Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAINRIDGE FARM PUD PRELIMINARY AND AMENDED ODP - 18 92B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSi� ITEM NO. 26/27 MEETING DATE 5/23/94 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Mountain Ridge Farm Preliminary P.U.D., #18-92B Amendment to Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. APPLICANT: Miramont Associates, Ltd. c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Mountain Ridge Farm, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. to allow a re -designation of parcels and a reduction in the anticipated number of dwelling units. This is also a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 149 single family lots and 30 townhome/duplex units on 58.66 acres located west of Shields Street and approximately 1,300 feet south of Horsetooth Road. The site is also located east of Imperial Estates (County subdivision) and zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Major Change to the O.D.P. Approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request for a mix of residential uses is in conformance with the O.D.P. The proposed density is supported by the performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The residential land use is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. The street network, including the extension of Westfield Drive, is supported by transportation and planning policies. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT HORSETOOTH RD. w LA TROUTMAN PARKWAY HARMONYROAD •ls1610V,"\1►`■ONID 5 E AI ESTATES m BTOCKB:✓D G.UD. MAC FO ST V / � r — �A 1 7VT I i . / 6 - I I CRV OF FOPT CC FUlllf✓E PA nnp ATTACI K S DETAL BKYIlE weorvLwoN I® IT ��3` �.a FFEVEW Fyn. III III x �@ IIII �1 s � U gym\\\ I _ = ul ni GENERAL NOTES »uD USE BREAKDOWN -^ Ynw WIM mqm® A& I K\ lise ' sou. wrs cs IFARM I?eUZ< l LA/ASCAPE PLAN •-• w i (irj of forF Go1lMn �tb• ` DridGovq u?oll�, Gy G (+�p•1 w W k°-►o No Text �` t iquova Walla, bi G (�T) W wbCA,"T fif 'Tq v-ttT �, htv1tov-) Cl o� p�� lop' O.O.W. l" tc . ouawco waive o li.) �; of Fo.i CaUins htd• V�rFiuwl Gt G (}`II''1 S- �Wold-i *. -f q? tdt, k, f,re z.t �-t*wTtvo ( 6ort e1 Pt,) loot 2.0•W• MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM PRELIMINARY PUD LAND USE BREAKDOWN MARCH 7, 1994 Site Area Totals Residential 2,032,638 sq.ft. 46.66 acres Regional Detention 546,383 sq.ft. 12.54 acres TOTAL AREA 2579021 sq.ft. 59.21 acres Area Gross Residential 2,032,638 sq.ft. 46.66 acres Net Residential 1,685,395 sq.ft. 36.40 acres Dwelling Units Single Family 113 units Patio Homes 37 units Attached Homes 30 units TOTAL UNITS 180 units Solar Oriented Lots 119 units 66.11 % Density Gross 3.86 du/ac Net 4.95 du/ac Coverage Buildings 305,000 sq.ft. 15.01 % Street R.O.W. 447,243 sq.ft. 22.00% Parking & Drives 71,600 sq.ft. 3.52% Open Space: Active 271,487 sq.ft. 13.36% Other Common 81828 sq.ft. 4.03% Private 855,480 sq.ft. 42.09% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 1,208,795 sq.ft. 59.47% Floor Area Residential 450,000 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 360 spaces Other 12 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 372 spaces 2.07 spaces/unit *note: Garages and/or driveways will accommodate handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking Maximum Building Height 36 ft. Setbacks (unless otherwise noted) Single Family Front 20 ft. Side 5 ft. Corner Side 15 ft. Rear 15 ft. Patio Homes Front 12 ft. 17' at garage doors Side 0 ft. 10' min. between buildings Corner Side 15 ft. Rear 15 ft. Attached Homes Front 12 ft. 17' at garage doors Side 0 ft. 10' min. between buildings Rear 10 ft. SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM PUD -Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 179 dwellings on 59 acres DENSITY: 3.03 General Population 179 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 626.5 SchoolAge Population Elementary - 179 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 80.55 Junior High - 179 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 37.59 Senior High - 179 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 33.12 Design Affected Schools CapacitX Enrollment Johnson Elementary 568 573 Webber Junior High 900 977 Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1404 0 urban design, inc. MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM P.U.D. Statement of Planning Objectives March 7, 1994 Mountainridge Farm P.U.D. is planned to comprise several neighborhood housing areas included on the approved Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm ODP. Mountainridge Farm is a part of the neighborhood bounded by South Shields Street, Harmony Road, Taft Hill Road, Skyline Acres and the Imperial Estates subdivision. This area is evolving as a mixed density area compromising the single family areas of The Gates and The Overlook, Regency Park, The Villages at Harmony West, the planned multi -family areas of Pineview, Arapahoe Farm, Cobblestone Corners and Regency Park, a church, an elementary and middle school, and a planned neighborhood park, and the planned Pineview Neighborhood -Service Center. Mountainridge Farm P.U.D. is planned to provide a range of housing opportunities that reflect the best plan for each parcel, including attached homes, patio homes, and single family homes. These parcels have been designed with sensitivity to the site's topography, mountain views, visibility from the adjacent neighborhoods, existing vegetation, the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal, and the regional storm water detention facilities. Large tracts of open space have also been incorporated into Mountainridge Farm. These open space areas provide a buffer between various uses, as well as to Shields Street. They also preserve the existing stand of Cottonwood Trees, and incorporate the regional storm water detention facilities. The applicant's project goals are consistent with the adopted Goals and Objectives and the Land Use Policies Plan of the City of Fort Collins with regard to neighborhood planning, compatibility, mixed use development, and locational criteria for various land uses. Applicable policies include: Policy 3 The City shall promote: a. Maximum utilization of land within the city; d. The location of residential development which is close to employment, recreation, and shopping facilities. Policy 12 Urban density residential development - usually at three of more units to the acre - should be encouraged in the urban growth area. Policy 74 Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban design elements) should be provided between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses. Ld�y7WP@� urban design, inc. Policy 75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities. Policy 79 Low density residential uses should locate in areas: a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and regional/ community shopping centers; b. Which have easy access to major employment centers; C. Within walking distance to an existing or planned elementary school; and d. Within walking distance to an existing or planned neighborhood park and within easy access to a community park; and e. In which a collector street affords the primary access. Development of Mountainridge Farm is expected to begin in the fall of 1994, and continue through 1997. Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. Amendment to the Mountain May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: - Preliminary, #18-92B Ridge Farm ODP, # 1. Background• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L-P; Vacant (Stockbridge P.U.D.) N: R-L-P; Multi -Family Residential (Cobblestone Corners P.U.D.) N: R-E; Existing Rural Residential (Skyline Acres) S: R-L-P; Vacant (Pineview and Westbrook P.U.D.'s) E: R-L-P; Vacant (Four Seasons Future Residential) W: R-L-P; Vacant (Future Westfield Park) W: FA-1; Existing Rural Residential (Imperial Estates) Mountain Ridge Farm was annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth - Harmony West Annexation in 1980 and is included in the 224 acre Arapahoe Farm - Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. approved in October of 1987. In 1991, the Arapahoe Farm - Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. was amended to address changes to the Arapahoe Farm portion only. In 1992, Mountain Ridge Farm, Filing One, Preliminary P.U.D. was approved. A previous applicant received preliminary approval for 41 single family lots on 11.11 acres on Parcel E along Shields Street, just south of the intersection with Wabash Street. The application for Final P.U.D. was withdrawn by the applicant. In 1993, Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. was approved for 34 units on 5.02 acres on Parcel 2-D of the Mountain Ridge O.D.P. At 6.7 dwelling units per acre, this project is a mix of duplexes and townhomes. 2. Land Use• A. Overall Development Plan Amendment The Preliminary P.U.D. covers the entire 66 acres of the Mountain Ridge Farm portion of the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P., approved in 1987. This 1994 request for Preliminary P.U.D. does not match the anticipated land uses and densities as shown on the 1987 O.D.P. in that there is an elimination of "Multi -Family" designated parcels in favor of "Patio Home" parcels. Overall, there is a reduction in the total number of anticipated dwelling units. The L.D.G.S allows for changes to an O.D.P. Major changes to an O.D.P. must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Changes are reviewed based on conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mj(iN7-,4'lAI )eIDGE P4451-111 /NAA y F. (/•Q Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criterion be satisfied? ilf no, Please explain r s a 3 Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation 1.2 Comprehensive Plan 1.3 Wildlife Habitat 1.4 Mineral Deposit 1.5 Ecologically. Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Im ortance 1.7 Energy Conservation 1/ 1.8 Air Quality 1.9 Water Quality 1.10 Sewage and Wastes A2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bike Transportation 2.2 Building Placement and Orientation '/ 2.3 Natural Features V 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parkin ✓ 2.5 Emergency Access ✓ �/ , 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation 2.7 Architecture ✓ 2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shadin ✓ 2.10 Solar Access ✓ ✓ 2.11 Historic Resources ✓ 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape ✓ ,/ 2.14 Signs ✓ 2.15 Site Li htin ✓ ✓ 2.16 Noise and Vibration 2.17 Glare or Heat ✓ 2.18 Hazardous Materials A3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity ✓ 3.2 Design Standards / 3.3 Water Hazards ✓ / 3.4 Geologic Hazards / / MountainFarm Preliminary PUD DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit IfAIIDwelling UnitsAreWithin: Credit a 20% 2000 tool of on existing wappeavod neighborhood shopping center. 20 b 10% 650 foot of an existing transit slop. . C 10% 4000 fool Olen existing or cpprwod roglonal shopping cantor. ' d 20% =fool ofanox]sllrgorrosonodneighborhood park communlryparkofcommunirytocllily. 20 We 10% TOO fool of axhod, mooring all the requirements onho computscryodwation laws of slate orColwodo. 5 f 20% 3000 foot of0=10, employnlont cantor. CO g 5% 1000 foot of a childcare center. h 20% -F•lonh'Fort COMM . i 20% The Central Businoss District Aproject whose boundary Is contiguous to okislksg urban dwolopmont.Credit maybe earned as follows: 0%—For projects whom property boundary has 0 to 10x. contiguity 1 30% : 10 to 15%-For praoctswhow property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity: :15lo20%—Fwpiol clswhg proportybwndoryhw2oto30%c liguity, 25 20lo 25%—Fw prolmtswhose propoMbeundory hos301040%cenligWly, 251o30%—For projoctswos property boundary hos40:o 50%contiguity If it conbo domwsslratod that thoprolectwlllmduce non-renowoblo energy usoogo either through the opplicaeonof ollornativu onorgy k syslorrs or through comrtullod energy consofwtion measures boyond:hol normolyfequkod by0fry Codo.a5% bonsmay bo oannod for overy5%ioducllan lnenotgyuse. Colwiofo o l%borws lof "ry50acrosklcWod In the prolOct m Calculate the percentage of the total owes]n the project that are devoted to rowoatlonol use. enter ll2 of that percentage w a bonus 6 If the applicant convNts to proseMng permanent While open space that meets the allysminInturn requirements, colculate the percentage n of$Nsoponspocoacroogelothetotaldovebpmentoct oge,onterlhtsporcontogoasabonus II pad of the tolat dovebprsont budget Is lobo spent on neighborhood public transit fochlliosvMchwo not okorwlso required byO y Colo. O Inlet 2%bonus for every$100 pot dwolting uudl Invested ' It pal of the total dwolopmont budget is tobo spent onnoighbwhowf facilities and mrAcoswNch are not otherwise required byatyCodo, P enterer%bofwsfmd iy$100pofdwoRVunllhwslod �• Ira conyditnent is being mode lodwelopo specified percentage of the total rxunbor of dwelling units for lowincomo families, enter that q porcontogoosoborws,uploo=xim of30%. It a connilment is being mode lodevelopo specified percentage of the total number otdweAing unlit for Typo Wond Typo V handicapped Z housing as doMod by the Otyof Fort Collintcolwlale the bonus as follwz O r Typo'A— Stirnos T�Ib NIS Typo'B'—tA limos T TO-13 s . to nowso ftU tho corslbinod bonusbe gloolor lhon30%. If the silo oradjocont proportycontolns an historic building orptoce.o bonus maybo owned for the foll wMg; 3% — For preventing wmiligoling outside lnfluoncos(e.g.erMrorsmontal land use, cosiholie._oconomleand ssodol factors) adverse to lit 5 prowtvalksn 3%— For assuring that nowslrucMoswill be In keeping with the character of the building or piace.whllo avoiding Iola] units 3% — Fwproposing adoptive usoof the bulking at place lhotwfll load to its continuance, ptosorwlbnond improvement Inon Ito ponlonor ollof the requited parking In the multiple tamlN project Is provided undefgroundvAlNn the building. or Inonolovalod pork]ng struchxowanoccossoymtorhoghmonysltuclue.otwnusmaybooannedosiolbo , t 9%—Fwpfoviding75% wmoro of the parking Inostnalure:' 6% — For pnovkBng $0-74%of rho pocking lno sl=lwo; 3% — FwpfoNtling25-49%oflhopoNwinasinxIl e. u It ocomm rnod B being mode to provide approved cutomalk; rite extinguishing sysloms for the dwQMng unll;enter a bonus of 10%. -30- TO: City of Fort Collins Planning Staff April 14,1994 Planning and Zoning Board Progressive Living Structures FROM: Imperial Estates Residents RE: Stockbridge Development As residents of the Imperial Estates subdivision of unincorporated Fort Collins (hereafter "we"), we respectfully