Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD, 3RD REPLAT - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 46-88G - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (2)ITEM NO. 20 _ MEETING DATE 3/24/97 giai STAFFMjke_L"wj g City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G. APPLICANT: Marc Middel Enterprises c/o Phil Robinson Stewart and Associates 103 S. Meldrum Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Marc Middel 1407 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 73 single-family lots on 13.34 acres known as Parcel A-1 of the Park South Amended Overall Development Plan; a residential density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at the southwest corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue and is zoned RL, Low Density Residential on the new CityPlan zoning map. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a variance and a condition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for Preliminary and Final PUD approval: is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the land use designated for Parcel A-1 of the Park South Amended Overall Development Plan; and achieves 90% of the maximum applicable points (90 base points) on the Residential Uses Activity Chart (Point Chart H), exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a proposed density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre and exceeding the minimum required 40 base points; and satisfies all applicable All -Development Criteria of the LDGS except for A-1.1 "Solar Orientation": and COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT No Text 0 • Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 2 can be granted a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on the basis that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section; and that the plan submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested, and is compatible with surrounding land uses; and complies with the City's Transportation policies for traffic volumes and levels of service. No Text • Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 3 COMMENTS Back_rq_ound: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RL; Horsetooth Road, existing church (Southside Baptist Church), existing single-family residential (Foothills Park Subdivision) LMN; Horsetooth Road, existing single-family residential (Warren Farms), vacant (planned residential and commercial) S: RL; existing single-family residential (Park South PUD) E: C; existing movie theater (Carmike 10), railroad (Burlington Northern), varied commercial (Bowling Alley, Creger Plaza, etc.) W: RL; existing single-family residential (Four Seasons) The property was originally part of the Park South P.U.D. approved in Larimer County on April 3, 1978. The property was annexed in 1980 with the agreement that the County approved P.U.D. had legal validity. On September 9, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board approved, by a vote of 3-2, an amendment to the Park South Amended Overall Development Plan (thereby creating the existing ODP). The amendment allowed a change of uses on the subject 13.34 acres from neighborhood convenience shopping center and duplex housing or offices to single family housing. The approval by the Planning and Zoning Board was upheld by the City Council on appeal by a vote of 4-2 on November 12, 1996. The Resolution making findings of fact and conclusions regarding the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's approval was approved by the City Council by a vote of 6-0 on November 19, 1996. On January 27, 1997 the Planning and Zoning Board considered the Preliminary and Final plans for the Park South PUD, Third Replat, including a request for a variance from All - Development Criteria A-1.1 of the LDGS. The Planning and Zoning Board voted to continue the consideration of the applicants request until March 24, 1997 with specific instructions for the applicant to (1) work with the neighborhood to address compatibility and buffering concerns; (ii) re-examine the proposed Horsetooth Road streetscape and building setbacks; and (iii) provide additional information regarding the financial and planning impacts of the strict application of All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation". The application was submitted on April 22, 1996, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 161, 1996 which established a temporary delay in the acceptance of certain land use applications until March 28, 1997. 2. Land Use: This is a request for 73 single-family lots on 13.34 acres known as Parcel A-1 of the Park No Text • Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 4 South Amended Overall Development Plan; a residential density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre. A. Applicant's Response to Planning and Zoning Board Instructions Attached to this Staff Memo are additional documents that were submitted by the applicant in response to the instructions by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 27, 1997. The additional documents are as follows: A March 6, 1997 letter from Lucia Liley on behalf of the developer, Marc Middel outlining the applicant's plan modifications to address neighborhood concerns, outlining the re -design of the Horsetooth Road streetscape; and outlining the applicant's renewed request for a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" of the LDGS. 2. A February 24, 1997 letter from the Village at Four Seasons Community Association outlining the agreement between the Association and the developer. 3. A March 1, 1997 letter from Michael Schultz on behalf of Jack and Betty Aggers and Earl Noel (neighbors to the west) outlining their agreement with the developer. 4. Documentation of Public Service Bills for single-family dwelling units in previous Park South PUD Filings as support for a variance to All - Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation". 5. Alternative designs for a project layout that would satisfy the strict interpretation of All Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" to graphically demonstrate why the proposed plan is equal to or better than either of the alternative designs. Staff recommends that the applicant has adequately addressed the January 27, 1997 instructions of the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Overall Development Plan: The existing Park South Amended Overall Development Plan allows a maximum of 75 single-family dwelling units on Parcel A-1. The request for 73 single-family dwelling units is consistent with the approved Park South Amended Overall Development Plan. In approving the existing Park South Amended Overall Development Plan, the City determined that the Amended ODP was in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. By virtue of being consistent with the Amended Overall Development Plan, the Park South PUD, 3rd Replat is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. No Text 0 s Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 5 C. Residential Uses Activity Chart (Point Chart H): The request was evaluated against the Residential Uses Activity Chart (Point Chart H) of the Land Development Guidance System and earns 90% of the maximum applicable points, exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a residential density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre. All 90 points are earned from the Base/Locational Criteria, exceeding the minimum required 40 points. Points were awarded for the following criterion: a. being located within 2, 000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center- 20 points. The entire project is within 2,000 feet of Creger Plaza (Albertson's Supermarket and other retail stores). C. being located within 4,000 feet of an existing community and regional shopping center, or a community/regional shopping center to constructed as part of the project - 10 points. The entire project is located within 4,000 feet of Foothills Fashion Mall. d. being located within 3,500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community park, or community facility (except golf courses) - 20 points. The entire project is within 3,500 feet of Troutman Park. e. being located within 2,500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws - 10 points. The entire project is within 2,500 feet of Lopez Elementary School. j. having a boundary contiguous to existing urban development - 30 points. Approximately 78% of the project boundary is contiguous to existing urban (city) development. Only 50% contiguity is required for the full 30 points. C. All -Development Criteria: This Preliminary and Final PUD request satisfies all applicable All -Development Criteria of the LDGS except for A-1.1 "Solar Orientation". 0 0 0 0 Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 6 All development Criteria A-1.1 requires at least 65% of the lots less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area in single- and two-family residential developments to conform to the definition of a "solar oriented lot" in order to preserve the potential solar energy usage. Only 29% (21 of 73) of the lots within the proposed PUD are meet the definition of solar oriented lots. The applicant has requested a variance to this criteria. D. Variance Request: Section K, Variance Procedures, of the LDGS states: "The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of this section (the LDGS). The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on any application for a variance shall be set forth in writing in the minutes of the meeting of the Board. Variance requests may be granted if the Board determines that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section and if the applicant demonstrates: (1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this section, or (2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this section, or (3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested, or (4) The granting of a variance from the strict application of any provision would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would help satisfy a defined community need (such as affordable housing or historic preservation) or would alleviate an existing problem (such as traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of such a provision would render the project practically unfeasible." A variance request dated January 8, 1997 from Lucia Liley; a March 6, 1997 letter from Lucia Liley (see pages 2-4); documentation of Public Service Bills for single-family dwelling units in previous Park South PUD Filings; and alternative designs for a project layout have been submitted to support the applicant's request for a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation". Staff recommends approval of the applicant's variance request on the basis that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and 0 0 Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 7 purposes of this section; and that the plan submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. 