • W g 5% t000 reer of a rnia cars center 0 h 20% NOM'Fort Gains 0 I 20% The Central tkarestoahe?.. O • A Freesc*hose=rams,a CCnttgrrosa to eaerrg uroan osvenorrrm.Crean may oe eamsd as foam.: 0%—For orarorn.nose arooerry oounaay nos 0 to 10%conepunv. .. O • 10 to 15%—tor potecrswnose oraaeny oounoa gurrv.y nos 10 to 20%conn . i 30% is to 24%-v For aaecns,.rnose orooem oounaary nos 20 fa 30%caravan! 20 to 25%—kor protects*nose orooeny°turdor/nos 30 to 40%cdnttguN. 25 to 30%—For oroiects*nos=cony oarlaary rim 40 to 50%conngury. k n n m m wd can oe aeansrrarea mar e protect redt,ce non-renee energy towage either thrown me ocet non of of e.TIcTu a energy systems or mrougr cOmmrtret energy consonance'measures ceyorla mar norrnauy recur'sa Oy City Coos.a 5%bonus ruby be earned roe every 5%reaucnon in energy use. I. Calculate a 1%oonus for every 50 acres nautst on tie crotect. m Cact are me oercentage of me rota acres n Me oraect mat are devoted to recrearldrra use.erns v2 or mar oercanrage as a conk g dp n me oba m camrnns to oresenma Derma-lent Crtg soa le open CO mot meets tine C:N m s rwrxrn recuremenrs.wa rc curs toe oeentope n of m's omen smote acreage to the total osve,00menr acreage.enter tots percentage as a Carrta n mart of me fatal oevetoomenr 0uoger a to oe spent on ne.gnoornoaa Oua,d!raw,,tacynres wn,cn tie not otnerwee reaureo cv City Coo.. 0 enter 2%Conn to eyery 5100 per awertnq urur Frosted if Con of me told oe+etcnent r,aget is to oe scent on negncomooa ta7rnes ant senates wrwar,ore not otherwise reamers a Ctv Coos P enter a 1%Coma fa even,r eve 5100 oer awerrsg unit nvestect ' rti • Cr) n a commitment a oe na mate to°eve.00 a speatiea percentage of the rota nurtroer of aweang units for la.moms formates.enter mat CI percentage Cie mans.uc 10 a mmanxrn or 30%. Z n a c.ur,.,..,,...‘re osrq moos to oe..etoo a soecseed Oercentoge of toe fatal cs pit t or aweiting ants tor type'A"and Type'B hanplcooOeo nousnc as o.rrec my rre City of tort Calna cmayase me pond as roetwa O Type'A'— $ertre. Type'A'r1M 010T WR — Type '-1.0tames rype'B'unns • Ca In nO Case snot me ccemOrlea Dona t e greater mar 30%. n the site or eaa_ent t7ro0erN contains or rsealC Oularlg of=cm a Conr.B mar Oe eanea for me folio.es 3% —For cementing or mrlgasrng canoe nntwnees(e.g.erlvrdrmenR.larva use.o eo.ac economic area soap beiorsf and erse to its oresenanorc S 3% — For asarrg mot new MOWN*M be n keep";we.the c1QOCTer of the asking or dace..tire evacIng total units 3% —For 'q aoacxtse we of the ouarro or dace mat wrl lei to rts mrntn-once prsservanart aria mprosertrent n Gil aporaonalert,v,ner. Ito Oonbn of al of the tea wea carman me rrxrrcre ramie protect n dv.:tea u oergrotrla.wren me awe";or n on...c ed daring . So. r1 ot Qr% tic.`'es•anI won fMr*rra Rr1t4 dV s1 0 Danlif ITay De ea'ne0 as f0I101Yi t 9% —For amvrg75%cr More of the poem nasnrnure. . 6% —For crowing 50-74%ofneccsna gatasm,aue'. • 3% —For Crowing 25-49%of ter=rang et a structure. U If o oars mien s oertq maid tearoom aoctovea cutornand ere arnquenmg swoons fa me dwerng tsiti errs 0 0mrka of VI. . TOTAL 7 7 • -30- • SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Arapahoe Townhomes Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: November 4, 1993 DEVELOPER: The James Company CONSULTANTS: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design Mr. Terrance Hoagland, Cityscape Urban Design Mr. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins The meeting began with a review of the agenda and the topics to be covered. The developer, Mr. Jim Postle of The James Company, was unable to attend, and he was represented by the consulting team. As a second neighborhood meeting, the agenda was more focused than the first meeting. The agenda was as follows: I. Discussion of the 1991 O.D.P. Amendment II. Traffic III. School Capacity at Johnson IV. Compatibility/Mitigation/Blending V. Greenbelt I. 1991 O.D.P. Amendment Ted Shepard gave the background on the 1991 Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. Amendment. Originally approved in 1987, the 158 acre Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. designated the subject 10 acre parcel as "1C" with an anticipated land use designation of "Patio Homes". In 1987, it was estimated that this parcel would support a density of six dwelling units per acre for a total build-out of 60 units. In 1991, the O.D.P. was amended. There were nine changes to the original O.D.P. The most significant change involved converting a large tract (Parcel 1F - 44 acres) from "Multi-Family" (12 d.u./a.) to "Single Family" (3.5 d.u./a). While this conversion seemed to capture most of the attention at the time, Parcel 1C was amended to add the land use designation "Multi-Family" as an alternative use to "Patio Homes". It was estimated that this parcel would then support a density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total build-out of 100 units. A neighborhood information meeting to discuss the 1991 O.D.P. amendment took place on February 28, 1991. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the amendment on April 22, 1991. The minutes to both of these meetings are available and indicate that changes to Parcel 1C were discussed. Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 2 Neighborhood Response: 1. What is the review criteria for a request to amend an approved O.D.P.? RESPONSE: O.D.P.'s, whether new submittals or amendments, are reviewed by the elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. These elements have been adopted by the City Council. Chief among these elements is the Land Use Policies Plan (adopted in 1979). This element is a "policy" plan versus a "physical" plan. Based on the City's Goals and Objectives (adopted in 1977), the policies are designed to implement the desired form of future development of the City. This desired form is for the City to grow at a moderate growth rate with concentrated land use. 2. We were living here in February/April of 1991 and do not remember any change from Patio Homes to Townhomes on the O.D.P. 3. We have reviewed the file from 1991 and the letter advertising the neighborhood meeting for the amended O.D.P. did not reference the change from Patio Homes to Multi-Family. RESPONSE: The O.D.P. was amended to add the "Multi-Family" designation to Parcel 1C as an alternative use and retain "Patio Homes" as the primary use. Under the "Land Use Breakdown" on the O.D.P., the estimated density was raised from six d.u./a. to ten d.u./a. As mentioned, there were nine changes on the O.D.P. to amend the original 1987 plan. The letter highlighted the major change that involved the most acreage which on Parcel 1F. 4. In the City's estimation, what is the difference between a patio home and a townhome? RESPONSE: Patio homes are considered single family units that are located on less than 6,000 square feet lots. (6,000 square feet is considered the minimum lot size allowed in the Zoning Code). Patio homes are characterized by very small yards, and, at times, could feature a zero side yard setback on one side. These homes are detached from one another. Owners own both the house and the lot. In contrast, a townhome is an attached unit and is considered a form of multi-family. These are usually grouped in the form of three up to six "plexes". (Duplexes are defined as a form of single family.) Typically, the owners do not own any lot or yard area but open spaces are held in common ownership and maintained by an association. 5. Is there a difference in the number of elementary school students generated by a patio home project versus a townhome project? RESPONSE: Yes, it is the finding of the School District that townhomes generate fewer children of elementary school age than either single family or patio home projects. • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 3 6. How long has the property been under contract? RESPONSE: About six weeks. 7. I'm concerned about the amendment in 1991. It seems as if the whole focus was on the Woodridge P.U.D. changing out about 40 acres of multi-family to single family. Not enough attention was paid to adding "Multi-Family" as an alternative use on Parcel 1C next to Regency Park. This change was skimmed over without the benefit of public participation from the folks in Regency Park Second Filing. RESPONSE: It is true that, at that time, the main focus was on the Woodridge P.U.D., under contract to Mr. Gary Berger, WoodCraft Homes. This is probably because the Woodridge area of O.D.P. was being considered for immediate development and that Mr. Gary Berger, WoodCraft Homes, was present at the meeting to answer questions regarding his particular development proposal. Parcel 1C, on the other hand, was not being considered for immediate development. In addition, Parcel 1C, at that time, was owned by the underlying land owner, G.T. Land Colorado, Inc., not WoodCraft Homes. With no immediate development proposal on Parcel 1C, most of the discussion centered on other areas of the O.D.P. 8. Was Regency Park Second Filing included in the notification area for the amended O.D.P. in 1991? RESPONSE: Yes, the mailing list is available for your inspection. 9. As residents of Regency Park Second Filing, we would rather have the patio homes than the townhomes. Is there any way the citizens can initiate a zoning change on Parcel 1C of the O.D.P.? RESPONSE: In order to re-designate (not technically rezone) Parcel 1C to remove the "Multi- Family" as an alternative use, the application must be accompanied by some form of permission from the owner. Lacking the owner's permission, the Planning and Zoning Board would be exposed to legal action if such re-designation did not have the owner's permission. 10. Will these townhome owners own any land or yard area? RESPONSE: No, these owners will own only their individual unit. Exterior spaces will be owned, in common, by the association. One advantage to this is that the developer can run one water, sewer, electrical, etc. service per building versus one per unit. • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 4 11. Thank you for explaining how the Land Use Policies Plan encourages mixed densities in neighborhoods. Would patio homes qualify as multi-family? RESPONSE: No, the Planning Department considers multi-family to be a housing type that is greater than a duplex. Patio homes are considered single family. 12. Why has the developer selected a townhome product? RESPONSE: The developer feels there is a strong market demand for townhomes in this community at this time. 13. We want to re-emphasize that the multi-family zoning is a complete surprise to us. We had no pre-knowledge that this could happen. Somehow, there was a communication breakdown. RESPONSE: The Planning Department is concerned that you were not made aware of the amendment to the O.D.P. Two mailings were sent out, the property was posted with a sign, and the Planning and Zoning Board agenda is published in the newspaper. Steps are being considered to improve the notification process. As a minor point of clarification, however, please keep in mind that there has been no "rezoning" on Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. The zoning in the entire area (Woodridge, Regency, Westbrook) remains R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. An O.D.P. designation does not grant a vested right to develop nor guarantee a certain density. The right to develop and the ultimate density can only be guaranteed after Final Approval of Planned Unit Development, processed in accordance with the Land Development Guidance System. This requires two public hearings by the Planning and Zoning Board. 14. What happens if the townhome market goes soft and the James Company goes under? RESPONSE: The James Company is a solid company. The project will be developed in three construction phases so there will not be speculative building on the entire project. 15. There is a strong demand for patio homes. Why can't the James Company respond to this market demand? RESPONSE: The market research indicates there is also a strong demand for townhomes. This is the product that James Company would like to take to the P & Z Board. 16. Why doesn't the City Planning Department support low density, what is wrong with low density? • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 5 RESPONSE: There is nothing wrong with low density. The Land Use Polices Plan has policies that direct large master-planned neighborhoods (Arapahoe Farm, Regency Park) to provide for urban levels of development at a threshold of three d.u./a. with a mix of housing densities. The theory is that citizens of Fort Collins have the opportunity for a variety of housing types in all parts of the City. We do not want to segregate the City by housing type. A mix of housing types and density has advantages in providing cost effective delivery of urban services and creates opportunities to provide public transit which promotes air quality. 