submit this letter of opposition to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the planned development, Stockbridge, that has been submitted for board approval. As this subdivision plan will directly affect our quality of life, we reserve the right to raise several concerns that we believe the builders (Progressive Living of Loveland) should consider before approval. Below you will find a brief summary of our concerns that will be further elucidated in a planned report to be distributed prior to the P and Z Board worksession on Friday May 20. The developers and their investors are considering a somewhat risky undertaking and should be compensated for their hard work by expecting reasonable returns on those investments. Any investor or shareholder would expect that out of an investment. We are also investors. We are investors in our homes and real estate and in our families' quality of life. As investors, we considered the options available during the purchase of our homes. We chose to accept a rural setting with all the inconveniences of water distribution and septic tanks, rural mail distribution and county road services. The land adjacent to our development affords the City an opportunity to preserve that rural feeling in this ever-expanding city. We are very concerned that the builders have not considered this aspect of our lives and our investments in their plans. The Stockbridge development will consider developing the 30 acre plot to the east of Imperial Estates at 5 dwelling units per acne, a value totally inconsistent with the neighboring subdivisions (Imperial Estates- —1du/acre, Richmond- —I du/2 acres) as well as the new subdivision to the north of Horsetooth Rd., Kingston Woods-—3du/acre. We are concerned that this incommensurate housing density will impact negatively on our way of life. In our unincorporated subdivision, we may have livestock and outbuildings that are incompatible with the proposed very high density housing. The City is attempting to make affordable housing available to every resident. The developer's reasons for such high density are to make available such housing. However, the developer expects to offer the subdivided home sites at premium rates, resulting in homes that will sell for $120-140,000, a price range that is not considered affordable by many. The high density subdividing appears to be an attempt to only get a high return on their investment. This an admirable goal, but not one that suits the residents of Imperial Estates. The developer also stated that he needed to have this high of density in order to comply with existing and proposed minimum density requirements. The P and Z Board has approved lower density housing PUD's just recently (4/4/94 - Huntington Hills at 2 du/acre) to be commensurate with existing low -density housing. It is our understanding that this 5 du/acre minimum density requirement has been rejected by both the P and Z Board and the City Council. We believe that this development (and others near it) should be considered for lower density housing. We believe that the proposed development will also impact negatively on the infrastructure currently available in the area. At this time Imperial and Richmond do not have sewer infrastructures and possess rural water supplies. In addition, this housing density will introduce potentially 150 or more new drivers and probably double that number of pedestrians along Horsetooth Rd. This part of Horsetooth is still 2-lane blacktop with no sidewalks and no left-tum lane. The current bus route along the street will also be very heavily burdened by this explosive population growth. The new development will clearly burden the existing infrastructure unless the City is willing (or the developer) to improve the situation on Horsetooth Rd. Another infrastructure problem that will be apparent in the near future will be the impact on the two local schools (Johnson Elementary and Webber Junior High) that currently serve the area. Johnson is now being adapted to accommodate the existing overcrowding. Although the school board is primarily responsible for determining school size, location and district lines, the board could not have foreseen this lot going to high -density housing as it was previously held by a church group that was planning to develop it as a place of worship. We would like to have more of a transitional zone between existing lots in Imperial Estates and proposed lots in Stockbridge. Also we would like to see larger lot sizes and more greenbelt area to be more balanced with existing neighborhoods (Imperial Estates and Richmond) as well as the new proposed subdivision of Mountain Ridge Fames. We would like to see some balanced infill to retain the character of our neighborhood. We feel that with the cooperation of the developer and the City planners Stockbridge could be made more appealing to existing neighborhoods as well as to future residents of the deveopment itself. The City of Fort Collins has become not only a cherished place to live and work, but also an inviting community. We chose to live in this neighborhood for its proximity to schools, the workplace, and the mountains, and clearly others would like to have those benefits also. We would like to see the developers and the City reconsider the plan for high -density housing in the lot east of Imperial Estates and work together to develop a plan that will smoothly transition our neighborhood into the next. Respectfully submitted, Imperial Estates Residents Contact Residents: Ed Robison 223-9372 Clayton ViIhauer 223-1104 Peter Dorhout 225-2310 Lonna Ni VanderZanden, DVM 4028 Crescent Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 April 25, 1994 City of Fort Collins Palming Staff Planning and Zoning Board Progressive Living Structures 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Q .. �� C' � P l` I have recently been informed of plans to connect our subdivision, hn iaH in Larimer County but not in Fort Collins, with a proposed subdivision WStock dge t. This would be dame by extending Westfield Drive fiT. jC to &E I vehemently object to this proposal. It would drastically increase the traffic both on Westfield and Crescent Drive, neither of which is constructed to be a thoroughfare. This is a quiet, "dead-end" subdivision here at Imperial Estates. Our streets cannot handle the excess traffic that would come with the road extension. There are no sidewalks here, hence children would be at additional risk. If sidewalks were to be added for their safety, those of us who are homeowners would have to pay handsomely for the This household strongly favors dropping the plans to cone th Imperial Estates. T• �ra6E Sincerely, Loma Ni VanderZanden HORSETOOTH RD. no N N PARKWAY HARMONY •1s1 LqIlri\1► 0:11Ible1:a7±\: :491bm:j:»nILIIolFI: ?�:m MYA URBAN WILDL, raised in a den si, ..ed in a rock crevice, hollow log, SPECIES OF THE MONTH: THE RED FOX or hole in the ground. By the end of the summer the -young leave the den and are on their own. Fox den ----(Ed:- This article "begins a semi -regular series Highlighting -locations are often cinown by local residents. It is interesting -or -common -urban -wildlife -species. —suggestions against-the-law-to-destroy-&-fox-den-while-t1Te young welcome for species you'd like to see discussed.) are still present. It comes as a surprise to many that the red fox is a very common animal in the Denver area. Having adapted to civilization quite nicely, this small member of the dog family is a resident of nearly every - drainageway in the metro area and -appears to be 1 Red foxes are widespread across North America, occurring from Alaska .to Mexico. They occur throughout Colorado, although they are less common on the eastern -plains. They are especially_abundant__ doing quite well. Sightings are frequent and the in streamside habitats. 