The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHAMLET CONDOMINIUMS AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87AE - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 17 MEETING DATE 7 /_r, 24195 STAFF TPd Shepard PROJECT: Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AE APPLICANT: KEM Homes c/o William Krug C/o Mick Aller Aller-Lingle Architects 748 Whalers Way, Building E, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Miramont Associates Limited C/o William Neal and Gary Nordick 1125 West Drake Road Fort Collins CO 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Preliminary P.U.D. for 106 dwelling units on 11.68 acres located south of Boardwalk Drive and east of Highcastle Drive, east of Lemay Avenue. The zoning is R-P, Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The P.U.D. conforms with the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan and promotes the policy of providing a mix of housing types in residential neighborhoods. The P.U.D. achieves a score of 97% on the Residential Uses Point Chart. The project is compatible with the surrounding area. The traffic study has been reviewed by the Transportation Department and the P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N: R-P; Vacant (Undeveloped Neighborhood Park) S: R-P; Vacant (Miramont Third Filing - Single Family) E: R-P; Existing Residential (Not a part of the O.D.P.) W: R-P; Existing Single Family (Miramont Filing Two) The original Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan (271 acres) was approved in 1987. Numerous filings have been approved and the O.D.P. is developing in a mixed -use fashion as originally envisioned. Approved P.U.D.'s include a church (Evangelical Covenant), private school (Heritage Christian), congregate care (Collinwood), community/regional shopping center (Harmony Market), office (Bank One), health club (Miramont Tennis and Fitness Center) single family (Miramont), patio homes (The Courtyards and Cottages at Miramont), and multi -family (Oak Hill Apartments). 2. Land Use: A. O.D.P. The entire site is contained within Parcel E on the O.D.P., designated as "Low and/or Medium Density Residential". The request for condominiums at 9.10 dwelling units per acre falls between the patio homes (The Courtyards at Miramont - 4.53 d.u./acre) and the multi -family (Oak Hill Apartments - 16.19 d.u./acre), see table. Castle Ridge at Miramont 1.28 d.u./acre* Upper Meadow at Miramont 1 st 3.03 d.u./acre Upper Meadow at Miramont 2nd 2.46 d.u./acre* Courtyards at Miramont 4.53 d.u./acre Hamlet at Miramont 9.10 d.u./acre Oak Hill Apartments 16.19 d.u./acre * Individual filings within an O.D.P. are allowed to fall below 3.00 dwelling units per acre as long as the overall density averages 3.00 d.u. or greater. Staff considers both the housing type and the density to be characteristic of "medium density" housing, and, therefore, consistent with the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan. The P.U.D. also promotes the policies of the Land Use Policies Plan in that it continues to provide a mix of housing densities. Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 3 B. Residential Uses Point Chart: Residential density for a planned unit development is determined by the performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. According to the L.D. G.S.: "The residential density of a project is dependent upon its locational attributes as indicated on the Density Chart. Each residential development proposal must achieve at least the minimum required percentage points required for the proposed density." The P.U.D. achieves a score of 97% on the Residential Uses Point Chart (see attached). Points were earned for the following: Criterion c: Being within 4,000 feet of an existing regional shopping center (Harmony Market). Criterion d: Being within 3,500 feet of a publicly owned but not developed neighborhood park (Miramont Neighborhood Park). Criterion d: Being within 3,500 feet of a publicly owned golf course (Southridge Greens). Criterion e: Being within 2,500 feet of an existing school (Werner Elementary and Heritage Christian High School). Criterion f: Being within 3,000 feet of a major employment center (Oak Ridge Industrial Park). Criterion j: Having 16.5% of the property boundary contiguous to existing urban development (Miramont Second Filing). Criterion k: By committing to energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by City Code. (According to Appendix E of the L.D.G. S., Method Two, 1.7 points for energy conservation methods yields a score of 2.0 on the Point Chart, see attached.) Criterion p: Budgeting $90,000 of the total development budget to be spent on neighborhood facilities (community building) which are not otherwise required by Code. ($90,000 / 106 d.u. _ $849 x .01 = 8.49 = 8 points on the Point Chart, see attached.) Criterion t: By placing all the required parking within the building. Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Criterion v: By providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to the nearest City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. Based on locational attributes (Criteria c,d,e,f, and j) and bonus criteria (k,p,t, and v) the P.U.D. satisfies the requirements of the L.D.G. S. Neighborhood Compatibility A neighborhood information meeting was held on May 24, 1995. Minutes of this meeting are attached. The primary concerns expressed by those attending the meeting were density, height, views, traffic and setbacks. In brief, these issues, and their resolution, are discussed below: A. Density/O.D.P. Designation The concern expressed at the meeting was that the density is too high. The O.D.P. indicates that the Parcel could develop as low and/or medium density. Low density or patio homes are preferred. Some in attendance felt that condominiums at 9.10 dwelling units per acre are considered "high density" and not allowed by the O.D.P. The O.D.P. should be amended. As noted, this project, at a density of 9.1 d.u./acre falls between the single family/patio home densities (1.28 - 4.53 d.u./acre) and multi -family densities (16.19 d.u./acre). The proposed density of 9.1 d.u./acre should be interpreted as medium density which is consistent with the O.D.P. B. Height and Views The concern expressed at the meeting was that the property is elevated on a ridgeline and visually prominent when compared to surrounding properties. Due to this prominence, two-story condominiums are inappropriate and create a negative visual impact along the Lemay Avenue view corridor. Parcel E should be used for the neighborhood park and the Hamlet should be placed on lower ground elsewhere in the O.D.P. In response, the L.D.G.S. does not have a view preservation design criterion. Only the R-F, Foothills Residential Zone District (which does not allow P.U.D.'s), contains a review criterion pertaining to views and even that criterion does not specify a particular viewing reference point. The maximum height limitation in the City is 40 feet. The two-story structures will achieve a height of approximately 28 feet. Single family homes typically feature two stories and often achieve a comparable height. Parcel E lends itself well to medium density residential in that it is has a natural separation from the single family to the south (Mail Creek Ditch), borders a potential business service parcel on the east, and is separated from existing single family on the west by Highcastle Drive. Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 5 C. Traffic The concern is that the project will introduce additional traffic that cannot be accommodated by the existing streets. Traffic on Lemay is too fast. It is difficult to make a left turn out of Oak Ridge onto northbound Lemay. The Lemay/KeenlandBoardwalk intersection needs a traffic signal. In response, Parcel E is located closer to Lemay Avenue (arterial street) than the single family areas so the Hamlet residents do not have to travel through the single family area. The traffic from the P.U.D. will take direct access from Boardwalk Drive, a collector street, not from Highcastle Drive, a local street. The traffic impact analysis concludes that the amount of traffic generated by the P.U.D. can be safely handled by the existing street system. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Lemay/KeenlandBoardwalk when warranted. D. Setbacks There was a concern that Buildings R and S are too close to Highcastle Drive and should be placed further back from the street. In response, the buildings are setback 22 feet from the property line. This exceeds the 15 feet required by the Zoning Code for multi -family structures in the R-M, Medium Density Residential Zone District. The streetscape will include street trees between sidewalk and curb and evergreen trees between sidewalk and buildings. The narrow end of the building faces Highcastle Drive. No garages face either Highcastle or Boardwalk. In conclusion, Staff finds that the Preliminary P.U.D. is "not the same as" but fits in with and is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. The medium density, condominium housing project is consistent with the approved O.D.P., contributes to the mix of housing types, and is compatible with the surrounding area. 4. Design: The primary design feature of the P.U.D. is that all garages are fully recessed into the structure and no garage elevation faces a public street. The internal drives will be 38 foot wide private streets that serve the garages. There