The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMOUNTAIN FARM PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 18 92D - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 2 MEETING DATE 10 7 99 STAFF Ted Shepard Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Mountain Ridge Farm, 2"d Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D APPLICANT: Progressive Living Structures, Inc. C/o Mr. Terrance Hoaglund Vignette Studios 719 Pear Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Mr. Leo Schuster Progressive Living Structures 4190 North Garfield Loveland, CO 80538 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Final P.U.D. for 31 single family lots on 10.55 acres located south of Horsetooth Road on Wabash Street west of Shields Street. The property is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mountain Ridge Farm 2"d Filing is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary P.U.D. originally approved in 1994. The request satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. The proposed density of 2.94 d.u./acre is justified by being part of a multi -phase project that exceeds the required minimum of 3.00 d.u./acre. The P.U.D. earns a score of 83 on the Residential Uses Point Chart. The wooded area, Apache Forest, will be preserved. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and provides a bicycle/pedestrian connection to a future proposed off-street trail. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EMSTM L RCE LOT SMLE FAMLY ZONED UE /I I I I ° I I a - — -__ PLMTtw FLNff MOM w.aa .n...,w.. nnn�w��i.+m'ro°.m an•.®arM�m�.eu tl.L Mlip�i Y�l wC�Y�M:m Y1.0.'�.IY��sti�m rK. �•�v��ro� ua �pir � H.ran �tudios o..n.ry 14. xn. 917E A. — .. eelaoEolr AIEA ®PAMEm ROAOWAr ® eemnYW Aooer (�O O _ ®EvnO Me:rAnn �i IAT i]6a0ry � IEi4D.lEYI w.MFE W.Y ARAPAHOE/ MOUNTAINRIDG E FAR M PARCEL MASTER PLAN DATE or PREPAaxnox a-o-e� 1—A REvleao w-T-e ox-Ee-n 1.01 WATER PUMP STATION/ •••«............ "I d:.. C _ 2-A ieA SINGLE F ��""""__e''A'�ea _. K.yttux AR SERV _ - FF.�I uLraRnnrlxo: y1ILT1-FAMILY J ;• , •, PARCEL I • , la� \� O el 4 SINGLE FAMILY "^ (ALTERNATIVE VaE I YVLTI-F.YNILY) < 1� D / 6 / 1 70.8 ARA 0000 o 00 0000 �PAAMi Y 00 IO 000 op 0 O.ppp I`` •• ,� z. _$ 1- x 39101.E IF ,. P�AigTRHe��HryO[MES \`\`tom r� ---- -1--1-Y------�--- 111 ALMNAME Vaee IxpgAWD MAr Ee APPIN1Yp er AOY«IergAT1VE u' IAIIOtE PARCEL PARCL \ 2-C snx3i FAMY MILT I PMEVIFW` PARK PIA `y r LEGAL DESCRIPTION ► _ �� - b vex AMO - — LAND USE BREAKDOWN GENERAL NOTES 3 �.�..:�v �I•-•�—ter aKMTURE BB -LOCK ..� He 11 ad oflSA 11� -' o I ° woruuvs xua ME i mx ";:1]0 a3tpN OWJYllY MOOtl0183M O\ t�\ �4 O 4� uu mvm SCHOOL PROJECTIONS Proposal: #18-92D Mountain Ridge Farms PUD, 2nd Filing Final Description: Residentail development - 31 single family on 10.55acres Overall Density: 2.9 du/ac General Population: 31 (single-family units) x 3.2" (persons/unit) = 99 School Age Population: Elementary: 31 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 12.28 Junior High: 31 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 5.74 Senior High: 31 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 5.15 TOTAL= 23.16 `Figures assume a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom single-family residential units. singleprojAs J40NNTRInI AlZtl r'Alt/'►, c2aA- Pi`iN4, FiN P u.10 Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criteria be satisfied? If no, please explain w S .8 a � 3 a Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation A4 oea 1, Res 1.2 Comprehensive Plan 1.3 Wildlife Habitat 1.4 Mineral Deposit I 1_5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance 1.7 Enerav Conservation 1 I 1.8 Air Quality 1.9 Water Quality I ,/ 1.10 Sew2ce and Wastes I I I I 1.11 Water Conservation(� 1.12 Residential Densit A 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIAI I 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian. Bike Transoonation 11 1 I I 2.2 Buildina Placement and Orientation Idl I I 2.3 Natural Features I 1 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking 2.5 Emergency Access _ 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation I I 2.7 Architecture I 1 .2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shading 2.10 Solar Access 1 I I 2.11 Historic Resources 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape 2.14 Sians 2.15 Site Lighting t/ . 