4 -- Division of Wildlife receives numerous calls from Much of this information came from the excellent - excited citizens each month reporting -a"rare" fox book "Wild Mammals of Colorado" by R. R. sighting. People living on the edge of stream courses Lechleitner. - - - or undeveloped land often can view. hunting foxes - from their front window on a regular basis. -. =---- — -- The red fox, scientific name Vulpes fulva, is a slender mammal with sharp pointed muzzle, long bushy white -tipped tail, and erect pointed ears. The fur is most often quite red, but other color phases are known and some are quite darkly colored. Foxes appear larger than they actually are due to their thick fur. A typical red fox might weigh from 7 to 13 pounds, many being in the 10-pound range. Red fox are secretive but are active year-round. They are primarily active at night, and their food consists of a variety of animals and plants including mice, ' rabbits, birds, snakes, toads, insects, earthworms, berries, grasses, and forbs. They are very efficient predators on duck nests and will destroy the eggs and occasionally catch the adult duck. Foxes in Colorado mate in late January or early February. From 3 to 9 pups are born after.a week gestation period. The young are n�-pally UPCOMING MEETINGS OF INTEREST March 16, 1994. Management of Water Quality in Lakes & Reservoirs. Englewood, CO. Sponsor: Denver Regional Council of Governments. Registration Fee: $35. For more info: Juanita Hill (303)480-6760. April 6-8, 1994. Symposium on Issues & Technology in the Management of Impacted Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, CO. Sponsor: Thorne Ecological Institute. Registration Fee: $190. For More Info: (303)499-3647. April 19-22, 1994. National Symposium on River Planning & Management. Grand Junction, CO. Sponsor: American River Management Society. For More Info: Caroline Tan (510)655-5844. or Denny Huffman (303)374-2216 -October- 5-7, 1994.- -Colorado - Riparian 'Assn. Annual Convention. Theme: Change in the West: The Evolution of the Watershed Approach". Alamosa, CO. For More Info: Karen Hamilton (303)293-1576 or Brenda Mitchell (303)239-3724. October 22-26, 1994. National Symposium on Urban Wildlife. Seattle, WA. Sponsored by: National Institute for Urban Wildlife. For More Info: SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM PRELIMINARY DATE: MAY 16, 1994 APPLICANT: Nordick/Neal CONSULTANTS: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Matt Delich, P.E. CITY TRANSP: Tom Vosburg PLANNER: Ted Shepard This was a follow-up meeting to discuss transportation issues, primarily the proposed connection between Imperial Estates and Mountain Ridge Farm, via Westfield Drive. Eldon Ward presented a plan that indicated the proposed connection be made. He stated it was done at the direction of City Staff to promote efficiency within the section and to ease congestion on the arterials. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. Is Westfield Drive a collector street? RESPONSE: No, Westfield would be classified as a local street. 2. One citizen supported the connection. 3. A Veterinarian stated that he had broken his leg and had to sit at home for three weeks. During this time he observed the kind of traffic that occurred all through the day. He stated that from sunrise to 6:30 AM he saw elderly people walking, most of them with their pets, alongside the road for there are no side -walks on Westfield. About 7:30 AM the junior high children start walking, biking or roller-blading to school and at 8:30 AM the elementary children are walking by on their way to school. At 9:00 AM mothers who are accompanied by smaller children walk back home from escorting their other children to school and at 11:45 AM the mothers go back to pick up their children from morning kindergarten while at 12:30 PM the afternoon kindergarten children are beginning to arrive. At 2:30 PM the junior high students are walking home and at 3:30 PM lots of people are going by on their way home. After -school activities begin near sunset and he stated he has seen 1 many different kinds of 4-H animals walk down the road with their owners. He stated that other streets in Imperial Estates do not go through and he had purchased hishome with the understanding that they would have a rural lifestyle. He was opposed to the connection between Imperial Estates and Mountain Ridge Farm via Westfield Drive. 3. There was discussion about putting in berms, trees and/or upgraded fencing in the "panhandle" area. RESPONSE: Eldon Ward stated that berms have limited effect and that these were ranch style home in this area with low profile. Common perimeter fencing seemed to be the consensus from the last meeting. 4. Will the City maintain our streets in Imperial Estates? RESPONSE: No. 5. One man stated that the County stipulated that they would only do minor repairs to these roads and wondered if the residents had to be responsible for paving the streets. RESPONSE: As County residents, you have to check with the County Engineering. Department to determine the level of street maintenance within Imperial Estates. 6. Another man stated that many people park off these roads and therefore left little to no room to walk by and that the kids do not give right -away to vehicles. 7. It was mentioned that there were concerns about the planning ofthis subdivision and that the residents wanted it to be like a rural area and that they are being surrounded by homes, i.e. "Sprawl for All" on city -sized lots which are not compatible with the existing lots in Imperial Estates. The City has the sloppiest zoning law he has ever seen. RESPONSE: Eldon Ward stated that compatibility does not mean "the same as". B. It was asked if the City had met with the County and do the County Commissioners have any say on the land use?. RESPONSE: No, the City has not met with the County. The City has land use jurisdiction over parcels that are located within the city limits. Mountain Ridge Farm has been within the city limits since around 1980. 2 9. What constitutes "low density" housing? RESPONSE: Eldon Ward stated, 2-6 units per acre, single-family homes and that "high density" constitutes apartments, condominiums, 10-12 units per acre, etc. lo. If private property damage occurs due to water, sewer, or street construction, who's responsible? RESPONSE: Eldon informed them that the contractor would be liable for any construction damage, but, in most cases, this work is done in the public right-of-way. 11. One man stated that Richmond Drive (next to Cobblestone Corners) has berms and nice fences and that they wanted berms and fences. RESPONSE: Cobblestone Corners is a P.U.D. for townhomes (four- plexes) and duplexes with sideyards, not rear yards separating the P.U.D. from Skyline Acres. 