HomeMy WebLinkAboutKINGSTON WOODS PUD SECOND FILING PRELIMINARY - 58 91B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 4
MEETING DATE 8/31/92
STAFF KIRSTEN WHETSTONE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing
Preliminary- #58-91B
APPLICANT: Don Frederick
Frederick Land Surveying
1528 N. Lincoln
Loveland, CO 80537
OWNER: Progressive Living Structures
4190 N. Garfield Avenue
Loveland, CO 80538
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for a preliminary PUD for 22 single family lots on 5.47
acres, located north of Horsetooth Road, west of Shields Street, at
Richmond and Patterson Drives. The site is zoned R-P, Planned
Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes 22 single family lots on this 5.47 acre
site. The proposed density of 4.02 dwelling units per acre is
supported by a score of 60% on the Residential Uses Point Chart and
the proposal satisfies the applicable criteria of the All
Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. All
of the lots gain access from local streets within the development.
The entrance feature includes street trees, landscaping, and a low
stone wall similar to that approved for Kingston Woods PUD First
Filing. Along Horsetooth Road, a stone wall and landscaped green
area will provide a buffer from the arterial street and continue
the Horsetooth Road streetscape approved with Kingston Woods PUD
First Filing. The proposal is compatible with surrounding existing
and proposed development and is in substantial conformance with the
Amended Horsetooth Commons Overall Development Plan. A variance
from the strict requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance is
recommended based on the size of the infill parcel, the location
between two approved PUD's, and the alignment of existing streets
and approved access points.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: KINGSTON WOODS PUD, 2nd Filing
DESCRIPTION: 22 single family homes on 5.47 acres
DENSITY: 4.02 du/acre
General Population
22 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) _ 77
School Age Population
Elementary - 22 (units) x .450
Junior High - 22 (units) x .210
Senior High - 22 (units) x .185
Affected Schools
Werner Elementary
Webber Junior High
Rocky Mountain Senior High
(pupils/unit) =
9.9
(pupils/unit) =
4.62
(pupils/unit) =
4.07
Design
Capacity
Enrollment
568
630
900
.834
1312
1293
''. FREDERICK LAND SURVEYING
. 1528 N. Lincoln
s Loveland, Co. 80538
(303) 669-3652
LS
i
July 6, 1992
Project No.: 92-04-590
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Statement of Planning Objectives
Kingston Woods P.U.D. 2nd Filing
Dear Planning and Zoning Board:
The following planning objectives of the City of Fort Collins have
been met in the design of the Kingston Woods P.U.D. 2nd Filing:
1. The project is a relatively small parcel, designed to function
and visually appear to be an extension of the Kingston Woods
P.U.D.
2. The site is located in an area with full street improvements,
utility service and infrastructure in place, and will require
no infrastructure improvements to service the site.
3. The site is an infill project, not contributing to urban
sprawl or the expansion of the City's corporate limits.
The design of the arterial bufferyard, stormwater detention and
other common open space areas is intended to blend with the ap-
proved landscape designs of Kingston Woods P.U.D., matching land-
scape materials and treatments. Additional landscape buffering
has been designed between the eastern lots of Block 1 and the
existing development to the east in Tract B. A short -segment of
street trees has been used to create a more formal entry element
into the development on Patterson Place.
Insulation values of the proposed materials will meet or exceed
the City of Fort Collins requirements for energy conservation.
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
July 6, 1992
Project No.: 92-04-590
Page Two
The architecture of the proposed residences has been designed to
blend with the existing single-family residential areas to the
north and northwest. Gable rooflines, the pitch of the roof,
materials and the general color palette are all intended to harmo-
nize with the existing developments.
There are no known conflicts between land uses that have not been
addressed in this design.
Sincerel
4;.,Cl�'
Don Frederick
cc: Leo Schuster
/rl/,, esdb din
- Pry/im,
2"_���i�o
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the criterion coolicable?
Will the criterion
be satlstlea?
If no, please explain
F/C' .�`d0
Yes"'- No
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatability
✓
2. Neighborhood Character
V
V
3. Land Use Conflicts
✓
4. Adverse Trattic Impact
1i
V
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan V
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
V
v
7. Utility Capacity
✓
V
8. Design Standards
v
✓
9. Emergency Access
v
✓
10. Security Lighting
✓
11. Water Hazards
✓
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Q. Soils & Slope Hazard
✓
13. Significant Vegetation
✓
✓
14. Wildlife Habitat
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
✓
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
✓
18. Agricultural Lands
V
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
✓
✓
20. Water Quality
✓
21. Noise
1/
✓
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
✓
V
24. Exterior Lighting
25. Sewages & Wastes
✓
tV
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization .
✓
27. Site Organization
V
✓
- -- -- - - -
28. Natural Features
✓
✓
29. Energy Conservation
�/
✓
30. Shadows
✓
v
31. Solar Access
✓
32. Privacy
✓
33. Open Space Arrangement
v
✓
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
✓
36. Vehicular Design
✓
37. Parking
�/
✓
38. Active Recreational Areas
39. Private Outdoor Areas
V
40. Pedestrian Convenience
V
41. Pedestrian Conflicts
✓
✓
42. Lanoscaping/Open Areas
V
✓
43. Landscaping/Buildings
✓
I✓
44. Lanascaping,Screening
✓
✓
45. Public Access
I
46. Sians
✓
i
✓
47. NubnrclWS MwKPIKcF & p/
y$•�tvi O�iP/l�io+i, V
r ScJia� 6re�e�i%i' `.
-12-
ACTIVITY: Residential Uses
DEFINITION
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings,
townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group
homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing
homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec-
reational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places
for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment plan.
Yes No
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the
average residential density in the
project at least three (3) dwelling
units per acre (calculated for
residential portion of the site only)? ❑ ❑
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON
THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI-
DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED
CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT El ❑
SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 6-7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE.
-29-
ftsf'1 ".4s 9,09 02 f�- /,'
Pell M 01
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
a
20%
2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center.
b
10%
650 feet of an exist ng transit stop. r� ,h ueldS
c�V�
to
C
10%
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center.
d
20%
/
3500 feet Of an existing or reserved neighborhood Om 'n rk Orm��i(y fa ty. 2�E
Ala /C
w
e
olows
10 /0
+000 neat oraschool, meeting u thmteat
e requirements or me compulsory education kswsaf the or Colorado.
f
20%
3000 feet of a major employment center,
MQ
W
g
5%
1000 feet of a child care center.
h
20%
"Norm'Fori Collins.
1
20%
The Central Business District.
A projectwhose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
0%— For projectswhose property boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity;
30%
10 to 15%— For projects whose propeM boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity;
boundary has 20 to 30%contiguity;
j
15 to 20%— For projects whose property
20 to 25%—For projects whose properly boundary has 30 to 40%contiguity;
.30
25 to 30%—For projects whos property boundary has 40 two 50%contiguity,
k
If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy useage either through the application of alternative energy
systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by Cty Code, a5% bonus may be earned
for every 5%reduction in energy use. '
I
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
m
Calculate the percentage of the total acresin the project that a re devoted to recreationol useenter v2 of that percentage as o bonus.
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent offsite open space that meets the Cltys minimum requirements calculate the percentage
In
Of this Open space acreage to the total development acreage, enter this percentage as a bonus
tt port of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code.
O
enter 2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit ingested.
If pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not Otherwise required by City Code,
P
enter a t%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested.