2.16 Noise and Vibration 2.17 Glare or Heat I 2.18 Hazardous Materials A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity 3.2 Design Standards 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 Geologic Hazards _ Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised ch 1994 -61- X-9US� /'l0 v/VT A/nJ 4106£ Ar/lA/`t cZs, A-IA.ING, P-'Ni1L ACTIVITY: Residential Uses EFINITION: LwJ residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duple bile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming hou :ernity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-pt Lsi-public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places flic assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. following applicable criteria must be answered `yes" and implemented within the .lopment plan. Yes/No N/A DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be based on the following: 60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre 70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre 80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre 90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre 106 or more percentage points =10 or more dwelling units per acre 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40 Yes/No N/A PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FROM BASE POINTS? Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised as per Ordinance No. 2,1996. :.... ,3,::.Ynr. .$}Wi3:3': :..:............y...,:.: ....._...:... :.......... .)S.'. ..v.`S.XY.::�::: nL 3.} ..n.; :}, }f}i,26iiviY..: (��j �C �s �•3�v . \'i:J'ii ',>.::>:sY.•Yx.3i...i^,is6¢s: ::;}}`;i i:Y:Y:� +iRY�},4ssri `: rns,.f s,3 �L'tl•Y .... r s '^' :�s' 'A'Li s:;. se ,R'i.'t}�i fi.?? ::.osi ;.~`.:.,,., r i. x6, <.i. . .:.♦ 3n nn.X......... Y..:ehY.:vvv ..:':<i:'. in VF., .. Maximum F�nW CriterionCredal Credal " S 2OW fed ofanadstengneghborhood service center, or a neighborhood service oentato be constructed as a p t 20% » ct'dhe project. (Ifthe project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phase; such neighborhood service coda mast be constructed a a put of the phase for which approval is sought.) 650 fed afan exidiog tnns8 dap (applicable only to projects having • density cat had six [6) dwelling units 20% Per acre on a gross acreage basis) C 4000 feet of an melding comet nity/fegimal shopping center. a a oommunkyh4md shopping coda to be 10% ' ' a < constructed as a pal of the project. (if the projed is proposed to be oacMhded in multiple phases, such ry,.a.�e eammmhyhegiond shopping center mud be constructed as a put afthe phase for which approval is wugbt) 3300 feet afar euddehg oeighbarhood or oo®mAY per. or • community +•hY f+�Y (FxCF3pT COUR8F8k 20%or a e(lO1F 41 3500 fed of a prnblidy owned, but not develeped, neighborhood or community pa!k or community tic+'1RY 10% (eor j }3. ^' _scc_B_r_f_cl_o1F__o_o_u_x_SES)_____________ _____ _ ____ 3500fudafa owned Y""'"^7 golfcou se, whether developed or net 10% 2500 fed of an adding school, meeting all r quhunccb of the State of Colorado oompulaory eduatien laws 10% 0 It NJ0IJ GEr7 I D f 3000 fed of an epdiug major empbyment center. or a me* employment center to be =Wnsc eel as a put of 200A > ><<> the pmjecti (Ifthe project a proposed to be constructed m multipla phuo, such mgor employment crater must be constructed as a put of the phase for which approval is sought_) No building, office or business perk, or ` ' shopping center which has served as the basis for the claiming of credit under other "bon criteria ofthis Density Chart can shin be used as the basis for claiming credit under this of terim g 1000fedofanexistingehildcoreeenter, ors, cbMeareeemertobeeonstructedaaputof the project (Ifthe 5% projat is prapoeedto be constructed in multiple phase, such child cue center mud be constructed as a part ottere Own for which approval is sought) "North Fart Collms" 20% The Central Business District 20% L' A pmjed whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows 30% 0% Farprojedswboeepropertybouuoduyhas 0-10%contiguity; 10 -15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 .20% conipity, 15-20% For projects whore property boundary has 20-30%oontigd;r 3O 20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 40%contiguity; . 