is six feet of concrete on the edge of the 38 foot wide street that will provide a safety zone for pedestrians. Ample guest parking is distributed throughout project along one side of the private drives. The two public streets are well landscaped with street trees located in the parkway strip between sidewalk and curb. A stormwater swale along Boardwalk will contribute to a generous setback from this collector street. The internal private drives will be landscaped with shade trees and Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, 954-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 6 foundation plantings. Mail Creek Ditch on the south acts as a natural buffer to the single family homes approved in Miramont Third Filing. The structures are two-story in height with a maximum height of approximately 28 feet. Each unit will feature a garage and living space on the first floor with a second floor devoted to bedrooms. The structures will feature a combination of stucco and lap siding. Other features include balconies, pitched roof, and high -profile asphalt/fiberglass shingles. As mentioned, the height is approximately 28 feet. An internal concrete bicycle/pedestrian path will connect the east and west ends of the project with the community building. There are three path connections from dead-end driveways that connect to the Mail Creek Ditch access road. Sidewalks and one fire access lane are provided out to both Boardwalk and Highcastle. 5. Transportation: The project is served by two access drives onto Boardwalk Drive. The easterly of these drives is located on the property line to provide joint future access in a consolidated driveway with the adjacent parcel. There is an emergency fire access lane onto Highcastle which will be blocked except for use by emergency equipment. The basis for evaluation of the traffic impacts is the 1992 "Oak -Cottonwood Farm Site Access Study" which was reviewed and accepted by the City's Transportation Department. As part of the P.U.D., an updated traffic study memorandum was prepared comparing the impacts of the 1992 predicted land usage and the 1995 Hamlet at Miramont P.U.D. According to the updated traffic study: "Parcel E daily trip generation from the site access study was 575 average weekday vehicle trip ends as a single family detached units. The peak hour trip generation was 44 trip ends in the morning and 60 trip ends in the afternoon. The trip generation of the proposed Hamlet at Miramont is calculated at 630 daily trip ends, 48 morning peak hour trip ends, and 59 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Comparing the trip generation of the Parcel E uses indicates virtually no difference between the approved and proposed development. It is concluded that the proposed development is consistent with that used in the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Site Access Study." The Transportation Department has reviewed the updated traffic study and concurs with its findings. The P.U.D. is found to be in compliance with City transportation plans and policies. Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87AE July 24, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 7 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. As a two-story, condominium project at 9.10 dwelling units per acre, the P.U.D. is considered to be "medium density" and in conformance with the existing Oak - Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan. B. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. C. The P.U.D. earns a score of 97% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. D. The P.U.D. is separated from existing and future single family homes by existing streets and the Mail Creek Ditch. E. The site features internal bicycle/pedestrian paths and sidewalks connecting to public streets and Mail Creek Ditch access road. F. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and complies with transportation policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Hamlet at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., 54-87AE. PRO -71 � f _ p amp \a` $, l/ ►,� 4"`'`"'•�t� ��:� � � ,ram •. r,:. 1� 3 f • �/I f '9 II .jib r377-71— \ III TYPIGAL BUILDING LANDSGAPE DETAILS NOTE: TREES NDIGATED ON DETAILS ARE NOT SHOWN ON 'ME GO SCALE LANDSCAPE PLAN. GRIVE � Imm66- � - -- PLANT NOTES A. o -' pea \\ 4eea sbel bb b=d era bv�l.ppee > wwv.kiR geee. Ar \ 2. ire s� W rot be plvR.e cbur fI a ro✓ futt. .ete�y rga>.ar aiectre be and n cbur Lnen 10 rut to airy a >e e Ines. M'VabW ro ra. ie t 1* aro ..tom roe.. Tl peeve � ea b..ue .Kn P,e>c seryra e.t. b Loc.LA. a W etatx. yare.a . LNe rra prnr . ph�e9. • t.<a a •D badu� b.st t tr.a pnb 5. «—. a. A r" : rtt Xt pb. vet rro., cu cay rorour beror. v e.a o. arty rlltf"..y. � •. .