It a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families. enter that
Q
percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%,
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type'A"and Type-B"handicapped
Z
housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins calculate the bonus asfoilows:
O
r
Type -A— .5 times Toa�nr
/Y1
I.lJ
Type'B'-1.0irmes Type B"units
o-Fo ul n7s
In no case shall the combined bonus begreater than 30%. —'--
If the site or adjacent property contolnson historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following,
3% — For preventing or mitigating outside influences (e.g. environmental, land use, aesthetic, economic and social factors)adverse to its
S
preservation;
3% — For assuring that new structureswlll be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units
3% — For proposing adaptive use of the Wilding or place that will lead to itscontinuonce, preservation and improvement in on
-
appropriate manner.
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
sfruclure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows:
t
9% — For providing75% or moreot the parking in a structure:
6% — For providing 50-74% of the parking in a structure;
3% — For providing 25-49% of the parking in a structure.
u
If a commitment is being made to provideapproved outomalic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%.
TOTAL 6o
IKIZ
August 3, 1992
Project No: 1005-27-92
Mr. Glen Schlueter Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Kingston Woods P.U.D. 2nd Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Dear Glen,
We have been coordinating our drainage design for Kingston Woods 2nd Filing with Mike Jones
of Northern Engineering Services who is preparing the drainage design for Kingston Woods. Our
understanding from Mike, is that the Storm Water Utility has generally approved the concept ,
where Kingston Woods has increased detention volumes and decreased detention outlet flows.
This would allow for Kingston Woods 2nd Filing storm drainage to be designed without
detention. We have therefore prepared calculations for the conveyance of all storm runoff from
Kingston Woods 2nd Filing without providing detention. All drainage would be directed to the
extreme northwest corner of the Kingston Woods 2nd Filing site. The Kingston Woods plan is to
discharge through a storm sewer along the northernmost boundary of Kingston Woods 2nd
Filing to the northeast corner of Kingston Woods 21id Filing. Then northerly through the Casa
Grande property to the existing storm sewer in Laredo Lane. This is a major change from the
preliminary drainage design which carried through the original Horsetooth Commons drainage
concept. We suggest that all reference to the preliminary drainage report be discontinued as we
had discussed at one time.
Attached are the drainage and erosion control calculations for Kingston Woods 2nd Filing for
your review. We have suggested to Mike Jones that our calculations and plan be included in the
final revised drainage report for Kingston Woods. We will provide you a more detailed
discussion of our drainage design soon. Our drainage report could be included in the appendix of
Mike's drainage report, or his report in the appendix of ours, depending on timing.
If you have any questions„please call.
Sincerel04.
y ;�. ;oe.t�::'i; `•::;:
G�Lf
c
Brian W. Shear P.E. ' 9 ° ' �`�
Shear Engineering Corporation °••••° CC�a� �`\`
�•.ulnultn�,�'�.
BWS / jr
cc: Mike Jones; Northern Engineering
Don Frederick; Frederick Land Surveying
Leo Schuester; Progeressive Living Structures
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303)226-5334
co
o
MEMORANDUM
co
O
a
To: Leo Schuster, Progressive Living Structures
o
c
a
Don Frederick, Frederick Land Surveying
10
Fort Collins Transportation Division
Fort Collins Planning Department
o
M
z
From: Matt Delich
�
w
p
Date: July 6, 1992
J
LU
Subject: Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing traffic study
z
(File: 9245MEM1)
a
a
Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing is a single family residential
adevelopment
consisting of 22 single family dwelling unit lots.
m
It is located near the Shields/Horsetooth intersection as
co
shown in Figure 1. Specifically, it is located west of
M
Richmond Drive and east of/adjacent to Kingston Woods PUD.
This parcel was part of the Williamsburg PUD, which was
proposed for development in 1986. A traffic study
("Williamsburg PUD Site Access Study," September 1986) was
prepared for that submittal. In that traffic study, 102
multi -family dwelling units were assumed on the same parcels.
This memorandum acts as an update to that traffic study.
Peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the Horsetooth/
Richmond intersection in 1991 and at the Horsetooth/Shields
intersection in 1992 for other traffic studies in this area.
These are shown in Figure 2. These intersections operate as
indicated in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in
CD
Appendix A. This operation is acceptable. Acceptable
R
operation is defined as -level of service D or better.
Ui
u,
Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing is proposed to have a total
Ui
W
of 22 dwelling units. The site plan is shown in Figure 3.
d
>
Also shown in Figure 3 are the general limits of Horsetooth
Commons, which is the later name of the Williamsburg PUD.
=
z
Thirteen dwelling units are proposed on the "L" shaped cul-
c�
o
de -sac to the north and 9 dwelling units are proposed on the
cul-de-sac to the south. Trip generation for Kingston Woods,
c
Fa
g
2nd Filing is shown in Table 2. The generated trips were
Cn
distributed as shown in Figure 4.
a
cc
Figure 5 shows the short range (1995) peak hour traffic
at the key intersections. Background traffic was increased
3
E
to reflect an increase of 3 percent per year, and included the
W
x
Q
recently proposed developments of Kingston Woods PUD to the
f-
west and Mountainridge Farm to the south. Peak hour operation
Q
is shown in Table 3. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix B. Operation at the key intersections will be
acceptable.
Gravel
Pits
3
5 4
IL J
Christma Field
F a
adl "
5'/91
5120
17
JULJUL
t IEIP--
e3"
-
Theat
31
I I
.f4 JULJ i It c
Pt eap
Gravel
ip, ..V
M 1:
Dam rakes
Ing-
3r
r
%
1-26:11",
95�
Kingston Woods PUD 2nd
v. Grav I Omer
M r 4\\ 579 Pits .M""
f HER
579Ct 7 5
,,65 082
/549
r y IL e 33
35
Spring Can n ak 34
Gravel Me Clellan(
Dam Pit
V
-b
"P'0
;510
BM 4954
4
k'�,f
41% .7
" - 7
SITE LOCATION
Figure 1
0
5499 (1991)
5732/0991) 2/1
631/419
1/1
i mo
(00)
O Lo N
�et0
1/2 NVN
218/630
1/14 HORSETOOTH
117/35
492/288
17/25
N
rn
rn
T
w
O
0
—173/361
• 154/544
f-111/121 8723 (1991)
R �
1 8528 (1991),
�0T
CO N
T to
� O
to0O)�
In
AM / PM
Daily(Year )
RECENT DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing Preliminary - #58-91B
August 31, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-P; multi -family residential (Casa Grande PUD)
S: R-E; single family residential (Skyline Acres)
E: R-P; existing and future commercial (Horsetooth Commons
PUD and Horsetooth Commons ODP)
W: R-P; approved single family lots (Kingston Woods PUD)
The entire 15.5 acre Horsetooth Commons PUD was annexed into the
City of Fort Collins in 1980. The original Preliminary Plan,
known as the Williamsburg PUD, was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board in February, 1982 for multi -family units with
commercial and retail uses. In October, 1986, a Master Plan (ODP)
was approved for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The ODP
was amended in 1988 to allow single family units on a portion of
the plan.
A plan, known as the Residences at Horsetooth Commons PUD, was
given preliminary and final approval in 1988 for a mix of multi-
family and single family units on the northern section of the
subject property. In 1987, the Grease Monkey PUD was approved for
auto related uses on Tract A and The Market at Horsetooth Commons
PUD was approved fora mix of commercial and retail uses on Tract
D. In 1990, Lot 5 of The Market at Horsetooth Commons was approved
for retail/office and specialty auto retail uses.
