HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - FINAL - 55-87K - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS • II
ITEM NO. 15
MEETING DATE 3/28/94
1.,i---
STAFF Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, Final P.U.D. , #55-87K
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 request for Final P.U.D. for 72 townhome units on 10. 39
acres. The parcel 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The request conforms to the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P.
The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the
Preliminary. 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 six conditions of Preliminary approval have
been satisfied. The project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods. The P.U.D. is feasible from a transportation
standpoint.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 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 approved
in 1980. In 1987, Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. was
approved, containing 224 acres. In 1991, this O.D.P. was amended
and the subject site was designated as "Patio Homes, Multi-Family,
and Convenience Center. " The Arapahoe Farm Townhomes Preliminary
P.U.D. was approved December 13 , 1993 .
2 . Land Use:
With a designation on the Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. of "Multi-Family",
the request for townhomes is in conformance with the approved
Overall Development Plan.
On December 13 , 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the
Arapahoe Farm Preliminary P.U.D. , with conditions. The request for
72 dwelling units on 10. 39 acres represents a density of 6. 93
dwelling units per acre. This density is supported by the score of
77% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. Points
were awarded for being within 3, 500 feet of a reserved neighborhood
park (Westfield) , for being within 1, 000 square feet of a school
(Webber) , and for being contiguous to existing urban development
(The Gates at Woodridge and Regency Park) . In addition, points
were earned for providing active recreational areas and for
providing parking within the structure.
3 . Conditions of Approval :
As mentioned, the Preliminary P.U.D. was approved with four
conditions. These conditions, and their resolution, are summarized
below.
A. "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."
411
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
On the Final P.U.D. , Buildings G and J have been reduced from five-
plexes to four-plexes. The setbacks from Buildings G and J to the
easterly property line have been increased from 46. 5 feet to 55. 6
feet. The resulting buffer area has been enhanced with two
substantial berms and generous landscape materials. Staff,
therefore, finds that this condition of approval has been
satisfied.
B. ""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 acoustic screening."
The Final P.U.D. indicates that this area will, by necessity, be a
stormwater detention pond. To create effective screening, four
conifer trees have been planted between Building F and the easterly
property line. The building is setback from the property line by
85 feet. Staff believes that given the natural constraints of
topography, a berm would be unrealistic in this area. The four
trees and physical distance compensate for the lack of a berm in
this area. No headlights will face the adjacent homes to the east.
Staff, therefore, finds this condition of approval has been
satisfied to the best extent practical.
C. "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."
The Final P.U.D. indicates that these two parking bays are totally
screened by a landscaped berm that is no less than four feet in
height. The combination of landscaping and berming will
effectively screen headlight illumination. Staff, therefore, finds
that this condition of approval has been satisfied.
D. "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."
There are 27 evergreen trees planted in this buffer area. Eighteen
are eight feet in height and nine are ten feet in height. Staff,
therefore, finds that this condition has been satisfied.
E. "At the time of Final P.U.D. , the status of Hilburn Drive
dead-end shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the affected
parties."
w •
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
The developer and the two affected property owners have met with
City officials on the vacation procedure for Hilburn Drive. The
developer will be obligated for removal of existing improvements
and reconstruction of a new sidewalk. Issues related to grading
and re-seeding will be specified in the Development Agreement.
Staff, therefore, considers this condition to be resolved.
F. "At the time of Final P.U.D. , the exterior building materials
shall demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood."
In making this condition, the Planning and Zoning Board elaborated
that this is not an attempt to specify any particular building
material. Since this issue contains a degree of subjectivity, the
basic intent of the condition is to keep the developer and the
neighborhood involved in the final review process.
Since Preliminary approval in December of 1993, a publicly
advertised neighborhood meeting was held on February 2, 1994, and
a further follow up meeting was held the week of March 21, 1994 .
The purpose of these meetings was to further refine design issues.
The final design of the structures includes face brick on the front
elevations, (a 3001b. asphalt shingle roof) , and wood siding.
These materials are found to be of residential character and
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff, therefore,
finds this condition to be resolved.
5. Design:
The design elements of the P.U.D. are as follows:
A. Architecture
1. Roof
The roofing material will be a high-profile asphalt shingle.
These shingles produce a shadow line which adds depth to the
roof. This product is considered high quality and, while not
cedar shake, is considered compatible with the surrounding
single family area.