17. There is a big gap in home values between single family and the proposed townhomes. Does this gap factor into the decision making process? RESPONSE: The Land Use Policies Plan and the Land Development Guidance System do not contain any criteria that address home values. There are, however, a number of absolute and variable criteria that address other issues by which to review a planned unit development (P.U.D.) 18. Would a petition from the citizens stop the project? RESPONSE: The applicant is legally protected to apply for and proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration of a development proposal. In other words, the developer is allowed his "day in court". The process, however, allows ample opportunity for citizen input. You are encouraged to present a petition to the Planning and Zoning Board to let them know your concerns. 19. Does the City require developers to meet a minimum or maximum density? RESPONSE: The minimum density is considered to be three d.u./a. The maximum density is determined by the performance on the Residential Density Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. and other factors such as parking, open space, etc. The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to these parameters subject to following applicable criteria. Based on the 1990 Census, Fort Collins is split between 60% single family and 40% multi-family. One recent large acreage O.D.P. was approved with about an 80% - 20% split. 20. Does the City have any policies requiring neighborhoods to be financially diverse? RESPONSE: No, the policies are geared at density and housing type, not by financial considerations. S • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 6 II. Traffic The developer has retained the services of Matt Delich, P.E., to perform a traffic impact analysis to be submitted to the City's Transportation Department for review. Mr. Delich explained the scope of the study and the findings. The primary finding at this time is that the impact of the proposed development on the Harmony and Seneca intersection falls within the acceptable category as defined by the City of Fort Collins Transportation, (level of service C). The study assumed full build-out of the Woodridge P.U.D. 21. Our neighborhood already has bad access to Harmony and Shields. The proposed townhomes will only make the situation worse. RESPONSE: The proposed townhomes will use Seneca to access Harmony. Regency Park uses Regency Drive to access Harmony. Access to Shields can be from Harmony or Wakerobin. The problem with the Wakerobin access to Shields is that it is very difficult to make a left turn to go northbound on Shields during peak times. It is recommended that for folks in Regency or Woodridge who desire to go north on Shields, that they use the signalized intersection at Harmony Road. 22. We are concerned about the safety of children on Seneca with the traffic and the two schools. The townhome project will only make it worse. RESPONSE: Seneca is a collector street, not a local street, and is designed to be wider and carry internal traffic out to the arterial streets: Harmony and Horsetooth (future extension). The City's Transportation Department works closely with the School District on establishing "safe routes to school". This cooperative effort determines the level of safety necessary for each school depending on location, traffic, etc. These improvements take the form of crosswalks, crossing guards, yellow caution signals, etc. Each Fall, before the start of the new school year, the level of improvements is reviewed between the City and the School District for adequacy. 23. The problem at the Harmony/Shields intersection is that there are no separate turn arrows for making left turns. RESPONSE: This is a problem and should be corrected to improve traffic flow as well as safety. 24. How does the traffic consultant determine the volume attributed to new development. RESPONSE: Traffic volume, or trip generation, is based on land use categories. Each category is assigned a trip generation rate based on research from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.). The basis of the data is from national research, including the City of Fort Collins. It is assumed that Fort Collins drivers behave similarly to drivers in other cities. In • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 7 this study, a single family home is assumed to generate 10 trip ends per 24-hour day and townhomes generate 6 trip ends per day. 25. The national data does not account for that fact that Fort Collins is a university town and that these units will likely become student rentals. This will increase the traffic over the national figures. RESPONSE: Trip generation rates are based on land use categories, and do not assume occupancy by a certain age group. 26. The rating (level of service C) of the Harmony/Seneca intersection will deteriorate. By the time new Harmony is extended to County Road 38E, the level of service will get worse. RESPONSE: As an arterial/collector intersection, Harmony/Seneca is eligible for a traffic signal when warranted. It is likely that in the future, there will be better performing intersections in the area to serve the traffic. This includes a fully improved intersection at Harmony and Shields, and a signalized intersection at Harmony and 38E. Besides signals, Harmony Road will be built to the full arterial standard which means two lanes of traffic for each direction with a continuous center turn lane. It is assumed that improvements to the street system will occur along with the increase in growth in the area. 27. Did the study include an analysis of the level of service on the Harmony/Regency intersection? RESPONSE: No. 28. Did the study account for morning traffic on Seneca? Seneca is busy with parents and kids in the mornings. RESPONSE: Yes, the study accounted for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. 29. In my opinion, a patio home project will not have as many rentals. A patio home project will generate better drivers and be a safer traffic factor than townhomes. III. School Capacity at Johnson Elementary As a preface to the discussion on issues related to Johnson Elementary, the City Planner provided information from the School District that Johnson will be adding four classrooms (permanent, not modular) to the west side of the school. 30. Our concern is that Johnson is overcrowded. The 76 townhomes will generate more students and contribute to the overcrowding. The four new classrooms will not accommodate • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 8 this new influx. We are disappointed that the City and the School District do not seem to do a very good job of planning for student enrollments in the growing areas. If there were better communication, we wouldn't have this overcrowding problem. RESPONSE: The School District has had a copy of the original Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. since it was approved in 1987. At that time, before, the 1991 amendment, the O.D.P. anticipated a total of 878 dwelling units. After the amendment, this number was reduced to 570 for a total reduction of 308 units. 31. It would be unfair for any student to have to be transferred out of Johnson due to the influx of new students from Arapahoe Townhomes. Transferring students at this young age is traumatic. This is the age when friendships are being formed. The neighborhood school is a key ingredient in establishing neighborhood identity. Bussing students out of the neighborhood deprives the students of all the positive attributes of living near a neighborhood school. RESPONSE: It is hoped that no students have to be bussed out of the neighborhood. It is our understanding that if students live within the square mile section or the walk-in boundary area, then they have priority over students who live outside of this geographical area. Also, it is our understanding that no elementary school student can be transferred more than twice, even if the boundaries are redrawn as the result of a new school opening up. 32. What generates more elementary students - patio homes or townhomes? RESPONSE: Although we do not have the precise multipliers, we do know that traditional single family housing generates the most students per household, followed by patio homes, followed by townhomes and multi-family. 33. I am concerned about diversity in our schools. I am afraid that our schools are becoming too homogeneous. Diversity is a positive attribute in public schools. 34. The developer and the Planning and Zoning Board should know that Johnson Elementary School is presently a three-track school (three classes per grade) with a current enrollment of 576 students. This is over capacity. For example, the recommended capacity of a four-track elementary school is only 546. The four new classrooms being added will not classify Johnson as a four-track school. Capacity at Johnson remains a critical issue in determining the impact of Arapahoe Townhomes on our neighborhood. 35. When the City Planning Department looks at providing a mix of density and housing types, what is the geographical area? RESPONSE: In a general sense, the Planning Department considers each square mile section of the City to be eligible for providing the mix envisioned by the Land Use Policies Plan. For • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 9 example, each square mile should be served by an elementary school, neighborhood park, collector streets, commercial area, employment opportunities, public transit, and a mix of residential densities. In a more specific sense, each large acreage O.D.P. is asked to meet the policies with review by the Planning and Zoning Board. IV. Compatibility/Mitigation/Blending V. Greenbelt Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave a brief presentation regarding the mitigation concepts being considered for the greenbelt area that separates Arapahoe Farm Townhomes from Regency Park Second Filing. 36. As adjoining property owners, we are concerned with the quality of whatever goes in on Parcel 1C. This includes high quality construction materials. It is also very important that the units not be overpowering but residential in scale with a high diversity in appearance. Too much repetition will detract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood. If there is not enough variety, then the project will appear to be too massive and out of scale. RESPONSE: These are good comments. 37. We would like the addresses of the other James Company projects. We are prepared to travel to Boulder County to inspect these projects. RESPONSE: We will provide a list of other James Company projects. 38. Please keep in mind that it doesn't matter what materials are used. The townhome units will never be compatible in price with our homes. 39. The consultants should know that most of us to the east in Regency Park are not fond of six foot high stockade fences. Please do not attempt to buffer our homes with an unattractive fence. RESPONSE: We agree and are pleased that most of the adjacent owners have not fenced in their yards with six foot stockade fencing. We will not attempt to rely on fencing for buffering. Rather, we are leaning toward a combination of distance, berms, and a mix of landscape materials so that the buffer area is aesthetically pleasing and not a harsh fence. 40. The developer's consultants are asked to continue the brick fencing along Harmony Road into the Arapahoe Farm Townhome site. This would help the project blend in with the neighborhood. The brick fence also acts as a good sound bather from Harmony Road. • • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 10 RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that the fence was constructed in anticipation of Regency Park developing in accordance with the 1986 O.D.P. which called for multi-family in the area west of Regency Drive. After the fence was constructed, the O.D.P. was amended to single family with the result being Regency Park Second Filing. The developer would rather not continue the fence as this would tend to "wall-off" the project. Instead, the Harmony Road streetscape might be more attractive with an open appearance that features a generous amount of landscape material. 41. Why can't the townhomes take direct access from Harmony Road? RESPONSE: Direct access from individual projects onto the City's arterial streets is strongly discouraged by the Transportation Department as this defeats the purpose of controlling access at the collector street intersections. The objective is to keep arterial traffic flowing as efficiently as possible by limiting access points. 42. The consultants should keep in mind that Regency Park sits slightly lower than Arapahoe Farm. This difference in grade must be accounted for to help mitigate building mass and height. RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The buffering plan will rely on the use of berms to mitigate the difference in grade. This will raise the height of landscape materials, even before maturity. 43. We believe that 37 feet is too narrow for effective buffering between the Regency and Arapahoe Farm Townhomes. 44. Are there any minimum standards for greenbelts? RESPONSE: No, under the P.U.D. system, the design of the greenbelt is not prescriptive. The buffering is a function of land use intensity, building height, building mass, etc. The L.D.G.S. asks that each P.U.D. provide custom designed buffering with input from the affected property owners. This allows for better solutions than to follow prescriptive buffers that cannot possible anticipate every unique situation. 