12. When is Seneca Street going clear through to Horsetooth? RESPONSE: Seneca will be built in conjunction with Stockbridge. 13. How can the developer claim that Mountain Ridge will have no impact on Imperial Estates? How do you define impact? RESPONSE: Eldon Ward stated there will always be some degree of impact associated with land development. But based on the proposed density and on the traffic numbers we've seen, Mountain Ridge will have little or no impact on Imperial Estates. 14. Someone stated that there are 380 houses and nearly 800 cars between Stockbridge and Mountain Ridge Farm. Our estimate is that Westfield Drive will become an attractive route for these new city residents. Even if you mark the roads for drivers to go slower, won't they speed through Imperial Estates anyway? RESPONSE: Eldon Ward and Matt Delich stated that Seneca will likely be the attractive route for most drivers since it is a collector street that connects directly to Horsetooth and Harmony Roads. 15. Then why put Westfield through at all? We don't want it. RESPONSE: Tom Vosburg stated that the city prefers to connect Imperial Estates to Seneca so that there is efficient access to the future park and two schools for Imperial Estates. This helps reduce the impact on the adjacent arterial streets and reduces congestion at the arterial intersections. 3 Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 3 The changes to the O.D.P. are summarized as follows: 1. The primary changes are to Parcels E and F, along Shields Street. In 1987, these parcels were designated as "Multi - Family" with an anticipated density of 12.0 (E) and 10.1 (F) d.u./acre. Now, in 1994, the Preliminary P.U.D. indicates that these parcels have been downgraded to "Single Family" with an anticipated density of 2.8 (E) and 2.41 (F) d.u./acre. 2. Another change is to Parcel B, between Seneca Street and "Apache Forest." In 1987, this parcel was designated as "Patio Homes" with an anticipated density of 5.9 d.u./acre. Now, in 1994, this parcel has been downgraded to "Single Family and Patio Homes" with an anticipated density of 1.79 d.u./acre. 3. Parcel G, between Wabash and the canal, was designated, in 1987, as "Townhomes" with an anticipated density of 8.9 d.u./acre. Now, in 1994, this parcel has been downgraded to "Single Family" with an anticipated density of 1.85 d.u./acre. 4. Parcel A. between Seneca and Imperial Estates, was designated, in 1987, as "Single Family" with an anticipated density of 2.3 d.u./acre. Now, in 1994, this parcel has been upgraded to "Patio Homes" with an anticipated density of 4.6 d.u./acre. 5. Parcel D is now Cobblestone Corners P.U.D. In 1987, this parcel was designated as "Church/Patio Homes" with no anticipated dwelling units. Now, in 1994, with Cobblestone Corners, this parcel now features 34 units in a combination of duplexes and townhomes. Overall, there is a net reduction in the number of anticipated dwelling units from 426 in 1987 to 233 in 1994. There is also a reduction in the amount of. available land for development. Part of the reason there is a loss of total units is that since 1987, there has been additional master drainage analysis of the general area. During deliberations of the 1992 Preliminary P.U.D., the City Stormwater Utility identified two regional stormwater detention ponds designed to serve the wider drainage basin. These two ponds total 12.54 acres and are indicated as detention facilities on the P.U.D. In order to gain more land area, the Preliminary P.U.D. proposes to shift the alignment of the 16. One man asked if there could be a joint meeting between the County and the City and that most of the questions being asked were interlocking between the two parties. RESPONSE: Eldon Ward stated that joint meetings of this nature were monumental occasions and that it would not take all these boards to accomplish this. The County has not traditionally commented on projects located within city limits. 17. Who's liability is it if a needs to be further studies done. the bike paths. child gets hit by a car? There Cars have been seen traveling on RESPONSE: The liability would be the same as if it were any other public street in the City of Fort Collins or unincorporated Larimer County. Bike paths are usually barricaded so cars cannot enter. 18. One man stated that when you put city traffic on Westfield, then it becomes a City problem.He asked if Westfield was !dedicated as a public street. RESPONSE: Ted Shepard responded that it was likely that the streets within Imperial Estates were dedicated as public during the platting of the subdivision. Whether this public dedication carries a maintenance obligation on the part of Larimer County is a different question. The County Engineering Department should be asked to rule on this. 19. More traffic studies need to be done and a special look at the pedestrian traffic needs to happen. RESPONSE: Tom Vosburg responded that the traffic impact analysis that was done for Mountain Ridge meets the City's requirements for a traffic study. Although the trip generation numbers were not specifically assigned to Westfield Drive, the City Transportation Department believes that Mountain Ridge Farm will be served by a very good local and collector street network including Seneca, Wabash, and Troutman. This system will allow trips to be distributed north to Horsetooth, east to Shields, and south to Harmony. This distribution system is direct and efficient. Therefore, it is estimated that the amount of traffic relying on Westfield Drive will not overload the County street. 20. We are concerned that the traffic study did not specifically address Westfield Drive and the impact on Imperial Estates. 22. We do not even have street lights, let alone any sidewalks. Our streets are rural in character and this character will be sacrificed, against our will, by connecting us to Mountain Ridge. 4 23. which intersection on Horsetooth Road will be signalized? RESPONSE: Tom Vosburg stated that each intersection is valued on its own merits (traffic warrants) and he wasn't sure what intersection would warrant a signal. In a general sense, arterial/collector intersections are candidates for a traffic signal. 24. one man stated that the city of Ft. Collins as a whole is too big to be meaningful, but the neighborhoods, are not. Neighborhood values should take precedence over city-wide values. 5 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Mountain Ridge Farm, Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: April 13, 1994 APPLICANT: Gary Nordick and Bill Neal, Miramont Partnership CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Terrance Hoagland, Cityscape Design PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner The meeting began with a brief history of the Mountain Ridge Farm Overall Development Plan and a description of the proposed project. The P.U.D. is a mix of residential housing with a combination of single family detached homes, patio homes, and townhomes. Since the last proposal (1992), the City's Stormwater Utility has identified the need for two large stormwater detention ponds on the property. The P.U.D. that is proposed indicates a local street connection, via Westfield Drive, between Imperial Estates and Mountain Ridge Farm. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. What are the size of the lots next to Imperial Estates? RESPONSE: These are .the "patio home" lots and range in size from 5,000 to 5,500 square feet. 2. What is a "patio home?" RESPONSE: These are single family detached homes that are lots less than 6,000 square feet with an emphasis on a homeowner's association taking care of common area maintenance. Sometimes these homes feature a zero lot line on one side to create more usable space on the other side. 3. Why does Mountain Ridge Farm propose a street connection into Imperial Estates?. We don't need a street coming into our neighborhood. RESPONSE: The Overall Development Plan that was .approved in 1987 indicates a street connection at Westfield Drive, but not at Imperial Drive or any of, the north -south streets. Connecting Imperial Estates to Mountain Ridge Farm allows access to a city park and two public schools. 1 4. Connecting Westfield Drive will put more traffic on Crescent Drive as this will become a short cut for drivers who do not live in our neighborhood. RESPONSE: In all likelihood, Seneca Drive will attract the outside traffic since it is a collector street and will connect Horsetooth Road to Harmony Road. Seneca will be a direct shot to the park and two schools. 5. We live on Crescent Drive and are worried about increased traffic with Westfield opening up to Mountain Ridge. 6. What will be the price of the homes in Phase One? RESPONSE: These homes will be around $175,000 and attract "move up', - buyers. 7. Where will the kids in Mountain Ridge go to school? RESPONSE: To the best of our knowledge, these kids will go to Johnson Elementary and Webber Junior High. 8. What about overcrowding at Johnson? RESPONSE: The information from the School District is that Johnson will have available capacity to handle the kids from Mountain Ridge Farm: Johnson is presently adding six new classrooms. The phasing of Mountain Ridge will allow the new students to be absorbed into the school over time. The location of Mountain Ridge promotes the "walk-in" school and saves the District from having to bus kids in. 9. How can this be? Johnson is over capacity now? RESPONSE: The Planning Department has been informed by the School District that capacity is available in the total system of elementary schools that serve the entire district. This means that as walk-in neighborhoods fill in, these students will have priority to attend the walk-in school. Over time, school boundaries will be adjusted so that other schools accept those students who have to be bussed. This is an evolutionary process and there is a policy that no child be transferred more than twice. Finally, the District's demographer has perceived a trend where the entering kindergarten classes are getting smaller or staying flat in terms of enrollment. 10. Will the ditch be re -aligned? RESPONSE: Yes, the developer is seeking permission from the ditch company to re -align the ditch. Further, the ditch will be lined south to Wakerobin to.address leakage problems. 11. Groundwater availability is a big issue for Skyline Acres since there are 18 private wells in our subdivision. Some of these wells are only 35 feet deep. Any drop in groundwater could have serious implications for our neighbors. RESPONSE: The developers must respect the rights of adjudicated wells. The lack of irrigation will drop the groundwater by an estimated 12 to 18 inches. 12. Who will pay to line the ditch? RESPONSE: The developer. 13. The developer should put the larger lots next to Imperial Estates, not the patio homes. We need a transition such as a greenbelt. RESPONSE: We can look at doing some things in this area to provide a better transition. 14. What are the size of the lots next to Skyline Acres? RESPONSE: These lots average around 7,000 square feet. 15. The developer should petition the City for lower density and larger lots next to Imperial Estates. We have lots that range from one-third acre to one acre in size. Patio homes on small lots are not compatible. There should be consideration for larger lots to provide a sensitive transition for Imperial Estates. RESPONSE: Again, we will look at what we can do in this area. This "Panhandle" area, however, will likely remain as patio homes. 16. Will there be a homeowner's association for the greenbelts and common areas? RESPONSE: Yes, a homeowner's association will be formed to maintain the stormwater detention ponds at a higher level than normally maintained by the City. 17. What about Apache Forest? RESPONSE: This area will remain natural and undisturbed. This area will not be planted or irrigated. The only plantings will be natural grasses. 18. Will there be a permanent pond on the property? RESPONSE: We are discussing joint use of permanent pond for raw water irrigation with City Parks and Rec. No final decision have been made. 3 19. When will the park get built? RESPONSE: It is estimated that work will begin on the park when about 40% of the residential neighborhoods within the square mile section is built out. 20. What is the size of the Park? RESPONSE: Parks and Rec has purchased 15 acres. 21. Will there be a bike path? RESPONSE: Yes, there will be a bike path on the east side.of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. The timing of construction of this path is uncertain. 22. When will Seneca go north to Horsetooth and who pays for it? RESPONSE: Seneca will likely be extended north in conjunction with the Stockbridge P.U.D. Parks and Rec, with frontage on Seneca, must pay for their share just like any other developer. 23. When will Troutman be extended from Shields to Seneca? RESPONSE: Troutman will be extended when the land adjacent to it comes in for development. This land is not under contract with Nordick/Neal. 24. I'm concerned about street improvements required to extend Westfield Drive. Since I live in Imperial Estates next to , r Westfield, I don't want to lose trees or have my property destroyed by construction. Will there be compensation for any damages? RESPONSE: Any proposed construction for extending Westfield Drive will take place within the given right-of-way, not on private property. During construction, the general contractor is liable for any damages done to private property. If for some reason- work has to take place on private property, the owner will be consulted for permission prior to construction. 25. What streets will construction traffic use? RESPONSE: Construction traffic will likely take Shields to Wabash. This will allow construction of Phase One. Phase Two will be next to Phase One so Wabash could continue to be used. Construction traffic will not use streets in Imperial Estates. 26. Extending Westfield into Imperial Estates will ruin the character of our quiet neighborhood. Such an extension will only encourage short cuts for drivers who don't want to take Seneca and have to wait to get on,Horsetooth. 4 RESPONSE: The City Is Transportation Department believes that Seneca will attract most of the traffic. It will take drivers to Horsetooth, Shields, or Harmony Road. Short cutting through Imperial Estates may prove to be a longer route than using Seneca. 27. Westfield is one -quarter mile in length. It will attract short cut traffic. RESPONSE: Westfield does not tie directly into Taft Hill Road. There is a significant offset at Goodell Lane which makes this trip less direct. 