2. Land Use
The proposed use is for 22 single family lots on 5.47 acres. The
gross density is 4.02 dwelling units per acre. Lots range in size
from 5,457 to 10,961 square feet with an average lot size of
approximately 7,640 square feet. The preliminary PUD is in
substantial conformance with the Amended Horsetooth Commons ODP and
the density of 4.02 DU/acre is supported by a score of 60% on the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance
system. Points were awarded for proximity to a transit stop (on
Horsetooth at Shields), proximity to a neighborhood park
(Rossborough Park), and, for contiguity to existing urban
development.
S
Table 1
r
Current Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection
AM
PM
Shields/Horsetooth (signal)
C
C
Horsetooth/Richmond (stop sign)
NB LT/T
C
D
NB RT
A
A
SB LT/T
C
D
SB RT
A
A
EB LT
A
A
WB LT
A
A
Table 2
Trip Generation
Daily
A.M.
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
North - 13 D.U.
130
3.
7
8
5
South - 9 D.U.
90
2
5
6
3
Total
220
5
12
14
8
Q
N
No Scale
SITE. PLAN Figure 3
1�'
N
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4
N
10/6 ��
t
4/2 �`
I
v (c
N O
SITE C
�
J
�
W
aco
M ch r
N (O c`')
o in
r � �
N
�-1/14
lw
1.,oe--122/136
co
3/8 CoLn
—189/393
272/840
173/606
I
HORSETOOTH 1
3/2
14114.7 —==�7_
696/386
547/322 —o
1/1 —�
NOS 23/31 �`
M t �
Np0
r(O -
r
co
(p co d
co (p r
co
AM / PM
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 5
Table 3
Short Range Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
Shields/Horsetooth (signal) C C
Horsetooth/Richmond (stop sign)
NB LT/T C D
NB RT A A
SB LT/T C D
SB RT A A
EB LT A B
WB LT A A
Shields/Richmond (stop sign)
EB LT E (C/D) E (C/D)
EB RT A A
NB LT A C
( ) Level of service based upon recent delay research
Figure 6 shows the long range (2010) peak hour traffic at the
key intersections. Background traffic is commensurate with that
reflected in the "North Front Range Corridor Study." Traffic on
Richmond Drive reflects development of Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing
and traffic assignments for the other uses from the "Williamsburg
PUD Site Access Study." Peak hour operation is shown in Table 4.
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Operation at the
Hors etooth/Shields signalized intersection will be acceptable with
geometric improvements. The recommended approach geometry.at this
intersection is:
Northbound
- 1 left -turn lane, 2
turn lane
Southbound
- 1 left -turn lane,
through/right-turn
Eastbound
- 1 left -turn lane, 2
turn lane
Westbound
- 1 left -turn lane, 2
turn lane
through lanes, and 1 right-
1 through lane, and 1
lane
through lanes, and 1 right -
through lanes, and 1 right -
Operation at the Horsetooth/Richmond and Shields/Richmond
intersections will be acceptable, except for left -turn exits from
Richmond Drive, particularly during the afternoon peak hour. There
will be some delays to these movements. These types of delays are
common at arterial/local street intersections with stop sign
control and is generally accepted. Signals will not be warranted
at either of these locations based upon traffic projections
contained in this memorandum.
The north cul-de-sac has a 90' turn approximately 100 feet
north of the east/west street. The design speed for residential
streets in Fort Collins is 30 mph. This 900 turn will require a
variance of this design speed. It is estimated that this curve
will have a centerline radius of approximately 50 feet. The design
speed on a curve with a 50 foot radius is calculated at 14 mph.
This curve can be signed for a 10 mph advisory speed. Since this
is a cul-de-sac and will primarily be used .by residents of the
street itself, I recommend that this variance be granted. I
recommend that good sight lines be maintained on the inside corner
of the curve.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The following conclusions/recommendations are made with regard
to the Kingston Woods PUD, 2nd Filing:
- This development is expected to generate approximately 220
daily trip ends. The peak hour trip generation is expected to be
17 trip ends in the morning peak hour and 22 trip ends in the
afternoon peak hour. This is less than half the generated traffic
from the land uses on the same parcels in the "Williamsburg PUD
Site Access Study."
20/30 --/ j
1000/630 II
5/5 �` to to 0
to to 0
0
to
O r O
CO r-
� O �
to N to
.t 0v
45/75
10/10
30/70
N
0
J
W
FE
to to ton
t- c)
�tn0
1/110 rncoN
10/990 I
15 HORSETOOTH f
iq
70/90
10/15
20/30
170/400
270/790
140/175
170/95_--� 1 1 760/460
160/180 �� oo to co
00
000
CO r-
AM / PM
LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 6
Table 4
Long Range Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Shields/Horsetooth (signal)
Horsetooth/Richmond (stop sign)
NB LT/T
NB RT
SB LT/T
SB RT
EB LT
WB LT
Shields/Richmond (stop sign)
EB
LT/T
EB
RT
WB
LT/T
WB
RT
SB
LT
NB
LT
Level of Service
AM PM
C C
E ( C / D )
E (C/D)
A
A
E ( D )
F (D/E)
A
A
A
C
B
A
F (D) F (E)
A A
E ( D ) F (D/E)
A A
C D
B D
( ) Level of service based upon recent delay research
Peak hour operation at key intersections is currently
acceptable.
In the short range future, the peak hour operation will be
acceptable with the Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing and other assumed
developments in the area.
- In the long range future, the Horsetooth/Shields signalized
intersection will operate acceptably with improved geometry,
generally in conformance with standard arterial street cross
sections in the City of Fort Collins. New signals will not be
warranted at the Horsetooth/Richmond or Shields/Richmond
intersections. At these intersections, there will be some delays
to left -turn exits from Richmond Drive. This is generally accepted
at arterial/local intersections.
- The design speed on the 900 curve on the north cul-de-sac
is 14 mph. Variance of the design speed should be granted. This
curve can be signed for a 10 mph advisory speed.
APPENDIX A
Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing Preliminary - #58-91B
August 31, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
3. Desian
All lots will be served by local streets within the subdivision.
The greenbelt area along Horsetooth Road will be landscaped with a
variety of coniferous and deciduous trees and a low stone wall
feature to provide a buffer for the lots backing onto Horsetooth
Road. An entry feature at Patterson and Richmond Drives will
reflect the same stone wall design planned for Horsetooth Road.
Street trees will be provided along both Horsetooth Road and
Richmond Drive. The landscaped areas in Tract A (along Horsetooth
and Richmond) will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. All
other landscaping, including street trees provided on individual
lots, one per lot per street frontage (up to two trees), will be
the responsibility of the individual homeowner.
Fencing guidelines pertain to the entire project. The fence height
shall be 6' at the rear lot lines of lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 2
(bordering Horsetooth Road). The fence height shall be 416" at the
rear and/or side lot line of lots 1, 21 3, and 9 of Block 2, and 1,
9, 10, il, 12 and 13 of Block 1, bordering Richmond Drive and
Patterson Drive. Fencing at 5' or 6' heights shall be allowed at
all other interior rear or side lot lines.
Typical setbacks include the following:
Front: Sixteen feet, provided that the length of driveway, from
the front of the garage to the back of walk, is at least
20'.
Side: A minimum of three feet, provided that there is_a_minimum--
- of 10' separating structures.
Corner
Side: Fifteen feet, provided that no lot takes access from
Patterson Drive.
Rear: A minimum of 151.