45. As adjacent property owners, we do not want to be over powered by massive roofs. The roof lines are key and must be aesthetic. Wood shake shingles are preferred because of the upscale appearance. RESPONSE: Keep in mind that the fronts of the units will face Regency Park, not the rears. This is the attractive side with cars and garages being served internally and blocked from view. We believe the long sloping roof line is attractive and lends a residential character. The developer is very concerned about using wood shake because of cost, insurance concerns, and concerns from the Poudre Fire Authority. • • Arapahoe Townhomes PUD Second Neighborhood Mtg. Minutes Page 11 46. Will there be brick on the exterior? RESPONSE: Yes, there will some brick on the exterior but most of the exterior will be traditional residential-looking lap siding. 47. Can the Regency Park homeowners help write the covenants? RESPONSE: This request will be forwarded to Mr. Postle. 48. Why not delete the two 6-plexes closest to Regency? RESPONSE: The loss of 12 units cannot be absorbed by the project. 49. One of our neighbors had their home up for sale with a contract. The contract purchaser heard about the proposed development and canceled the contract. This is of grave concern that the market would react so decisively about single family next to multi-family. RESPONSE: This is an unfortunate circumstance. Please keep in mind that this project is in the preliminary stage and there will likely be revisions before it comes up for final consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board. There are numerous examples in the City of Fort Collins where single family and townhome units exist in close proximity without a loss in property values. 50. The townhomes should reflect the value of the surrounding area. 51. One way to integrate into the neighborhood would be to construct neighborhood facilities that would benefit the area. The James company is encouraged to consider adding a pool, clubhouse, tennis courts etc, that could be used by the adjoining residents. RESPONSE: The project is not large enough to support construction of such facilities. 52. Are the water and sewer plans available for public review? RESPONSE: Yes, all plans are available for public review. 53. We will need to see a landscape plan prior to the P & Z meeting on December 13, 1993. RESPONSE: Revised plans will be made available as soon as they are submitted to the Planning Department. 411 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Arapahoe Farms Townhomes Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: October 18, 1993 DEVELOPER: Mr. Jim Postle, James Company CONSULTANT: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins The meeting began with a description of the proposal by Mr. Ward and Mr. Postle. The request is for 76 townhomes on 10 acres of vacant land located between Harmony Road and Seneca Street. This parcel is part of the Arapahoe Farm Overall Development Plan. Regency Park Second Filing is located adjacent to the east. Hilburn Drive, a local street, is stubbed to the property line from the east. The P.U.D. proposal will not include this street continuing west into the proposed project. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. We are concerned that we bought our house based on the Arapahoe Farm Overall Development Plan which was approved in 1987 . At that time, this parcel was designated as "Patio Homes" . How did it go from "Patio Homes" to "Townhomes"? RESPONSE: The Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. was amended in 1991. The amendment was brought forward by G.T. Land, the property owner, and Woodcraft Homes, developers of The Overlook and The Gates at Woodridge subdivisions. The purpose of the amendment was to provide additional single family land area for Woodcraft Homes. Other changes included adding "Multi-Family" as an alternate use on the subject 10 acre site. 2 . We are not sure we would have purchased our home if the townhomes were already in place. Had we known there would have been townhomes, we could have made a more informed decision on whether or not to choose this neighborhood. 3 . What will happen to our property values if townhomes come in next to our upscale single family neighborhood? RESPONSE: In other neighborhoods, townhomes do not appear to have a negative impact on property values. 4 . Will there be covenants and a homeowner' s association to maintain the common areas? 411 RESPONSE: Yes, there will be covenants and a homeowner' s association. The covenants, however, have not been drafted at this time. Our company has used covenants in the past and they are usually prepared by our attorney much later in the process. 5. The project is too dense. With 76 units, there will be too • much traffic on Seneca which serves two schools. This M concentration of traffic next to two schools will be dangerous. RESPONSE: Seneca is a collector street whose function is to collect traffic from the surrounding local streets and feed the traffic onto the arterial (Harmony Road) at certain controlled intersections. As a collector, the width of the street is wider than a local street in anticipation of heavier traffic. 6. Will there be a traffic analysis to determine if this project is feasible? Who performs this analysis? RESPONSE: Yes, a traffic study is in progress and will be available for review when the project is submitted. The traffic study is performed by a private consultant and is reviewed by the City' s Transportation Department. 7. There is already overcrowding at Johnson Elementary School. This project will only make it worse. RESPONSE: The school district has had the Arapahoe Farm, Mountain Ridge Farm, and Regency Park master plans since at least 1987. As with many neighborhoods, there will the usual spikes and dips in enrollment. The school district assigns a lower student generation rate for townhome housing than single family housing. The lag time between the planning process and the actual demand on the school could be six to twelve months which will give the district time to plan accordingly. Also, all 76 units will take a few months to fill up so the impact will not be felt all at once. 8. We would not have bought here if we had known that 76 townhomes would be built on that site. 9. What are the price ranges and sizes of the units? RESPONSE: The outside units will range from 1, 300 to 1, 400 square feet with an estimated price of $125, 000. Interior units will be about 1,200 square feet in size with an estimated price ranging from $90, 000 to $100, 000. 10. Your project does not make sense. Who would pay such high prices for such a small amount of square footage, with no private yard? RESPONSE: Our market research indicates that this would be an attractive product for professionals, empty nesters, etc. and folks who enjoy townhome living. _ IIM 11. The land area is too small for the number of units. The project- looks too dense. The units look like they are jammed in. The result is that the proposal is a poor fit for the existing neighborhood. 4. RESPONSE: The developer feels that this project is of high quality with attractive architecture that will complement the existing neighborhood. 12. The prices are not comparable to our existing homes. This will lower our property values. RESPONSE: The townhomes are clearly not single family homes and therefore, are not intended to compete with existing homes. This is a different style of residential living which is not intended to duplicate traditional single family homes on individual lots. 13 . The project is too dense. Therefore, the project is not compatible with the surrounding area. The project is an insensitive intrusion into the neighborhood. 14 . The project does not seem to consider the safety issue due to the proximity of two schools. Seneca is used heavily by parents who are dropping off or picking up students. This traffic is often not generated by our neighborhood but by drivers who live outside our area. This project will only add to the congestion and cause safety problems. 15. We prefer patio homes over townhomes. Patio homes would be more compatible with our neighborhood. 16. It is recognized that the developer is allowed to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word. Most of us work for companies that try real hard to make a profit. The project looks positive with good architectural design. I do not believe this project will negatively impact our property values. This type of housing will add a level of diversity to our neighborhood. 17. What percentage of the units will become rental? RESPONSE: This is impossible to predict. 18. What is the timeframe for development? Will the project be developed in phases? RESPONSE: The project would be developed in three phases. Anticipated build-out is projected to take 18 months. 19. The plan proposes that Hilburn Drive will not be extended west into the property. When will this be finalized? RESPONSE: This would become final upon the action of the Planning and Zoning Board at the time of consideration for Final P.U.D. 110 Please be aware that the City Planning Department is advocating that a sidewalk connection be maintained in lieu of a public street. 20. Will the new section of Harmony Road have landscaped medians? RESPONSE: Yes, there will be medians in Harmony for a short segment only near the intersection with Seneca Street. 21. Will there be turn lanes on the old Harmony Road for safety purposes? RESPONSE: We are waiting for the traffic impact analysis to verify what is needed on both a short term and long term basis. 22 . What kind of roof shingles will you use? Our neighborhood features cedar shake shingles as the dominant roof. This is an upscale roofing material. We prefer cedar shake shingles. RESPONSE: We are considering using a high profile asphalt shingle that provides a shadow line. This is similar to the roofing in The Overlook subdivision. This roof comes with a 30-year warranty. 23 . Will your covenants cover junk cars? RESPONSE: Keep in mind that there are city ordinances that will provide a standard level of care and maintenance. Our covenants will go beyond this level and set up a governing system to take care of violations. 24 . Are you providing enough parking spaces? We do not want overflow parking to spill onto Seneca Street. RESPONSE: We are providing three parking spaces per unit. This exceeds city code which mandates a minimum of 1. 75 parking spaces per unit (for two bedroom units) . Parking for our residents should be accommodated on the site. There may be instances, however, where guests may need to park on Seneca on a temporary basis. 25. What is the roof height? RESPONSE: The height is two stories. The roof will be a 6/12 pitch with the ends coming down lower to create an interesting roof line. 26. What is the setback on the east? RESPONSE: The buildings on the east are angled. The closest point to the homes in Regency is 37 feet. 27 . What is the buffer area treatment? RESPONSE: This has not been decided upon yet. Options to consider are fencing, landscaping, berming, or any combination. 411 28 . Will you continue the fencing along Harmony Road? RESPONSE: No, we are not planning to fence the frontage along Harmony Road. This frontage will be landscaped. 29. Will parking be allowed on Harmony Road? RESPONSE: No, the Citydoes not allow parking on arterial streets. 30. Will garages face Regency? RESPONSE: No, the garages face northwest. 31. The pretty pictures are deceiving. A townhome of 1, 200 square feet that costs $90, 000 to $100, 000 is not a good deal for the consumer. This kind of product is not competitive in the market place. Buyers can purchase a single family home for that price. The market analysis is flawed. 32 . We are concerned the townhomes will become cheap housing and lower our property values. RESPONSE: This has not been the case in other neighborhoods. 33 . Is it townhomes or nothing? Will James Company consider patio homes or single family homes? RESPONSE: This is what we prefer at this time. We think we can make a profit with this product. If we cannot make a profit, we will not develop the property. 34 . Why not build larger homes at a lower density? RESPONSE: Again, our market analysis has found a demand in the market place for this housing type. 35. Has James Company done any other townhome projects that we can go look at? RESPONSE: Yes, we are currently building a project in Lafayette on South Boulder Road and we did a project in Boulder County in the Gunbarrel neighborhood called Fountain Greens. The project that we are proposing here is more upscale than the one in Lafayette. We have been developers/builders in Boulder County for the last -20 years. Recently our emphasis has been on single family homes, but the market for multi-family is getting stronger. 36. Are you willing to lower the density of the project? RESPONSE: We feel the project is attractive with the present level of density. The garages are located in rear and served by driveways. The units do not have a "row look" to them. The architecture is appealing. We are looking for a response from the Planning and Zoning Board based on townhomes. 