2 . Brick
A portion of the front elevations of all buildings will
feature brick siding. In addition, the free-standing
garden/patio walls will be all brick. Not including these
garden/patio walls, the three building types contain the
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
following amounts of brick on the front elevation:
Four-plex - 28 .5%
Five-plex - 24%
Six-plex - 21%
The two buildings closest to Regency Park are G and J, four-
plexes, which will contain the most brick of all three
building types.
B. Landscaping
There are two substantial berms along the east property line.
These berms are strategically located to mitigate Buildings G and
J. Since Preliminary, these berms have increased in length.
Height will vary slightly but will average four feet above grade.
The bermed area, as well as the entire easterly property line, will
be dominated by evergreen trees at the request of the neighbors.
The streetscape along Harmony Road will feature berming, retaining
walls, generous plant material for acoustic and visual buffering.
Along Seneca, there is a formal row of street trees located in the
parkway strip between the sidewalk and curb.
6. Vacation of Hilburn Drive:
Since the P.U.D. does not need to rely on an extension of Hilburn
Drive, the City is requiring that the public right-of-way be
vacated back to the two adjoining property owners. This vacation,
however, will be partial in that an access easement for a sidewalk
connection will be retained.
The vacation will require the removal of asphalt and unused
sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Underground utilities will be
abandoned according to the specifications of the utility providers.
The fire hydrant will be relocated according to the specifications
of the Water Department and Poudre Fire Authority. The vacated
area will be graded for positive drainage east to Hilburn Drive.
Re-seeding will be required for erosion control. A new sidewalk
must be installed in a north-south direction to connect the ends of
Hilburn Court. These actions will be the responsibility of the
developer and set forth in the Development Agreement and made part
of the Utility Plans.
The vacation procedure will be processed independently of the
P.U.D. Final authority on vacation of public right-of-way rests
with City Council. The two affected property owners have been kept
appraised of the details and concur with obligations for demolition
and reconstruction placed upon the developer.
•
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
7. Transportation:
The improvements to Harmony Road have been planned in conjunction
with the re-alignment of the arterial cross-section which will go
north to the intersection with County Road 38E. Auxiliary turn
lanes are identified in the traffic study at the intersection of
New Harmony Road/Harmony Road to be constructed with this P.U.D.
The two access points on Seneca align with existing cul-de-sacs on
the north side of Seneca Street.
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes does not trigger the signalization of
Seneca Street and Harmony Road. This intersection is anticipated
to operate acceptably in the range of Level of Service A to C. (At
this time, there is no development plan on the south side of the
old Harmony Road alignment so the Harmony/Seneca intersection
remains a tee intersection in the short term. )
The traffic impacts associated with this P.U.D. have been reviewed
by the Transportation Department. The necessary improvements will
be made part of the Utility Plans. With these improvements, the
project is feasible from a transportation standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the request for Final P.U.D. for Arapahoe Farm
Townhomes, Staff finds the following facts to be true:
1. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the
Preliminary P.U.D.
2 . The six conditions of Preliminary approval have been
satisfied.
3 . The Final P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System and is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Arapahoe Farm Townhomes,
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.U.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 (May 23, 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
•
Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Final, #110-79K
March 28, 1994 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
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
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.
n
Commu• Planning and Environmentalces
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
RE: Two New Conditions of Approval for Arapahoe Farms P.U.D.
DATE: March 28, 1994
Staff is recommending that two conditions of approval be added to Arapahoe Farms
Townhomes Final P.U.D.
1. The P.U.D. calls for vacation of a portion of Hilburn Drive. Since
vacation of public right-of-way requires two readings by City Council ,
independent of the P.U.D. approval process, the condition of approval
would tie completion of the vacation process to issuance of the first
building permit. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of
approval :
No building permit shall be issued in this development until the vacation
of the stub end of Hilburn Drive is completed, which vacation shall
include the retention by the City of an easement of ten feet in width for
a sidewalk connecting this development with Regency Park P.U.D. (Unless
otherwise agreed upon in writing by the owners of the two properties
abutting said portion Hilburn Drive to be vacated, the sidewalk
reservation shall be located in the middle of the land to be vacated.)
Said vacation shall also include the retention of a utility easement for
the existing water line.
2. The P.U.D. that is presented to the Planning and Zoning Board will be
slightly modified based on recent input from affected property owners.
