Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE PUD, 4TH FILING - FINAL - 55-87K - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS ITEM NO. 13 MEETING DATE 9-26-94 110111110111 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: The Overlook at Woodridge, 4th Filing, Final P.U.D. , #55-87K APPLICANT: Woodcraft Homes 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, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Final P.U.D. for 90 single family lots on 28. 50 acres. The parcel is located east of Taft Hill Road, north of the present alignment of Harmony Road. The zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The single family P.U.D. conforms with the Amended Arapahoe Farm Overall Development Plan, and is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary P.U.D. (January, 1992) . By virtue of the approval date of the Preliminary P.U.D. , the project is not subject to the revised Residential Uses Point Chart which includes the Interim Phasing Criteria. On the applicable Point Chart, the P.U.D. achieves a score that justifies the proposed density of 3 . 16 dwelling units per acre. Design features from the previously approved six filings will be carried forward. The P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. With the central path, the P.U.D. promotes alternative modes of transportation. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT III • The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #55-87K September 26, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: County; Existing Residential (Imperial Estates and Westfield Subdivisions) S: R-L-P; Existing Residential (The Overlook 3rd Filing) E: R-L-P; Vacant (The Gates at Woodridge 4th Filing Preliminary) W: County; Existing Residential (Taft Canyon Estates) The property was annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth/Harmony West Annexation in June of 1980. The original Master Plan (Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm) was approved in October of 1987. This Overall Development Plan was amended in April of 1991 to change the areas and distribution of single family, multi-family, and business service uses. Also, the amendment established the re- alignment of Harmony Road to bisect the quarter section thereby eliminating the presently dangerous Taft Hill Road/Harmony Road intersection. Since 1991 six single family residential filings have been granted final approval. The three filings on the east side of re-aligned Harmony Road are known as The Gates at Woodridge and the three filings on the west side are known as The Overlook at Woodridge. The Preliminary P.U.D. for The Overlook at Woodridge Filings Two, Three and Four, were approved in January of 1992 . 2 . Land Use: The Overlook at Woodridge P.U.D. conforms with the Amended Overall Development Plan and is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary P.U.D. On August 2, 1994 , City Council passed Ordinance 114 , 1994 known as "Interim Phasing Criteria" to amend the L.D.G.S. with respect to earning a minimum score of 60 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart for single family projects. This Ordinance applies to all P.U.D. ' s which have not received Preliminary or Final approval on or before August 12 , 1994 . Since the Woodridge Preliminary P.U.D. was approved on January 26, 1992, The Overlook at Woodridge, 4th Filing, Final P.U.D. is exempt from the new Interim Phasing Criteria. i • The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #55-87K September 26, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 3 The proposed density of 3 . 16 dwelling units per acre is justified by a score of 41% on the Residential Uses Point Chart. Points were awarded as follows: d. 20 points for being within 3, 500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park (Westfield Park) . j . 21 points for having 32% contiguous boundary with existing urban development (Overlook 3rd Filing) . (Under the new Interim Phasing Criteria, the P.U.D. would have also achieved a score of 41%, awarded as follows: d. 10 points for being within 3, 500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood park (Westfield Park) . e. 10 points for being within 2, 500 feet of a school (Webber Junior High) . j . 21 points for having 32% contiguous boundary with existing urban development (Overlook 3rd Filing) . Without exploring the possibilities of achieving bonus points, the P.U.D. would not have achieved the required minimum base score of 60%. ) 3 . Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 28, 1991 at Webber Junior High School. The development of single family homes in this area was considered compatible with the surrounding area. 4 . Design: The Overlook 4th Filing is a continuation of the Woodridge P.U.D. The following design elements characterize this residential project: A. Harmony Road Streetscape Landscaping will be continued along Harmony Road outside the rear- yard privacy fences. The area of landscaping will vary depending on the depths of the rear yards which alleviates the "stockade" look. Since lots are not platted up to the edge of the right-of- way, there will space for berms and evergreen trees. 111 ill The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #55-87K September 26, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 4 B. Taft Hill Road Streetscape Landscaping will be continued along Taft Hill Road with this filing. In addition, a landscaped median in Brixton Road will match the existing median across the street in Taft Canyon Estates. C. Central Pedestrian Path An eight foot wide bicycle-pedestrian path will follow the drainage easement and extend from Taft Hill Road to Harmony Road. An underpass will provide a safe crossing under the arterial street. Ultimately, with future filings, this path will connect with the two schools and Westfield Park to the east. There are three short connections that will feed this path as well as easy access from both Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. This path provides an excellent opportunity to encourage alternative modes to attractive destinations and to lessen the need to provide busing for students. 5. Solar Orientation: The Preliminary P.U.D. was submitted to the Planning Department on December 2 , 1991. The Solar Orientation Ordinance No. 142 , 1991 was adopted on second reading on December 17, 1991 and effective on December 27 , 1991. It was determined that projects submitted prior to the adoption and effective date of the Ordinance were not subject to the requirements of the Ordinance. 6. Transportation: As mentioned, Harmony Road (arterial) will be re-aligned to bisect the quarter section and create a new intersection with County Road 38E. The construction of new Harmony Road will be phased from south to north. The entire right-of-way for the new alignment has already been dedicated. After connecting to County Road 38E, the old Harmony Road will be vacated, except for utility easements. The exact timing and disposition of old Harmony Road will involve discussions with Larimer County. Brixton Road lines up with the existing street serving Taft Canyon Estates, a County subdivision. All streets will be built to City standards. The traffic generated by the P.U.D. will be adequately served by the existing and proposed street improvements. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In reviewing the request for The Overlook at Woodridge, 4th Filing, Final P.U.D. , Staff makes the following findings of fact: 411 • The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #55-87K September 26, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 5 1. The P.U.D. conforms with the Amended Arapahoe Farm Overall Development Plan and is substantial compliance with the Preliminary P.U.D. 2 . The P.U. D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. 3 . Since the Preliminary P.U.D. was approved in January of 1992 , the Final P.U.D. is evaluated by the old Residential Uses Point Chart, not the new Point Chart containing the Interim Phasing Criteria. The P.U.D. achieves a score of 41% which justifies the density of 3 . 16 dwelling units per acre. 4 . As a single family development, the P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The central path promotes alternative modes and the traffic generated by the project can be accommodated by the existing and proposed street improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of The Overlook at Woodridge, 4th Filing, Final P.U.D. , #55-87K, subject to the following condition: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.O.D. , plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (November 14, 1994) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second • The Overlook at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #55-87K September 26, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 6 succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made) . If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable) , then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that the dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. • 0 II H I I T17.. _ 'NUPE= II _I 11111110 OUT ■ La-LL _ —: P1�.F,_ I z n ItI R �b= L. — - Wfc]T��E LD v '_. . Z, ,.I L sly — yL H � �� .u... . •1 S-, ..I.....: a5oa rip gill .11044Walli I _ ® 3 _ 0 �I.