37 . What are the stormwater drainage patterns? RESPONSE: The site is divided into two drainage basins. On the northeast, the site drains towards Seneca, into a drain line, and feeds into the detention pond east of the church. On the 4 southwest, the site drains toward the swale along Harmony Road. These flows also drain east. Although the engineering has not been fully worked out, there may a requirement that some of the storm flows be detained on the site. 38 . The project needs more design, more variety. RESPONSE: We are willing to look at things that improve the project. We cannot, however, go beyond the point where the project is not financially feasible. 39. What will be the landscaping along Harmony Road? Will it blend with Regency? RESPONSE: We will not be constructing a brick wall. Rather, the landscaping will be more reflective of the Woodridge P.U.D. with the use of boulders, low berms, and street trees. 40. What will happen on the vacant corner of Harmony and Seneca? RESPONSE: That is Parcel 1D of the Arapahoe Farm Overall Development Plan and is designated as "Convenience Center" . 41. Does James Company own the ground? RESPONSE No, the ground is under contract from G.T. Land, Colorado, Inc. 42 . The units should be larger to blend in with Regency. Patio homes are preferred. 43 . There needs to be more greenbelt on the east. I do not want to be 37 feet away from six new neighbors. 44 . Could the two six-plexes next to Regency be reduced to four- plexes? This would increase the setback area. RESPONSE: This will be considered. 45. What is the density per acre? RESPONSE: 7. 5 dwelling units per acre. 46. Will their be a clubhouse and/or pool? RESPONSE: No. 47. Are the sale prices firm? RESPONSE: Sale prices could fluctuate based on the estimates we receive from contractors and material suppliers. 48 . Will the density go up as the project evolves? - RESPONSE: No, we plan on submitting a Preliminary P.U.D. for 76 townhomes. 49 . It is difficult to make a left turn out onto Harmony Road. When will Harmony be routed up to County Road 38E? RESPONSE: The timing depends on the rate of development in the Woodridge P.U.D. The road will not be built unless there is new development to be served. 50. Will we be able to review the quality of construction? RESPONSE: Yes, exterior elevations are available to be reviewed. 51. Who has final authority on this project? RESPONSE: Ultimately, the City Council has final authority. The Planning and Zoning Board has authority to approve, modify, or deny a P.U.D. Its decision stands unless appealed up to the Council level . 52 . There appears to be too much roof. The roof seems to dominate the project. RESPONSE: We designed the roof so that it would reach down as low as possible. We feel this is desirable and helps mitigate the two story height. 53 . Will construction traffic use Seneca? RESPONSE: Yes. 54 . The project will generate too much traffic for our neighborhood. RESPONSE: The traffic analysis will be submitted to the City's Transportation Department for review. Please keep in mind that there are other multi-family developments in Fort Collins that are located at the corner of an arterial and collector street. 55. Who would buy a $120, 000 townhome with no amenities? RESPONSE: The site is not large enough to support amenities. 56. This project is not compatible. We prefer less density. There should be more variety in the building style. We are concerned about the greenbelt not being wide enough. 4 57. The project needs a lot of revision before it can be considered to blend in with the neighborhood. As shown, the project does not blend in. • • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 22, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Bernie Strom, Jan Cotticr, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Chairman Jim Klataskc was absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson- Clark, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Ke❑ Waido, and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - MInutes of the February 25, and April 1, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - Knickers(Louden Creek Golf Course)- Preliminary,*10-91;Item 3- Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm - Amended Master Plan, *55-87A; Item 4 - Pineview PUD, Tract C - 2 Year Extension - *76-81D; Item 5 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, First Filing - *11-91A; Item 6 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, Second Filing - *11-91A. Staff pulled item 3, Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm, Amended Master Plan for discussion. Member O'Dell moved to approve consent items 1,2,4,5, and 6. Member Cottler seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. ARAPAHOE/MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM- AMENDED MASTER PLAN. CASE *55-87A, Ted Shepard, project planner gave the staff report on the project Eldon Ward, applicant, Cityscape Urban Design, stated rather that make a presentation he would respond to the Board's questions. Member O'Dell stated that at their worksession on Friday, when they looked at this, several Board members expressed concern about the proposed location of the neighborhood convenience center. Her main concern was that alot of kids that go to Webber Jr. High and the elementary school will want to go to the convenience center and that would entail crossing an arterial, Harmony Road. She would like to see it closer to the schools or at least on the other side of Harmony Road. Mr. Ward responded that on the old master plan, it was on the other side of Harmony Road. The reasons that it moved across the street,working with the staff over the past couple of years on the exact alignment of Harmony Road, Seneca and working around the existing Fort Collins/Loveland Water District line that runs through there and also parcel 1-C a number of types of uses that they have looked at in there, which are things like patio homes or possibly some retirement housing. They have typically had people who want 9 or 10 acres for that kind of a program. With the realignment of Harmony Road,if the convenience center remained on the other side of the street they were down to about 6 1/2 or 7 acres. It was also the common l wish of Woodcraft homes who was going to be doing a large portion of the single family and GT Land, Arapahoe Farm Inc. that they keep 10 acres on the other side. That was the logic in moving it over there. They looked at it in terms of how access would work and it was always awkward at the corner of an arterial on a collector, particularly when you are trying to avoid the back fences of single family, which is a major difficulty on a major street, much less the corner of two. They also had about a 3 and 1/2 acres difficult triangular area there and from the site planning point of view it did not seem to make sense to shift that over. They had also have gotten some input from people who have had the opposite logic that they just as soon have it a little further from the Jr. High as to not make it so attractive to the kids in that age group. With the considerations they had to deal with, they showed it on the southwest side of Harmony. Member Strom stated his concern had to do with the access. Looking at the parcel and the configuration of the parcel, they had given away the property line that runs into that intersection. He was concerned with the fact that it appears to him that they have with the median.on Harmony, they have a right-in/right-out on Harmony and all they. have on Seneca was a stretch of maybe 50 to 75 feet maximum which is too close to an arterial to put a curb cut in for Seneca access. • Mr. Ward replied that the graphic was an amendment to the old plan that was done before the final geometry was done on Harmony and Seneca. Actually in working out that geometry they made sure that they had a little over 200 feet of frontage on Senecca from Harmony south. When he talked to Mr.Shepard on Friday afternoon,after the access question came up, he went back and looked at some of the things they had done for access. He did pull out a little concept that they had done of the convenience center on how access would work, it has not been formally submitted but would share that with them if they Board was interested. They have met with the traffic department on that and they have the alignment of Seneca and Harmony as such that the main full movement access would be off of Seneca about 200 feet south of Harmony Road and then a right-in/right-out off of Harmony into the center. Member Strom stated he was concerned that there was something of that nature in the file or a note on a plan something to the effect that they were going to deal with that issue. Mr. Ward replied that if was not specifically noted on the plan but we could add a note but that was part of the discussion with staff when they were finalizing the geometry of Harmony and Senecca. Member Cotticr asked if there was any thought to putting the convenience center at the southern tip of parcel 1-B. Taking it out of that single family area instead of 1-F, because that would solve the problem of kids having to cross Harmony to get there and regardless of how people hope it is further away so kids won't go there, the kids will go there. Mr. Ward replied there would be a crossing guard at Seneca and Harmony with there discussions with the school district. Mr. Ward also replied they had looked at that but that corner does lend itself a little better to single family lot lay out because it is more squarish and less pointed. They have a preliminary plan in the process and Woodcraft homes is looking at beginning their first cul-de-sac in that area,and when you do detailed plans the single family worked a little better. If they determine that they need to move the convenience center to the other side of Harmony Road, it would be easier to work it into 1-C rather that I-B. Jan Godshalk, 1692 S. Julianna, Loveland stated they were having a house built in Regency Park and wanted to recommend to the Board that they specify on the multi-family area that • • they specify patio homes rather than condos or apartments which would add to the traffic congestion in that area. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Ward to reply to Ms. Godshalks concern about the patio homes, she saw on the site plan that it was proposed to be ten dwelling units per acre. Mr. Ward replied that 10 was the maximum. Member O'Dell asked where in the scheme of things did he see the timing for that to be built. Mr. Ward replied that if any thing happens there in the next three years it would be patio home, retirement housing, four to six unit per acre type of project. They have not seen anything that would make them think a high density multi family market would be viable there in the next three years or so. It is a large project and is hard to tell how long it will take to build out. Staff has expressed concerns about the extent that they were lowering the density and not keeping a bigger mix of housing types in the area. The owner always wants to keep that flexibility also. He thought that the preference to do a patio home, retirement housing type of project there but not knowing the timing and with the desire to keep the ability for a bigger mix of units. They left the alternative for 10 units per acre. Member O'Dell asked what kind of buffering there would be between Regency Park, would it be green space, fences? Mr. Ward replied that it would be a combination of both. It would be proportionate to the density that goes onto 1-C. Member Strom asked for the sketch to be entered into the record. His concern with the convenience center was mainly with access and not boxing ourselves in in the future. If we have the potential for the access according to City standards, he did not particularly have a problem with that location. Member O'Dell wanted to reiterate her concern that even if you have the convenience store farther away from the school because they are still going to go there and having several elementary school children it is a really attractive place to go.Kids go to school early, kids stay late after school and there was not always going to be a crossing guard there so she was not sure if the Board was to go so far as to tell you to move it but warned to be cautious and hoped he would take that into consideration. Mr. Ward suggested that obviously they wanted to get the master plan approved and because of the Woodcraft Homes plans to move ahead with their project was for them to approve the amendment to the master plan and they could go back to the owners and all the parties involved and revisit that question and report back to them again next month with the preliminary plan if further amendment was valid or perhaps they might be a little bit more prepared to explain why it isn't. Member O'Dell asked if anyone had talked to the principals at Webber Jr High or Johnson Elementary about this issue. Mr. Ward replied no they have not. Mr. Shepard replied that he had not either. Mr. Ward replied that there was not a representative from the school district at the meeting either. Mr. Ward replied they had met with Carol Agee about getting students to and from the elementary school but