These modifications are designed to enhance the project. The
modifications relate to:
A. Deleting four parking spaces next to Building G;
B. Changing evergreen species from Austrian Pine to Blue Spruce;
C. Expanding the note regarding control of construction debris
and temporary construction fencing;
D. Specifying the roofing materials on the architectural sheet.
This condition is a result of continuing discussions among the parties resulting
in a refinement of the final plans. Therefore, the following condition is
recommended:
Approval of this P.U.D. is conditioned upon the final plans containing the
modifications pertaining to deleting four parking spaces next to Building
G, changing evergreen species from Austrian Pine to Blue Spruce, expanding
the notes regarding control of construction debris and temporary
construction fencing, and specifying the roofing materials on the
architectural sheet.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
I
MI .O (Sanford Dr. ORSETOOTH ROAD W.
w• is
n) ' Hai
w
c ,n w
J J • +
O��Ve a� .. ,:c......„ "n ,x
Fir ) Cl
er��\ o- � Brook Drive
o c
T \ \ _c
Westfi"eld
1 W
ce
i o Drive v ' 4> • I—
;a; N. f
L.
N
o
Westfield Dr _ ' ,� w
i
f
o
•
• \•
um am so eimcili- i noril: I m
Butte
ti ---
0,,
Q c
EDI
F
U (7i
l 0. �- 1 ' CY
d' "
: ..f.752. (Et
y sec °i. �� o Xf en
2' 6^ i Deer
o S// C,,
der l >�
Blues ate "�r e, Q0. ,ob0.` L. • S one-
. Ct. L. c.. ?o Ct. -p -p '• o Ct. `Nr
G Fr..) O s
•a o.
OOve O •. 4 .Hilburn 2 o
o. Dr. g 4P
�i
N6 HARMONY ROAD
o
0
,i a)
o \
ITEM:ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES (i
Final PUD North
NUMBER: +I44K
sue- , 7g
• •
ii
^Ra
s.t ii $qgr $! Tillie i ii li iiv ` i 33 R
!~ it il,$3 �� ws y Hi
i � Gu gg v-
11 fii 9`a l a Rio 1 t i i (� i• i6 ii II lii " '9 h i t
1 lilntiiiji:iia ! j II gg i 7 Hqi ii
6qgg6IN °A 1 11
itLiii l ! ' 1 ' 11111 €_ " _4. i, o a..1 t
i '1 11111lina 1114 1i' 1 I l a i itI 1fi e , ! 11 'i Z 94 ii a$; ill 3 it lilili 1 e
!i� F l+++i p& el " + IF ai to 3 e . pe^=��. P� 31 Sl
:t i i 1° i.t r 1 a a. 1 != 1 ii ac^^ &y! ill d P c�/d
, i 1 # [�llifi1 i i i lii # $ 1i! et!"1 ' ;''
l! v " � i l'l l n ,N. � ii ! ggaa ;,e ti' s }} i'igt'i111 1 3 tlli $
3 11 1 i s Il it 0 ¢3 e Ii
f P�itjhi!ijiIi1 ,
E 1' m 3Ei' tQ
11 #1 i I. ] f1 a 11 i '1 till Mitt ! l!$$ �11 Z ei ®®1 g
'
•
ai it �ie:nattileio t cc 5 t l 1 ' llr�"J
R
IIII IIII
a
i� i 1 a
rr -t\
\�-----� Naik � ll� a - % jam' aYL��
\ \\ )-,-_-=_---%
, \)
i/ /�€ 1IIIi ill I, \\ \��Ilii NUJ 'AitI EEE
$1/ °III I � \�✓ \\ $N y k Fg�gy@ 'j
\ ^ 2 I ER III 1 ^"g _11 DI \ \ J; ®K N O-0 O
\ aitik, 1 . onelpiN i i
\ /� c,,,,,\ JO, ., „v.„441:x.� � III
1
WA* r.v4z, / . 006 1 :g
L`>�4G�� Earl
,�flr� ���. .ti , ,, 1 • ._,,,,t, - ,i,
4at % tr 040 v-loou jok ti‘TI Lt*.. 444, . ..
tor
ii
so. \\\ \ ,...
4
0.00 . ._ 4111//. .e., .,0 gassy i g
'• \c )' \\ \ (01
\ -\ fOrek, , \\ r.0C� !cookr• Biel g
L _t.,:_s ,:,.4.,ily,L111; 1 1,, .F____444:444/
ex....„,an: ii i 1
' \.%) re'
,-- 0 \.\ ,
/ . >\\ _____,A . NeNTez.11, „.&..„.„..,1 „-...,i alto, ealip i
Abr 40 W P4.cs /**5 eat* / , /
-_ i i5"°'' '\N \ .. Itt, w4t,E4VP
2_ 1 ,,,,..cow •
\ 1113P /Ars. U � i\ � ®� �8 �B�Iieail/r \/ �, " O
/ \ z/ S,\c`":4,p.i .A„,./. ••tp.