•�II��� 1Q A �rT01� .Ra.D Y:.44 a� i .,. . SI„TIE 4t *.l liar r �.{�4,, ;,w i t Zgiir,w,1 74 Ham. 1;PAetArt# 1 r) / I.V,AP•41*49P-A. - , _. 4#4121,44 Nra at.- P. ' 044 *A rur40 d'iPP dr- , ,11111 no 44, Q•F y e `,.. .✓ye y� E • e / `q� • 411: 411 G'kg'1 I,'Y i*:1;*..0'.y ( ;. r w.o.,Nritar 0 %,..4,..44140, St*\14/7/,, 14 6‘ 1,111 aIIIMMO11411111111MMEMEEM■ • • -- HARMONY ROAD CITY LIMITS / 3 _ I I a n V W o i RLP LL i , T1 ppp-,, Vicinity Map OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE PUD, 4th FIg - Final I ` Project Number: 55-87K , 0 • f +J Jii atiJ-titi i t4 . � IFJI JtSl r i,a §jpPili-a d kk9! d a; a�f a s 14 - y d as:JxsAii i JlisAnt3tl ! I 1.! t - si,IAM a t i/ a1F 8i Blip ait sli is sI Miliglli lij eli? ? J yp 3a 1 € i SE asa a i a ; a fa , t a I' M C l; l ilAt lgi.ii: i. li lei p atitii,8=F.i kinill 11 41 it i 1l1a°Jtisl;14 tI 11 lti =Ixi;liq;i,,iffi © = t i1 q l J ataais le, :1,a is (4 id i ipm j agi- l li^lt Ft s_l 'iliis Ell'Jii F \ 0 p,!! $ti jai 1i6a is° � l t @J \ Q,c� 1 E! j. Ikill _a! !.'A!! e!p ? x° ' sl,1at, i t, 1 .. of i illii• ii/! l i a `_.. a liaJ aliltiiti a r:--2 ,.1,:: ci'i , ,,1:,, 1iIpiprJ1ji ii tiSli;s li �i i;iljtiga;iJ�ilitii 1al III+Js- ;1 di lsliil ti;11 11 J I ,„/ r1. is J:i ta 7�i� a at tl�� lji�FJJiI:i J 11111 slias_l•ts liEJ¢ i4yalq�l 1�6til iiiiaitF�iiii;l J 9e.`I'ialiali��{li d • \ co \ N —k x \L ,,,, O1jCV Na 7 ^I N A___,__z=_ wif ,,,is,-,..,./-,,irdpo , \\_____ ---- _____ -- Iiii 1 1 N' 4V,*e.,.:. ‘?:.!?j; 1 0 o6syp(( LP, fi — ''I ... \ i N1 �p��[`'1 d7 eIli iY @@ `S S C ���,A\ M L M y J 1 \4 m�. / 1( (r' 4 '' -- --\--- -——---- / ^ \ �� OS I �' I V at .J J,x. xt M / N I 1 §l 1iIIQ xl i ta �' z -ram' I M / y s ii l p g. agag s4 , of ' m t' I. ��8 83i - 8� avo iwi alg „, — 3a J l i5 itx Bat 11- zits1�11,01II {3 Nu. �(,r' - . . . . d ., r I H— 1�� M}M '�S 31N ,t 4 I I � I � 12 I ea As 6 "€ _ 1 ea :6i g g.gg 1ov i Z rt € :tt IA t d&eit 1 ..12 . _NVR-11 0)feOl= _ , =,_ „, p p g 0 ?t I l`A at #�. ih ty , !F] v " 1 v g. V v ao sn o 1 1 _,4 lily' =1— — 1 (komoo) NOANVO liv! — N ONMOZ I • • ,._____ .r, \ -- ----- \r -. 1, , \IF- L__ -I\ \ L 0 ,r,,- L,,,- I Xt2 \ t2 >=t\--- -A \ _ __. e, A i g /%J-� / 1 5.I g t ,c. >) - i ±-_ -- - i1 - \ 1\. r Ia____ I\\imtarmesampaxmomaAarimmktiaaw Q a M 9 A N !kilt V.40,,,Wsz.-„,..±:r" / /Viltor 1 NH R .V,- ril,4°. ----,/,4 f i 1 F; - a w \ Ilk cn __ \ ! ! 4,..,„-----%):, . . ' c_____ --.. III — \_ - ` III J 111 !_ g . . i ( r'' t \ '° \ \ Wi ,___ei, I .1-4 r- I Il - , ,, - A/AL III N rT g/ VA1 - -t 0 I --/ 0 t„,, , \\ Qt —�\\ I III ; ; _N / U) M (� i ` I 11 'i 1 � III � - _ 1 — WI i U) t�" ' 1 Wat ' - --\\\ M N X \ 1,,f3 lill \ \ 10, 0 , E-: 4,, ,, go.) 0,.... II� _ I I mom' / I` L __. - -1.rl0>+eo3- a,�,: zo.= 3HY9—M3I� 0' r 4 ,. / g U) UJ ,.�'. N M g ate► — i- A 4- 1� :��- i � I�,� '. A €! 11% Wlior.._ ;, 1im , sue=::\ L_ r ,l j1 I i lat2E-=_: ,...--e-WLIIEMILI ,‘.,•...,,, „.:. ,,,.. . --....,...,. . IA Ass $ iI ;0: dV1 V 1 ril,,sls 0 ► �gy ! 2 a g WOODRIDGE PUD 4TH FILING LAND USE BREAKDOWN G ini—s +- O v /eL 4'oK C00'1 l5/N4"4 JULY 5, 1994 Area Gross 3,186,799 sq.ft. 73.16 acres Net 2,476,253 sq.ft. 56.85 acres Dwelling Units Single Family 219 units Other 0 units TOTAL UNITS 219 units Density Gross 2.99 du/ac Net 3.85 du/ac Coverage Buildings 498,600 sq.ft. 15.65% Street R.O.W. 710,546 sq.ft. 22.30% Parking& Drives 109,500 sq.ft. 3.44% Open Space: Common 549,414 sq.ft. 17.24% Private 1,318,739 sq.ft. 41.38% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 1,868,153 sq.ft. 58.62% Floor Area Residential 560,400 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 438 spaces Other 0 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 438 spaces 2 spaces/unit *note: Garages and/or driveways will accommodate handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking Maximum Building Height 36 ft. Single Family Setbacks Front 20 ft. Side 5 ft. Corner Side 12 ft. *15' @ Garage Doors Rear 10 ft. • • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: OVERLOOK @WOODRIDGE PUD,4th filing-Final DESCRIPTION: 90 single family homes on 28.5 acres DENSITY: 3.16 du/acre General Population 90 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 315 SchoolAge Population Elementary - 90 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 40.5 Junior High - 90 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 18.9 Senior High - 90 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 16.65 Design Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment McGraw Elementary 568 449* Webber Junior High 900 977* Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404* *1993 enrollment figures ,, OGEC LOateT 1.JQdD/QIO6E �'/nJ0 P. !/- P. ,gam'" rt6 . 