+a>a.va m^e eo>e.r o-�..-nq..>� D.�...a c� w.. w�t� .y .bW yataa a.mtK ,�aeraa.a / S. png .loop 6aare.eN Onve. Mcastb Drrve me c on open s W be —NeO by t aevekyer ana t.d by OJ 6, a d, 11 tplme.a bapre V bra.. L. a upc etapo •s rcban o` LEGEND a.., �r A,—eee, to orswew: eT Tot.- 2T — 54 CT �� G Lsascwnp >het be .ntalea w .uvee ntb . bt— ar ,T DEGDUOus LPNOPT TREES vYet a ro.. v pa�armswe bpN for 115.( er tK vN.s of !\aL➢"1 mescapnp prw. LM Nw.rca of . Gar[irb.Ls or Occwency. ORNAMENTAL TREES ® CSHCRRUfBSC/GN O -*TMORGOiRUENCDS GOTVRCERESS HAMLET CONDO a 5D0 AT MIRAMONT PRELIMINARY P.U.D. LANDSCAPE PLAN L !LILISS2 I! ES cwroctu.e v❑IVNM �I'ib REVISION5- urt eaeRo�r ROAD MAMtETDWG /�SMC ll JJCT - — DATE- MAT 22 19 // SCALE 1's20' SCALE• 1' • 60' NORTH DRAWN 5T• c5 ♦ MO 2OF V 0 • e n SOUTMIiOC[ mxtn M sw�tvuo OAK/ C- O T ro ►v \NC)C> a FARM O D P f avitCC ffAPILET Cbij,Dss prr MsjtAMoniT, PEE• P.V.D. , ST/tFF I'1Ein0 ZIULJ 24, IA4 S SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: HAMLET CONDOMINIUMS @ MIRAMONT PUD DESCRIPTION: 108 single family units on 11.68 acres DENSITY: General Population 108 (units) x 3.2 9.24 du/acre (persons/unit) = 345.6 School Age Population Elementary - 108 (units) x .120 (pupils/unit) = 12.96 Junior High - 108 (units) x .055 (pupils/unit) = 5.94 Senior High - 108 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 5.4 (�LLFQ• U nG_ L (�QCu TECTS PC. 748 WHALERS WAY • BLDG E, SUITE 200 • FORT COLLINS • COLORADO 80525 • (970) 223-1820 May 19, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Members c/o Ted Shepard Planning Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Planning Objectives for: Parcel E of Oak/Cottonwood Farms, Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont P.U.D. Hamlet Condominiums is a preliminary P.U.D. at the Miramont P.U.D. located on the corner of Boardwalk Drive, a collector, and Highcastle Drive a neighborhood street and bordered on the South by Mail Creek Ditch. The site of 11 .681 acres is to include the design of 108 1 ,2, and 3 bedroom condominiums to include 12-6 plex buildings and 9-4 plex buildings. A unique feature of this project is the design of 2 car attached garages for each unit. With a density of 9.2 units per acre, this site is situated perfectly to meet the City's planning criteria and objectives. It is close to Werner Elementary School, Preston Junior High School and the new Fort Collins High School. It is within walking distances of a retail center and the Oakridge Industrial Center, a high employer area. As well as these amenities, there is a City neighborhood park planned for the area across from the development on Boardwalk Drive. Planning Objectives for the property include: 1 . Access to the site from Boardwalk Drive, a collector, to minimize traffic onto Highcastle. Only fire access will be allowed off of Highcastle. 2. There is little vegetation located on the site. One large cottonwood located in the Mail Creek Ditch easement will be maintained. 3. Minimize the impact of the buildings along Boardwalk and Highcastle by orienting the majority of the buildings with the shorter facades of the buildings facing the streets. 4. Development of 108 units with common open space areas to be maintained by a Home- owner's Association. 5. No detention area is required of this site. Detention is located across Boardwalk Drive and is diverted to this location via a culvert. 6. Trash removal will be per individual unit. Each homeowner will be required to place trash out on a given day of the week. • 7. Architectural design and material selections will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. We believe that the Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont offers the mixed use the City is seeking. Incorporating these units increases the density of housing in the Miramont development and meets the intent of this P.U.D. The traffic study shows that increasing the previously planned duplexes into higher density condominiums will not have a great impact on Boardwalk Drive. Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, ALLER•LINGLE ARCHITECTS P.C. Michael L. (Mick) Aller MLA/mr AAr Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA CRITERION Ai . COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITER'I ,ONLY the c^tenon Will the cnieria applicabl0 be safisfiedi - o j 3 Yes No If no, please exclain 1.1 Solar Orientation I I I I 1 1 1.2 Comorehensive Plan 1.3 Wiidlife Habitat 1.4 Mineral Depcsit I I ti/ i.Z� .: iuc;lcaliy Jensltive /Areas I reserved I I I Te Lands Of Agricultural Imoortance reserved I ( I 1.7 Enerav Corservation 1.8 Air Qualitv I ✓ I I I ✓ 1.0 Vl,'ater Qualliy I ✓ I 0 Sewage arc Wastes I✓ i I I✓ 1.12 A2. 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.:, 2.:, 2.7 2.