23 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - So%comiguity. >z Iftho project contains dwelling units ad aside for individuals caning 90%or less ofhere median income ofCity 15% residents, as adjusted for family, size, and paying leas than 30% of their grow income for housing, including s> k C'Affadabk percentage of Affordable Units otal member � perercemage, up to i mmaximurn af&lrlUng units in t and enter of %g(Ifft he prq is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units mud be constructed as a part of &a phase for which approval is sougbL) In order to inure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain affordable for a period cod lens dusk 25 years, die developersha0 record such protective covenants as maybe required by the City under Sea 29-526QXI( BA•t'E — �o Fared I=C—riterian cram a- Yi creative Ifd®bedemonmatedthdtbeproJectwrllreducanontenewableenergymage in CWgy f <, 1 i.t {:cN.: err throe conummW emgy cooravahm meaausa lees Y by My Cock 3%boom may 6e esmed far every 5%redlydWn n eneV 0e- ;' sr • irk �. cakvlate a 1%boom for every 50 an= included in the project TM ...'#' Calculate the percentage ofthe total aerua in the project that are devoted to teaatioral use. Fester K afthat parentage as a basses FI A PAGME FEdT = 3.37 AC = 377, Or IO-SS' = 1 117a p.Y. ta. GANRa_ if the applicant commits to preserving permare>s offiite open space that meets the Cdy's minimum requiremicuta, calculate the `1$ pecoema®e cf this open apace age acreto the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a banua buudgct is b be public tramR faa'IAie which era not required by City Coda >< p � �aighbarhood ewer 2%banuss f�apm=al2 �y per dig .LYRhH S+Q{{ Xpartofthe total dcviclapment budget istobe spent an neighborhood facilitiesand servicesare not whidt nototherwiserequired by City Code, ader a I%bo= for every 5100 per dwelling unit minded Iftbapstijectoonturadwiellinguaftset aside far mdrvidtmb entering 809Aar less ofthe mediae bonne of City residents, as .,mulled for family aim and paying leas than 30% of their gross booms for housingiwlxlmB udififla CAffordable Dwelling Units'l calnrlete the percentage ofAflaodable Dwelling Units to the total mnnber ofdwelliog units in rho pmjcd and enter that percentage asabmquptoama3rm—d13%(7ftheprojatisprapoeedbbeaoodmcrad'mmultiplephasalheAffardableDwnllbgUnitg mudbeoonaudedasapartoftbephasefwwhidrsppwWissough)Inordrtbi that the Affordable Dwelling Units musin ` t> affordablefora perioddnot less than 25 years, the developer shall mood such protective covenants as maybe required bythe City under Sec 29-524JX41 ffaa®itred is being made b develop a apedfiad percentage ofthe total number ofdwefiing mrts far Type A and Type'B" handicapped housing as dclined by the City of Fat Collins, ealadate the boom as fofiowc M S Type W .5 x Type "V Units Total Units In no can shall the combined bomn be greater than 30% vs "< Type'B" 1.0xType "WUnits .....:.:.}. Total Units # r ' Ifthe site or artjsoed property contain a historic building or place, a boom may be named for the following: #3` t 3% For prceding at cohigding outside iotluraaa adverse to its preservation (e,& mwooment+L land uac6 aedbeti5 >' comomic and social actors); be in leaping building brat 3% Farasarrgthd new dnrttrrrea will with the character ofthe or place, whale avoiding um0s: 3% Forpro1 1 adaptive use ofthe building or place that will lead to its comi—once preservation and improvement in an Ifs portion or all oftbe required parking tithe mrhiple family project is provided underground, within the building, or in an elevated r;`�yafnri; parking structure as an accessory use to the primary shucnue, a bonus may be eared as follows: . 9% For providing 75%err mire ofthe packing in a structure; {::• <v?::: 6% For providing 50 - 74%ofthe packing in a dmarrc. 3% For providing 25-49%ofthe puking badructure. Ifa aommrtmad s beirgmadetopovide approved automatic fire anioguishbg systems for the dwelling nits, eater a bona of IO% Ifthe spowad commits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any ofthe destwhon poem described below, calculate the boors as follows 5% For connecting to the eared exiding City sidewalk and bicycle power; 5% Far rxarrcting to any tonging public school, peck and trams stop within the distarcn as defined in this Denity Char 5% For connecting to an wdsting City bicycle trail abide is ant b err traverses the TOTAL 1 8 3 Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D October 7, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N: U-E; Existing single family (Skyline Acres) S: R-L, Existing