/ 6,:, ' kl. .• proa„,, 1 fi,A7 ,/ <, z
v-----_i_i___„ ,//'N ,!,-,-,), --.Nv4) Ipplif ,/, , N
Wa1 PP ii / / / E—'
�� / / /
F
k \ i
e\ / / ji nVS / wdo 1\ W pZ t a\ O O\ _i f o }
/
<::::) yE — �G \ t a l�� \,/ \ _
i// z It ,�\ "� _ de?/\ / \\ L w\ /it
• •
€-.-_...
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa s tl i e E ; a ; i E ' 4 ? RkA a ,pi;I I I I Ic,
1• y.. ca_e; .. . at Lamas as a f . ; f € 0
1.
D ( D1ee iai ! !!I
ffffil 4,iiiiiiil1 iI!Iili
Igi i 11 pp # 1111
EI1I1�sI 111111 fIEEliII?,E1f1 .S a S€ GE{{t ; "1 ill i E .S - eI �' 5 � II
F I,11E I6 ,I jI
I
111111
RU!
iH
B
;e f eill 1Ii 111iI 'I - 1111!;
ihI!!11IJiIIIe ! i1f ' E Ili1JIluIl
1 iilli al I!ii111h1111 ( Ii ; ® a
e sees-Mee hniz¢lzuu[€e lasseseauIanss �EaaXeM L.1b .,_ . . . . . . - -
A Q IIII
a
. IN IIII'
`� 1 / yrrxyJJ a�y 1/ ® �g��
\ 'I=` //i / ��i µ" \ \
�%�\ // Fl I:�CJ NN
\ \ III r-V.$no !��e,rc , V, may/ \ ; N z
1
\ �- -_-\ �,�%N—, _ �\ two =
\ ,, Q / Il -� __ \ \ , Novo?
S\ ; fl2 \ - -•L___,y Ill I 111 1 fi \\„) \ I 0 ak
d:
rti
- \ `• 0 ,Doom `,,: - t 1—'011119
•� ••'•�.�g y ` 1� X
leg co \���.�*-so k -00 fr4foo . Q/- 6 �� ''�;,1 g
sv./---.\p \\ ,,,�h��..-• f- !•��A44P., ...,. 0 - �paa- `III
\ - \ `t.tCO j �, ;.`•4 litt. .iolfeA V .mil-4ir''' I
\ iti k I i
1 ' �.Ii'tO OAST 1, ft' , CO ij ' 1
elliTitill#1 /11
E17I .10** 1 N.Nik ** .4. Ai/W*4,440' aloe 17*!410: /1 /
_,-, \stool,. • - -• 4,L*, o., 44, .4e•ii •-Aire eitial 7 . q/
___, \(\ \ zs,e. 4 . t.•tvfijb4P.0 43 t.,/cUIltik itlimp.41111*If c. lir'
4)4t
v r%s ' S/ \ / . � wi ,4./, z,41bill/ON! ' /it ;AO 0/ 0 .-,
I / ,,),-' - ..*:AL . i ir atm, .. A,/ ,.,... ,/ /
\ •lie• jur• 4, lP / n iY� •`mi1 / / / .
/ts
1 / i ,1
s_---/ V \�f4' / u r, 4 , a / / , oN/ A C �/ / w
0 oW O'K GQ
N\ �OJ 0 m m
a ,, .',z
\ / \� , �a . 3
\\ / �� O a m 6J�
• •
lk n 6
0
oa 11
0
ag ' I mo, Q H I II
®® a
IQ
a
/rimy
/ �i s�I_�Ilf1� a a
I1 i O
cc
�'— o cr
r'° 1 IL Ord o 1 �.r
9 € ■ c ----:r' a W
aka A<x ,. g 11
: U
`cl Z ...`.,-s; 11 CO
:_ w g- 3l a
J ~
a
U
a
A ¢, S
z-=•a.■ A
v.„i‘p.:3'1101111 11*-s 1 t i, ilailii.1.1' ° r0 4
O.:� 11.1111i
milL;
1 MEI I
w MERIN
8 ■ w EMIR' a
w
1..111*' J6.1,11J 1 J
Mir 41
`Y,e"I r
I1 6- 3
O 0
,5tila'�ft F ram, ,•1IdMB ! v tA W,..Jul r� ,, '�`•<;`1 .0::.,
PIT
.� • fir/ U
_ ,.. w
�� II III II
r 1
...iva:l4 - - ,\T _l moil n�nmm�nmlt Z :x+F
• -- v V.�v .►' •i�...y, ..1 �.�Ste. .____ . v_1.�►�
Front Elevation!d1
fir. ► i f Fe \',
st.
pYi- a•.aL...an'�-_- '--i..__ „ . Lae.