It is the intent of the applicant to blend this project, both
architecturally and with the landscape treatment along Horsetooth,
with the approved Kingston Woods PUD first filing to the west.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility
A neighborhood meeting was not held for this project. Single
family lots as proposed are compatible with the existing
residential development to the north and south, to planned
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
1985 HCM:. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
-
SUMMARY REPORT
- SUMMARY REPORT
##XXXXXXXX##XXXXX########X#XXXXXXy'X##XXX#####################X#XXXXXXX##XX
}XXXXX#X##XX#####XXXXXXYX######X#X#.t###X#XXXXXXXX##X#######X###X#XX#XXXX#X
INTERSECTION..horsetooth/shield=
INTERSECTION..horsetooth/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
AREA TYPE .....
OTHER
-
ANALYST..: .... mjd
ANALYST.......mjd
DATE .......... 5/ 92
TIME......... I& Pm 1992 1995
DATE..........
TIME..........
4/5/91.r--�
am m 1992 1995
COMMENT.......
-------'-'---------------------"------------___------------------------
COMMENT.......
-
VOLUMES
GEOMETRY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY -
EB W8 N8
SB EB WB
NB
SB
EB
NB SB EB WB
NB
58
LT 117 Ill 59
220 L 12.0 L 12.0
L 12.0
L
12.0
LT 35 121
21
L 12.0 L 12.0
L 12.0
L
12 `
TH 492 154 599
474 i 12.0 T 12.0
T 12.0
T
12.0
TH 225
580 569
571 599 T 12.0 T 12.0
T 12.0
T
12
RT 17 173 128
29 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
T 12.0
R
12.0
RT 25 361
361
71 99 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
T 12.0
R
12.0
RR 0 0 0
0 12.0 12.0
R 12.0
12.0
RR 0 0
0 0 12.0 12.0
R 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
-12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV
ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEGS
PED. BUT.
ARP._
TYPE
GRADE
HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS
PED. BUT.
ARR.
TYPE
(%) (%)
Y/N Nm Nb
Y/N min T
- (%)
(%) Y/N Nm Nb
Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00
N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 28.8
3
EB 0.00
1.00 N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 28.8
-3
WB 0.00 1.00
N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 28.8
3
W8 0.00
1.00 N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 2.8
3
NB 0.00 1.00
N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 25.8
3
NB 0.00
1.00 N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 255.8
3
SB 0.00 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------'
N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 25.8
3
S8 0.00
1.00 N 0 1 0.90 5
Y 25.8
3
SIGNAL SETTINGS
CYCLE LENGTH
=
100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS
CYCLE LENGTH
=
110.0
PH-1 PH-2
PH-3 PH-4 PH-1
PH-2 PH-3
PH -A
PH-1
PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1
PM-2 PH-3
PH-4
EB LT X
N8 LT
X
X
EB LT X
NB LT
X
X
TH X
TH
X
TH X
TH
X
RT X
RT
X
RT X
RT
X
PD X
PO
X
PD X
PD
X
WB LT X
SB LT
X X
X _
WB LT X
SB LT
X X
X
TH X
TH
X
X
TH X
TH
X
X
RT X
RT
X
X
RT X
RT
X
X
PD X
- PD
X
X-
PD X
PD
- X
X
GREEN 30.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0
4.0 44.0
0.0
GREEN 42.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 4.0
4.0 44.0
0.0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0
3.0
5.0
0.0
YELLOW 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0
3.0
5.0
0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C
G/C DELAY LOS
APP. DELAY
APP.
LOS
LANE GRP.
G0 DELAY LOS
APP. DELAY
APP.
LOS
EB L 0.403
0.320 20.6 C
21.3
C
EB L
0.29297 0.4400 17.5 C
16.9
C
TR 0.522
0.320 21.5 C
TR
0.259 0.400 16.8 C
W6 L 0.531
0.320 23.0 C
20.7
C
WB L
0.323 0.400 17.4 C
23_4
C
TR 0.363
0.320 20.0 C
-
TR
0.786 0.400 24.2 C
NB L 0.098
0.520 9.2 8
13.3
8
NB L
0.162 0.455 13.5 8
16.8
C
T 0.424
0.460 13.9 B
T
0.452 0.418 17.6 C
R 0.204
0.460 12.3 a
SB L 0.037
0.620 5.6 8
10.2
B
R
0.125 0.418 14.9 B
T 0.555
0.530 12-4 B
SB L
0.046 0.545 8.9 8
15.6
C
R 0.040
0.530 8.6 B
T
0.733 0.482 19.6 C
-------'------------------------------------------------`-----------------
R
0.151 0.482 12.1 8
INTERSECTION: Delay
= 15.7 (secjveh) V/C =
O.SIti, LOS
= C
---------------��------y-_-----------------------_---------------_--------
_
INTERSECTION:
Delay - 18.7 (sec/veh) V/C
0.733 LOS
C
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 35 -
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1
AREA POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... horsetooth
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... richmond
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mjd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 7/4/92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................ e pm 1991
OTHER INFORMATION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN -
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 2 1 2 1
THRU 631 218 1 1
RIGHT 1 1 10 2
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
----------------------------
LANES 2 2 2 2
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Paae-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- -ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c .- v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- ------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT -
2
261
259
> 260 259
> 257 257
>C C
THROUGH
1
262
262
> 262
> 261
> C
RIGHT
11
744
744
744
733
'
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT
1
258
255
> 258 255
> 256 253
>C C
THROUGH
1
262
262
> 262
> 261
> C
RIGHT
2
945
945
945
- 943
A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT
2
853
853
853
850
A
WB LEFT
1
520
520
520
519
A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... horsetooth
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... richmond
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/4/92 ; am m 1991
OTHER INFORMATION....
i
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -I
XXii.Xiiii.XX
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-------------------------------------- ---------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET..
35
PEAK
HOUR FACTOR........ .............
1
AREA
POPULATION .......................
100000
NAME
OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.........
horsetooth
NAME
OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
richmond
NAME
OF THE ANALYST ..................
mJd
DATE
OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
7/4/92
TIME
PERIOD ANALYZED .................
am pm 1991
OTHER INFORMATION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 1 14 2 2
THRU 419 630 1 1
RIGHT 1 2 8 4
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
------------------------------------------------------
ES WB NB S8
------- ------ ------- -------
LANES 2 2 2 2
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED - RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY- CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT
W8 LEFT
2 187
183
> 183 183 >
180 180 >0 0
1 188
185
> 185 >
184 > D
9 843
843
843
834
2 186
181
> 183 181 >
179 179 >D D
1 188
185
> 185 >
184 > D
4 744
744
744
739 A
1 520
520
'520
519 A
15 670
670
670
654 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... horsetooth
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... richmond
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/4/92 ; am pm 991
OTHER INFORMATION....
APPENDIX B
1 Er T 7 1 rl
INTERSECTION. horsetoo+h/=hields
',".E A TYP.0THER
ANALYST. ....mjd
.jA FE ....
T T MP. . . .
.�NmO r,nr
,-,OPIMENT ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME-
W6 M i; D 6 ;B
_T idi 1 7� 56
TH 547 173 5 6 6 7
2-1 7R 1 c 7� 12-0 T -0
RR -3 11 0
2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE FiV AOJ PL,r 6USE_ PHF PCDS PEGBUT- -'PR- TYPE
YIN Ij M Nb "I 'f/N min T
-
EB 0-00 i.00 N0 i 0-90 Y '?_e 3
wa C. 0 - 1.00 N1 0 i 0.90 5 y 23.3 3
Nt, 0-00 1 - 00 N 0 1 0.90 5 Y 25.3
56 0.00 1.00 N 0 0.90 Y 25.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL '�ETTTNCS
CYCLE LENGTH = 100-0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH--, PH-4
EB LT x NB LT x X
TH x Th. x
RT x RT x
PD X PD x
WB LT x SB LT x x x
TH x TH. x x
RT x RT x x
PD x PO x x
GREEN 33-0 0_0 0_0 0.0 GREEN 5.0 4.0 44.0 13 0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0-0 0-0 YELLOW 3.0 13.0 5_0 0.0
--------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVTr-E
LANE GRP. VIC C/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
E; L 0.464 "'l-350 10.1 - C 20,1 C
TR 0.335 0.350 1 C
W8 L 0_q6'= 0 . 350 1 C 1l9 .6
iP 0.357 0.°30 18-5 c
6 L .0.0198 o.520 9.2 El
P 0.22E 0. 6 12.4
1- 0.045 12 -4
T 64;� C_�ocl i
0.054 j � �60 Q 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
�j"TERSEC i,,,j V/G = :1.