� 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 A 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 WaterGonservation 1 I I ✓ Residential Density 17/ I I 1 ✓ NE'GHBOP" COD COMPA T 1BILITY CRITERIAI Velicuiar. Pecestrran. Bike Transocration I i vuiicir.c P!ac_=r,.ent and Orientation I ✓1 I I Natural Features I ,/I I 1 ✓ Vehicular Circulation anc Parking �/1 1 ' ✓ 2.^er,ency Access - ✓1 1 I ✓ 1 egestrian Circulation r.rc^itecture 1✓ I I l r Buiicinc He!cnt and Views I I I Shading 1 Solar Access I 1 Historic Resources I Setbacks v Landscape Sicrs 1 Site Lighting 1 �/ Ncise and Vibration Glare or Heat 1 v Hazardous Materiais ENGINEERING CRITERIA Utility Capacity 1 1 Design Standards Water Hazards Geologic Hazards I 'ed 14-rIJED "9r irwot , OeE► "'rWEO AT P/NAIL Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised h 1994 -61- US� GET r� �,c A or,• �2 EG/i" 1 • <✓� y DENSITY CHART Criterion Maximum Earned Credit Credit 2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center; or 20feoanporctdnegod_gc_ter. 20Y o b 650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [61 dwelling 20% units per acre on a gross acreage basis) C 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center IIAA MON Y M A R K8 T 1090 10 3500 feet of —an— existing neighborhood_ or co_mmu_nity park; or 20% d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community _ 10% W facility (except golf courses); or I R Aln ON T I"► Ni _ _PARK_ 350o feet of a publicly owned golf coarse, whether developed of no[ p VT H DG E ____ 1C7Y Qe 2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education 10% m laws E'ervER 10 f 3000 feet of a major employment center OAK k IO 6E �—MD U s-rju oL PARK 20% a 0 1000 feet of a child care center 5% h "North" Fort Collins 2090 i The Central Business District 209o' J 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 - 1090 Conti ui 3 10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary 17 - 2 o contlEuirY:. 15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 o contiguity; 20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 4090 contiguity; 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. E HO oi. 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. 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. S p If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise H required by City Code, enter a 1% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested. 4 If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low Z income families, enter that percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 3090. oIf m r a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: Type "A" 5 x lyne —Units ota In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% Type "B" 1.0 x Tvne "A" Unit Total Units Continued Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994 -79- H Z O m DENSITY CHART (continued) Criterion Earned Credit 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. 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: 94'o 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. V If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. V If the applicant commits to providing 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 q 7 Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994 - 79a - C 17-� HAMLET AT MIRAMONT Density Chart P Calculations: Community Building Assume minimum of 1,500 s.f. @ $60.00 s.f. $60 x 1,500 s.f. = $90,000 $90,000 -�- 106 units = $849 total per unit 1 % for each $100 = $849 $100 = 8.49 points Density Chart K: See Attached Energy Appendix "E" APPENDIX "E" Method One: Direct comparison to Model Energy Code. This method awards points based on the extent to which the proposed building exceeds the minimum standard as established in the Model Energy Code using the systems approach. Certification by a professional engineer licensed in Colorado will be required to demonstrate that the annual energy consumption will be a certain percentage, less than the same building just meeting the minimum standard as defined in the Model Energy Code. Percentage below the Model _Ener-z Code Minimum Points Awarded 15 - 25% 1.0 point 26-35% 2.0 points 36 - 45% 3.0 points 46% or more 4.0 points Method Two: Points will be given for the implementation of one or more of the energy conservation measures listed below. The use of Method Two requires that the final approved PUD plans and construction plans submitted for a Building Permit must specify all of the energy conservation measures for which points have been awarded in the approved plan. The total number of energy conservation points earned will be based upon the followin table: ^ �/� 0. - / n V lA•y'pollt 1.6 - 2.5 2.0 points 2.6 - 3.5 3.0 points 3.6 or more 