3. Desian: The proposed layout of the Park South PUD, 3rd Replat basically consists of three north/south oriented cul-de-sacs. As stated in the agreements with adjacent neighbors, Lots 135-136 and 137-138 will be paired housing units. Rather than four separate structures, there will be two structures with a total of four units on these four lots. Structures on Lots 131-140 will be limited to one-story in height. Lots 131, 139, and 140 will have a 28 foot rear yard setback and Lots 132-138 will have a 40 foot rear yard setback. All other lots will have setbacks as noted on the typical details on the Site Plan. The Horsetooth Road streetscape has been revised to enhance pedestrian access and includes a visual break of the boundary fence by incorporating green spaces of berms, trees and shrubs. The Mayflower Court cul-de-sac was moved several feet south from Horsetooth Road. The lots abutting Horsetooth Road have remained as side loaded. The minimum building setback of structures from Horsetooth Road is 15 feet from the back of the sidewalk and 30 feet from the back of the curb. This PUD application was submitted prior to the adoption of the new City Street Standards. Therefore, 36 foot wide residential streets with roll-over curbs and five foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed. One street tree is proposed per lot behind the sidewalk. Five foot wide sidewalk connections are provided from the end of each cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along West Horsetooth Road. A six foot high wood fence is proposed along the north, west and east property lines. Landscaped and bermed sidewalk connections at the ends of the cul-de-sacs are provided in place of the previously proposed tapered height fence. Street trees to be maintained by the City of Fort Collins are proposed between the curb and detached sidewalk along Manhattan Avenue. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: On September 9, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the current, Park South Amended Overall Development Plan by a 3-2 vote. In making it's decision to amend the previous ODP, the Board determined that single-family residential housing was compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Planning and Zoning Board's approval was upheld on appeal by the City Council on November 12, 1996. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 14, 1996 regarding this request to amend the Overall Development Plan to allow 75 single-family lots. Minutes of the neighborhood meeting are attached. No Text Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 8 The applicant has submitted documentation of agreements with the adjoining property owners and the Village at Four Seasons Community Association. Each of the points of agreement are reflected on the proposed plans. Staff recommends that the Park South PUD, 3rd Replat is compatible with surrounding land uses as proposed. 5. Transportation: Vehicular access is proposed from Manhattan Avenue (via Haven Drive) and from Rockaway Street at the southwest corner of the property. Pedestrian access is provided to Horsetooth Road from the ends of each of the cul-de-sacs. Approximately 695 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the 73 single-family dwelling units. All intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. 6. Stormwater: The need for stormwater detention resulted in a loss of two lots from the 75 dwelling units anticipated on the overall development plan. In addition to handling all on -site flows according to Stormwater Utility Criteria, the development will be receiving off -site flows from the west, thereby alleviating storm drainage problems for the Villages at Four Seasons. All Stormwater Utility criteria are satisfied. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the land use designated for Parcel A-1 of the Park South Amended Overall Development Plan. 2. The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G achieves 90% of the maximum applicable points (90 base points) on the Residential Uses Activity Chart (Point Chart H), exceeding the minimum required 60 points for a proposed density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre and exceeding the minimum required 40 base points. 3. The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G satisfies all applicable All -Development Criteria of the LDGS except for A-1.1 "Solar Orientation". 4. The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G can be granted a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on the basis that granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section; and that the plan submitted is equal to or No Text Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 9 better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. 5. The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G is compatible with surrounding land uses. 6. The Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G complies with the City's Transportation policies for traffic volumes and levels of service. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46- 88G including a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 and the following condition: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D., plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (May 19, 1997) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made). If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of • i Park South PUD, 3rd Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G March 24, 1997 P&Z Meeting Page 10 calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that the dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. i 0 film 1:■1l10 No Text VICINITY MAP 05/02/96 #46-88G PARK SOUTH PUD " Third Replat Final 1"=600• No Text ;NOU3n8LSNOO NOd 03AO8ddV .Oiti../ 7pb 11 d lCC6-zWoL6i ass OQINO100'SNTOO A01'1338LS nnNm3N'S COt O"zAKns aNv 8l0mf o Ot6'-.00 S31vloosS`d Q i2IVM31S N✓Id 3US TMLi y N i e SNOISIn38 Ivy a� W Vrd � � ,"/w O .LOV11 .AI.L,.005 1.1c _ a � F N F 95r jJU I �_� S MH �L--M.3 { a 8 [[ Lei-N9 6l� ---Ig P A 6Q �5�� Maw O.A �Wo _. ___ III III' I �yQ 1 U' �,Wn 2 5g3 1\ w� 1I �p --------- ----- - - --------- - ' ---- M e' N s --- III 133ULS .lYJllq/JOW n w e I 0N0135 'O'n HInOS I 0 a A 01 I I `,�-----------I---� I , ` 15AIlj Nosb�sbnoe----- ---- 0 0 0 • Nou0na1SNOO 80J 03AONddV SNOISA38 I k� LM-LBY(OL6) LUOS 00VM0100 'SN11100 1M03 '133&S WN013N 'S f01 6NOALUM aNV SHMAMONa ONLLUMMOO S31`d130SSV !R i2JVM3iS Uuuu i ��iiikitil38 w " a �.==oo > o9000 J - a o .�.o....�.- z a F- — r c �. z 0: Q rjn !n h115 w ` u 1 i F u'<i J 0U- 3-= a cr N gel o y 1 �CW��w J Wyk V) a S�STSM8 a Fo J '':_i6865�Y - o . z .....„.. ABm a 0 Siam o 1d NVId 3dVOSONVI WNU n. N OOIYQ700 'SNn IOO ILO! b BUM 0b*u'Pn'd HUICS NWd ym� 13OO1N OWN N 0 0 a & d � � � No Text • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS Proposal: Park South PUD, 3rd Replat - Final Description: 75 Single family lots. Density: 5.62 du/acre (gross) General Population: 75 (units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 240 School Age Population: Elementary: 75 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 30 Junior High: 75 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 14 Senior High: 75 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 12 TOTAL = 56 *Figures assume a mix of 2- and 3- bedroom single family residential. No Text I Activity A: • PICK SoMU POD$ 3 . MF ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITE*RIA ALL CRITERIA I APPLICASLE CRITEF!IA ONLY s the c-tenon will tf acoicactel be a? CRITERION 3 Yes If no, please ex=lain Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA. I I 1. i Solar Onent=tion 1 I I I 1.2 Comprehensive Plan I I I VA 1.3 Wildlife Habitat I I I 1.4 Mineral Depcsit I I I I 1 •.= ==logically Sensitive Areas I ! I I 1 reserved I I I 1.c L_ands cf Aeri:ultural Imoor=ncs I r��er red I I 1.7 Enemy Cor,se:vation I W401 '.E Air Qualitv 1 W I I 1... Water cua �._. �lity I ' 'C `Gwace =nd vVa�te= 1 1 11 lh=te'Conseryation I I I I 1.12 Residential Densitv I I I I I A 2. NE!GHEORHOOD COMP. T IEILITY C.RITERIA1 I I _.1 V=�ic::iar. PeCesmran. Bike T ransooration I I I I I = Bunging Placement and Orient_ticr, i I _2.3 atural Fatures Venicular Circulation I I I I 1I anc Parkinc I 1 cmergencl Acc5Ss _ I 2•-5 rScEstrian Circ'icn t .-; .-,rc inure I I 3' Euilain Heint a 1 I 1 9 g � _ and Views I I I '2.9. Shading I I I 2.1 C Sclar Ac- 2.11 Historic Resources I ( I I 2.12 Setbacks I I I I 2.13 L andscace I 2.14 Signs 1 1 I I I I I Site Lighting I I I I 2.16 Ncise and Vibration 1 1 1 2.17 Glare or Hest 2.18 Hazardous Materials I 1 1 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA I I 3.1 utility Capacity I 3.2 Design Standards I I 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 G�olooic Hai=rds I I l Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised . h 1994 - 61 _ A-5US� No Text P► M San'H Qum,3`� ,pr PIF # 46-88C� CTIVITY: 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_ recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. CRITERIA: The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yes No N/A 1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE . POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART IT'FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be based on the following: 60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre 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 100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre 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. 