193, !!CM: A, I ZED I Ni E SE: T !Orj5
-
SUMMARY R E P P T
INT--PSECT :00
TYF E .0THER
T I
]cm?"cM r 6 Er, I �,_:)
- --------------------------------------- --------------------------- -------
V(-)LIJMc-< GEOMETRY
'18 lip
LT, a7 136 15; _,115 L lz�10 L !T0 11.0 L 12
TH32--1 606 540 T 12 -.0
12.0 T 1L T i
RT 31 393 7c 1 T R i ", .3 T 12.0 R 12
12 13 i2.0
12.0 11.0
13 12-0. 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOS ADJUSTMENT FAl, � S
GRADE Hv ADJ QKCI BUSES PHF PEDS PEQ_ BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) M YIN Am Nb y/tj min T
E5 0.00 1.00 P) a 1 0.90 5 y 28 _8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 1 0.90 Y 218.3 3
N5 0.00 1-00 N 0 1 0-90 Y 25.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 1 0.90 5 Y 25.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH 110.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4.
E5 LT x N8 LT X x
TH x TH. x
RT x RT x
PO x PD x
WB LT x SB LT x x x
TH, x TH x x
RT x RT x x
PI) x PD x x
'GREEN 44,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 4,0 4.0 45-0 0
YELLOW 5.0E 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0-0 5.0 0
------------------------- -----------------------
- ----------- -------------
LEVEL 0 SERVICE
LANE GRP- VIC GIr DELAY LOS APP_ DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0471 r 15.5 C
TR
WE, L 01366 0 .4 1 s I
C
Tr 0.329 .3.4113 ;a,7
L C-4-4
T
14
SB L 0.534 7 .3 C
7
0.05n cj d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
;'j i
1935 HCM: UN31GNALIZED iNIFRSECTIONS Page-!
XX.KXXXXKXXiKtLLXLXii.KXLii Kt:Yiti.R Ci Ki:R',Ki.K.R.KRK.1. X f K1:I. t. i <t.t:Y..Y iv wi tt+i♦f. v. t:t
CAPACITY AND
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
IDENTIFYING ?- ON
-
")TFN-
I_
ACTUAL
-
------
----
FI_riW- iI;,L
MOVEMENT
SHARED RESERVE_
[T"
CAP-CiTv
17AP ACITY CAPACITY
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.-
:`
- MOVE?IFNT
-.
v(P-. :1 _ (p r pnj
c (pcph)
...M
:. (Pcph, C
= - v
LIDS
-
-
SH P
SH
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .......... --..
1
.'
------ --- ---
--------- --------
---------------
---
AREA POP11LAT I.^API ......... —.....__.
100000
MINOR=.TREr_
-
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET:....--..
_. :_-. __ f/ �
N6 LCFT
' %14
� 2?? >.
213 ?12 >
210� 210
THPOUGH.
? _15
7'i5
Z15
%14
_
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET-:.-.-.
ri.-hmcnc
-RIGHT
I .' a
71a
714
703
A
NAME OF THE ANALYST ............ — — .
mid
MIND, STREET
- -
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yY)------
7/2/92
S8 LEFT
6 212
203 >
209 208
?03 203
>C C.
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ..................
am pm shor `. I ng
O
THROUGH
RIGHT
1 215
3 916
215 >
916"
215 >
916
214
913
> C
A
OTHER INFORMATION.... -
MAJOR STREET
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
ES LEFT
- 3 798
798
796
795
A
____________________
WB LEFT
1 478
47.`.
478
47'
A
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
-
-_
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
-
-
-
IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
-------------------------------------"'-----------------
T
"--"'
-
-
NAME OF THE
EAST/WEST STREET-
CONTROL TYPE SORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN.
- NAME OF THE
DATE AND TIME
NORTH/SOUTH STREET....
OF THE ANALYSIS.....
richmond
7/2/92
am pin shcr
long
-
-
OTHER INFORMATION....
'
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
_____________________________________________________________________
-
.
EB WB 1148 -SB'
___-
____ _
-
---- ____
_FT 1 2
THRU 696 272 1
-
-
r.IGHT10
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE U=AGE
__________________________f________•._____________--------------------
f
------- -------
2
-------I
-
-
1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i
iDENTiFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUUNINr SPEED, MAJO+: STREET..
HOUR FACTOR........... I
:.REA POPULATION ...... ..........._.._. 100000 .
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... ... -- :'f T
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... richmond
NAME OF THE ANALYST.. ................ mid
DATE OF THE ANA.LY515 (mm/dd/yy)...... 7/2/9Z
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm shori long
OTHER INFORMATION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
- --- -- --- --- --- -- - -- - ------ --- — ------------ -- — -- ---- - - -- ----
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
En "WB NB SB .
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 2 14 _ 6
THRU 3u6 340 i I
RIGHT 3
MU,MFER OF _ANES ANO LANE USAGE
--------- ---------------------------------------------
----- ---- ----- -----
CAPACITY AND
. -------------------------------------------"--------------------------
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
Page-!;
... EN-
-.0 TUAL
.
FLi:W- T I.-1_
MOVEMFNT
SH4REU
RESERVE
RATE CAPAC i T'i
CAP AC1 Ty
:APAC i TY
CAPACITY
MOVEMENT
'+IF=Fhi c (Peen)
= (ccch)
_ (Pcgn)
LOS
`3H
i
MINOR 'STREET
i
NB LEFT.
141 -
1:37 " "
1:3 137
> 135 135
THROUGH
I 142 _
140 -
140
139 > u
R IGHi
359
550 ?
MINOR STREET
-
SB LEFT
7 Isl
137
133 '137
> 130 131 >0 0
THROUGH
1 146
140
140
> 139 > D
R IOHT
6 65i
651
651
645 A
MAJOR STREET
-
EB LEFT
2 390
390
390
388 B
WS LEFT
i5 596
696
696
680 A
i IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION
.
-- -'-------
--------------------------------- ------------
NAME OF OF THE
EAST/WEST STREET: .....
NAME OF THE
NORTH/SOUTH STREET....
richmond
DATE AND TIME
OF THE ANALYSIS:....
7/2/52
am Pm 'nor4
long
" OTHER INFORMATION....
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTTONS Pag=-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
------- -------------------- --------------- ----------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
'EAK
HOUR FACTOR
.....................
AREA
POPULATION
.......................
i00000
NAME
OF THE
EAST/WEST STREET .........
r'cnmcnd
NAME
OF THE
NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
NAME
OF THE
ANALYST ..................
mjd
DATE
OF THE
ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
1/2/92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................ am pr sn or long
OTHER INFORMATION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
-----------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ----
LEFT 10 2 0
THRU 1) -- 994 7g5
RIGHT 4 -- n
NUMBER OF LANE'::.