4 Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 4 ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY ~ Is the criterion Will the criterion 4 applicable? be satisfied? a 4 CRITERION € r,1 Yes No If no, please explain 4 LL $ 4 a Al. COMMUNITY-WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation V 1.2 Comprehensive Plan V %/ 1.3 Wildlife Habitat ,/ 1.4 Mineral Deposit ,/ 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas 9 Y reserved 4 • 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance reserved 1.7 Energy Conservation �/ ,/ 4 1.8 Air Quality •✓ ✓ 1.9 Water Quality / / 1.10 Sewage and Wastes / ✓ 3 A 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation 2.2 Building Placement and Orientation ✓ / 3 2.3 Natural Features ,/ _ ✓ 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking / 1 3 2.5 Emergency Access ✓ ✓ 3 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation ,/ ✓ 2.7 Architecture ri f 3 2.8 Building Height and Views V y 2.9 Shading V / 2.10 Solar Access 3 2.11 Historic Resources V _ 3 2.12 Setbacks V ,/ 2.13 Landscape V 3 2.14 Signs tI ✓ 2.15 Site Lighting I 3 2.16 Noise and Vibration ,/ 3 2.17 Glare or Heat ✓ 2.18 Hazardous Materials t/ 3 A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3 3.1 Utility Capacity / / 3.2 Design Standards V / 3 3.3 Water Hazards y V 3.4 Geologic Hazards V i/ Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins,Colorado,Revised March 1994 1 -61 - 1 NTEelti •ftS!rJ (. CgiTER /A - • JST 2, 119 DENSITY CHART CriterionMaximum Earned 2000 feet of an existing or ar-2roved neighborhood shopping center;or Credit Credit _20% 2000 feet of an approved, o .ot constructed neighborhood shopping center 10% -" b 650 feet of an existing transit stop(applicable only to projects having a density of at least six[6]dwelling 20% units per acre on a gross acreage basis) C 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center 10% d 3500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community park:or 20% 3500 feet of a publicly owned,but not developed,neighborhood or community park 10% LLI e 2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education 10% I laws - O f 3000 feet of a major employment center cci 20% g 1000 feet of a child care center 5% h "North"Fort Collins 20% j The Central Business District 20% A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development.Credit may be earned as follows: 30% 0% For projects whose property boundary has 0- 10% contiguity; 10- 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10- 20%contiguity; 15-20% For projects whose property boundary has 20-30%contiguity; �1 I 20-25% For projects whose property boundary has 30-40%contiguity; dI 25-30% For projects whose property boundary has 40-50%contiguity. k If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy usage either through the application of • alternative energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by City Code,a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5%reduction in energy use. Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project. m Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use.Enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off-site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus. C If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code,enter a 2%bonus for every S100 per dwelling unit invested. p If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City Code,enter a 1%bonus for every S 100 per dwelling unit invested. q If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low N income families,enter that percentage as a bonus,up CO a maximum of 30%. z If a commitment is being made to develop a•specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type"A" O and Type"B"handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins,calculate the bonus as follows: Type"A" .5 x Type"A"i Jnirq • Total Units In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% • Type"B" 1.0 x Type"B"Units Total Units s If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place,a bonus may be earned for the following: 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g.environmental,land use,aesthetic,economic and social factors); 3% For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place,while avoiding total units; 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance,preservation.and improvement in an appropriate manner. Continued Land.Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins,Colorado,Revised August 1994 -79- litE • NSITY CHART (continued) Criterion Earned If a portion or all of the required parkingCredit t building,or in an elevated parkin structure as anuac multiple familyuse�toothet is providedtrunde,a bonus within the follows: °D primary structure,a bonus may be earned as 9% For providing 75%or more of the parking in a structure; 6% For providing 50-74%of the parking in a structure; N 3% For providing 25-49%of the parking in a structure. U If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic are extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, z enter a bonus of 10%. 0 v If the applicant commits to providinga adequate,safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the desination points described below,calculate the bonus as follows: 5% For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane; 5% For connecting to any existing public school,park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this Density Chart; 5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is adjacent to or traverses the project. TOTAL I l Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins,Colorado,Revised August 1994 -79a TANU q is y #, 19 9 a, • DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit Credit Q 2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center 20% b 650 feet of an existing transit stop 10% C 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center 10% d 3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood park,community park,or community facility 20% a C. e 1000 feet of a school,meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws 10% +.� W f 3000 feet of a major employment center 20% g 1000 feet of a child care center 5% CIO h "North"Fort Collins 20% The Central Business District 20% A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development.Credit may be earned as follows: 30% 0% For projects whose property boundary has 0- 10%contiguity; 10- 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10-20%contiguity; GI I 15-20% For projects whose property boundary has 20-30%contiguity; 20-25% For projects whose property boundary has 30-40%contiguity; 25-30% For projects whose property boundary has 40-520%contiguity. k If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy usage either through the application of alternative energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by City Code,a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5%reduction in energy use. j Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 acres included in the project. m Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use.Enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. n If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off-site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus. 0 If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code,enter a 2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. p If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City Code,enter a 1%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. N q If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families,enter that percentage as a bonus,up to a maximum of 30%. Z r If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type"A" Oand Type"B"handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins,calculate the bonus as follows: CO Type"A" .5 x Type"A"Units Total Units In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% Type"B" 1.0 x Type'B"Unitg Total Units S If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place,a bonus may be earned for the following: 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g.environmental,land use,aesthetic,economic and social factors); `s' 3% For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place,while avoiding total units; 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance,preservation,and improvement in an appropriate manner. t If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground,within the building, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure,a bonus may be earned as follows: 9% For providing 75%or more of the parking in a structure; 6% For providing 50-74%of the parking in a structure; 3% For providing 25-49%of the parking in a structure. u If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. .11 TOTAL Lj , - 79- _ • • MEMORANDUM 0 ,o O To : Eldon Ward, Cityscape O -0 Tom Vosburg, Fort Collins Transportation Division v M Ted Shepard, Fort Collins Planning Department From: Matt Delich W ` Date : August 2, 1994 Subject: The Overlook and The Gates at Woodridge traffic study (File : 9481MEM1 ) z I have reviewed the site plans for The Overlook and The m Gates at Woodridge . I have compared them with the site plans used in the "Arapahoe Farm Site Access Study" , March 1991 . %M The street layout is basically the same and the number of units is only 4 higher