28. Who is the target group for the patio homes next to Imperial Estates? RESPONSE: The market indicates that these buyers are "empty - nesters" in that there are no children at home. These buyers desire a strong maintenance association so they are free to travel for extended periods of time. Many of these buyers prefer a one- story home. 29. It is my opinion that these "empty -nesters" would not appreciate being near a city park orbeing near the walking route for school children to two schools. These patio homes should be shifted away from Imperial Estates closer to Cobblestone Corners. 30. What about the existing farmhouse? RESPONSE: The farmhouse will either be moved or demolished. 31. Where are the sewer lines that will serve the property? RESPONSE: The sewer line, 15 inch diameter, will be brought in from Shields to Seneca. From Seneca, the line will tee and go north and south. 32. We are an abutting property owners in Skyline Acres. We prefer that the perimeter fence in Cobblestone Corners be extended down our entire south property line so we have a matching continuous fence. We must have a fence for our protection. RESPONSE: The developer will fence the perimeter property fine for your protection: 33. What about the red fox? She lives in the area where you propose to re -align the ditch. She travels in the general area for food and has a litter of kits. , RESPONSE: Ideally, it would be nice if the preservation of Apache Forest would provide the cover and food source to keep the fox in the area. If this is not feasible then the developer would like to find the fox and re -locate to safer area. Perhaps C.S.U. could be 5 contacted with this effort. The developer will also work with the City 's Department of Natural Resources on what's the best course of action. 34. Is it possible to curve Westfield Drive in a more radical fashion to make it less attractive for cut through traffic? RESPONSE: This is a good comment. The constraints are that the southern edge is pre -determined by northern property line of the neighborhood park. There is also a water line that has to be placed under the street. We'll look at possible alignments given these constraints. 35. When do you propose to start? RESPONSE: Our schedule is to begin Phase One in the Fall of this year. Overlot grading beyond Phase One may be necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Stormwater Utility. 36. How much will lots go for in the single family area? RESPONSE: Based on today's market, the lots will range from $30,000 to $40,000. 37. What kind of fencing/landscaping would you consider next to Imperial Estates? RESPONSE: We would propose a six foot shadow box design that we are using in our Miramont project which abuts Fairway.Estates, also a County Subdivision. This fence is well accepted by those County residents. Landscaping could be trees in the backyards of the patio home lots. 6 Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal to create more efficient use of remaining acreage. As part of the consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D., the changes to the O.D.P. must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff recommends approval of the changes based on the following considerations: 1. The O.D.P. continues to offer a mix of housing types. Parcel H remains designated as "Townhomes" with an anticipated density of 8.18 d.u./acre (36 units). Combined with Cobblestone Corners (34 units), this represents 70 multi- family units, or 30% of the anticipated total. This mix satisfies the Land Use Policy Number 75, which states: 1175. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities." 2. The 1994 amended O.D.P. continues to offer densities that exceed the required minimum for P.U.D. Is. With an anticipated 233 dwelling units, the density is 3.5 d.u./acre. This overall density satisfies Land Use Policy Number 12, which states: 1112. Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area." Staff finds that with the proposed amendment, the 66 acre Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. remains in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the Amended Mountain Ridge Overall Development Plan. B. Residential Uses Point Chart The request for 179 residential units on 58.66 acres represents a gross density of 3.88 dwelling units per acre. This density is supported by a score of 76% on the residential uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. Points were awarded for proximity to an approved neighborhood shopping center (Pineview), an approved neighborhood park (Westfield Park), a public school (Johnson Elementary School), and for being contiguous to urban development. Also, points were earned for providing active open space areas. The proposed density at this location, therefore, is supported by the performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: Two neighborhood meetings have been held to discuss this Preliminary P.U.D. The minutes are attached. The primary issue is the proposed extension of Westfield Drive from its current dead-end Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 5 to the future intersection of Seneca Street. Other issues include lot sizes and urban densities, school capacity, groundwater, and perimeter fencing. The issue of extending Westfield Drive will be covered under Transportation. The other issues are summarized below. A. Lot sizes and Urban Densities Residents of Imperial Estates and Skyline Acres are concerned about the compatibility of placing urban residential densities next to existing, County -approved, rural residential neighborhoods. There is a concern that urban densities, at a minimum of 3.00 dwelling units per acre are not compatible. The developer is directed by City policies to provide an overall gross density of not less than 3.00 dwelling units per acre. Given this parameter, those lots abutting the two existing neighborhoods have been increased in size to mitigate the transition. The development will be characterized by significant open space due to the preservation of "Apache Forest" and two regional detention ponds so there will be an open quality to the development. In addition, the proposed P.U.D. is buffered from Imperial Estates by a 15 acre City neighborhood park. B. Capacity at Johnson Elementary school The Mountain Ridge Farm Master Plan has been approved since 1987. As a reviewing agency, Poudre R-1 School District has been aware of this potential residential development for seven years. Mountain Ridge Farm promotes the policy of providing "walk-in" schools in each square mile section which reduces the need for bussing and other costly transportation services. The phasing of the project allows the new children to be absorbed into the school at a reasonable rate. The latest demographic data from Poudre R-1 indicates that entering kindergarten classes are either decreasing or stabilizing in size. ,The School District estimates that with the six new classrooms presently under construction at Johnson, there will be adequate capacity to serve Mountain Ridge Farm. C. Groundwater There are about 18 wells in Skyline Acres that rely on a dependable source of groundwater. There is a concern that with development, ,the groundwater level will drop. The developer has indicated that they will take measures to protect the .viability of the adjacent wells. One of the measures being considered is to construct a slurry wall to mitigate the impact of dropping groundwater levels. Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 6 a D. Perimeter Fencing There is a concern from the immediate adjacent property owners about perimeter fencing. The developer has responded by providing a perimeter fence that will be a six foot high shadowbox design. This is the same design that separates Miramont P.U.D. from Fairway Estates (County subdivision) in southeast Fort Collins. In evaluating neighborhood compatibility, Staff finds that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate for an urban residential project locating next to existing large -lot residential properties. Staff, therefore, finds that Mountain Ridge Preliminary P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding area. 4. Design: A. open space The key element in the overall design of Mountain Ridge is the need to accommodate two regional detention ponds and preserve the existing "Apache Forest." This has been accomplished thereby satisfying the requirements of the City's Stormwater Utility and the Department of Natural Resources. These areas will create an open character for the development. For example, there will be direct visibility from Shields Street to Westfield Park, a distance of just'less than one-half mile. In addition, the open character along Shields Street will provide a pleasing streetscape along a busy arterial. B. Bike Path A bike path is being planned on the east side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. This will be a segment that, ultimately, links up with Westbrook P.U.D. to the south, and Stockbridge P.U.D. to the .north. Kingston Woods, on the north side of Horsetooth Road, has also reserved sufficient area for this path. Potentially, this path could link up to Rossborough Park . 5. Solar Orientation: Of the total 179 lots, 119 are oriented to within 30 degrees of an east west line, or have a minimum of 50 feet of unobstructed open space along a south property line. This equates to a compliance rate of 66.5% which exceeds the required minimum of 65%. Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 7 6. Resource Protection: In accordance with the O.D.P., the large wooded area along Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal will be preserved. This area is known by the local residents as "Apache Forest" and will remain in a natural state. 7. Transportation: As mentioned, the primary transportation issue is the potential extension of Westfield Drive, an existing local street in Imperial Estates, into Mountain Ridge Farm., Residents within Imperial Estates have voiced strong objections to this street connection. These residents would prefer that the connection be downgraded from a vehicular right-of-way to a bicycle/pedestrian path. The Planning and Transportation Departments have analyzed the pros and cons of the potential Westfield Drive connection. It is Staff s position that a full, local street, vehicular, right-of-way be provided to integrate the two neighborhoods and create an efficient street network. The basis for Staff's position is outlined as follows: A. Mountain Ridge O.D.P. The original Arapahoe Farm/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. was approved in 1987. At that time, the question of potential street connections into Imperial Estates (and Westfield Subdivision) was analyzed and debated at the neighborhood information meeting of August 25, 1987. It was recommended that of the three existing north/south streets (Goodell, Lynda, and Royal) and the two existing east/west streets (Imperial and Westfield), only Westfield Drive would provide the local street connection. The Westfield Drive connection, therefore, is part of the approved O.D.P. for Mountain Ridge Farm. B. Internal Circulation The reason Westfield Drive was selected was that it would provide direct access to the City's 15 acre neighborhood park, and direct access to Seneca Street, a neighborhood collector street. (The northerly property line of the park was determined based on an anticipated extension of Westfield Drive. The Westfield/Seneca connection provides internal circulation within the square mile section without reliance on the perimeter arterials. In addition, access to two public schools via Seneca is efficient, safe, and convenient. Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 8 C. Grid Pattern versus Curvilinear Pattern Imperial Estates and Westfield Subdivisions were platted in the grid street pattern. The five streets mentioned above were dedicated to the perimeter property lines in anticipation of future continuation of this grid network. These streets were not terminated in cul-de-sacs. The projects within Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm, however, are being planned in a curvilinear street pattern featuring numerous cul-de-sacs. The challenge, therefore, is to plan a street network that integrates these two contrasting patterns. It is Staff's belief that the proposed solution successfully integrates the old and the new in a.sensitive manner without detrimental impacts on the existing County residents. D. Safety The neighborhood is very concerned about Westfield Drive taking on a greater role than normally anticipated for a local street. There is a concern that Westfield Drive would become a de -facto collector for access to Taft Hill Road to the west, or Dunbar Avenue to the north. Westfield Drive does not have direct access to Taft Hill Road. There is a significant offset at Goodell Lane which prevents Westfield from becoming a through street. In addition, travel on Westfield is interrupted by four stop signs, one each for Lynda, Capital, Royal, and Crescent. Finally there are slight curves on Westfield which visually presents a discontinuous character. The Transportation Department has reviewed the Preliminary P.U.D. and supports the Westfield Drive street connection. In addition, other traffic engineering aspects have been reviewed and found to be in compliance with transportation policies.' RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the change to Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Amended O.D.P. continues to provide a mix of housing types and, therefore, satisfies Land Use Policy Number 75. 2. The Amended O.D.P. anticipates a residential density that exceeds three dwelling units per acre, on a gross acreage basis, and, therefore, satisfies Land Use Policy Number 12. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the change to Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. - Preliminary, #18-92B Amendment to the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP, # May 23, 1994 P & Z Meeting Page 9 In reviewing the ,request for Mountain Ridge Farm Preliminary P.U.D., Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Preliminary P.U.D. conforms to the Overall Development Plan. 2. The proposed density is supported by performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. 3. The P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The transportation network, particularly the extension of Westfield Drive, is supported by current transportation policies. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Mountain Ridge Preliminary P.U.D., i8-92B.