-----------------------------------------------
E5 WS NB sB
_ANE_
CAPACITY AND
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
Page-S -
ROTEN-
ACTUAL
.FLOW-
T14.1
MOVEMENT
SHARED
PESERVE
RATE
C.:PACITY
CAPACI Ti
CAPACiiY
CAPACITY
MOVEMENT
v(p;.pnj
r tpcph)
c rpcpn
= (pcph)
_ _ - v
LOS
o
M
SH
R SH
-------
--------
--------- ------------
--- ---------
----
MINORSTREET
-
F--6, LEFT
11
2:;
52
:'
72
=
RIGHT
658
668
668
664
ti
MAJOR STREET
N8 LEFT
2
414
414
414
411
A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... ricnmond
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields, 1
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/2/S2 Um p short long
OTHER INFORMATION....
198`, HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Paae-1
K ZXA:X.K>A KR.Y A:.X f:Yt I F\'.Y•�YF:K I'Y v: ,K F.F .Y K'.F A".Rt V YtY�'Y V'.�--A. K.A 1: 1'YA'Y.t t!I .Y A'. v-tvA KY. f.:I Y'I:A
IOENT-IFYING "INFORMATION -
AVERAGE
RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET._
:5
BEAK
HOUR
FA,CTOR.... .. _... -... ..
AREA
POPULATION ......................
lODG00
NAME_
OF
THE 'STREET.........
richmond
NAME
OF
THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET..."...
siields
NAME
OF
THE ANALYST.."" ..............
mid
DATE
OF
THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy;------
7/2/92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am ce
long
OTHER INFORMATION ----
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION .
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND.: STOP 5,16N
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
--------------------------------------------------------------------_
EB WB NB SB
---- - - ---- ----
LEFT 5 a 0
THRU 9 -- 1076 1072
RIGHT 2 -- 0 12
NUMBER OF LANES
----------------'---------------------------------------------------
---E------W-_- ___Nc ..-
LANE`-
__-_
CAPACITY AND
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
Page-�
"
FO'l-
AC TUA.L
FLOW-
T1A.L
MOVEMENT
SHARE2
RESERVE -
TE
C-PAC IT'(
CAP-1,
CAPACITY-
CAF•AC IT'f
MOVEMENT
v(pcph)
�. (Pcph)-
c-(pcph)
_ (Pcph)
= c - v
�R
LOS
P
M
SN
SH
-------
--------
---------------------
----- --------
1---
MINOR STREET
EPA LEFT
1i3
82
82
76
RIGHT
566
566
566
664
,i
MAJOR STREET
N8 LEFT
a
287
'87
287
283
C
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... richmond
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET..... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/2/92 ; am pm shot long
-
OTHER INFORMATION....
APPENDIX C
Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing Preliminary - #58-91B
August 31, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
residential development to the west, and to the planned
neighborhood convenience shopping and commercial center to the
east.
5. Storm Drainage
Runoff flows for a majority of the site will be routed to a
detention pond at the Kingston Woods PUD first filing to the
northwest of the property. Off site drainage easements will be
secured at the time of final approval. Preliminary drainage,
grading, and erosion control.plans have been reviewed and accepted
by the Stormwater Utility.
6. Solar Orientation
The Solar Orientation Ordinance requires that 65% of the lots
within a single family PUD or subdivision be oriented to within 30
degrees of a true east -west line. Kingston Woods Second Filing
provides solar orientation for 12 lots, out of a total of 22, for
55%. In order to gain 65% compliance, an additional three lots
would need to be oriented to within 30 degrees. An additional 2
lots would put the subdivision at 64% compliance and an additional
3 lots would be 68% compliance.
The applicant has submitted a variance request from the 65%
orientation requirement. The applicant's variance .request is
attached. In summary, the applicant states the following:
1. The parcel size is relatively small (5.47 acres) and the
project is an infill project between the approved Kingston
Woods PUD and the Market at Horsetooth Commons PUD.
_2.. Richmond -Drive is an existing street and the alignment of
Patterson Drive must be matched on the west where this project
adjoins Kingston Woods PUD and on the east where this project
joins the Market at Horsetooth Commons. The curb cut for
Patterson Drive off of Richmond Drive is approved in its
existing location to be as far north of the collector/arterial
intersection as possible.
3. A conceptual design which had 14 of 22 lots (64%) with a solar
orientation was investigated. The layout of the lots was such
that several lots took access off of Patterson Drive, rather
than Patterson Court, the lots backing to Richmond Drive and
the planned commercial center were not as deep as on the
proposed plan, several lots were small in size and wouldn't
allow a comparable house to be constructed, and the common
green belt and entry feature were compromised.
E
L I ZED IOr R`7 ;DNS
ii A R Y P. F Pn) T
NTEPSECT:ON _he.rc-t,Dlzh/sr) eIldss
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANAL YST m j d
......... pm srcll"
C)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V�I, Utl�c
W6 Nr WE NE.
I Iz I- L
TH "'o I i 0 J T 1 11 n
RT 160 170 i 0 T 12. T i 0 iR. .0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
,,L'-'L!SFMErJT F.-C TORS
GRADE UsEz p=c,
H. v Auj pKf� el PHF PED 6UT A R R, TYPE
Y!N NIM N b y m i n T
EB 0-01 1.00 0 0 1 0.90 �8- 1 z I - V
WE 0 . 00 1 '00 N 0 1 0.90 Y 28 . 3
Nb C.Oo 1.00 N 0 1 0-90 Y 25.8
.B 0.00 1.00 N C 0.90 Y 25.3
5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 1000
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH -3 PH-4
E B I_ T x x N6 LT x x
TH x TH x
RT x RT x
PD x PO x
WE LT X x 56 LT X x x
TH x TH x x
PT x RT x x
PD x PO x x
GREEN 7 . 0 30.0 0.0 0 . 0 GREEN 7.0 '.0
33.0 0.0
'EL -OW 3.0 5.0
0.0 0-0 YELI OW! 3_0 0. -D 5.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE I
LANE GRP . vilc (3/c DELAY LOS APP. OELAY APR. LOS
EE
L 0.059 0.420 13 El 3 . C, C
T 0.1174 0.320 25_7 L)
R :�67 0-,.-,o 20-1
-As L 0. J -1 Q -3 . -.") la. i 16.1
T 0.275 0."o JC-'
No L 1).03G 0420 13 F, c
L 0.4"i 0.120 i5 .3
iR
20
----------------------------------------------- ------------------
N i -_ RS 7 ; C) ' I - T, - I V".: i lv:
D�"Ok',L i 7 EDiN1_.._c.C-i'.)NS
IN TERSEC T I (IN - horsetooth/sri=lds
AREA TYPE_ - OTHER
Y; T ........ n i d
........
TIME...... -...art
COMMENT...-.. 0.- CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME GEOM.C7-11.'