0 0 K sounA PvD V, REPLP WI; 46-88CV DENSITY'CHART H — % Maximum Earned Criterion Credit credit $ 2000 fed ofan naa—� �agjiborilood service caIIrr, or a neighborhood service center to be ooastr ed as a part 20% otter 7*cs (Ifthe Projea is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such neighborhood savice center 20 must be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is soughs) C -sR 630 fed of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six (6] dwelling units 200/0 per acre on a groan acreage basis) uu C 4000 feet of an scaring community/regional shopping order, 'i' opputg , rep shcenter to be 10!4 constructed u a part of the project. (If the project is proposed to be mructed in muhiple phases, such �O T community/tsgiona! slopping azrtcr muss beudtd as part of the phase for which approval is soughs) jj 3300 fed ofan e ti neghborhood or coransffiy Park, or a community facility (EXCEPT GOLF COURSESr 20% or ---- �-rfN------------------------------------------------------?'-0 d3500 fed of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood a community park, or community facility IOOA (EXCEPT GOLF COURSES) or i 3500 feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed or rot I0°% e 2500 fed of an exist rtg school meeting all requireacrts of the Stater of Colorado compulsory education laws 101/0 X. 10 r 3000 fed of an existing major employment center, or a major empioymes2t center to be constructed as a part of 20% 1the P (Ifthe project is proposed to be corstuded in multiple phases, sudr major employrrxat center must be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is soughs) No building, office or business park, or shopping ecnlcr wi ich has served as the basis for the claiming of crrodit under arty other 'base" criteria of this S Density Chart can aso be used as the basis for claiming credit under this criterion. 1000 fed of an sawing child care carter, or a child care center to be constructed as a part of the project. (If the 5% bproject is proposed to be ocasuucted in multiple phases, arch child cue cerrter must be corntructod as a part of tSe phase for Al ich approval is sought.) h "North Fort Collins" 20% I I I The Cartral Bushmen District I 200/. I A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows: 30% 0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 10% contiguity, 10 - 1 S% For projects wbose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguity, 15 - 200/. For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 300/. cxdiguity; 20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 400.E eoatiguity, 25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 500% corrtiguity. If the project contains dwelling units set aside for individuals earning 801/o or less of the median income of City 1 S% residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than 30% of their groom income for housing including k uh7itia+ ("Afford("Affordab4c Dwelling Urib-' calculate the pe=zartage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the project and enter that percentage, up to a maximum of 1501s. (If the prcj od is proposed to be constructed in nuttipie phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units must be constructed as a put of the phase for which approval is soughs) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain affordable for a period of act less than 25 years, the developer stmll record such protective eovenacts as may be required by the City under Sea 29-526(JX4} 0 r Ear- Crittrioa i PAak sbo-na P v �`� �PI.AT P F y�-gyp& C If it can be dernastnuod that the project will reduce noo-renewable energy usage either through the application of ahemative energy systems or through covunitted energy conservation mcasurrs beyond those normally required by City Code, a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5% roduction in energy use. M I Calculate a 1 % bonus for every 50 acres included in the project II I Calculate the pa"catage of the total aces in the project that arc devoted to rocrcatioaal use. Enter 5i of that pe rcriage as a bonus O 1 If the applicant coamnits to preserving perma ezi off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the parentage of this open space acreage to the total developmcrt acreage and eater this perccr agc as a bonus. I Ifpart of the total developmd budget is to be spent on acighborlwod public transit facilities whuare ire ch not required by City Code, P c eater a 2% bonus for every MO per dwelling unit invested. Ifpwt ofthe total devclopmc:-s: budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City qCode, enter a i bonus for every S I00 per dwelling unit invested If the project contains dwelling unds set aside for individuals earning 80% or less of the median income of City residcr s, as adjusttd I, for family size, and paying Less than 30% of their grass income for bousing, including utilities ("Affordable Dwelling Units"), cakulait the percattage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the project and ewer that percentage as a bonus, up to a maxir um of 13% (if the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units must be enr=ucted as a part of the phase for vkbch approval is sought) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain affordable for a period of not less than 25 years, the developer shall record such protective covenants as may be required by the City under Sec. 29-526(J)(4). If a cmmitmrd is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: S I Type "A" .5 x Tvrc "A" Units Total Units In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% Type "B" 1.0 x Twe "B" Units i Total Units If the site or adjacart property coctains. a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following: t 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservatioa (e.g environmental, land use, aesihdic, economic and social factors? 3% For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units; 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation and improvanert in an appropriate manner I Ifa portion or all ofthe rogiucd parking in the nsrhipie family project is provided underground, within the building, or in an elevated u parking structure as an accessory use to the primary stuctiue, a bonus may be earned as follows: 9% For providing 75% or more of the parking in a stnu bmr; 6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a strucurre; 3% For providing 25 - 49"/. of the parking in a structure. VI If cocrmi mcrt is bong made to provide approved ■utoauwe fire exiinguistting systems for the dwelling units, eater a bonus of 10% W If the applicant its to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the destination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows: I S% For connecting to the txarest existing City sidewalk and bicycle pnih/laae; 3% For 000rraing to any existing public school, park and transit stop whbin the distances as defined in this Density Chart; 5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail wfiich is adjacerd to or traverses the project. TOTAL, I� 0 0 • • ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (970) 482-4322 TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 March 6, 1997 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469 HAND DELIVERED Re: Park South P.U.D., Third Replat, Preliminary and Final, #46-88G Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: On January 27, 1997 the Board considered the preliminary and final plans for the Park South P.U.D. , Third Replat (the "Project" ) and a request for variance from L.D.G.S. Criteria A-1.1, Solar Orientation submitted by the owners and developers of the Project, Horsetooth, Ltd., Marc Middel and Middel Enterprises, Inc. ("Middel"). After receiving evidence and testimony, the Board continued the hearing to March 24, 1997 with specific instructions for Middel to (i) work with the neighborhood to address their concerns; (ii) reexamine the Horsetooth Road streets cape; and (iii) provide additional information regarding the financial and planning impacts of strict application of the Solar Orientation criteria. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS Following the January 27, 1997 hearing, there were several discussion with the adjacent property owners and their attorney, Michael M. Shultz, and representatives of the Villages at Four Seasons Community Association. Agreement has been reached on the issues of concern to the neighborhood. To implement the parties' agreement, Middel imposed a single -story height limitation and greater rear lot setback requirements on the lots adjacent to the neighbors' homes. Middel also modified the site plan so that paired housing will be built on four of these lots, with the option of continuing paired housing elsewhere in the project if there is a market demand for that type of housing. He also agreed to do construction work on the adjacent lots first, and in a timely manner, to shield the neighbors from construction of the remainder of the Project. Middel also reaffirmed his agreement to share in the cost of a new boundary fence. With these changes to the Project, the two neighborhood groups are satisfied and have No Text Planning and Zoning Board March 6, 1997 Page 2 expressed their support for the Project in letters to the Planning and Zoning Board which are being submitted with this letter. HORSETOOTH STREETSCAPE Also at the Board's direction, Middel has redesigned the Horsetooth Road streetscape to enhance the pedestrian accesses and create variety and interest along Horsetooth Road by breaking up the boundary fence line with green spaces of berms, trees and shrubs. The Mayflower Court cul-de-sac was also moved several feet back from Horsetooth Road to provide additional space for berms and greenery. The result is visually pleasing both from Horsetooth Road and from the internal neighborhood cul-de-sacs. SOLAR ORIENTATION VARIANCE When the Solar Orientation criteria were adopted in 1991, the City Council anticipated that in -fill projects might have sight - planning constraints that would make it impossible to satisfy the new solar criteria, and thus provided that variances could be granted in such instances so as not to preclude in -fill residential development. It was also intended by the City Council that the goal of having 65% solar -oriented lots be applied to multi -phase projects as a whole, and not to each individual phase. Many projects throughout the City have been granted similar variances. Park South P.U.D., Third Replat is an example of the type of situation that the City Council envisioned in 1991. This Project's design was limited