they had not spoken directly with anyone at the Jr. High. Member Carrol asked if they could approve the master plan with the exception of parcels 1-F and I-C. Mr. Peterson replied that they could do that, they would just be facing an application in a month or so to finalize the issue. He did not sec any reason they could not do it. Member Strom stated that they were more or less in agreement that it was appropriate that there be a convenience center parcel at this intersection. One way to go would be that they could approve it with the particular corner of the intersection to be designated as a convenience center to be resolved in the near future. Ken Waido, planner, stated that their will be a neighborhood shopping center in this section eventually. The neighborhood shopping center, if it develops anything like the existing neighborhood shopping centers, will have a grocery store other types of shops and probably some fast food restaurants. In total, that shopping center will be far more attractive for the students to visit than a convenience center would be because a neighborhood shopping center will probable contain some fast food restaurants. The convenience center would be attractive to students in that way and whether they live on either side of Harmony Road they will get ti the convenience center. Overall the neighborhood shopping center would be a much greater draw for the students in the area. Mr. Ward stated that one of the positive aspects of the Guidance System was to make the decisions when you have a real plan to decide upon. What if we were to just label the other side of the street as an alternative site with language on the plan that the chosen location would be determined in conjunction with a number, of things including the Jr. High School demand and he was assuming that, if it was the Boards desire, that it would be a better location on the other side of the street that the fact was it hurt them on the point chart. Now they were within 3/4 mile of the neighborhood center and if it has a convenience center then they have a problem on the point chart. He could label the other side of the street as an alternative location and put a requirement on the master plan that the final location determined, consider the factors that the Board has brought up tonight. They were kind of dealing in a vacuum until they had a specific set of users in a convenience center anyway as far as which side of the street it should be on. Member O'Dell stated that on the issue of patio homes versus multi family homes, she felt fine about the density mix that they had determined as 10 dwelling units per acre. She also felt confident that when a specific plan comes to them that they would look at buffering and set backs depending on the density that was proposed at that time. Member Cottier stated that the suggestion of showing an alternative location for the convenience center was good. According to all of their guidelines for convenience centers, this was an appropriate location for it. They were not saying take it away, but the concern was safety in crossing Harmony Road. She thought Mr. Waido's point was good but the neighborhood center that was a half a mile there probably isn't going to happen for a long time. Probably long after the convenience center is in. Member Cottier moved for approval of the amended master plan with the notation suggested by Mr. Ward that an alternative site for the convenience center be shown on parcel 1-C. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. La • • Mr.Shepard asked if they wanted the applicant to come back next month and address this issue. Member Cottier stated she would include that in the motion. Motion passed 6-0. EA T IDE WET I s RE •NIN # 7-9s Member Cottier abstaine A from participating in this item due o a conflict of interest. Ken Waido stated that two 'terns were still on the table it/em by the Planning and Zoning Board. They de with the Riverside Shoppi g Center area of the East Side Neighborhood Area Plan whi h is shown on the map as es ntially the whole Riverside Avenue frontage from Mountain Ave e on the north to just so th of East Myrtle on the south. What was colored on the map was t e areas that were suggested to be looked at and potentially rezoned to limited business w hin the East Side Neighborhood Plan. It consists of 58 properties, 57 of them are zone• .C-Commercial as one property at the end of East Oak is currently zoned R-H, High Densi Residential. The second item was the property a 426-428 Maple which is on this map as part of the West Side Neighborhood. Everything in ctlor was currently zoned C-Commercial. At the present time it is recommend for various zoni.gs according to the West Side Neighborhood Plan. On February 25th the Board did reach cons nsus'and vote to recommend 5 components of the East Side/West Side Neighborhood Rezoning oject to the City Council in terms of review of those 5 components, the first one was the creati r of three new zoning districts, N-C-L,N-C-M, N-C- B and the placement of new zoning district\boundaries within the neighborhood; the rezoning of the Riverside Shopping Center area/to General Business; amendments to the R-M and R-H residential zoning districts; amendments to the B-L and B-G zoning districts; and expanded coverage of the R-C, River Corrido Zone. 'Riverside Avenue has been an issue since the rezonings were first brought to thlpublic back in June of 1990. Staff developed several options for the Boards consideration in looking at the original recommendation for Limited Business as contained in the East Side Plan. Thatzone was first suggested in the Plan because it dots limit uses that would be a/lowed in the area. It could eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for land use conflict within the neighborhood and the second reason was that the B-L zone contained screening d landscaping requirements that were currently absent in the C-Commercial zone. In staffs eview of that, it seems'the second reason was just as important as the first. That there was desire on behalf of the`neighborhood to see something done in term of better landscape tr tments, making the area re aesthetically pleasing. The options for consider ion, Staff has added a new sixth option, there are seven total. 1. Leave it zoned coma dal. 2. Rezone it to Limite Business. 3. Leave it zoned C, u place a PUD condition on it. 4. Leave it zoned C, lit require certain uses to go through some type of special review or PUD review processes. 5. Rezone it to Li Uted Business but add certain Commercial uses into the B-L. zone. 6. Leave it zon a C-Commercial but require screening such as the types of screening requirements th %exist within the Limited Business zone. Walls and landscaping to be placed • ITEM NO. 3 MEETLNG DATE 4/22/97 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Amended Master Plan, #55-87B APPLICANT: G.T. Land Colorado Inc. , c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3030 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: G.T. Land Colorado Inc. 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Master Plan to change the areas and distribution of single family, multi-family, and business service uses on parcels 1-C, 1-F, 1-G, and 1-H, and to indicate the re-alignment of Harmony Road. The changes pertain only to the Arapahoe Farm portion of the Master Plan which consists of 160 acres located at the northeast corner of Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road. The parcel is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The amended Master Plan primarily reduces the number of multi- family units in favor of single family. Similarly, commercial floor area is downsized from a typical neighborhood center to a neighborhood convenient shopping center. Harmony Road is re- aligned to intersect with County Road 38E rather than at the present intersection. A bikeway is added within a drainage way for off-street access to the schools. The land uses remain mixed and the amended plan continues to meet the City' s Goals and Objectives and Land Use Policies Plan. The amended plan also remains compatible with the surrounding area, including the newly developed Regency Park. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins.CO 80522-0580(303)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 110 • Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm Amended Master Plan, #55-87B April 22 , 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: County; Existing single family (Imperial Estates) RP; Proposed single family (Seneca PUD) RE; Existing single family (Skyline Acres) S: County; Undeveloped E: RLP; Proposed single family (Four Seasons) RLP; Existing single family (Willow Park, Woodlands) RLP; Johnson Elementary School and Webber Junior High School RLP; Existing single family (Regency Park) W: County; Existing single family (Taft Canyon) The property was annexed into the city as part of the Horsetooth- Harmony West Annexation, June 3 , 1980. The original Master Plan was approved on October 26, 1987 . 2 . Description of the Proposed Chancres: A. The Youth Sports Park (Parcel 1-B) has been deleted from the Master Plan as an alternative use. This deletion is in response to a lack of interest by the City Parks and Recreation Department in acquiring this particular site. B. Parcel 1-F has decreased in size from 44 acres to 40 acres. The land use designation changes from Multi-family at an estimated 12 dwelling units per acre to Single Family at an estimated density of 3 . 5 dwelling units per acre. C. Parcel 1-G has increased in size from 12 acres to 25 acres. The land use designation changes from Business Services with approximately 100, 000 square feet of gross commercial floor area to Single Family with an estimated density of 3 . 6 dwelling units per acre. D. Parcel 1-H is newly created and contains 5 acres. The land use designation is Business Services with approximately 50, 000 square feet of gross commercial floor area. E. Parcel 1-C changes from a land use designation of Patio Homes at six dwelling units per acre, to Multi-Family at 10 dwelling units per acre. • 4 Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm Amended Master Plan, #55-87B April 22 , 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 3 F. The location of the water pump station for the Fort Collins Loveland Water District has been relocated from the northeast side of the re-aligned Harmony Road to the southwest side. G. The layout of the new alignment of Harmony Road has been further refined. H. A bicycle/pedestrian path has been designated following the natural drainage swale that runs from west to east, from Taft Hill Road to Webber Junior High School. I. Parcel 1-D, designated as a 3 . 5 acre convenience center, has been shifted from the northeast corner of Harmony and Seneca to the southwest corner. Overall, the total number of dwelling units has decreased from 1, 304 to 996 for a net loss of 308 dwelling units. The total amount of gross commercial floor area has decreased from 170, 000 square feet to 125, 020 square feet for a net loss of 44 , 980 square feet. In conclusion, the changes apply to the Arapahoe Farm portion only. The Mountain Ridge Farm portion remains unchanged. 3 . Land Use: The reduction in multi-family units reflects a lack of market demand in southwest Fort Collins for multi-family housing. The reduction in commercial floor area reflects the change in anticipated commercial needs from the larger neighborhood center to the mid-sized neighborhood convenience shopping center. The Master Plan still retains a mixed use flavor. Multi-family housing is located closer to the arterial streets while single family is concentrated towards the interior with proximity to the two schools. Commercial areas remain at the strategic intersections. The addition of a west to east bike path provides an opportunity for off-street access to the school sites. The residential densities exceed the three dwelling units per acre recommended by the Land Use Policies Plan. The land use mix is also consistent with the City's Goals and Objectives and Land Use Policies Plan. 4 . Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 28, 1991 at Webber Junior High School. Since the original Master Plan was approved in 1987, Regency Park (single family homes) developed. Most of the S Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm Amended Master Plan, #55-87B April 22 , 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 4 neighborhood concerns were with the timing of Harmony Road and Seneca Street extensions, impact on the existing schools, traffic in the neighborhood, and proper drainage. In general, the proposed amendments were found to be compatible with the surrounding area. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is attached. 5. Transportation: The proposed alignments of Harmony Road and Seneca Street conform to the City' s Master Plan. The old alignment of Harmony will be vacated when the new alignment is completed. A proposed underpass at the re-aligned Harmony Road for the bikeway is being investigated to relieve the conflicts of school children having to cross an arterial street. Final details of the underpass will be resolved at subsequent phases of the development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments to the existing Master Plan are consistent with the City' s Goals and Objectives and Land Use Policies Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Amended Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Master Plan. • ,.