Typical Side Elevation 0
C.
_.- .__ . . ....ok
. ,
..„,....„...,-,.
; ; _ •
lEt
-7Aiq
•IIII14 _i i ) �1~w._�Off_-... • t�
Rear Elevation
s
Arapahoe Farms Townhouses
Fort Collins Colorado
James Company Knudson Gloss Architects
Boulder Colorado Boulder Colorado
• •
ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES
FINAL PUD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
February 7, 1994
A tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 34 as bearing, South
89°53'42" West from a 3" Aluminum Cap in a Range Box at the South Quarter corner to a
steel rod in a pipe at the Southwest corner of said Section 34 and with all bearings contained
herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the South Quarter corner of said Section 34; thence along the East line of
said Southwest Quarter, North 00°03'18" West, 60.00 feet to the North right-of-way line of
Harmony Road, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said North right-of-
way line, South 89°53'42" West, 201 .76 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North
having a central angle of 29°58'26", a radius of 1015.00 feet and the chord of which bears
North 75°07'05" West, 524.96 feet; thence along said North right-of-way line and the arc
of said curve 530.99 feet to a point on a curve concave to the East having a central angle of
92°32'03", a radius of 11 .00 feet and the chord of which bears North 13°51 '51 " West,
15.90 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 17.77 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-
way line of Seneca Street; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the following 4
courses and distances, North 32°24'1 1 " East, 343.39 feet to a point on a curve concave to
the Southeast having a central angle of 32°32'33", a radius of 508.00 feet and the chord of
which bears North 48°40'28" East, 284.67 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 288.53
feet; thence, North 64°56'44" East, 260.20 feet to a point on a curve concave to the
Northwest having a central angle of 02°49'21 ", a radius of 1784.00 feet and the chord of
which bears North 63°32'04" East, 87.88 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 87.89 feet
to a point on the East line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34; thence along said East
line, South 00°03'18" East, 777.14 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described tract of land contains 8.510 acres and is subject to all easements and
rights-of-way now on record or existing.
ARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES
FINAL PUD
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
FEBRUARY 7, 1994
Area
Gross 452,776 sq.ft. 10.39 acres
Net 370,704 sq.ft. 8.51 acres
Dwelling Units
2 Bedroom Units 72 units
TOTAL UNITS 72 units
Density
Gross 6.93 du/ac
Net 8.46 du/ac
Coverage
Buildings 82,530 sq.ft. 18.23%
Street R.O.W. 82,072 sq.ft. 18.13%
Parking and Drives 75,630 sq.ft. 16.70%
Open Space:
Active 76,022 sq.ft. 16.79%
Residual 136,522 sq.ft. 30.15%
TOTAL OPEN SPACE 212,544 sq.ft. 46.94%
Floor Area
Residential 88,100 sq.ft.
Parking
Demand:
2 Bedroom Units 126 spaces 1.75 spaces/unit
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DEMAND 126 spaces 1.75 spaces/unit
Provided:
Garage 152 spaces
Standard 65 spaces
Other 0 spaces
TOTAL VEHICLES 217 spaces 3.01 spaces/unit
"note: Garages and/or driveways will accommodate
handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking
Maximum Building Height 36 feet
•
• •
Arapahoe Farm Toiomes Final PUD
•
•
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
• Is the criterion Will the criterion
applicable? be satisfied? 1-1
CRITERION 4 4 Yes No If no, please explain
O W v<
•
Al. COMMUNITY-WIDE CRITERIA •
1.1 Solar Orientation I x
1.2 Comprehensive Plan x x •
1.3 Wildlife Habitat x '
1.4 Mineral Deposit • x
1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved
1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance reserved
1.7 Enercy Conservation x x
1.8 Air Quality • x
1.9 Water Quality I x x
1 .10 Sewaoe and Wastes _ x X
•
A 2: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Vehicular. Pedestrian. Bike Transportation x x