E WE NE
0
L Iz.c. I -, � " i I �_,
TH 7 �- r' 1330 '5',- !2 _1 13 T 1-/.o
T
PT iclq dor, 145 175 T 2 -1)
I J 12 _0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE H V -'t-j PKG BUSES P HF PED3 PED- 5UT. ARR. TYPE
(I-) (%) Y.-, N N. Nb Y /N min T
E?. O.On 1-00 0.9D Y %8_8
WE 0.00 1.00 N 0 1 0_So 5 Y 2S.8 3
Nb 0. G Q 1.00 ri 0 1 If �-45_3
�6 0.00 1.00 IN 0 1 -0.90 y 25.8 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 1110.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH--, PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-5 PH-4
ES LT x x N6 LT X x
TH x TH x
RT x RT x
PD x PC, x
WE LT x x 36 LT x x x
TH x TH x x
RT x RT x x
Pr) x PO x x
GREEN 7 . 1) 31.0 0-0 '0.07 GREEN 7.0 7.0 36.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW- Ow -0 0.0 5.0 0.0
----------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------
LEVEI OF SERVICE
LANE GRP- V/r C/C OELA11Y LOS APP_ DELAY APR- L(D�
E5 L 0.065 0.445 - JQ 6 C
0 4""' 3
3 I C.
WE L 0_063 0 4A6 1
T 0.7-6 G.,57 24
R 0.325 13.-I53 32.0
0-454 0.4c, - 20 _0 c
0 4_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTER",:T[ON: P•aSe-!
r:1V:IKKKkCk�.X 1"Y:YY4%t'�1::K.KYf •V.rfty �: V1�rY. r:. Y.v l:f v.�VY.v ♦. t. a.V�vv'IIk:f."fv vv l..1.♦
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR S-KEET.. 3`
PEAK HOUR F.AS]TOR..................... I
AREA POPULA.TION...................... 1CDr'�0
NAME OF THE EAST/'BEST.
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH, STRE'_T....... ri•rhmond
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/"')......
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm shoroon
OTHER INFORMA.TION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN' _
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ES WB Na SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 20 5 = :_
THRU 1000 390 5 5
n:I G'HT C.
10 15
NUMRER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
---------------------
N E (! _ - I_ - _.
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Paoe-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DOTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL M(lV MENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACTTY
MOVEMENT vr^cph) e (peon) _ (pcph) C (Pcph) _ - v LOS
P
M S.H
----------- ------- --------------------1//- nn
MINOR STREET CA%'2¢�CCI v�
NB LEFT 97 90 "-' 90 > 82 84 >t
THROUGH 6 100 97 1 9: 91 > E
R IGIH 11 595 596 396 584 A
MINOR STREET z2,3z CID)
SB LEFT 61 102 95 96 is > 30 34 >E E
THROUGH 6 105 102 > 102 > 96 > E
RIGHT 17 824 824 824 807 A
MAJOR STREET
ES LEFT 22 641 641 641 619 A.
WB LEFT 6 316 316 316 311 B
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... _ -=_ -' -'- Ef' T-
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... richmond
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/1,92 am pm shor long
OTHER INFORMATION....
u
I
1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTEPSEC iiON5
In NTIFf[Nb FNFORMATEON -
--------'-------------- ------ ---------- ----- --- ---
AVERAGE RUNNiN� jPEEJ. MAJOR :TP__i..
EAX HOUR FACTOR ..................... .
AREA P0PULA. T1 ON ...................... 100000
NAME_ nF THE EAST/WEST .:TREET........_ _ ff f
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... richmond
NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. mid
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 7/2/97
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am Pm hurt Tong
.-OTHER INFORMATION ....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
------------------------------- -------------------------------
INTERSECT.ION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
------------------ ---- -------------------------- -----------------
EB WS NB SE,
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT >0 75 75
HRU 630 390 5
I
RIGHT 5 110 'u
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
..__---_-----.____--________________________________--------------------
--------
,,. tilJ
i . ;,NO
! -VE-n1=-__I- ii,-
_ge-5
if; TEAT-
C%U,l_
.
-
FLOW- iI'L
MOVEMENT
-HARED
RESERVE
TOTE CA�'ACITY
CAPACITY. .'
CAPACITY
- CAPACITY.
. MO`JEMENT.
vrPCFhi '- (pcPh)
= (Pc^h)
- t.cc pf:}"
r - v
LOS .
1
H
- Sn
C
C (�
NS
'_EFT
-
T'rn OUGH
6
_
70
E
R i"IN
it -.
74
MINOR
STREET
zS
=6
LEFT
n':
V5
--
7';
i -i6 -i1
:F F
THROUGH
'S
75
7C
> _
RIGHT
39 561
561
561
522
A
MAJOR
STREET
.
ES
LEFT
28,
122
249
WB
LEFT
17 516
- 516
518
501
1
IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
t
NAME
OF THE
EAST/WEST STREET......
tf T
NAME
OF
NORTH/SOUTH STREET....-
richmond
DATE
AND TIME OF THE ANALYSTS.._..
7/2/92
am short
Tuna
OTHER
I
I
-INFORMATION....
n
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Paaa-1
ex"rw yr r:n..rr.xs xr.v✓x <r..x..reru .uc e. r:xr.r.v. r:x-.:vs .u.. . .ranxrerr.re .r..v v. ..
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
PEAK HOUR FACTO'.. .........
AREA. POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... .- chmond
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST............n„a
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 7/2/92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. apm snort icng
OTHER INFORMATION....
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
----------------------------------- -------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB
WS
NR
SE,
----
LEFT 45
----
20
----
----
THRV 10
10
1100
?'0
R IrHT 30
70
15
45
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANF USAGE
_______ _______
NrS
__,__------`----'------------------
P
' 1
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICC Page-3
__--_----____________________________________________________________
:•D TEN- AC Th AL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY ,,PAC i TY CAP -.CITY
MOVEMENT v(Pcph) (pcpn) c (pcphl c cch) _ - v LOS
M SH R SH
------- - ------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
ER LEFT 37 > -1 3 >t
THROUGH 11 83 59 ? 59 E
R[GHi 35 609 609 609 576 A
(
MINOR STRE.FT -L1-b\ `� )
WB LEFT 22 33 - 61 > 54 61 > :31 39 >E E
THROUGH 11 8's 69 6? > 58 > E
RIGHT 77 .955 355 555 478 - A.
MAJOR STREET
S6 LEFT 50 275 276 276 227 C
NB LEFT 28 335 335 335 307 B
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF .THE EAST/WEST STREET...... richmond
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 7/2/92 ; am Pm short gong
OTHER INFORMATION.... -
41
4"JO
---------------------------
7 -------------------------------------
---
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED !NTE'RSECTEONS
OoTEN-
AC-11AL
Ow-T 1,1
MOVFMENT
RE SERVE
RATE C"P1,11'. I 7Y
CAPACITY
1:,. 1, 1 T Y
I TY
POENTIFYING INFORMATION
MOVEMENT
v(pcph) (_cDh;
c (pcph) c
(Pcph)
v LOS
----------------------------------------------------
-----------------
SH
R SH
AVERAGE RUNNING 'SPE7-.,2, MAJOR ---,TREET
------- --------
--------- ---------
--
----------
—A- �o
STREETIc
�Al( HOUR FACTOR .................
I
e. I T
33
-61 -52 >F F
AREA POPULATION --------- ............
100000
THROUGH
11 83
42
42
31
RjCjjT
7" 516
5115
416
439
NAME OF THE EA'-',T/WEST STREET.........
r- i chmond
MINOR
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
W6 LEFT
33 81
>
36 34
> -13 1 >F E
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
m-fc!
THROUGH
1733
A
42
> 25 > E
RIGHT
99 503
.03
503
404 A
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (m;n/dd/yy) ......
7/2/92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED
am poll shor ionq
MAJOR STREET
.................
S8 LEFT
116 223
223
223
108 D
OTHER INFORMATION....
NB LEFT
39 236
236
236
197 0
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEO
IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION
------------------------------------
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
--- ------------------------------
NAME OF THE
EAST/WEST STREET......
richmond
NAME OF THE
NORTH/SOUTH STREET....
shields
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS...._
7/2/92
am Pm -hort
lung
OTHER INFORMATION....