by the following factors: the small size of the parcel (13.3 acres gross); all points of access were predetermined; the Project is surrounded by development or streets on all sides; the water and sewer tie-in points are fixed; and there is a strong desire for pedestrian/bicycle connections to Horsetooth Road. The design proposed seems to be the best way to maximize the utility of this parcel given the preexisting planning constraints. The Third Replat only contains 21 solar -oriented lots or 29%, however, the Second and Third Replats, when considered together, have 82 solar - oriented lots or 50 % of the total number of lots in Park South that come under the solar orientation requirements. The only way for Middel to create more solar -oriented lots (i.e., lots that face north or south) would be to place another east -west street in the Project parallel to Horsetooth Road. Although Middel could then meet the technical requirement of having 650-. solar -oriented lots, the Project would lose 13 lots and be a less desirable project for both the developer and the City. In addition to reducing the total number of lots available for construction of moderately -priced housing from 73 to 60, this design would increase from 6 to 9 the number of less desirable lots (i.e., lots that abut Horsetooth Road, a major arterial). In the No Text Planning and Zoning Board March 6, 1997 Page 3 plan Middel proposes, the side of only 6 homes would face Horsetooth; the sides of the homes he builds have only bathroom windows, therefore, the noise from Horsetooth is minimized. In a plan revised to meet the solar requirements, the sides of 4 homes would face Horsetooth Road, but the rear of another 5 homes would face the arterial; the windows for some of the main living areas (bedrooms, kitchen and dining) are on the rear, thus increasing the intrusion of noise into the home and making the lots less desirable. A plan revised in this way would also have a lower density, an inefficient street layout and use of the land, several unusually deep lots, a much longer continuous fence line along Horsetooth Road and one less pedestrian/bicycle connection to Horsetooth Road. The developer's engineers were able to come up with one other alternative design which would increase the number of solar - oriented lots by adding an east -west street, however, this design creates more problems than it solves. Although the design only eliminated 2 lots overall, there would be 13 lots which back up to Horsetooth Road, 11 of which would be too shallow (92 feet deep) to accommodate a home. In addition, 3 internal lots would have to be narrowed to a width of 46-48 feet, which is too narrow for building. This alternate design would only have 2 alley -type pedestrian/bicycle connections to Horsetooth Road, instead of 3 shorter, landscaped connections, and the streetscape as viewed from Horsetooth Road would be a continuous fence line for the entire length of the property. There would be no opportunity to integrate any of the streetscape improvements Middel has proposed for the current design. Again, the trade offs in this alternate design are not beneficial to the home buyers or the developer, nor do they accomplish any goals of the City. Finally, the loss of lots from the Project would result in a significant increase in the costs of each lot. With each lot valued at approximately $30,000, a reduction of 13 lots translates into a loss of $390,000. To recover such a loss Middel would have to increase the selling price of the remaining homes a minimum of $6,000 to $7,000 each, and keeping the increase down to this amount assumes that Middel would be able to build on schedule, stay within cost projections, and ultimately sell what he believes are less marketable lots. Middel believes that an increase in the price of the homes would make them unaffordable to the majority of his customers. Finally, because Middel builds energy efficient houses already, the savings in utility bills for solar -oriented homes in Park South is so minimal that it would not justify the higher price of the home. Please see the attached comparison of Public Service Company utility bills for the existing homes in Park South. In conclusion, Middel believes that strict compliance with the solar orientation requirements would not justify the trade offs that would result. No Text Planning and Zoning Board March 6, 1997 Page 4 Having successfully dealt with the neighborhood's concerns and enhanced the Horsetooth Road streetscape, and having provided additional information regarding the solar variance as requested by the Board on January 27, 1997, we ask that you approve the Park South P.U.D., Preliminary and Final plans. We also renew Middel's request for approval of a variance from the strict application of L.D.G.S. Criteria A-1.1 on the basis of exceptional conditions or difficulties that would result to the developer and the fact that the plan as submitted is better than a plan that would satisfy the solar requirement [L.D.G.S. §29-526 (K) (2) and (3) ] Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ME LAL/jpk CC: Marc Middel Horsetooth, Ltd. Middel Enterprises, Inc. No Text MICHAEL M. SHULTZ ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 2896 LOVELAND, COLORADO 90539 Telephone (970) 667-0142 March 1, 1997 Board Members Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins re: Revised Preliminary Plan and Final Plan for Park South Dear Board Member: I represent several owners of duplex units in the village at Four Seasons that border the Park South development on its west side. These owners brought their concerns to this Board several weeks ago. Since that time, the neighbors have worked with the developer, Mr. Marc Middel, and the two sides have agreed on how he can make his proposed development compatible with their duplex units. The proposed changes for the benefit of the neighbors include: 1. Lots 135-38, inclusive, would become paired housing (i.e., instead of four individual lots with four separate structures, there would be two buildings with a total of four units on their lots) . 2. The planning documents for Park South PUD will be changed to permit paired housing on other lots within the project so that additional paired housing could be built if marketable. 3. The rear yard setback for each lot adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons (Lots 131-40, inclusive) will be specified on the site plan, with a minimum of 28 feet for the end lots (Lots 131, 139 and 140) and 40 feet for the remainder. 4. All structures on the lots adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons (Lots 131-140, inclusive) will be limited to one story in height. 5. Construction work on the lots adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons will be done as part of the first phase construction for Park South PUD. The developer will use his best efforts to conclude such work on these lots in a timely fashion. 6. The agreement with the Association regarding fencing will remain in place. As a result of this agreement, the neighbors now support the proposed project as revised and request that you vote in favor of No Text the revised preliminary and final plans for Park South PUD. The neighbors have signed this letter to show their support. The Maixners, who also objected to the amended ODP for Park South, are in Arizona, but Betty Aggers is authorized to speak on their behalf and to state that they support the new plans. Yours truly, Michael M. Shultz Jack and Betty Aggers arl Noel No Text u February 24, 1997 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Res Park South Preliminary and Final PUD Board members s At your suggestion, the Board of Directors of the Village at Four Seasons Community Association met with the developers of Park South and individual -- homeowners adjacent to the west property line of the development. We had a very productive meeting with agreement being reached on the followings 1. The number of lots will not be reduced. The units on lots 135-136 and lots 137-138 will be paired housing (ie. instead of four separate structures on these four lots there will be two buildings with a total of four units on their lots). 2. The planning documents for Park South will be changed to permit paired housing on other lots within the project so that additional paired housing may be built if the market allows. 3. The rear yard setback for each lot adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons (Lots 131-140, inclusive) will be specified on the site _- plan, with a minimum of 28 feet for the end lots and 40 feet for the remainder. 4. All structures on the lots adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons (Lots 131-140, inclusive) will be limited to one story in height. 5. Construction work on the lots adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons will be done as part of the first phase construction for Park South PUD. The Developer will use his best efforts to conclude such work on these lots in a timely manner. 