2.2 Buildina Placement and Orientation x x
2.3 Natural Features Ix x
2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking x x
2.5 Emergency Access x x
2.6 Pedestrian Circulation x x
2.7 Architecture x x
2.8 Building Height and Views x
2.9 Shading x • x
2.10 Solar Access
2.11 Historic Resources x
_ 2.12 Setbacks x x
2.13 Landscape
• 2.14 Signs • x _ _
2.15 Site Lighting x x
2.16 Noise and Vibration x x
2.17 Glare or Heat x
2.18 Hazardous Materials x
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA •
3.1 Utility Capacity x x
3.2 .Design Standards x x
3.3 Water Hazards x
3.4 Geologic Hazards x,.
54
Arapahoe Farm Final PUD
allink....wm�ewu2imr3L,. �. ..v ,Ra was,,dwwr e , t a.,„,,,SW:INZW,C24.r..aYCpLumr 41101.1- A MT.:`4, ,
411
DE\SI-Y CHART .
Maximum
Earned
Criterion Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit
CI 20% 2000 foot of on oxis ling or opprovod notghborhood shopping contor.
b 10% 450 tool of onoxlsling Irons!!slop. •
C 10% 4000 toot of on existing or opprovod roplonol shopping conior. '
W d 20% or
3500foolofonoxlslingorrosorvodnolghbhood pork.community pork or community facility. 20
Cr)
e 10% 1000footofaschool,mootingallIhoroqulromontsofIhocompulsoryoducalionkmsofIhoStaleofColorado.
•< • t 20% 3000tooIofomo)oromploymont cont or.
1 0
CO
g 5% t000 root ofa child corocontor.
•
h 20% 'Norlti Fort Collins. '
I 20% Tho Control DuslnossDistrict.
Aprojoct whoso boundary is contiguous to existing urban dovolopmont.Cr alit may bo corned os follows:
0%—For projocls whoso property taut scksry hos 0 to 10%contiguity.
.o 10 to 15%- pr For olocls w woollyhowoolly boundary has 10 to 20%contiguity
1 30% :is 1o20%—For prolocts whoso proporty boundary has20to30%contiguity; •
201o25%—For projects whose proporty boundary has30to40%contiguity, •
25 to 30%—For projocls whos property boundary hos 40 to 50%contiguity, 30
•
k If It con bodomonslroloci hat the projocl will roduconon•ronowableonorgyus00000llhor through the application ofattornoIIvoonorgy
systems or throughcommlttaf onorgyconsorvation moasuros boyond hot normally roqulrod by Cityod°.a 57.bonus C for ovory 5%r oducllon In energy uso. may bo oornod •
I Calculate a 1%bonus for ovorySO ocros Includod In Iho proJoct.
m Col cutato the porconlogo of tho total ocros In Iho project that aro dovotod to recreational uso,ontor Y2 of that porconlogo as a bonus.
8 4
if II,n of this op ttont commits to prosoM m ot
ng poronont tslt°opon spoco that moots Iho Cltys minimum roqultomonls.colcutoto Iho porconlogo
opon
Paco acreage to Iho total dovolopmont acreage.ontor Ibis porcontoga os a bonus.
If pad of Iho total dovotopmont budget Is to bo spool on notghborhood public tr onslt todlillos which ore not otherwise roquirod by City Codo,
0 enter 2%bonus tot ovary$100 pot dwelling oslt Invaded.
p If part of the total dovolopmont budgoI Is to be Mont on notghborhood tacllillos and soMcos which ore not olhorwlso to auk od by City Code,
/'� onto(a l%bonus for every$100 pot dwelling unit irn d oslo
Cr). Ito conxnllmonl Is being mode to davotop a spodflod porconlogo of the Iola!numbor of dwelling units for lowincomo tomilios,actor that
q percentage as a bonus,up to a maximum of 30%.
Z If a corrvnilmonl Is boing mode to dovotop a spocttiod porconl ego of Iho total numbor of dwelling units for Typo Wand Typo'6'hondicappod
housing as do finod by the City of Foil Collins,cotculolo Iho bonus os follows:
O r Typo'A'— .5 limos Typo'Kururs '
lolol units
Ca Typo0--1.0limos
Typo'0"units
• Told units • ,
In no case shalt Coh combined bonus be greater Ihan 30%.
If Iho site or odjocon1 property contains on historic building or ploco.a bonus may bo oornod for rho following:
3% —For provontlr-rg or mittgotrrsg outsIde Influences(o.g om1ronmorrto land uso.aesthetic,economic ondsocaal(oclors)adverse toits
prosorvollon:
S 3% —For assuring!hot nowstructuros will bo In koo ping with the choroclor of the building or ploce.whilo avoiding told units
3%—For proposing adoptivo use of Iho building or ploco that will tool to its conllnuanco,proso Nation ond Improvemont In an .
oPPropriato monnor.