•iAFT ANYONE I I I I _ - TAFT HILL ROAD - -s ` 0 11 Li= 0 * ;I(": 1 >10 I 1 i!/ • / mn ;,gym -< ....y o „_________1 I._ j°0 ...._ 4. I_.g 0 III gi , 7, . j• HARMONY RO e. \ ; NI;o ) ./ oou a 4�i: .'?- m lg el i D 1. 1 , a. p r ff s o GG'f _ •yp ' � ! t (:;.,.... ...______I rtlIiii o �IC� o S 1 : 6 i- aI hip— ` /; _ V -'$.\a Q Jt', I III i • e\ -0� .P) I . .0, li i A 4....... :=-3 - mgn E r 1 !'', 1 :I k NI)'//1 1: .. . ..(.. -4‘):::c° .\! `"/N4Irile 14 \ . '1::k-- . r(lp �- N ` a (1 ., * :5 )1,4 i E - .\Ili:. - _. —— y\:1. 1 SOUTH SI-SELDS t I! LW° `---FOUR SEASONS-, � ‘--WILLOW P, 1 i --- I---g i� � IPpp iI#;17p]77�g�IlIIIIII'73E�,g I ;f`�,'115 2 SSi IS liiiiiliii i 2 t t ••S"It t } I . 'pp! -.r jg-tl ett Its E f "`rI s 9 tiq , rr }• t "i tg°S !P t4P Ili -t ! gI t " S • t ' t ! ? +!"•�-;t 71, .•f n. -r.s ttr ei[[ ((t}!{ftfiti;ii +3s� e r 4 " �77 11 �E4� 11�! r �a(��c^t�y{ 1 Ili Y E}.1 IS I:1• 't } I t I.. r�c�l qI( lI[�s.i "rt , aft g E, - /sl-` i ._!;.� }--( ,f,.r•7.: `i .r I i ',I rr- ;1 t II}} iti lrtErit i F:•} # g I E+, it:.=fqi�] It i 7 I nth i"7`tip!"7 ;i,It I[il 1 I�i'Il f11`tit IA } is + , r". t f tig";; f',-.t 1fIH lr I i�:I urpo°P ' t i it ' t�i.tt ]9. li9j7I': EI-E �.,� r rg .t th ili}v.. iI- i - t =-tiltp IP"°s IPI• ! .e I4�tli s f ,I P.: }I t}"tl i1 3(1 1}f}1[}}4}}[`I :� ff? r tri tt7:i• ti'•1 ai t t tI■+ °1 I t•.!�! r I. r i ti } }77!�. . +t ell fP EI- E 4 t'f`lglY�,€-*. !+ _ r�'P i + jr°•-ljlt I i] ;gai t!i !. } ( t�.I;,eg I' I �, i,� ai} € ! �It $ fI�'';' I II, a1 p 7 !'f-!r. a I! ,l,i; ie.!}1l II Hlll 4i, -, i 111 I,} i ii II7 iii!11, M i !i ::t a ilii'lg,13P til.Iifl�l�gf E" 11..l2,€gg I€.� t 4 .[ 1'i r ;Pi:1 � fi � •':- tr m g ..! , .s '+ !+-tr I o,r,P.f_i"17tr!E-.,,r, y !j( 11 '+ 'hi rli tIII III - • tPil, g t 7• 4:- (, I I1 '3 ! I, I,! }I- is I . : +ir I „„--1 t!I!t!! !4 ", gt I P-g'7f g ,., II9 �'.R .[i 1 � �-,. t I} i . . t,:'!'I , i,,,, ! ! q r a.eEig iF g E'• 'q ti�[l." I st-! 6p� 6 t '!; ill' li I,'I g ;('l } t t I,I:ii '' I=I+: .,_ .r .- 1 ii-'- f(gS,Orp1g1P111 111111gi'11 t i 1.. I}r I'I4 `!tl'i!;! It 1 r i L tr •rcrtuttlt a I•trlE,pf':17�-f+•'t" Iif 7 i ,..11 iligI It., tliili I} €'I::=1iI:: li (7!� 't i i tl Yi !; tftlit tE Wit '7`t9 iiiii4Egra-`7q.it ltillilfit N! i -..-i.-.i---i... .i E 1. r €`i'l t I ggiti1131. 4�� div! I ' 1 . . . . i lift rat �•._._ --vliniehsr . 1 z �3� suriplicain . . . . . . . . . . . . . r. -. . . uptil - 1" _ 1 It ,ilia e A �� _! Eli is �i ■:�1 �, c • um MI wm ,........4 0.,:zia, E IIMEMoirmal 1111111111111 WEIN 1112 NE 16.„..dolft-- I,. la smm........11ei....1 I . 12� .�� lift ,, ■r • �4 ` " �. , III% ,. I1I1!JIF . MM.. IMMENlic al ElliF �l • OUT ...tt ���-N .. rot ■ sue, • =mi. tttt■tt� tom , ttttt■n 1�.J1 =.! ,, . , . • li . ... .1. 11 .4 --- ---- . . ..... ..... . ..3............ . 0 , ip. viseet. m 00";all MA' .. • • . 640IIII • �at,�o�4P1 o�wir.o�liroi� • r I fj.4 4*141\e) • . . % A�� � • $ti ift IIiiI .•- -•-- 3�l y 3 • • ..7nce. -a kill Rh . 0 • m1II II , WEIo.�e RLP . ®, P• ,•I •t. �� I , ARAPAHOE FARM ITEM MASTER PLAN . NUMBER - 55 8?A 1110 III ARAPAHOE/MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM LAND USE BREAKDOWN NON-RES. FLOOR GROSS DWELLING FLOOR AREA PARCEL LAND USE AREA UNITS DENSITY AREA RATIO • 1-A Pump Station 1.0 ac units 0 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-B Single Family 70.5 ac 240 units 3.4 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-C Multi-Family 10.0 ac 100 units 10.0 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-D Convenience Retail 3.5 ac units 0 du/ac 30,000 sq ft 5.1:1 1-E Open Space 3.5 ac units 0 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-F Single Family 40.0 ac 140 units 3.5 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-G Single Family 25.0 ac 90 units 3.6 du/ac 0 sq ft 1-H Business Services 5.0 ac units 0 du/ac 50,000 sq ft . 4.4:1 2-A Single Family 8.7 ac 20 units 2.3 du/ac 20 sq ft 2-B Patio Homes 12.3 ac 72 units 5.9 du/ac 0 sq ft 2-C Single Family 12.0 ac 40 units 3.3 du/ac 0 sq ft 2-D Church 5.0 ac units 0 du/ac 45,000 sq ft 4.8:1 2-E Multi-Family 12.5 ac 150 units 12.0 du/ac 0 sq ft 2-F Multi-Family 8.3 ac 84 units 10.1 du/ac 0 sq ft 2-G Townhomes 2.7 ac 24 units 8.9 du/ac 0 sq ft 2-H Townhomes 4.4 ac 36 units 8.2 du/ac 0 sq ft TOTALS 224.4 ac 996 units 125,020 sq ft Maximum Building Height: 40' Typical Residential Open Space: 35% • Typical Nonresidential Open Space: 20% s 410 !V2CCI o e urban design, inc. ARAPAHOE FARM MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT When the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Master Plan was approved in 1987 , a number of factors contributed to the land uses and residential densities indicated on that document . A key factor was that a large portion of the site was under consideration for a City of Fort Collins community park to be primarily used as a 'Youth Sports Center'. This use would have had a significant impact on the character and potential intensity of the remaining developable area , and the Master Plan prepared at that time strived to maintain the flexibility to provide more extensive multi—family and business service development in the vicinity of the 'Youth Sports Center' , should that facility be constructed at Arapahoe Farm. Now, some three and one half years later , this site has been eliminated from consideration as a 'Youth Sports Center' , demand for a variety single family housing types has remained strong in • the area ( as witnessed by the replats in Regency Park) , the Harmony Road alignment has been better defined , and WoodCraft Homes has become actively involved in the project . All of these factors have led to the minor modifications in land use and densities proposed on the Amended Master Plan summarized below: — The maximum residential dwelling units anticipated has been decreased by over 300 , to a total of 996 . — Anticipated floor area of non—residential uses has been decreased by 40 ,000 sq . ft . +. — Areas and specific locations of land use bubbles have been amended to reflect the Harmony alignment , and WoodCraft's planned development program. • • Develo ant Services Planning Department NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES City of Fort Collins PROJECT: Arapahoe Farm Amended Master Plan and First Phase P.U.D. DATE: February 28, 1991 APPLICANT: Gary Berger, WoodCraft Homes REPRESENTATIVE:Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design PROJECT PLANNER:Ted Shepard QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS 1. How many homes will be built under the amended master plan and what is the density? RESPONSE: Approximately 432 homes at a density of 3 .5 dwelling units per acre. Proposed build-out would be over an 8 year period with roughly 50 homes built per year. 2 . What is the average cost per home? RESPONSE: There will be two areas. The east side of new Harmony Road will have homes ranging from $120, 000 to $160, 000. The west side will have homes ranging from $95, 000 to $120, 000. These estimates are subject to market conditions but that is the plan at this stage. 3 . Woodcraft is not buying all the tracts in the master plan. What are these tracts designated? RESPONSE: Woodcraft is not buying the tracts designated "Multi Family", "Open Space", and "Business Services" . 4 . When will old Harmony Road be re-aligned? RESPONSE: A new Harmony Road curb cut on old Harmony Road will be constructed with the first phase. This spur will serve the first phase only. The new Harmony will be extended incrementally as each . phase progresses. It is anticipated that when the project is about 75% built-out, the new Harmony Road will be completed to intersect with County Road 38E. At that time, the old Harmony Road will be abandoned. 1 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 • 5. We live in Imperial Estates, on Royal Drive, and are very concerned about the construction traffic that cuts through our neighborhood. Construction crews use Royal Drive as a short cut to Horsetooth Road. This raises a lot of dust and is a nuisance. A barricade needs to be put up to prevent this and force the construction traffic to use the streets instead of cutting across the open field. RESPONSE: The owner, G.T. Land, has not given permission for any construction traffic to cut across the open field. Since Royal Drive is located in the County, it is suggested that you contact the County to see about a barricade. The developer is sympathetic since barricades have a way of slowly coming down over time due to wind and abuse. During the construction of WoodCraft homes, the developer will work with contractors to try to get this problem solved. 6. Please describe the greenbelt that runs east-west. RESPONSE: This greenbelt is a drainage swale that directs storm flows from west to east into a regional detention pond. The swale may also feature a sidewalk that leads to the schools. The open space associated with the swale will vary in width but may be about 50 feet wide at a minimum. At the intersection with new Harmony Road, the swale and sidewalk, will go under the street in the form of a culvert and underpass. Final design details have not been worked out. 7 . When will Seneca be extended north to Horsetooth Road? RESPONSE: This will occur when the vacant property between Johnson School and Horsetooth road develops. 8 . Will the re-aligned Harmony Road be four lanes? RESPONSE: The current Master Street Plan shows Harmony Road to be classified as a major arterial street with six lanes at full build- out. However, the Fort Collins Area Transportation Plan is currently underway and investigating the need for a major arterial at this location. If Harmony is downgraded from major arterial to arterial, then it would have four lanes at full build-out. 9. Where will Overland Trail connect after it is extended? RESPONSE: Overland Trail will be extended south from Drake Road, and stay west of Taft Hill Road, and intersect with County Road 38E. The final alignment has not been worked out yet but concept is to stay west of the mobile home park. 2 411 10. When does WoodCraft Homes expect construction to begin? RESPONSE: We expect construction to begin in late June or early July depending on when final approvals are obtained from the City. 11. What will be the impact on the two schools with the additional students? Won't this project lead to overcrowding? RESPONSE: The students currently attending the elementary school come from a large geographical area to take advantage of the new facility. It does not make sense to build the new school and not try to fill it. As new schools are built in other areas of the City, students will be moved out to attend a school closer to their home. The Arapahoe Farm Master Plan was on record and available to school facility planners. The current master plan calls for more multi-family units than does the proposed amendment. Therefore, the impact on the schools should actually be less in terms of the number of units being served. It is anticipated that the students attending Johnson will be all walk-in with no busing. Since there is a new elementary school planned to open in southwest Fort Collins in 1992, Johnson should be able to accommodate students from Arapahoe Farm. 12 . It would be a nuisance if construction traffic were to impact the local streets. The developer should take steps to make sure construction traffic stays off Wakerobin and Regency to protect students walking to school. RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The developer will encourage all construction traffic to use the new Harmony Road entrance off old Harmony Road. This will keep traffic out of existing areas. 13 . Why would the City consider approving this project when there are subdivisions that have not built-out yet. Do we need another subdivision in Fort Collins? RESPONSE: The schedule is to build about 50 units per year. In a City of 88, 000, this is not a major impact on the housing market. All indications are that other subdivisions are doing well. The market has an ability to absorb additional supply to meet anticipated demand. The City does not currently evaluate subdivision requests based on market need as this would be an unfair restriction on the marketplace. It may be that WoodCraft Homes has a market niche, or a "better mousetrap" that will compete successfully in the marketplace. It would be very dangerous for the City to regulate the subdivisions based on market conditions. The City does not pretend to have the expertise to judge which projects will succeed and which projects will fail. The risk of making a wrong determination could affect housing choice for all consumers. This risk is best borne by the private sector. • 411 4 14 . Will there be a single builder or multiple builders? RESPONSE: WoodCraft Homes will be the only builder. 15. What will be the lot sizes? RESPONSE: The lots will range from 6, 500 to 9, 000 square feet. 16. These lot sizes seem small compared to Regency Park. If the lot sizes are incompatible, then our property values will be reduced. We 've got our life savings invested in our homes and do not want our property values jeopardized. 