single family (Mountain Ridge Farms 15t Filing) E: R-L; Existing townhomes (Cobblestone Corners) W: L-M-N; Vacant (Future Mountain Ridge Farms — single family, patio homes, townhomes) Mountain Ridge Farm consists of 66 acres and was annexed as part of the Horsetooth — Harmony West Annexation in 1980. In 1987, Mountain Ridge Farm was combined with Arapaho Farm into a consolidated Overall Development Plan consisting of 224 acres featuring a mix of land uses. Approved uses include single family homes in the following projects: The Gates at Woodridge (four filings) The Overlook at Woodridge (four filings) Mountain Ridge Farm (one filing). Two multi -family projects have been approved: Cobblestone Corners Townhomes Arapaho Farm Townhomes Three institutional projects have been approved: Church of the Latter Day Saints Webber Junior High School Johnson Elementary School Vacant parcels remain in Arapaho/Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. These include a convenience center, a business service tract, and residential parcels featuring single family, patio homes and townhomes. In 1994, Mountain Ridge Farm O.D.P. was amended. The purpose of the amendment was to carve out about 12 acres needed by the Stormwater Utility for two regional detention ponds and a slight realignment of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. These ponds are constructed. Also in 1994, a Preliminary P.U.D. Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D October 7, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 3 was approved for 149 single family lots and 30 townhome/duplex units on 58 acres. In 1995, Mountain Ridge Farm 1st Filing was approved for 54 single family lots on 22 acres. The request for Mountain Ridge Farm 2"d Filing, Final P.U.D. matches the number of lots (31) as shown on the Preliminary. 2. Overall Development Plan: As mentioned, the governing O.D.P. is the Arapahoe/Mountain Ridge Farm Overall Development Plan which designates the subject parcel as "Single Family." The Final P.U.D. request of 31single family lots is in compliance with the O.D.P. 3. Residential Uses Point Chart As mentioned, the governing Preliminary P.U.D. was approved in 1994. This original P.U.D. achieved a score of 76 on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. This score justified the proposed overall density (179 dwelling units on 58.66 acres) of 3.09 d.u./acre. According to the recently adopted State Vested Property Rights Act (HB 99- 1280), the law in effect on the date of application for a site specific development plan will control the application. In Fort Collins, a Final P.U.D., not a Preliminary, is considered a site specific development plan. Since Mountain Ridge Farm Second Filing, Final was submitted on March 23, 1999, the Residential Uses Point Chart has been revised accordingly. The Second Filing represents a gross density of 2.94 dwelling units per acre. The L.D.G.S. (All Development Criterion A-1.12) requires a minimum of 3.00 dwelling units per acre. A single phase of a multi -phase project may, by itself, fall below the required minimum as long as the entire project meets or exceeds the required minimum of 3.00 dwelling units per gross acre. Since the Preliminary represents an overall density of 3.09 dwelling units per gross acre, the criterion addressing minimum density is satisfied. Mountain Ridge Farm Second Filing is supported by a score of 83 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart. Sixty of these points are earned under the "base" criteria. Points were awarded as follows: Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D October 7, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 4 a. Proximity to an approved neighborhood park (Westview Park, now constructed); b. Proximity to an approved school (Johnson Elementary, now constructed); C. Being contiguous to existing urban development (Mountain Ridge First Filing and Skyline Acres) d. Providing active open space for recreational use (Apache Forest and area adjacent to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal); e. Providing a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the nearest City sidewalk. The score on the Residential Uses Point Chart exceeds the minimum required under the "base" criteria and supports the proposed density at this location. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: Two neighborhood meetings were held in 1994 in conjunction with the Amended O.D.P. and Preliminary P.U.D. The Final P.U.D. is being built -out in accordance with the approved Preliminary. Therefore, the issue of neighborhood compatibility is considered resolved. (The primary issue in 1994) was the potential extension of Westfield Drive from its terminus in Imperial Estates east to intersect with Seneca Street. This potential street connection was removed from the P.U.D. and replaced with a bicycle/pedestrian connection at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Board.) 5. Solar Orientation: Ten out of 31 lots comply with the Solar Orientation criteria resulting in a compliance rate of 32%. This is below the required 65%. The Preliminary P.U.D., however, provided 119 out of 179 total lots that met the Solar Orientation criteria for a compliance rate of 66.5%. Since the Second Filing is part of a larger P.U.D. that exceeds the 65% minimum, a variance request is not necessary. Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D October 7, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 5 6. Natural Resource Protection: In accordance with the O.D.P., the large wooded area along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, located directly west of the Second Filing, will be preserved. This area is known by the local residents as "Apache Forest' and will remain in a natural state. Access to this area will by a five foot concrete path from Woodview Court which will connect to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal access road. 7. Transportation: A. Vehicular Access The primary access to the Second Filing is via Wabash Street, classified as a collector street. The two streets to be built by the P.U.D. are classified as local streets. The street layout is in compliance with the approved Preliminary P.U.D. B. Bicycle/Pedestrian Access A five foot wide concrete path will connect the end of the Woodview Court cul-de- sac to Wabash Street and ultimately to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal access road. This access road is identified on the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan as "Proposed Off-street Trail." This connection is in compliance with the approved Preliminary P.U.D. The developer will escrow his proportional share of the future trail and bridge. Mountain Ridge Second Filing is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and the connection to the ditch access road/future proposed trail satisfies transportation policies. 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Mountain Ridge Farm, 2"d Filing, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary P.U.D. B. State law HB 99-1280, Vested Property Rights, generally provides that the law in effect on the date of the application for a site specific development plan will control the application. Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., #18-92D October 7, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 6 C. The P.U.D. complies with the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. D. The proposed density of 2.94 d.u./acre is justified based on being a single phase in a multi -phase Preliminary P.U.D. which exceeds the required minimum score on the Residential Uses Point Chart. E. The P.U.D. achieves a score of 83 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart with 60 points earned under the "base" criteria. This score justifies the proposed density at this location. F. There are no remaining neighborhood compatibility issues. G. The existing wooded area, Apache Forest, will be preserved. H. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and promotes the City's bicycle/pedestrian transportation policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Mountain Ridge Farm, 2nd Filing, Final P.U.D., # 18-92 D No Text No Text 1 1 1 � 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Pank liRDDE �� FAR9LS 1 Hi \ II kj PROPERTY DFS6Ff10H w a..r.aw�.�. a.+...�3�r•�.1..a LAND USE BREAKDOWN E)QFr 1G LARGE LOT SNGI FAMn.Y uu _ ZONED UE o.ai.e awn .e..... �� •••` - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - suiw a�� wn 12 I aa. wY rr>o� 11o'Icm �.wm. _ / \9 :FE ...�" I SAL M07M \ 16 �\ 1 \ / �a.r�owrnarmn �mrr.n� \ VItBiIY/MP \ is li V v Ram. 90 / - ' - -- le 97 SFGMATURE BLOC( / /! � / I I ` roOno.KFirnO.R �+a ONnN mu30.M �� ! I `I 14YSeO.SOnRl�i®SWYI eMY �i�.i /oac.LYL .FiFI� �� [�uclios sr. It' WE PLAN 1-O2