It a por ton or ell of the roqulrod parking In the multiple tomtly proloct Is provided un dorgrour4 within the building,or in on olovotod pocking
structure as on occossory uso to the primary slructuto,a bonus may bo corned as follows:
t 9% —For providing 75%Ofmoroof the porkinginastructurot•
6%—For providing 50-74%oflho parking lnastructuro: •
3%—For providing 25-49%of the pocking inastructuro, • 9
U II a commltmonf Is boing mode to provide opprovod automatic Tito oxlinguINng systems for tho dwctling units•enter a bonus of 10%.
.. TOTAL 77 . 4
•
•
-30-
•
THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, Final P.U.D.
DATE: February 2 , 1994
DEVELOPER: Mr. Jim Postle, The James Company
CONSULTANT: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard
The meeting began with a review of the agenda. Topics to be
covered include disposition of the Hilburn Drive dead-end,
landscaping, building materials, architectural elevations,
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. The two adjacent property owners are reluctant to accept
additional lot area from the vacated public right-of-way if it
remains as a public street. We are concerned about the change of
grade between the street level (low) and Arapahoe Townhomes (high) .
There must be some kind of permanent structure or retaining wall
that addresses this grade change. This wall should be brick. As
an example, there is an attractive retaining wall in Taft Canyon
that separates the lower area from the upper area.
2 . Further, foot traffic needs to be controlled so there is no
"cutting-through" our properties by kids going to the two schools.
This may require a gate or controlled access to a path that is
ramped. There is a concern that the ramp not be so steep as to
preclude use by the disabled.
3 . The level of the street needs to be brought up so the
additional lot area is usable.
4 . There is currently an erosion problem with the grade change at
the rear corner of the southerly lot. This will have to be
addressed.
5. Neither adjacent property owner desires a half-court
basketball facility that was suggested at earlier meetings.
RESPONSE: These are all good ideas. The developer is willing to
work with the two owners, and the City of Fort Collins to find the
best way to dispose of the right-of-way.
1
III •
6. Are there utilities in the portion of Hilburn Drive that is
intended to be vacated?
RESPONSE: Yes, there are water and sewer lines and a fire hydrant.
7 . The 54 feet of right-of-way is too narrow for another lot.
RESPONSE: Agreed. While there are plenty of examples of high
quality housing on 54 foot wide lots, clearly such a lot would be
out of character with the existing neighborhood.
8. We should meet out on the site to gain a better understanding
of the grade separation from west (proposed townhomes) to east
(existing houses) . Representatives from the City Engineering
Department should also attend since the City will play a key role
in the ultimate disposition of the right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Agreed. In fact, the vacation of the public right-of-way
must be approved by the City Council.
9. What about the berms shown along the east property line of the
project? Will these berms cause drainage problems on our
properties?
RESPONSE: No, there will be a swale between your properties and the
berms to capture the runoff and direct the flows into the two
detention ponds being planned on the site.
10. What is the height of berm?
RESPONSE: The berms will range in height from 3 to 4 1/2 feet.
11. Have the berms increased in length since the preliminary?
RESPONSE: Yes, the length has increased.
12 . What is the ultimate height of a Blue Spruce?
RESPONSE: Ultimate height would be about 100 feet.
13 . We are concerned about the views to the west.
RESPONSE: At earlier meetings, there was a concensus to place a
generous amount of landscaping along the east property line to
buffer the existing homes from the townhomes.
14 . What about solar acces for our lots? Won't all the
landscaping block our western sun in the afternoons?
RESPONSE: Please keep in mind that most of the benefit of solar
exposure is gained from a southern orientation, not western. There
2
•
should be no lack of sun to the rear yards during the growing
season.
15. We are concerned about the timing of the landscaping. The
area closest to our homes is in the final phase. Does this mean
that all the landscaping designed to buffer our homes will be
planted last with the final phase? This easterly landscaping
should be planted early on with the first phase in order to
establish maturity.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment. We will look at planting this
area with the first phase. We have to be careful with construction
activity and would hate to see trees destroyed by construction.
Also, the shaping of the berm has to occur before plant material
P g
can be installed.
16. How long do you anticipate it will take to complete all three
phases and complete the project?
RESPONSE: Two years at the most, hopefully, 18 months.