17. Why does the City have a 3 dwelling units per acre minimum density requirement? RESPONSE: The minimum density is designed to promote the goal of the Land Use Policies Plan that the City grow with a moderate growth rate with concentrated land use. This form was one of four possible growth scenarios that were debated by the City during the adoption of the Land Use Policies Plan. This form of growth also is the minimum at which essential services can be delivered at an efficient level. A variance procedure is available to develop below three dwelling units per acre with review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 18 . Will Arapahoe Farm be similar to WoodCraft 's project in Golden Meadows Fourth Filing? RESPONSE: Yes, with some lots and houses being smaller than in Golden Meadows Fourth Filing. 19 . How will WoodCraft compete with other subdivisions? What will be competitive about this project that will stand out to consumers? RESPONSE: Woodcraft Homes is competitive in the marketplace with price and quality. We have been in business since 1984 , many other firms have not survived these last several years. Proximity to two schools and a neighborhood park are locational advantages. 20. Will drainage and grading be designed so that the your project and Regency will blend together? I am concerned that if your project is upstream, then Regency will accept drainage which could cause problems on our properties. 4 RESPONSE: Drainage and grading will be designed to meet the City Stormwater Utility criteria. New developments are not allowed to impact adjacent developments. If the developer does not grade property according to City approved plans, then he is in violation and liable for damages. The Drainage Basin Study, on record with the City, determines the direction and flow of the natural drainage patterns. Street grades, utilities, swales, and detention ponds are sized and located to accommodate this natural drainage. 21. How are the depths of the sewer taps determined? RESPONSE: The depth of the sewer tap is determined by the minimum grade available to the sewer main and, eventually, to the sewer treatment plant. Sewer mains flow to the plant by a gravity system. Therefore, all taps and mains must be upstream of the plant. 22 . Is Arapahoe Farm "upstream" of Regency Park? RESPONSE: Yes, the grade is such that the lots in Arapahoe Farm rise about 20 feet above Regency over a certain distance. 23 . Will Hilburn Street be fixed so the grade difference is corrected? As it stands now, somebody screwed up and it looks terrible. RESPONSE: This problem will be brought to the attention of the City Engineering Department. 24 . What is the buffer treatment along Harmony Road? If this is to be a four or six lane arterial, then the homes that back onto it will need to be buffered. RESPONSE: There will be a meandering buffer along Harmony that will feature landscaping and a detached sidewalk. Fencing will be varied to minimize the "canyon effect" . There will be a mix of sideyards and backyards along Harmony. The swale/greenbelt will intersect with Harmony. Rear property lines will not be platted to the edge of the right-of-way so there will be increased setbacks to break up the streetscape. 25. Will there be traffic signals on the new Harmony Road? RESPONSE: Yes, it is likely that signals will be warranted at the intersections with County Road 38E/Taft, Seneca, and Regency. There will not be signals at the intersections with the minor streets. 5 • • 26. What happened to the Youth Sports Park? RESPONSE: The Youth Sports Park was listed as an alternative use on the Master Plan approved in 1987 . Since then, the Parks and Rec Department has lost interest in this site and is looking elsewhere. Although Parks and Rec has not yet selected a site, Arapahoe Farm has been eliminated from the selection process. 27 . How long has G.T. Land been planning the Arapahoe Farm? RESPONSE: Four years. 28. Will there be covenants? RESPONSE: It is likely there will be covenants but WoodCraft Homes has not begun to put any together yet. Writing of covenants will come later in the process. 29 . What will the typical setbacks be? RESPONSE: Front yard - 20 feet, Side yard - 5 feet interior, 15 feet corner, Rear yard - 15 feet. These are minimums. In all likelihood, rear yards will exceed the 15 foot minimum. 30. What kind of homes will be built? RESPONSE: WoodCraft will build two-story and tri-level homes, ranging in size from 1, 600 to 2 , 000 square feet. East of Harmony Road, the homes will have brick fronts and wood shake shingles. 31. Will the covenants exclude the storage of R.V. ' s, boats, and trailers on the street? RESPONSE: This is a good comment but, again, the covenants have not been drafted at this point. 32 . Will Troutman be extended from Shields with this project? It is needed now to relieve traffic during school hours. Also, is Troutman anticipated to extend to Taft? RESPONSE: No, Troutman will be extended when the land adjacent to it is developed, and Troutman is not to be extended to Taft but only to form a tee intersection with Seneca. 6 0110 33 . Will the citizens have an opportunity, through the City approval process, to comment on the covenants? RESPONSE: No, the covenants are private contractual agreements between private parties. The City can only address ordinances and policies that have been adopted by the City Council . 34 . Will our water be shut off during construction like it was for development of Regency Second Filing? This was a major inconvenience that we should not have to suffer through. RESPONSE: It is likely that this will not occur since Arapahoe Farm will be served by a separate water main. 7 • j PROJECT: f 4Pgmak P5s,Ppi TYPE OF MEETING: /UE/6H134A Haoo =„I ro/t grion) DATE: ic"A-skiv4,Y c 5 / / DID You RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION o• AR[ You AN Ye NAME ADDRESS YES. NO ? OWNER REr / - -�//�r i4;C.) PG, /,,,,'1/r ,r' /li/,.¢ 4//r C_1 S-lliAl I/�216 H, -6 •42,v CLi y4_...,:: <<� � yr C<i=c �i1 \ :k. , •ri 4-4- 1 i- (' .R i(-, 4 ) plc , NE 11 ✓Z., i rl _,Gl ' 11.-K `1 ,(� Lfc7 :. ( TDf 0G1� �i tr / 7C.).., w,1)e 0 ,\._ y I (-)--, « c r f— I y .) J Si-roc W i gl7"Z -39-21 afk 1'c-B t�_ ti4I , ,- ,1,,, ,, 4'C_ -9 V� , C' CI c,,, k L./4- , (,_ , 1 /,,- L f Ll C6 C/"w>g ,l�j', ,, ,, t..G yi-d� Ci`01-J ;4 °R-^ ' CAeY 6elest-7e, 111 • Develor ant Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins April 9, 1991 Dear Resident: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Monday, April, 22, 1991*, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers**, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on a proposed project in your neighborhood. The proposed project is commonly known as Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm - Amended Master Plan, #55-87A. The applicant is requesting to amend the original 224.4 acre master plan for a mixed use development, located at the northeast corner of Harmony and Taft Hill Roads and zoned rlp, - low density planned residential. Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Planning Staff consider your input on this matter, as well as your neighbor's input, an extremely important element in the City's review of this proposal. If you are unable to attend this public hearing, written comments are welcome. This letter has been sent as a courtesy to all property owners of record within the area based on current County Assessor's records. If you should have questions or require further information about this item, please feel free to contact me at 221-6750. Sincerely, e oft Ted Shepard Project Planner TS/gjt * Please note that if the April 22nd meeting runs past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items will be continued to Monday, April 29, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. ** This meeting is fully accessible to handicapped persons. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 • .. ..,. ......-,,..v.:µ-wrnt:s_g.+asr.?•:.h- �:r- ::,.n+..rc: �,.r._ - ,. -.yam. 111 uww : :: ; _ n si INI _ ii ' • r 3. ..e....4 , Mors illieh P Mt iip . Irk41 .1,4 Wilt= la um i; glii- , E..... ip sagai 'Now ill IN , .....,, i, OUT ' ��' ■ • ,t ttt>,tt>,�t�• �, $ 1,!1: ■ ...mini, U. MN =WM; �= ram��o 41■ INF zi�� ri- TAT T11,� 01� ,TEsillp Fa. '',14,01011 •• r;i© O'a1V=o, i rip ,ram, .LIeya b ti . • ,. - •' • 7 v =111' ' N•.4 SI ���r 11111 I NM 0 A ili wo, lik . 1 R LP4:Ik&' • AR APAH OE FARM ITEM MASTER PLAN NUMBER 55-87A • :i1: e :1 City of Fort Collins February 15, 1991 Dear Resident: On Thursday, February 28, 1991, from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at Webber Junior High School , 4201 Seneca Street, the City of Fort Collins Planning Department will hold an informational meeting to discuss a development proposal in your neighborhood. The project area is known as the Arapahoe Farm. The Arapahoe Farm Master Plan consists of about 160 acres and is the quarter section bounded by Harmony Road on the south, Taft Hill Road on the west, Imperial Estates on the north, and the two schools and Regency Park on the east. The proposed development involves 16 acres of the Arapahoe Farm for the construction of 51 single family homes. These 16 acres are located along Harmony Road and would be served by an extension of Seneca Street. There are two distinct steps required as part of the approval process. First, the current Master Plan for Arapahoe Farm must be amended to convert parcels presently designated for multi -family and business services into single family. Second, the 51 single family homes on 16 acres requires approval as a planned unit development. These two steps must be reviewed by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board. There are no plans by either the City of Fort Collins or the developer to annex county subdivisions into the City. Nor are there any plans to force homeowners on existing septic systems to hook up to a public sewer line. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss only Arapahoe Farm. County residents are especially encouraged to attend. The list of affected property owners for this public information meeting is derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occupancy and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this pending meeting so all neighbors may have the opportunity to attend. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call our office at 221- 6750. Sincerely, Ted Shepard Project Planner TS/gjt *This meeting is fully accessible to handicapped persons. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 rr • ` 9 R �y:['L:i..1f� , L33 ;ii 111111111 IMO ini Mil r;iTt: 1- m ping ■�111 ME III �•�; . ..�E 1 . /� �� MAN 44•4 •� �..., , P , am �m , �;�; OUT i. ��tim■ -=I mutmu mi -.IN , Mila 1 mom ��•��, ■ lEIii:! :h r■ • - • - =� ■:•-. h. no.,=..M. 1TTA� � T .1 * if ikT r110� • Ef yy[ Y at Ip • o�, , i .�. MO ;let: , erRis ell►.�Ij ���o; 4 �,r� Sirk. 510.46-0• .;;. ..,,l; i„55-i. !t i: !Ir.:- \• 0-611;:k e - .... .1 .W. +' iss I mpMI ' :.I M • •• mid ■ram 0,• • 0 7• 101711 . RLP ` . ®,*' a ARAPAHOE FARM • ITEM MASTER PLAN AND FIRST PHASE Y G.T. & S.T. Baldwin All/ A.C. Meyer & M.S. Engle 9 1111 K.R. & S.A. Vandervall 4417 Craig Dr. 4716 Chippendale Dr. 4009 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 , D.M. 4 J.S. Bigelow G.B. 4 K.A. Faudel I. Hanson 4407 Craig Dr. 4724 Chippendale Dr. 37 Townsend Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Florham Park, NJ 07932 N.A. & C.A Raasch J.R. 4 Y.J. Barclay A.G. & M.A. Valdez 4401 Craig Dr. 4609 Regency Dr. 4005 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 L.O. 4 R. Arellano S.E. & K.A. Dornseif P.H. re ge 221 Ana Ln. 4617 Regency Dr. 4001 al Dr. Fort ns. CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort lins, CO 80526 J.V. b N. McClurg L.R. 4 N.E. Knutson O.J. d M.J. Taylor 4412 Seneca St. 4625 Regency Dr. 3921 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 D.L. & M.K. Holt S.G. Norman S.C. Bassinger 1430 Hilburn Dr. 4701 Regency Dr. 3917 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Garth Development inc. 0.0. 4 J.S. Carpender L.E. & M.E. Pinkerton 3509 S. Mason St. 4709 Regency Dr. 3909 Royal Or. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 J.D. b J.A. Morehouse R. 4 B.F. Swearingen D.C. & S.K. Joseph 4442 Craig Dr. 4606 Regency Dr. 1741 Westfield Dr. Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 • A. & L.C. Kuzmenka J.A. 4 S.K. Davis O.J. Sapp 4436 Craig Dr. 4616 Regency Dr. 4002 S. Taft Mill Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 L. & N.A. Nees K.S. Tarkett DBA J.A. 3 A.A. Mein 4135 S. Taft Hill Rd. Tarkett Construction 4029 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins. CO 80526 2401 Valley Forge Ave. Fort Collins, Lf0 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Gary Berger R. G. 4 C.L. Adams S.K. Schubert WoodCraft Homes 3401 Buckskin Tr. 4012 Lynda Ln. 1501 North Cleveland Laporte, CO 80535 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Loveland. CO 80537 P.D. & J.A. Meyers IIIG.E. & M.L. White • 1 3915 Goodell Ln. 3113 S. Taft Hill Rd. N.M. & J.H. Amundson 4020 Lynda Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526Fort Collins,Clllli ,n CO 80526 D.C. Moore R.L. & L.A. Clay 2457 San Carlos Ave. M.A. Lucas 3900 Lynda Ln. 4040 Lynda Ln. Castro Valley, CA 94546 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 J.M. & J. Newman B.M. Gates J.A. & T.H. Morgan Rt. 1 1923 Westfield Dr. 3910 Lynda Ln. 4401 Whl Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins,PensyCO. , CO 80526 S.I. & J.L. Martin M.G. & M.A. Portouw K.C. & M.K. Godowkski 3912 Goodell Ln. 3918 Lynda Ln. 2213 Grosvenor Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 B.J. & N.B. Marzonie 0.0. i D.M. Saye R.A. Potterveld i 3918 Goodell Ln. 3920 Lynda Ln. P.P. Bittner Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 2209 Grosvenor Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 R.F. Peyton & J.J. Pollock L.O. & J.F. Peterson Taft Canyon Partnership 3924 Goodell Ln. 2200 Brixton Rd. P.O. Box 249 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Champaign, IL 61820 R.R. & A.V. Smith J.A. & C.L. HoxmeIer B.E. 4 S.T. Thomas 4408 Upham Court 4329 Picadilly Drive 4333 Picadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 M.L. Meier R.H. & J.L. Uhlig A.B. 4 K.L. Johnson 4409 Picadilly Drive 4405 PiCadilly Drive 4401 Picadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 . Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 D.M. Turner O.R. i J.K. Martin D.M. & C.J. Porter 4417 PiCadilly Drive 4421 Picadilly Drive 4425 Picadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 K.M. & C.S. Montgomery C.L. & B.K. Brown H.C. & P.T. Becker 4424 PiCadilly Drive 4433 Plcadiliy Drive 4429 PiCadilly Irive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 1 • • O.F. & C.B. Hammond 4111 D.G. & A.5 King L.E. & S.A. Doyle 4420 Pfcadilly Drive 240 lope Road 4400 Pfcadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort 11 s, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 N.L. • d E.J. Hay J.A. & T.H. Morgan G.E. & L.O. Bogard 4325 Whippeny Drive 4401 Whippeny Drive 4404 Pfcadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 M. & J.A. Finkelstein T.J. 4 B.A. Divonka J.S. & M.M. Marsh 4321 Whippany Drive 4317 Whippany Drive 4313 Whippeny Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 T.R. 3 P.S. Fay J.E. 4 J.S. Grim R.G. 4 C.M. Rogers 4301 Whippeny Drive 4305 Whippeny Drive 4309 Whippeny Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 D.L. & P.M. Westmoreland E.I. Kauzmann & R.L. & C.L. Kochls 2209 Brixton Road V.A. Mauksch 2217 Brixton Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 2213 Brixton Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 T.1. & V.L. Mikkelsen V. & I. Atayde G.O. b J.L. Fischer 4316 Picadtlly Drive 4312 Pfcadilly Drive 4308 Picadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 A.D. 4 C.A. Walmsley F.C. & A.O. Edger O.S. d B. Fields 4320 Pfcadilly Drive 4324 Picadtlly Drive 4328 Pfcadilly Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 G.D. & T.J. Johnson J.C. 4 O.R. Reeves M.L. 4 J.A. Marrujo 4328 Whippeny Drive 4400 Whippeny Drive 4332 Picadtlly Drive Fort Collins, CO 8O52 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 s" Y R.B. d P.A. Craven R.C. d M.M. Biglca M.A. 4 L.J. Barker 4324 Whippeny Drive 4320 Whippeny Drive 4316 Whippeny Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 J.G. Udell, Jr. K.H. & C.W. Davis T.H. & K.K. Warden 4304 Whippeny Drive 4308 Whippany Drive 4312 Whip peny Oriva Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 l L.A. 3 R.J. Phillips J.D. & 0.M. Griego D.H. ic . Fritze 4300 Whippeny Drive 4108 Trowbridge Drive P.O. 42 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fortns, CO 80522 111 3600 Terry Lake Rd. H.W.4111 & B.J. Sapp III/ K.Y. & C.M. Dittmar 4002 Goodell Ln. 2204 Brixton Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 J.M. & C.E. Sanders H.A. & B.E. Roth 612 S. De Medici P.M. & C.M. Shreve 4010 Goodell Ln. 2208 Brixton Rd. Sierra vista, AZ 85639. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 P.E. Greenfield B.T. Soukup 5 Pale May M.L.•L. & R.G. veum 30 30 at. May CO 80525 706 S. College Ave. 2212 Brixton Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 L.G. & C.L. Johnson H. Creagsr 1500 Independence Rd. 1905 Westfield Dr. C.J. & R.G. Morley Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 8 Fort 80526 Fort Crbridge Dr. Collins,o CO 80526 • L.F. & E. Wilson J.O. & J.M. Vedvick 3909 S. Goodell Ln. O.E. Aggsr 3909 Lynda Ln. 4208 Trorbridge Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 C.F. & arksr N. Laniperes 3924 S. t Hill Rd. M.L. Sample 3911 Lynda Ln. 4204 Trowbridge Dr. . 4 Fort Co lin CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 L.E. & . Clem M.R. b B.J. Davis 104 Col Si Rd. R.J. Niland 3913 Lynda Ln. 4116 Trowbridge Dr. Fort lli CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 J. & J.M. Rodriquez J.M. & E.M. Markrorth 3900 S. Taft Hill Rd. J.D. b .N. s 3915 Lynda Ln. 1345 W t �, Fort Collins. CO 805 _ Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Coll CO 80526 C.F. & J.A. Krause J.O. & T.K. Achen 3901 Goodell Ln. P.V. & G.A. Eastman 4011 Lynda Ln. 3922 Lynda Ln. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 .,,.-..,_... .. • .,-.,, _1 ' ARAPAHOE/MOUNTAINR106E FARM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST • FEBRUARY 14, 199j Cityscape Urban Oesigleinc. G.J. Gabler R.L. 4 E. Terre! 3030 South College. 3108 W. Co. Rd. /38E 4624 Re Su t t• 200 Regency Or.Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80523 State Federal Savings & Loan C.N. 4 0. McDougall of Lubbock 4424 Craig Or. R.B. 4 R.J. Blakely 5080 Spectrum /1100 West Fort Collins, CO 80526 4700 Regency Dallas, TX 75248 - Fort Collins. CO 80526 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 0.8. & M.E. Scheise J. & J.A. Kerlin Day Saints 4418 Craig . 7165 E. Louisiana Ave. 50 E N Temple Street Fort Collins, CO 80526 Denver, CO 80224 Salt Lake City. UT 84150 C.L. Glass P.S. 4 K.A. Neiman F.A. Murdoff 2225 Co. Rd. /38E 4412 Craig Or. 2206 Stonecrest Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. Co 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80521 C.M. Brookins & G.L. Sapp S.M. Jones 4 L. Padilla S.N. 4 J.E. Koecheritz 2221 W. Co. Rd. 038E 4406 Craig Dr. P.O. Box 173 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Red Feather Lakes, CO 80545 R.E. & M.P. Brown R.O. 4 L.O. Letnes S.L. Cole 318 Peterson 4400 Craig Or. 3929 Capitol Or. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 B.R. Eddleman K.P. 4 T.C. Mason J.S. 4 G.M. Kierstead 2137 W. Co. Rd. /3dlE' -. 4332 Somme* St. 4005 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 0 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 . R.G. & J.B. Rodgers' H.E. & K.N. Camps M.E. 4 P.L. Dinkel S.E. & O.E. Minnlear 11033 Glenaaor Or. 4013 Capitol Or. 2131 Co. Rd. 038E /4 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fart Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 S.J. Rohm 4 T.N. Thomas M.O. Carlson & K.L. Holloway F.O. Bayless 2127 W. Co. Rd. /38E 4409 Regency Dr. 4021 Captiol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 805,6 Fort Collins, CO 80526 cf The Rockies 4111 2602 N. Lincoln Ave. • 1789 Westfield Dr. 11 P.O. Sox 2182 Loveland, CO 80538 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80522 T.J. & A. Milberton D.L. d J.A. Ascherman L.D. 4 C.J. Peterson 4419 Hilburn Ct. 4617 Chippendale Or. 3922 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526-' Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 K.D. & . alker L.S. Blocker 4 E. Copeland D.J. & L.S. Wilkins 1627 Hay Pl. 4625 Chippendale Dr. 4000 Capitol Or. Fort Co i s. CO 80526 Fort Collins. Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 M.D. d L.E. Crook D.P. & K.J. Breldenback G.A. & S.L. Greathouse 4407 Hilburn Ct. 4701 Chippendale Dr. 4012 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins,.CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 P.R. 3 L.D. Bellio D.K. b K.Y Sunade P.M. 4 S.K. Fulton 4402 Hilburn Ct. 4709 Chippendale Dr. 4000 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 T.A. & A.L. Owens _ O.G. & L.C. McKenzie E.J. d P.M. Frey 4408 Hilburn Ct. 4717 Chippendale Dr. 4004 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 T.J. & L.B. Carts A.D. & H.K. Berneking G.A. & Y.Y. Masks 4414 Hilburn Ct. 4606 Chippendale Dr. 3921 Crescent Dr. Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 A.L. & V.N. Smith R.L. & P.A. Batley T.E. & H.H. Hehn 4420 Hilburn Ct. 4616 Chippendale Dr. 3925 Crescent Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 S.D. 3 D.R. Collins E.M. Weitzel G.D. & J.L. Speaker 1500 Hilburn Ct. 4624 Chippendale Dr. 1600 Crescent Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 M.K. Pugh B.G. & T.J. Cochran R.L. 4 V. Morris 4437 Craig Dr. 524 Larkbunting Dr. 1604 Crescent Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Cb 80526 L.R. & S.L. Benner M.M. Myshatyn R.E. 4 L.A. Fuglsang 4427 Craig Dr. 4708 Chippendale Dr. 4008 Royal Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 U. Loveland M.J. Matson filo J.A. & ).'i. Kerr 4125 S. Taft Hill Rd. W 1424 Hastings Dr. 4031 Capitol Or. 11 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 sort Collins, CO 80526 C.E. & 0. Cromer D.R. & S.D. Minters C.J. & L.M. Kirkpatrick 4117 S. Taft HIII Rd. 1438 Wakerobin Ct. 4045 Capttol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 • . 0. Robbs R.O. & K.H. Briggs C.N. & B.J. Bell P.O. Box 498 1444 Wakerobin Ct. 4020 Royal Dr. Frederick, CO 80530 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 E.M. Robbs S.K. & S.A. Everitt O.R. Doudna & S.M. Kruger 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. 1445 Wakerobin Ct. 4032 Crescent Or. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 G.T. Land Inc. R.M. & P.K. Greer C.C. & G.M. volz 3555 Stanford Rd. 1439 Wakerobin Ct. 4028 Crescent Dr. Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Stanford Plaza Fort Collins, Co 80525 Harmony Road Corporation V.L. & J.A. Degroot M.F. Ellmen c/o Steve Mann 1430 Regency Ct. 4024 S. Crescent Dr. 1515 N. Academy Blvd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Free Enterprise Inc. M.A. & S.J. O'Meara D.R. & S.K. Martin 1803 Garfield 1436 Regency Ct. 3912 Crescent Or. Loveland, CO 80537 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 G.D. McGarvey & L.A. S.tark.. M.L. Erie County Investment Co. 931 Poudre Canyon 162 E. d Ave. 355 Union Blvd. /300 Beilvue, CO 80512 ' : Level d, 80538 Lakewood, CO 80228 A. Young & M.L. NyquIst--' P.R. $ A.R. West 8.A. & K.K. Sllger 3344-9 Hickock Dr. 1437 Regency Ct. 3904 Crescent Dr. Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. CO 80526 G.F. Mellon R.R. & O.R. Wiebke L.E. & 8.8. Garretson 1309 W. Harmony Rd. 1431 Regency Ct. 3900 Crescent Or. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 • - ARAPANOE/MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST , FEBRUARY 14. 1991 Cityscape Urban Desl Inc. G.J. Gabler R.L. b E. Terre! 3030 South Col logo 3108 W. Co. Rd. /38E 4624 suit. 200 Regency Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80525 State Federal Savings & Loan C.H. & D. McDougall of Lubbock 4424 Craig Dr. R.B. & R.J. Blakely 5080 Spectrum /1100 West Fort Collins. CO 80526 4700 Regency Dr. Dallas, TX 75248 - Fort Collins, CO 80526 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter D.8. & M.E. Scheime Day Saints J. & J.A. Kerlin 4418 Craig Dr. 7165 E. Louisiana Ave. 50 E N Temple Street Fort Collins, CO 80526 Denver, CO 80224 Salt Lake City, UT 84150 C.L. Glass P.S. & K.A. Nsoman F.A. Murdoff 2225 Co. Rd. /38E 4412 Craig Dr. 2208 Stonecrest Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins. Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80521 C.M. Brookins & G.L. Sapp S.M. Jones & L. Padilla S.N. & J.E. Koecheritz 2221 W. Co. Rd. /38E 4406 Craig Dr. P.O. Box 173 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Red Feather Lakes, CO 80545 R.E. & M.P. Brown R.O. i L.8. Letnes S.L. Cole 318 Peterson 4400 Craig Dr. 3929 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins. CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 B.R. Eddleman K.P. 4 T.C. Meson J.S. & G.M. Kierstead 2137 W. Co. Rd. i38t 4332 Seneca St. 4005 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 805 ':, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 • R.G. & J.8. Rodgers • H.E. 8 K.N. Combs M.E. b P.L. Dinkel S.E. & D.E. Minnrear 11033 Glenmoor Dr. 4013 Capitol Dr. 2131 Co. Rd. /38E /4 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80526 r S.J. Rohm & T.N. Thomas M.O. Carlson & K.L. Holloway F.D. Bayless 2127 W. Co. Rd. /38E 4409 Regency Dr. 4021 Capitol Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Fort Collins, CO R0526 4 • • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 72 townhomes on 10.39 acres DENSITY: 6.93 du/acre General Population 72 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 230.4 School Age Population Elementary - 72 (units) x .120 (pupils/unit) = 8.64 Junior High - 72 (units) x .055 (pupils/unit) = 3.96 Senior High - 72 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 3.6 Design Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment Johnson Elementary 568 573 Webber Junior High 900 977 Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404