6. The agreement with the Village at Four Seasons regarding fencing will remain in place. Please accept this letter as confirmation from the Village at Four Seasons Community Association for the approval of the Park South PUD with the condition that the above listed changes are incorporated into the development plan. Respectfully yours, The Village at Four Seasons Community Association Board of Directors by: Don. Hardy,,President Anne Kylen, cretary No Text PUBLIC SERVICE BILLS 1 YEAR OF SERVICE AS OF 2/19/97 ADDRESS FACING HIGH LOW AVERAGE 400 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $76 $8 $36 406 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $59 $8 $31 412 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $61 $10 $30 418 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $56 $8 $28 424 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $59 $8 $23 430 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $71 $9 $36 436 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $65 $5 $30 442 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $63 $8 $30 502 DENNISON CT SOUTH $62 $8 $30 508 DENNISON CT SOUTH $68 $8 $35 514 DENNISON CT SOUTH $86 $8 $39 520 DENNISON CT SOUTH $69 $8 $35 526 DENNISON CT SOUTH $87 $8 $37 500 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $61 $8 $27 506 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $64 $10 $29 512 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $65 $8 $34 518 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $56 $10 $31 524 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $72 $8 $32 530 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $59 $8 $30 606 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $60 $8 $31 600 DENNISON AVE SOUTH $67 $11 $33 542 WALDEN WY SOUTH $49 $1 $21 536 WALDEN WY SOUTH $44 $4 $20 530 WALDEN WY SOUTH $44 $4 $20 524 WALDEN WY SOUTH $37 $4 $16 518 WALDEN WY SOUTH $56 $7 $29 512 WALDEN WY SOUTH $44 $4 $21 506 WALDEN WY SOUTH $66 $30 $48 500 WALDEN WY SOUTH $40 $15 $20 436 WALDEN WY SOUTH $37 $13 $20 430 WALDEN WY SOUTH $46 $11 $28 424 WALDEN WY SOUTH $45 $12 $26 418 WALDEN WY SOUTH $50 $11 $25 412 WALDEN WY SOUTH $50 $35 $43 406 WALDEN WY SOUTH $50 $8 $32 400 WALDEN WY SOUTH $65 $13 $38 AVERAGE SOUTH 58.58 9.64 29.83 3800 STREAM CT WEST $68 $8 $33 3806 STREAM CT WEST $62 $8 $34 3812 STREAM CT WEST $77 $8 $38 3818 STREAM CT WEST $66 $11 $33 3824 STREAM CT WEST $61 $8 $29 3830 STREAM CT WEST $53 $8 $28 3836 STREAM CT WEST $62 $8 $29 3842 STREAM CT WEST $64 $8 $32 3848 STREAM CT WEST $61 $8 $39 3854 STREAM CT WEST $74 $8 $37 437 DENNISON AVE WEST $72 $8 $36 443 DENNISON AVE WEST $73 $8 $35 449 DENNISON AVE WEST $71 $8 $36 455 DENNISON AVE WEST $69 $8 $34 461 DENNISON AVE WEST $69 $8 $32 467 DENNISON AVE WEST $77 $8 $36 554 DENNISON AVE WEST $74 $8 $34 560 DENNISON AVE WEST $69 $8 $32 566 DENNISON AVE WEST $82 $8 $37 572 DENNISON AVE WEST $73 $8 $35 3766 ROCKAWAY ST WEST $63 $13 $33 3760 ROCKAWAY ST WEST $89 $13 $36 No Text 3754 ROCKAWAY ST WEST $78 $15 $37 3718 ROCKAWAY ST WEST $52 $8 $20 3706 ROCKAWAY ST WEST $59 $1 $18 AVERAGE WEST 68.72 8.52 32.92 527 DENNISON CT NORTH $81 $9 $35 521 DENNISON CT NORTH $74 $8 $33 515 DENNISON CT NORTH $63 $8 $32 509 DENNISON CT NORTH $77 $8 $35 503 DENNISON CT NORTH $68 $8 $33 473 DENNISON AVE NORTH $61 $8 $30 501 DENNISON AVE NORTH $53 $8 $27 507 DENNISON AVE NORTH $60 $8 $29 513 DENNISON AVE NORTH $67 $13 $34 519 DENNISON AVE NORTH $70 $8 $33 525 DENNISON AVE NORTH $51 $7 $25 531 DENNISON AVE NORTH $62 $8 $32 537 DENNISON AVE NORTH $71 $8 $29 543 DENNISON AVE NORTH $51 $8 $25 549 DENNISON AVE NORTH $70 $8 $34 401 WALDEN WY NORTH $60 $11 $33 407 WALDEN WY NORTH $58 $12 $36 413 WALDEN WY NORTH $61 $15 $37 419 WALDEN WY NORTH $59 $10 $36 425 WALDEN WY NORTH $48 $10 $26 431 WALDEN WY NORTH $49 $13 $29 437 WALDEN WY NORTH $45 $12 $27 501 WALDEN WY NORTH $50 $11 $27 507 WALDEN WY NORTH $50 $14 $29 513 WALDEN WY NORTH $52 $10 $28 519 WALDEN WY NORTH $107 $10 $31 525 WALDEN WY NORTH $99 $13 $40 531 WALDEN WY NORTH $57 $12 $32 537 WALDEN WY NORTH $57 $10 $23 543 WALDEN WY NORTH $50 $12 $28 AVERAGE NORTH 62.70 10.00 30.93 3801 STREAM CT EAST $53 $8 $30 3807 STREAM CT EAST $69 $8 $36 3813 STREAM CT EAST $61 $8 $29 3819 STREAM CT EAST $66 $8 $32 3825 STREAM CT EAST $61 $8 $30 3831 STREAM CT EAST $58 $8 $28 3837 STREAM CT EAST $70 $8 $34 3843 STREAM CT EAST $71 $8 $31 555 DENNISON AVE EAST $63 $8 $30 561 DENNISON AVE EAST $92 $11 $39 567 DENNISON AVE EAST $73 $10 $34 573 DENNISON AVE EAST $75 $8 $36 3755 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $54 $16 $33 3749 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $67 $9 $36 3743 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $54 $15 $32 3737 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $50 $18 $35 3731 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $94 $10 $43 3725 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $57 $13 $32 3719 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $62 $13 $40 3713 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $117 $16 $37 3707 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $54 $7 $22 3701 ROCKAWAY ST EAST $50 $7 $21 AVERAGE EAST 66.86 10.23 32.73 TOTAL AVERAGES 64.22 9.60 31.60 No Text ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. SRANDES, JR. RICHARD S. G.AST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80524-2880 1970)482-4322 - TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING --ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469 January 21, 1997 JAN Z 1 RECU HAND DELIVERED Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue .Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Park South P.U.D. Third Replat, Preliminary and Final Request for Solar Orientation Variance Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify that the request for solar orientation variance filed January 8, 1997 on behalf of Horsetooth, Ltd., Marc Middel and Middel Enterprises, Inc. is based on Sections (2) and (3) of LDGS §29-526 (K) . Sincerely, MARCH & MYATT, P.C. By: LAL/jpk pc: Horsetooth, Limited 0 0 • P�-1.1 VARi *CF. Rr�oFST ARTHUR E. MARCH. JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDES. JR, RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80524-2880 (970)482-4322 TELECOPIER (9701 482-3038 January 8, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 A R T H U R E. MARCH 1909-19el MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS. CO BOS22-0469 HAND DELIVERED Re: Park South P.U.D. Third Replat, Preliminary and Final Request for Solar Orientation Variance Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members: This firm represents Horsetooth, Limited, Marc Middel and Middel Enterprises, Inc. ("Middel"), the owners and developers of Park South P.U.D. Third Replat (the "Third Replat"), and makes this application for a variance on their behalf. The Third Replat is the only undeveloped portion of the 34.3- acre Park South Amended Overall Development Plan (the "ODP"). Since the ODP's approval in 1991, Middel has obtained City approval for and built the three initial phases of the ODP: (i) Four Seasons 7th Filing - 9 single family homes; (ii) Park South P.U.D. First Replat - 23 single family homes; and (iii) Park South P.U.D. Second Replat - 91 single family homes. Of these three phases, only the Second Replat was subject to the solar orientation criteria and, complied by having 680, or 61 lots, solar -oriented. The remaining undeveloped portion of the ODP, now known as the Third Replat, consists of 3 acres approved for residential use, and an additional 10.3 acres which was designated as commercial/office or commercial/duplex until the City Council approved an amendment to the ODP that changed the use to residential on November 12, 1996. Important factors in the Council's decision to approve the land use change were the in -fill location, the proximity to various mixed -use development, the City's goals for higher residential density, and the affordability of the homes to be constructed by Middel. • 0 Planning and Zoning Board January 8, 1997 Page 2 The Third Replat consists of 73 single-family lots, 21 of which or 291, conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented lot" under All Development Criteria A-1.1 of the Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS"). The Second and Third Replats, when considered together, have 82 solar -oriented lots - 500 of the total number of lots in Park South that come under the solar orientation requirements. Pursuant to LDGS §29-526(K), we request that the Third Replat be granted a variance from the strict application of Criteria A-1.1, which would require that 65% of the lots be solar - oriented. As the final phase of an in -fill development, the design of the Third Replat has been largely influenced by the following factors. The site is small (13.3 gross acres) and surrounded on all sides by existing development or streets. The two points of access (Haven Drive from Manhattan Avenue on the east and Rockaway Street on the southwest) have already been fixed by the existing development. Haven Drive must align with the Carmike 10 entrance on the west side of Manhattan Avenue and Rockaway Street is built to a dead end at the boundary of this site. The tie-in points for water and sewer were set when the utility mains were installed. Pedestrian/bicycle access from the Third Replat to sidewalks, bikepaths and transit routes on Horsetooth Avenue has been given priority consideration in the design because of the large amount of mixed -use available in the near vicinity. With all of these severe site -planning constraints, it is virtually impossible to achieve a design for the Third Replat that complies with the City's mandatory street design standard requiring a 200 foot offset between nonaligning streets, and has 65o solar - oriented lots. The result would be an awkward internal street layout and the loss of an estimated thirteen lots, with the majority of the remaining lots being narrow and very deep. Pedestrian/bicycle connections to Horsetooth Avenue would also be limited. Such inefficient use of land is contrary to the City's goals for sensible planning, maximum utilization of land and higher density residential in -fill projects. The elimination of 180 of the lots in such a small development to comply with a strict application of the solar criteria would also result in economic hardship to the developer. It is also likely that the price of the homes would increase, making them less affordable for families at low to moderate income levels. Although the Third Replat is not a qualified affordable housing project, it will help satisfy a community need for more moderately priced housing. No Text Planning and Zoning Board January 8, 1997 Page 3 It is Middel's opinion that the Third Replat as presented to the Board is better than any alternate design which would comply with the strict application of the solar orientation criteria for all of the reasons cited above, and requests therefore that a variance from the requirements of All Development Criteria A-1.1 be granted. 17 LAL/ 7 Pk pc: Horsetooth, Limited Sincerely, No Text HORSETOOTH, LTD. A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1407 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (970) 221-1100 January 9, 1997 Mike Ludwig City Planning 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: PARK SOUTH P.U.D-THIRD REPLAT Dear Mike: Enclosed is a the Village at any questions, Enclosure HAND DELIVERED copy of the agreement between Horsetooth, Ltd., and Four Seasons Community Association. If you have please give us a call. No Text ., ;:,.A-- hww 7i MIDDEL ENTERPRISES, INC. 1407 South College Avenue Fort Collins. Colorado 80524 (970)221-1100 January 8, 1997 Board of Directors Village at Four Seasons Community Assoc. 