4.0 points Method Two Energy Conservation Measures: 1. Long axis of building is east/west (building oriented to south, with majority of windows on south wall) 0.2 2. Ratio of exterior wall area to interior floor area is less than 1.5 0.3 3. Mass of exterior building walls greater than 30 lb/sq. ft. 0.2 Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 - 120 - 4. Passive solar heating utilized by building heating system with a minimum of savings fraction of 0.4 (using orientation that maximizes solar gain and window coverings) 3.0 5. Natural daylighting utilized, with automatic insulated covers with minimum R-value of 2.5 0.3 6. Overall wall U-value is <0.2 1.0 7. Overall roof U-value is <0.6 0.3 8. Reflective glass or film used on all windows 0.2 9. Vestibules, air locks, or revolving doors used on all entrances 0.2 10. Automatic night/weekend temperature setback is provided 0.4 11. "Free Cooling" (using outside air) used for fan systems of less than 5000 CFM 0.2 12. Low leakage outside air and exhaust air dampers used; 1% leakage maximum at 5" W.C. 0.3 13. Variable air volume system used, with inlet vanes or variable speed drives 0.5 14. High efficiency motors (as labeled by manufacturer) used 0.1 15. Water-cooled condensers used for mechanical cooling systems 0.2 16. Evaporative cooling used in lieu of mechanical cooling 0.4 17. Boilers or furnaces used with firing efficiencies greater than 82% 0.2 18. Automatic spark ignition used for gas fired boilers, furnaces, unit heaters, etc. 0.1 19. Automatic dampers used in combustion air intakes 0.1 20. Outside air reset used for boiler supply water temperature control (boiler water temp reset inversely from outside temp) 0.3 21. Exhaust or condenser heat recovery utilized 0.3 22. Waste water heat recovery utilized (car washes, laundries, etc.) 2.0 Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -121- 23. Ice or low temperature water storage system utilized for off-peak air conditioning and reduced air conditioning equipment sizes 1.0 24. Electric resistance heat not used 0,2 25. Night air used for pre -cooling space with building air handling system, automatically controlled 0.1 26. Fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts are used throughout the building 0.2 27. Motion detector lighting control is used for all lighting 0.2 28. Lighting watt density less than 2W/sq. ft. 0.3 29. Building uses active solar, geothermal, wind, or other non -depleting energy source (capable of collecting, storing, and distributing) for space heating, with a minimum savings fraction of 0.4 3.0 30. Radiant heating used in lieu of unit heaters 0.2 31. Roof automatically cooled with water spray 0.1 32. Windows are shaded from summer sun (over- hangs, window coverings, deciduous trees) 0.2 33. Computerized energy management system used with capability to cycle equipment, automatic lights on/off, optimum start, night/weekend setback 1.0 34. Use of an existing structure that is in compliance or is brought into compliance with the adopted Model Energy Code (entire structure must be in compliance) 1.0 35. Other methods (to accommodate new technology). Points will be assigned on a proportionate basis by comparing the amount of energy that can be saved by the proposed measure with the amount of energy that can be saved by utilizing other items from the Method Two listing. To{al I.8 Land Development Guidance System. for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 - 122 - • • cc M 0 00 0 0 .z Q o W C14 0 C: J .Q 0 `9 v M 0 0 z a w 0 J W D z w a z a r z a m M c� z CC w LL, z z LLi w _J CL. L. U — O Q W cr O CD a n z a LL! U- 4 To: Mick Aller, Eric Bracke, Fort Collins From: Matt Delich Date: May 22, 1995 MEMORANDUM Aller • Lingle Architects Fort Collins Transportation Division Planning Department ~41q� Subject: The Hamlet at Miramont traffic study (File: 94122ME1) The Hamlet at Miramont is a continuing development within the Oak/Cottonwood Farm area in Fort Collins. This memorandum compares the general trip generation used in previous studies with the site specific uses proposed at this time. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm area is south of Harmony Road, west of Lemay Avenue, and north of Fossil Creek. Its western edge is the existing development located east of College Avenue (Fairway Estates and Fossil Creek Meadows). The Oak/ Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan shows the area divided into lettered parcels (A through V). This plan is shown in the Appendix. The "Oak/Cottonwood Farm Site Access Study," May 1992 addresses the traffic impacts of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan. This site access study addressed the existing uses, primarily in Parcel R, and development of the remainder of the site. The Hamlet at Miramont is located on Parcel E from the Overall Development Plan (ODP). The ODP showed 60 single family dwelling units on Parcel E. The Hamlet at Miramont is proposed as 108 dwelling units in 9 four-plex and 12 six-plex buildings. In the "site data" portion of the site plan, these dwelling units are listed as townhomes. Parcel E daily trip generation from the site access study was 575 average weekday vehicle trip ends as single family detached dwelling units. The peak hour trip generation was 44 trip ends in the morning and 60 trip ends in the afternoon. The trip generation of the proposed Hamlet at Miramont is calculated at 630 daily trip ends, 48 morning peak hour trip ends, and 59 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Comparing the trip generation of the Parcel E uses indicates virtually no difference between the approved and proposed development. It is concluded that the proposed development is consistent with that used in the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Site Access Study. • • May 25, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board c/o Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont Dear Board Members: We are writing to express our opposition to the above referenced development. We attended the neighborhood information meeting last night on this project, but will be unable to attend the next Board meeting at which this development will be discussed. We think this letter, however, expresses several of the concerns raised by local residents at last night's meeting who hopefully will express those concerns again at the public Board meeting. There was much discussion last night about density, but we hasten to say that our objection to this project is not based on density of the overall development at Miramont. We agree with the need for mixed density development to alleviate the strain on city services and public transportation needs. However, we do object to approval of this project based on two other arguments: 11 - Change in the Master Plan. This parcel of land is designated in the current Master Plan as "Low to Medium Density". During the information meeting, Mr. Ted Shepard with the Planning Department stated that this proposed development would not violate the intent of the Master Plan and that the Master Plan would not require revision prior to project approval. We have been unable to determine City definitions for "Low" or "Medium" density, but, if minimum density requirements have been set at three units per acre, we would assume that "Medium Density" would be no more than five to six units per acre. We would certainly strongly argue that a project incorporating 108 units on an 11 acre site (about 9 1/2 units per acres) does "violate the intent of the Master Plan". We can only assume that there was some logic that went into the original Plan which would preclude this development in this location. Neighboring property owners based, to some extent, their purchases on what they saw in the Master Plan and it should now not be amended without public input. Finally, there are other parcels within this area which have been designated for this type of development. Planning and Zoning Board May 25, 1995 Page Two 12 - Maintenance of View Corridors. At least some of the reasoning behind the Master Plan involved the preservation of view corridors to the west for people driving on South Lemay Avenue and residents of Miramont, Oak Ridge, Southridge, and other surrounding neighborhoods. While no single view corridor can be guaranteed, development of the highest, most prominent parcel of ground in the area with this type of project involving numerous, closely packed tall structures detracts from a quality of life which attracts many people to the region. More importantly, there are other options. The land northeast of Boardwalk is lower in elevation and has been designated on the Master Plan for this type of development. Consideration might also be given to an exchange for the parcel across the street planned for a city park and place the park land on the higher, more prominent ground. This would not only preserve view corridors, it would also create a more desirable park with varying terrain that would provide a safe pedestrian corridor for children walking to Werner Elementary School. Sufficient level ground remains for the required athletic fields. In conclusion, let us reiterate that we do not oppose this type of development anywhere in Miramont, but the location of the project on this prominent parcel represents a failure in community planning. We heard a great deal from the developer last night about this being the only financially viable project for this parcel in the current declining market. While we are concerned