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
En W8 N8 So
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 75 30 35 los
THRU io 15 1230 1150
R I CriT 90 -0 80
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Z-1 wc, :Ie, SC-
------- ------- ------- -------
-,:NFS
Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing Preliminary - #58-91B
August 31, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
According to the Solar Orientation Ordinance:
"When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize
variances under this Article upon its finding that the
following requirements in '(1), (2), or (3) have been
satisfied:"
11(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or
other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to
the site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the
strict application of any provision of this Article."
11(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties
with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be
caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any
provision of this Article."
11(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is
equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision
for which a variance is requested".
Staff finds that the variance request is justified under the
requirements specified by the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
The conditions peculiar to the site which cause a hardship to the
applicant if strict application of the Ordinance is applied
include: the existing location of Richmond Drive, the location of
the existing tie in points for Patterson Drive on both the east and
west sides of the proposed development, the inf ill nature and small
size of the parcel, and the existing location of the arterial—
_street . (Horsetooth-) .- -
The applicant demonstrated that the proposed plan is equal to or
better than a plan which strictly meets the Ordinance. The common
open space amenities, street trees and landscaping along Horsetooth
and Richmond Drives, and deeper lots provide buffering, screening,
and privacy from the impacts of traffic and activity at the
commercial center. Maintaining access to the lots from the
internal local streets is preferable to having lots access off of
Patterson Drive. The proposed plan maintains access off of
Patterson Court.
In summary, Staff finds the request for a variance to allow only
55% of the lots to be solar oriented is justified. Because of the
existing street layout, the infill nature and size of the parcel,
and the location between two developing PUD's which dictate where
Patterson Drive is to be built, requiring 65% solar orientation
Kingston Woods PUD Second Filing Preliminary - #58-91B
August 31, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
would result in a hardship to the subdivider. Staff also finds
that the proposed plan is equal to or better than a plan which
meets the Ordinance. Finally, Staff finds granting of the variance
would not be a detriment to the public good or impair the intent of
the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed project is in substantial conformance
with the Amended Horsetooth ODP, meets the Residential Uses Point
Chart and the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System. and is compatible with the surrounding
existing and proposed land uses. Staff recommends granting a
variance to the Solar Orientation based on findings that the
requirements in numbers (2) and (3) of the variance procedure have
been meet. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Kingston
Woods PUD 2nd Filing Preliminary- #58-91B.
•l ►` \'i`LeIel D
TRACT I
�CASA QRAHOV, PA n
R
ZONED' RP
IFI
J 1, ,�_I]L _
ou5t+c . umm rm� -
MYM1 iA901fv� ' �a y
_ ]5• Y111115 i � �p W1111GF •�[
_ TRACT c
DETENTION POND AREA l 3 • --'+ ,,,; x+I I „,�s Is • >m �g
\ imu,- 1 L„wwJ
TRACT H
-e%ets ss.
P TKRgON COORT x Gtt, 61 �
_� d � t fifer w sr. I I 12c1rr. /' � � ♦r♦r /
t�� _ nom 10� ♦ /
KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D.
2nd FILING
BLOCK 1 AND TRACT C OF HORSETOOTH COMMONS P.U.D.
I„
I
LOT 3
T v5v xr. s1 1 \ THE NARIO'R AT
Q � 1 � � $'^tl1^S"Q- lV ' HORSETO P.U.D.
e �1q i, I f Pmi III g _ / �\ ZONED. RP o4ro�
,w z I 0 -
�A , �t la \ e.za�oeoxano .. ,ri.an imaaoa i..u.ouxw�T.
.L _ � rd —7 \iv ,r. \ ly �o..a u��.ww.,+.n •.•,x.uurwix..wn n,.5
w Ary
. u
�HL1Q,CK 2u.m»a•ow wseeraom no.o sx.uuoewc.reo5,
LOT 4 w`�o rusrx, ,w s,•u.e wixr..eo er,w xorowuas
_ i,d.1.,.5e.,aa.'IXTF8.MA6RR,i0M0AH0pN,fx:,e
axrs,•w o..wee,ox,wms.,+.o
is`s. / I HORSETOOTI, \ _ Sumve`. oixs� :nem-w.vc. ,o..e�en��� :.': UTIL.
I''°F�aa \\a: \\ %I zoNED: RP 0. LOT s,e.5,wk.,m..,5,aa...,•�aawn..,,.,a.�w,xawn.«..a,w
BLO 3 I THE LOT 5 AT
�I DROSS A A°j� `� v n I �.�x �H0 S 00T� m,,,, oniaxr.nox wwx.wa.
roa wur wuuro.,mwu wr uwaian a.
S.l ACR COMMONS P.U.D. �� �,.�ova.,av,sv,reixreauanex ia•.roxawwiwivx
ZONED : RP or ,.,onoeow nawoxvvm.sunr aaox w.m eoon ea
II_ PRELIMINARY P.U.D. SITE PLAN
—.,.a.��oxS,,,K,�W,..,..5a,,,..x•w.»oaa
-- DATA TABLE
2.4 wlxs m on uwrs z nms M'WO t _
_ _ _ _ _ �038'E'1'00'fR'ROA6<ems' e-o.wa ` _ _ _ _ _ _ —
- �--••••� �/�,.cuxoe.vwavoeesvoxenmanrx.,,,nt,me „rt,.e Mrnu uro� K m rar n ,te marun a M rurww wo
TRA
CT I I � TRACT "I I
SKYLINE ACRES SUHDMS I of I SKYLINE ACRES SU IViS10N ox a�wa ara cx`0axw viwx rie
ZONED: RE Ala ZONED: R
l a "H SIGNATURE BLOCK
FREDERICK LAND SURVFYING " ^'ts'x'"'^"^^'"
^� a- - +�` — exacvnsm uvuc srnuav�. pc. im5 x. a a. imtuxo, roro5.00 rosn KTNCSTON WOODS P.U.O. 2nd FLUNG S D
_—_TRACT 1
SKYLRiE ACRES SUBDMS
zoNKD: Re
KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D.
2nd FILING
BLOCK 1 AND TRACT C OF HORSETOOTH COMMONS P.U.D.
NNAWN-
PUNT LIST
.�'`i `
PRELIMINARY P.U.D.
6✓
LANDSCAPE PLAN
ram/
LOT 3
THE MARKET AT
HORS OTH C MYONS P U D
ZONED: RP
\
%
F&L
\ \
fruC ...iL iW TAM
ld IUOu slat waLL
i24Y.u10lo
7 AT
U.D.
Rp
LOT 5
THE MARKET aT
STCNE WALL ELEVATION
COMMONS P O.D.
T r�
ZONED: RP
m ttur<x uutw�
��
wwN va.t xu�.
ro .aiveua Acme n�A
LANDSCAPE NOTES
w
- — _
U L1 U
U
wA
_
I I
I"
raxoen
wa
I TRACT 11
rncutar
re+z �<wnros
i.�wnmcA itMvr ua eomnMmxr exww
.vaaam�.o uuMn�aociTM aa.awue
SKYLINE SU MSION
eec ee Aecm an+nm ^n'e.n"+..ce wua um^u"c
20NEDACWWv:
�:�+�WAx.awut
e • Te.ot lent °" eme im uo
STONE WALL DETAIL
^ FENGE DETAIL
INANA FREDERICK LAND SURVEYING."""'"'
vroc�xe wuc RWxT�xa, NO
111. A. ux . A..u. AmeuT. eaweAoo ueu KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D. 2nd FILING L'
r..- A— r- w. -3� wwe [. Iw>I u