17. Building J is closest to our house. This building should be
shifted to the south which would pull it away from our lot. This
could be done by reducing the size of the next building to the
south, Building K, from a 5-plex to a 6-plex.
RESPONSE: Please keep in mind Building J is angled away so that
there is less impact on the adjacent lots. Also, this is the area
with the berms and most generous landscaping. Finally, it may be
difficult to shift further south due to the detention pond.
18 . What are the setbacks on Buildings G and J from property line?
RESPONSE: Measuring from the building, not the garden wall, the
distance is 55 feet for both buildings.
19 . It would be my preference that Buildings G and J be reduced
further to 3-plexes.
RESPONSE: This would be difficult for the developer to accept.
20. Is there a mix of deciduous and conifer trees?
RESPONSE: Yes.
21. What earthwork will be done with the first phase?
RESPONSE: Development of the first phase will require the entire
site to be overlot graded, with proper excavation for the drainage
swales and detention ponds. Berms will also be sculpted. (Please
keep in mind that berms, by themselves, do not direct drainage.
3
•
This is done by the swales. )
22 . Will the problem with standing water in the southeast corner
be resolved with the first phase?
RESPONSE: Yes.
23 . We have had a real problem with construction debris blowing in
from the Woodridge project. So far, the developer of Woodridge has
been uncooperative in keeping his construction site clean. Debris
piles up in our yards and along our fences. Since we will be
downwind of Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, we are concerned about blowing
trash and debris. Is the developer willing to construct a
temporary fence to capture the blowing trash and debris?
RESPONSE: Yes, we are willing to look at doing this.
24 . What about the fence along Harmony? Will it look like the
fence in Regency?
RESPONSE: No, it will be brick but it will have more openings and
be lower. There will also be some berms along Harmony unlike in
Regency.
25. Could you again describe the size of the units and the
potential asking price?
RESPONSE: The interior units will range in size from 1, 140 to 1, 200
square feet and in price from $95, 000 to $100, 000. The end units
will be about 1, 340 square feet and price will range from $110, 000
to $120, 000.
26. Will the developer consider fencing in addition to landscaping
and berming?
RESPONSE: We would rather put our money into landscaping and
berming than fencing. We would not want to do both. Again, the
concensus at earlier meetings was that landscaping was preferable
to fencing to maintain an open character.
27. Since my lot is the most affected by Building J, I would
prefer the developer provide a fence in addition to the landscaping
and berming as proposed.
RESPONSE: Building J is angled toward your lot. The setback will
range from 55 to 80 feet. The developer would rather not do
fencing in addition to the landscaping.
28 . What about the building materials? Has the developer
considered a "permatek" roof? This roof is a cedar shake look
alike that would blend in with Regency Park. (Permatek roof is a
4
ill 410
composite roof consisting of Portland cement and wood fiber. )
Also, east of Harmony, in the Gates at Woodridge, there is mostly
cedar shake. Miramont and Adriel Hills uses Permatek roof. We are
concerned about compatibility.
RESPONSE: We are proposing a 300 lbs. composition shingle roof.
This a high quality roof that lasts 25 to 30 years. This type of
shingle has a high definition which gives it a shadowline. The
shingles in the Overlook at Woodridge are a 240 lbs. roof so our
roof will be superior to that.
29. It seems we have an issue here with the roof. We believe the
roofing material is critical in determining compatibility.
30. How much brick will be on the buildings?
RESPONSE: The lower level of the fronts of the building will
feature brick. We are still adjusting the exact amount of brick on
the buildings at this time.
31. Will the chimneys be brick?
RESPONSE: No, the chimneys will be enclosed with 8 inch lap siding.
32 . Will there be trash dumpsters and noisy trash service?
RESPONSE: No, there will be no dumpsters. Individual units will
have separate household-sized containers that will be put out on
trash collection day. The association will likely select one
hauler.
33 . Have you drafted your covenants yet? When do you turn over
control to the homeowner' s association?
RESPONSE: No, not yet. The developer will control the association
until 75% of the units have been sold. Control will then be turned
over.
34 . As mentioned at previous meetings, we are concerned about
lighting. What are your lighting plans?
RESPONSE: Harmony and Seneca are public streets and will feature
standard lighting as per the City of Fort Collins. Within our
project, we hope to have security lighting that is necessary but
not excessive. There will security lighting on the buildings, on
poles, and in areas to illuminate pedestrian walkways.
35. Will the buildings have to be raised to provide proper grade
for sewer purposes?
RESPONSE: No.
5