737 Arbor Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Attn: Donald Larding and Frank Ericson Dear Don and Frank: Thank you for holding our meeting yesterday, January 7, 1997, with the Board of Directors of the Village at Four Seasons and the affected property owners and their representatives owning the units adjacent to our Park South, Third Replat. The purpose of this letter is to summarize the understandings and agreements made at that meeting, as follows: 1) The shadowbox fence that separates our properties is currently located on property owned by the Village at Four Seasons Homeowners Association. The Association desires to replace that fence with a new one. The owners of Park South, Horsetooth, Ltd., have agreed to share equally with the Association in the cost of that new fence. The new fence will be located on the property owned by the Village at Four Seasons Community Association and all maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Association. Prior to the construction of this fence, the permanent grades between our properties will be adjusted so that any water from the east boundary of the Association's properties can flow through the adjacent lots owned by Horsetooth, Ltd. A separate easement has been placed on each of those lots to allow this drainage to occur. The removal of the old fence will be a joint effort on both parties' parts. The new homeowners who purchase the lots adjoining this fence may connect their side fences with the Association's fence. It is anticipated that grading on these lots will occur around March or April and construction of the fence will commence late spring or early summer at a time agreeable to both parties and as weather permits. 2) After the construction of homes located on the lots adjacent to the Village at Four Seasons, it is agreed that two trees shall be planted in each of those back yards to help visually screen each of our back yards from one another. 3) The south entrance sign for the Village at Four Seasons is currently located on property that is owned by us. We have agreed to convey an easement for this sign so that it does not need to be moved or would ever have to be disturbed. The fee simple title will be conveyed to the Four Seasons Homeowners Association subject to this sign easement. No Text Page Two Board of Directors Village at Four Seasons Community Assoc. January 8, 1997 4) We have agreed to convey to the Village at Four Seasons Community Association the property on your south boundary, known as Outlot "A", Park South PUD, Second Replat. Rough drafts of the Grant of Easements and Warranty Deed are enclosed. 5) The style and heights of our homes to be built on the lots adjacent to your property was discussed. The height of the current models in the subdivision range from 19-1/2 feet to 23-1/2 feet. The models of homes to be built will be determined by the market conditions at the time construction commences. I believe this summarizes the discussions and agreements made at our meeting. Please acknowledge that this information is correct by your signature at the appropriate place below. Very truly yours, / ice- 'ddel Sec. -Treasurer Middel Enterprises, Inc., Gen. Ptr Horsetooth, Ltd. Enc. ACKNOWLEDGED: Village at Four Seasons Community Assoc. Donald Ding rank Ericson 0 0 0 WARRANTY DEED AND GRANT OF EASEMENT • THIS DEED, Made this day of August, 1996, between Park South Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture, of County of Larimer, State of Colorado, GRANTOR, and The Village at Four Seasons Community Association, a Colorado Non -Profit Corporation, whose legal address is 737--Aflaor Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 of County of Larimer, State of Colorado, GRANTEE. 7�)'0 1;-"qb6R WITNESSETH, That the GRANTOR for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey, and conform, unto the GRANTEE its successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: OUTLOT "A", Park South P.U.D. Second Replat, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado and along with such property grants an easement in favor of GRANTEE for the placement of signage, with rights of ingress and egress for the maintenance of such signage, which easement is described as: A part of Tract A of Four Seasons Seventh Filing P.U.D., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, which is contained within the boundary lines which began at the Northwest corner of said Tract A and run thence S 89" 43' 54" E 25.00 feet; thence S 45" 16' 06" W 14.14 feet; thence N 890 43' 54" W 15.00 feet to the West line of said Tract A; thence N 000 16' 06" E 10.00 feet to the point of beginning TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the GRANTOR, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditament and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenanc- es, unto the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns forever. And the GRANTOR, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and have good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except any taxes or special assessments for 1996 and subsequent years, if applicable. The GRANTOR shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. • 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has executed this deed on the dates set forth above. PARK SOUTH JOINT VENTURE, a Colorado Joint Venture By: Marc Middel - Managing Venturer By: Fort Collins Associates, a Colorado Limited Partnership- Venturer By: Middel Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, General Partner of Fort Collins Associates By: Donna J. Middel, President of Middel Enterprises, Inc., ATTEST: Marc Middel, Secretary -Treasurer of Middel Enterprises, Inc., STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1996, by Donna J. Middel as President and by Marc Middel as Secretary - Treasurer of Middel Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1996, by Marc Middel as Managing Venturer of Park South Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public No. 932. Rev. 3-85. WARRANTY DEED (For Photographic Record) 0 • WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of August, 1996, between Park South Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture, of County of Larimer, State of Colorado, GRANTOR, and Four Seasons Homeowners Association, a Colorado Non -Profit Corporation, whose legal address ism R&r Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 of County of Larimer, State of Colora- do, GRANTEE. WITNESSETH, Thatthe GRANTOR for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey, and conform, unto the GRANTEE its successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: Tract A of Four Seasons Seventh Filing P.U.D. situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, subject to an easement in favor of The Village at Four Seasons Community Association for the placement of signage, with rights of ingress and egress for the maintenance of such signage, which easement is described as: A part of Tract A of Four Seasons Seventh Filing P.U.D., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, which is contained within the boundary lines which began at the Northwest corner of said Tract A and run thence S 890 43' 54" E 25.00 feet; thence S 450 16' 06" W 14.14 feet; thence N 89" 43' 54" W 15.00 feet to the West line of said Tract A; thence N 00' 16' 06" E 10.00 feet to the point of beginning TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the GRANTOR, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditament and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenanc- es, unto the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns forever. And the GRANTOR, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and have good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except any taxes or special assessments for 1996 and subsequent years, if applicable. The GRANTOR shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. No Text IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has executed this deed on the dates set forth above. PARK SOUTH JOINT VENTURE, a Colorado Joint Venture By: Marc Middel - Managing Venturer By: Fort Collins Associates, a Colorado Limited Partnership- Venturer By: Middel Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, General Partner of Fort Collins Associates By: Donna J. Middel, President of Middel Enterprises, Inc., ATTEST: Marc Middel, Secretary -Treasurer of Middel Enterprises, Inc., STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1996, by Donna J. Middel as President and by Marc Middel as Secretary - Treasurer of Middel Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1996, by Marc Middel as Managing Venturer of Park South Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public No. 932. Rev. 3-85. WARRANTY DEED (For Photographic Record) • 1. °0 MEMORANDUM LO o CO a eM ' � TO: Marc Middel, Middel Realty Inc. oED Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates o CD Linda Ripley, V*F Ripley 0 rn Fort Collins Planning Department Fort Collins Transportation Division • Lucia Liley, March Myatt o z U- n FROM: Matt Delich > 0 -� DATE: November 11, 1996 0 0 N SUBJECT: Park South revised trip generation study 0 (D (File: 9615MEM4) z a o � This memorandum provides an updated comparison of the w z trip generation for proposed land uses on a portion of the 0 o Park South PUD, located in the southwest quadrant of the °- Horsetooth/Manhattan intersection. The comparison that I N provided in my March 12, 1996 memorandum used a previous proposal that dated to 1988, for which I performed a traffic study. I was unaware of a revised land use proposal and subsequent traffic study that was prepared by Leigh, Scott, & Cleary, Inc., in 1991. I have contacted that firm and have obtained trip generation information contained in their report for the 1991 plan for Park South PUD. The original 1991 plan indicates a convenience shopping center at 80,000 square feet on Parcel A. The 1991 plan as approved.by the Planning & Zoning Board had 50,000 square feet Won Parcel A. This memorandum reflects the trip generation . Q. using the approved 50,000 square feet of neighborhood z convenience retail on Parcel A. Parcel B has two potential uses listed: 1) 24 duplex dwelling units, or 2) 30,000 square = w z feet of general office uses. Table 1 shows the expected trip U z generation for Parcels A and B from the 1991 plan. There is J W a range in the trip generation, depending upon which land use W o is selected for Parcel B. Using the office use on Parcel B, the subject portion of o the site is projected to generate 4470 daily trip ends, 167 N morning peak hour trip ends, and 440 afternoon peak hour trip a ends. Using the residential use on Parcel B, the subject Fes- portion of the site is projected to generate 4104 daily trip W as ends, 107 morning peak hour trip ends, and 383 afternoon peak _ hour trip ends. Q a °C ~ The current proposal (62 single family dwelling units on Parcels A and B) is projected to generate 590 daily trip ends, 46 morning peak hour trip ends, and 63 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This is shown in Table 2. Thirteen dwelling f • • units, of the 75 dwelling units considered here, are on Parcel C. These should not be included in the trip generation comparison. Regardless of which former land use option is used for comparison, the proposed residential use (75 D.U.) will cause a significant reduction in the trip generation on this parcel. Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable. Table 1 Trip Generation 1991 Land Use Proposals Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out RETAIL/OFFICE Parcel A - Retail 3900 57 34 181 181 50 KSF Parcel B - Office 570 67 9 13 65 30 KSF Total 4470 124 43 194 246 RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL Parcel A - Retail 3900 57 34 181 181 50 KSF Parcel B - Duplex 204 4 12 14 7 24 D.U. Total 4104 61 46 195 188 Table 2 Trip Generation 1996 Land Use Proposal Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out Single Family - 62 D.U. 590 12 34 41 22 0 0 0 J 0 WA 0 z J W O _J W 0 z W a 2 z W RJR 0 N I- N N W a 7 W Q RECEIVED N v 0 6 1006 MEMORANDUM v co 0 `n a� TO: Marc Middel, Middel Realty Inc. 06 Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates Linda Ripley, V*F Ripley Fort Collins Planning Department Fort Collins Transportation Division Lucia Liley, March Myatt FROM: Matt Delich �- DATE: November 4, 1996 0 `� dM SUBJECT: Park South revised trip generation study 19 (File: 9615MEM3) 0 h O� w This memorandum provides an updated comparison of the o trip generation for proposed land uses on a portion of the a Park South PUD, located in the southwest quadrant of the Hors etooth/Manhattan intersection. The comparison that I provided in my March 12, 1996 memorandum used a previous proposal that dated to 1988, for which I performed a traffic study. I was unaware of a revised land use proposal and subsequent traffic study that was prepared by Leigh, Scott, & Cleary, Inc., in 1991. I have contacted that firm and have obtained trip generation information contained in their report for the 1991 plan for Park South PUD. The original 1991 plan indicates a convenience shopping center at 80,000 square feet on Parcel A. The 1991 plan as approved by the Planning & Zoning Board had 50, 000 square feet on Parcel A. This memorandum reflects the trip generation a using the approved 50,000 square feet of neighborhood z convenience retail on Parcel A. Parcel B has two potential w uses listed: 1) 24 duplex dwelling units, or 2) 30,000 square z feet of general office uses. Table 1 shows the expected trip z generation for Parcels A and B from the 1991 plan. There is w a range in the trip generation, depending upon which land use z 0 is selected for Parcel B. a cr Using the office use on Parcel B, the subject portion of CL the site is projected to generate 4470 daily trip ends, 167 a morning peak hour trip ends, and 440 afternoon peak hour trip H ends. Using the residential use on Parcel B, the subject 03 portion of the site is projected to generate 4104 daily trip ends, 107 morning peak hour trip ends, and 383 afternoon peak LL hour trip ends. a ~ The current proposal (75-single family dwelling units) is projected to generate 720 daily trip ends, 55 morning peak hour trip ends, and 76 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This is shown in Table 2. Regardless of which former land use option is used for comparison, the proposed residential use (75 D.U.) will cause a significant reduction in the trip generation on this parcel. Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable. Table 1 Trip Generation 1991 Land Use Proposals Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out RETAIL/OFFICE Parcel A - Retail 3900 57 34 181 181 50 KSF Parcel B - Office 570 67 9 13 65 30 KSF Total 4470 124 43 194 246 RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL Parcel A - Retail 3900 57 34 181 181 50 KSF Parcel B - Duplex 204 4 12 14 7 24 D.U. Total 4104 61 46 195 188 Table 2 Trip Generation 1996 Land Use Proposal Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out Single Family - 75 D.U. 720 14 41 50 26 iri C) m 1 • • C C Q � •o o r C JJ a � J i 0 0 o MEMORANDUM W p TO: Marc Middel, Middel Realty Inc. J Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates UJ Fort Collins Planning Department z Fort Collins Transportation Division LU a z FROM: Matt Delich �f a a DATE: March 12, 1996 m SUBJECT: Park South traffic study (File: 9615MEM1) This memorandum provides a comparison of the trip generation for proposed land uses on a portion of the Park South PUD, located in the southwest quadrant of the Horsetooth/Manhattan intersection. The previous proposal for this parcel was a retail/office use, as reported in the "Park South PUD Site Access Study," May 1988. The current proposal is for 75 single family detached dwelling units. With the commercial uses, this portion of the Park South PUD was projected to generate 12,660 daily trip ends, 390 a morning peak hour trip ends, and 1179 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The proposed 75 dwelling units is projected to generate Z 720 daily trip ends, 55 morning peak hour trip ends, and 76 Cz afternoon peak hour trip ends. The proposed residential uses �u ,z will cause a significant reduction in the trip generation on this parcel. Operation at the key intersections will be n" acceptable. z o J d tiJ G 2 O a Z -� Q rt 3 LU S U- a f-- u C1:I'0601 131001006MIUM PROJECT.• Park South P. U.D., Third Filing DATE: March 14, 1996 APPLICANT. Mark Mytle (not present) CONSULTANT- Dick Rutherfora; Stewart Associates PLANNER: Mike Ludwig The applicant proposes to develop 75 residential lots on 13.2 acres, a residential density of 5.68 dwelling units per acre. The applicant indicated that they intend to build houses that are the same size/market as those which exist south of this property (also developed by Mark Mytle). The proposed residential use will generate approximately 720 vehicle trips per day. The commercial uses shown on the existing Overall Development Plan for this same 13.2 acres would generate 12,660 vehicles trips per day. Questions, Concerns, Comments: 1. Will there be a curb installed along Manhattan? A Park South was originally developed in the County and curb and gutter was not required. When the property was annexed into the City, the annexation agreement stipulated that no curb and gutter would be required of remaining phases of Park South. The City will be working with this developer to install a drainage pan along Manhattan to correct existing problems. 2. What will be the setback distance of houses from the west property line? A The applicant is proposing 110 foot deep lots. The front yard setback is 20'. An average house is approximately 50 feet deep. Therefore, the rear yard setback distance will be approximately 40 feet. Are these going to be the same type houses as those to the south? A_ Yes. The applicant proposes two story houses like those to the south. 4. Will there be a fence along Horsetooth Road? A_ The ends of the cul-de-sacs will be open (no fencing) for pedestrian access to Horsetooth Road from within the development. Side yard fences may not extend beyond the front of the houses. 5. How wide are the lots? A The lots will be 50 to 60 feet wide. The minimum side yard setback is 5 feet which results in a 10 foot separation between buildings. 6. We ask that the City allow only 1-story buildings along the west property line as houses to the west of this development are all 1-story, ranch style houses. We don't want people looking into our backyards and windows. 7. Who will maintain fences along the west property line? A The consulting engineer will talk with Mr. Mytle. This development will have a homeowners association which will maintain their fence. City staff would like to see a single, common fence along this property line rather than two fences separated by a couple of feet to avoid a tunnel effect. The applicant's engineer indicated that they would be willing to meet with the neighbors to the west to achieve a common solution. 8. Is there capacity at Lopez Elementary for students from this development? A. The City Staff works closely with the Poudre R-1 School District. The District receives copies of all development proposals. The School District continues to state that there is capacity district wide. There is no guarantee that children from this development will attend Lopez Elementary. The School District determines attendance boundaries through processes outside of the City's development review process. 9. Does the City regulate whether these houses are owner occupied or rented? A. No. 10. Storm drainage is a concern for this area in general. A. Last year there was an extensive amount of rain which was very unusual. The regional stormwater detention ponds in this area have not decreased and will not decrease in size with additional development. Storm drainage engineering is the most expensive and extensive part of the development plan preparation. 11. Will the area south of Glen South remain open? A. Yes, the detention pond will remain. • u 12. What did the Overall Development Plan show regarding commercial development on this same property? A (Staff) I believe it called for medical office and restaurant uses. It included a greenbelt for buffering. 13. If the developer would not build two-story houses along the west property line that is great. It is still better (traffic wise) than a commercial land use. We need to keep a population base for Lopez Elementary. 