about his financial well-being, none of us have purchased property with the guarantee of a financial gain at resale and this developer's profit should not be guaranteed at the expense of good community planning. There are alternatives so that everyone can win. We urge the members of the Planning and Zoning Board to reject this proposal and consider these other alternatives. Thank you for your consideration. Allan and Linda Hauck 1100 White Oak Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 L� June 20, 1995 City of Fort Collins, Planning Dept Attention: Ted Shepard RE: Krug Development/KEM Homes Miramont Subdivision The Hamelot We understand the proposed plan for this subdivision is 110 units consisting of 4-plexes and 6-plexes. One of our concerns is the density of this proposal. We would rather see less units, approximately 96 units, rather than 110 units and more grass, landscaping and green area. Another concern is the setback along High Castle. We would like see a larger green area with berms and Austrian pines along High Castle with the condo's set further back. We would suggest placing the one story units behind the green area along all the neighboring streets, and progress into the two story units. This would provide a better aestetic effect because of the large hill the development is being placed. We appreciate you taking these concerns into your consideration in the further development of this project. Sincerely, 0 June 20, 1995 City of Fort Collins, Planning Dept Attention: Ted Shepard RE: Krug Development/KEM Homes Miramont Subdivision The Hamelot We understand the proposed plan for this subdivision is 110 units consisting of 4-plexes and 6-plexes. One of our concerns is the density of this proposal. We would rather see less units, approximately 96 units, rather than 110 units and more grass, landscaping and green area. Another concern is the setback along High Castle. We would like see a larger green area with berms and Austrian pines along High Castle with the condo's set further back. We would suggest placing the one story units behind the green area along all the neighboring streets, and progress into the two story units. This would provide a better aestetic effect because of the large hill the development is being placed. We appreciate you taking these concerns into your consideration in the further development of this project. Sincerely, :7 • June 20, 1995 City of Fort Collins, Planning Dept Attention: Ted Shepard RE: Krug Development/KEM Homes Miramont Subdivision The Hamelot We understand the proposed plan for this subdivision is 110 units consisting of 4-plexes and 6-plexes. One of our concerns is the density of this proposal. We would rather see less units, approximately 96 units, rather than 110 units and more grass, landscaping and green area. Another concern is the setback along High Castle. We would like see a larger green area with berms and Austrian pines along High Castle with the condo's set further back. We would suggest placing the one story units behind the green area along all the neighboring streets, and progress into the two story units. This would provide a better aestetic effect because of the large hill the development is being placed. We appreciate you taking these concerns into your consideration in the further development of this project. Sincerely, V- &6--� -0 4�_ IIIJ6-� 1 60, opos-zg- ZZ-3-q // k :sa J • July 18, 1995 Ted Sheppard City Planning City of Fort Collins Dear Ted, D � IE 0 U LEE JUL 1, 81995 I am writing with concerns about the multi -family units called the Hamlot. I do the statistics for the number of multi -family units being built in Fort Collins, and it is ever increasing. Last month, one month alone, June 1995, permits were pulled for 266 multi -family units. Year to date for 1995, 283 multi -family units permits have been pulled. My question is, is it necessary to have so many more multi -family units built and can the City support that many units? It appears there are many, many units over in the proposed neighborhoods by the Hamlots. I have talked with you about the number of units proposed in the Hamlot and it is a concern to me. I think Tom and Debbie Graf have written with the same concerns. I would like to see more green space, setbacks further fromthe street, and the units on the street corner of Highcastle and Boardwalk reduced or eliminated. This is a new neighborhood, one we would like to be able to have some say in, one we are proud of, and one we would like to be safe, clean and green. I appreciate you taking this into consideration. Sincerely, i lazy Ann Chantler • D A1,8 95 0 —0 Curtis & Patricia Bluemke 5149 Sawgrass Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 204-0621 102 _&✓�� A14.s JUL 18 11JI <