than that used for this same area in the cited site access study. In the site access study, the date of full buildout of this development was projected to be 1998 . Based upon the current building activity in the south portion of this development and this request for final P.U.D. approval , it would appear that build out will occur by 1996 . Due to the accelerated schedule of this project and other activity in this part of Fort Collins , traffic volumes are higher than anticipated at this point in time . This has been anticipated. The city has requested design of the Taft Hill/New Harmony/CR38E intersection. I have been involved in that design activity supplying traffic forecasts and geometry at this new intersection. Appendix A contains two memoranda w that discuss short range and long range forecasts, geometry, w and intersection operation. . . The trip generation reflected in the site access study = o is valid for this submittal . In my judgment the site access CD J study, coupled with the information contained in Appendix A, LIJ cc address the traffic impacts associated with the continuing c a development in this quarter section. n cc • =• Q Q ZE APPENDIX A M N 110 Memorandum 0 o N To: Kevin Gingery, RBD O a J .p u Ni From: Matt Delich Date : May 11 , 1994 Subject: Taft Hi11/Harmony intersection design considerations (File: 9453MEM1 ) W This memorandum documents my analyses and recommendations pertaining to the Taft Hill/CR38E/Harmony intersection. Peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the Taft Hill/CR38E and Taft Hill/Harmony intersections in 1993 . This existing traffic was reassigned, since the new intersection will provide a more efficient route for a significant number of southbound left turns and westbound right turns at the existing Taft Hill/Harmony intersection. This background traffic was factored to reflect a 1998 short range future year. A traffic assignment for Arapahoe Farm was performed and added to the 1998 traffic projection. The 1998 peak hour traffic projection is shown in Figure 1 . This intersection was evaluated using the signalized intersection technique from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual . Using a 70 second cycle, the intersection will operate at level of service B during the analyzed peak hours . The geometry necessary to achieve this operation is shown in 0 Figure 2 . z I did not conduct any long range analysis as of yet. Daily traffic projections from Eric Bracke (City of Fort Collins) indicate that Harmony Road may not proceed on the W CR38E alignment west of Taft Hill Road. Rather than spend a a: ? lot of time making peak hour projections for a road • configuration that may not exist, I thought it best to discuss = o this issue in our May 19 meeting with City staff . 1 W ar C o a n • m • RC U W u = a ME 0 s TgFicL - � ...... h0 ! h r`' �---215/3 4 5 N. d' 3 0/SS .4i i i ir-- 46/30 CR 38& a N Na R Nloei 13 pllo5'--i I r 70/40 Q � Lm � Gs/6s 4i In� oaa ItQN m AM/PM GNORT RANGE PtAK HOUR Ti?AFF'IC FIGURE I -- TAFT MuL 0 I- , 1 8 L M �o' T N�4RM4NY CR38E - 14o'-1-T 9 •e t -.1 r --,- LALIE to SI-IORT RANGE. GEOMETRY FIOREa a • • U) C 0 Memorandum 0 0 7,3 r O To : Kevin Gingery, RBD J .p O U c From: Matt Delich M 0 Date : June 16, 1994 p Subject: Taft Hill/Harmony intersection design considerations (File : 9453MEM2) w D z This memorandum documents my analyses and recommendations pertaining to the Taft Hill/CR38E/Harmony intersection using r long range traffic forecasts . z m Eric Bracke provided long range (year 2015) traffic projections from the North Front Range Transportation and Air M Quality Planning Council Regional Transportation Plan. Using these and traffic studies for various development projects in this area, I developed the peak hour projections shown in Figure 1 . This intersection was evaluated using the signalized intersection technique from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual . Using an 80 second cycle, the intersection will operate at levels of service B and C during the analyzed peak hours . The geometry necessary to achieve this operation is shown in Figure 2 . I would suggest that these volumes and geometry be forwarded to city staff for their review and comment. It may be appropriate that this be done at a meeting so that discussions can take place . z u.i w _• ✓ � O � J � W cc O o n. • • 3 W 2 a F- 4 ZE 1 • • N 00 o g to 280/380 120/250 COUNTY ROAD 38E + Lr °/ HARMONY ROAD 170/140 -� f 200/130_4 o 0 0 140/140-� o a N O Q AM / PM I- LL. LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1 416" in In COUNTY ROAD 38E 50' + T HARMONY ROAD 150' - 200' + T 0 N 4 O - DENOTES LANE LL LONG RANGE GOEMETRY Figure 2