14. There are advantages of a commercial use also, such as easy access to services by the surrounding neighborhood. NOTE: NO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBM TTED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS OF 4/18/96. L L . UX\utloll 1 Vi o Project: T City of Fort Collins Me-tinQ Location: Sa_rr� L�- C n 6- )OW- `3 Date: 3 iy V i dt Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetinrts C t on � th Pla ' - D act a nnin� epartment (__I-6 1a0) if you wish to Did You Re=esve receive minutes of this meeting. ritten-iotifcadonrurrec, ddres: ;! of this meeting? I \3me AdQI�.SS L I Yes ; No Yes I No IV-O-IUIf Q4JEA.vltT—,c ktLy Z 77-6 i40,60(2 AVE, e ,- h ,- l <o . -I if go �Z I x 102 I 1� >-NEIGHBORHOOD LN, FORM-.TION 1NIEETLNG �., � ,1 q y � -� i �� � �- �� a � � o-� GL�v�-� RECEIVED APR 2 Z 1 91- 720 Arbor Ave #13 Fort Collins, CO 80526 April 16, 1996 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 261 North College Ave P.O. Box 580 Ft Collins, CO 80522-0580 Attn: Mr. Michael G Ludwig, City Planner Members of the Board: We would like to respond to the neighborhood meeting that was held on March 14, 1996, at the Southside Baptist Church, 620 W. Horsetooth Road, which discussed the project referred to as "The Park South Pud, Third Replat". The residences of "The Village at Four Seasons" feel very strongly that the homes that are to be built with the yards joining ours should be single story residences and on slightly larger lots than the ones proposed. We would like to see 8 homes built on these lots instead of 10. One of our main concerns is what is going to happen to the waste water run off. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, 0 6 RECEIVED APR 18 f% v A un p Ave. _T �a IlrnrS Ply �,�� •G Zoe- 'go k Ito A4 RTA ei7y Pl ivy c�i�-r a MKS o F,fiC.--0 A/2b - T G° 11 __._ _% Y-° �_ - -A-1 /✓ i o O F T%,_�_ %�R_v_ '_c`c —2c E- g ED 77Y_..._,�o_r. ivE _-T�,� _p�C'o PE,PT_�-_ 6I=- � c._D/���-._�a!✓_srR� C_T�o� C�_w�_ s y ° u L.p q g, L, , c r 6 N THE c<3ST SiQcc! 1_'�.F�/CE A LS.v_�f%C �QN�%�li C 6C�-1f�QuL(i..�. T F �✓c <=_T�� L o T�A_-- ' rL rs ra La rfs-T� ? 7 A? Vt AA GE �41Vo 7h ref Toc�— _ _ o_v T . ------------�¢-..--- u/o vL D _.�_�'C'/Z_C`C 1.9.� �—D v_�--- --=��e � . QJ__✓. � I s -- RECEIVED APR 1 9 1925 April 11, 1996 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 231 N College Ave P 0 Box 580 Ft Collins, CO 80522-0580 A ttn: Mr. Michael G. Ludwig Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board Dear Board Memebers: As home owners at 720 Arbor #15, we are very concerned about the project referred to as "The Park: South P.U.D." It is our under- ztanding that this area has not been =oned as of this date. Our home and those o: our neighbors at "The Village" joins to the East the property in Question which :s owned by Middel Con- struction Company. We strongly suggest to you, the board, that ) not more that 3 home:_ be built along the East side of our pro- J party as the homes .according to Middels pion would be build straight along the property fence and face East. We also feel that these holies be built on 60 toot lots. We ask that you consider these homes to be one story as they would be more in harmony with existing home, and would make for a more habitable neighbor- hood, for everyone concerned. We hope the board will look thoroughly into the requests made by the homeowners of The Village. We are all Interested in keeping Fort Collins the wonderful and beautiful city it is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �Y'P cc: Mr. Peter Barnes Mr. Ted Shepha.rd ACEIVED APR 15 1990 • 720 Arbor Ave. Ft. Collins, CO. April 9, 1996. Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 281 North College Ave. P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ATT: Mr. Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner: Dear Members of the Board: I want to make reference' to the neighborhood meeting that occurred on March 14, 1996, at the Southside Baptist Church, 620 W. Horsetooth Road, at which was .discussed the project referred to as "The Park South Pud, Third Replat". At that meeting with the residences of "The Village at Four Seasons" which consists of all senior people and whose property joins the property of Middel Construction Co., we strongly feel that definately no more than one story homes should be built on the east side of the fence. We also feel that no more than 8 homes should be built along the east side of the fence because of the water run-off and traffic congestion for such a small entrance. The majority of Fort Collins is built on 60 ft. lots, not 50 ft. lots. With the two different styles of homes, ours are brick and Middel's are wood, it would be more compatible and blend better with our townhomes on the west side of the fence. Have you given any thought to a Home -Owners Association? Who will maintain the area along the street? LWe will appreciate your, consideration of our strong desires in ..this matter. Thank you. Respectfully yours r RECEIVED Arlo 15 1995 G%GvLc:li -. 1i_1.QI*f'G Zj- (��Z,� z5, 0 • Alton J. and Marilyn O. Goodenberger 720 Arbor #26 Fort Collins, CO 80526 April 10, 1996 RECEIVED APR 1 2 1996 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 281 No. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Attention: Mr. Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner Dear Members of the P. and Z. Board: 1 write you with reference to the project referred to as "The Park South PUD, Third Replat' . We are homeowners living in the Village at Four Seasons, just west of the pro- posed project. 1 understand that the property in question has not as yet been zoned, and that you are working on it. May I encourage you to determine the proper zoning quickly, before the contractor who is currently building in that project is able to start any more houses. All of our residences are single story. We are hoping that you will zone it for single story residences only. Our reason for that hope is that two story residences built as close to the property line as is apparently intended, will allow people to gaze over any fence and down into our back yards, and even into our back porches. We cherish our privacy, and hate to see it invaded. Additionally, we understand that the contractor on that project is planning to put 10 houses per block. We think that is 2 too many. The houses will be quite close even with 8 per block. Traffic congestion and problems with water run-off in- crease with the number of houses per block, as you know better than I. I appreciate the fact that contractors want to make more money, and the city is not against that. However, the quality of life in Ft. Collins has been a strong sell- ing point for living here, and the problems spoken of above would certainly de- tract from the quality of life here. Thank you for reading and, hopefully, responding favorably to our requests. Sincerely, Alto�J. Goodenb er Marilyn ©. Goodenber er 9 E i April 10, 1996 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 281 No. College Ave., P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ,FCEIVED APR 1 2 ISSS Dear Members of the Board: ATTN: Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner Reference is made to Mark Middel's proposed project development referred to as "The Park South PUD., Third Replat". A meeting was held on March 14, 1996, at the Southside Baptist Church with the residents of "The Village at Four Seasons". Most of the residents of The Village are senior citizens with a great deal of concern for keeping their neighborhood as quiet, clean, clutter -free, and attractive as possible. We stron.-ly oppose the density population being proposed in this project. We also feel there should be no more than eight houses, at the very most, built along the east side of our fence, nor should any of these houses be more than one story high. We feel we are justified in opposing Mr. Middel's construction of ten houses. We prefer eight houses. In summary, we submit the following reasons for opposing Mr. Middel's plan: 1. Objection to two-story houses. The Village at Four Seasons sits on an elevated plane adjacent to Mr. Middel's property. If two-story houses are built there the Village residents on the west side of the fence would be looking into the two-story houses white using their decks, sun -rooms, etc. This would not be an attractive sight. Neither the occupants of our homes nor the proposed two-story horses would enjoy any amount of privacy. 2. Cut down density. Serious consideration should be given to building eight houses instead of ten as proposed. Two more houses causes more traffic congestion, people, noise, pollution, and could possibly adversely affect our property values. We believe the reasons given above are within reasonable limits and hope our feelings will be favorably considered by you. We appreciate any support you can give the residents of the Village at Four Seasons. 1►e want to be good neighbors but we also want to protect our quality of life and property valuations. Sincerely, �� Dan and Colleen Reimer 720 arbor Ave., #25 Fort. Collins, CO 80526 • RECEIVED APR 1 1 1gg5 Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 281 North College Ave. P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ATT: Mr. Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner: Dear Members of the Board: 720 Arbor Ave. Ft. Collins, CO. April 9, 1996. I want to make reference to the neighborhood meeting that occurred on March 14, 1996, at the Southside Baptist Church, 620 W. Horsetooth Road, at which was discussed the project referred to as "The Park South Pud, Third Replat". At that meeting with the residences of "The Village at Four Seasons" which consists of all senior people and whose property joins the property of Middel Construction Co., we strongly feel that definately no more than one story homes should be built on the east side of the fence. We also feel that no more than 8 homes should be built along the east side of the fence because of the water run-off and traffic congestion for such a small entrance. The majority of Fort Collins is built on 60 ft. lots, not 50 ft. lots. With the two different styles of homes, ours are brick and Middel's are wood, it would be more compatible and blend better with our townhomes on the west side of the fence. Have you given any thought to a Home -Owners Association? Who will maintain the area along the street? cWe will appreciate your consideration of our strong desires in this matter. Thank you. Respectfully yours . rtc�. 8 C°►�iCo 4( Zo ,./,AJCT 13 D AAD Z a I Nv 2TH C.au.E 4 E A vIL, APR 0 9 P, o, lox SSo RECEIVED ro/Z7- Cm L.L1,..s (2ej SZz — OSSO - f WC u/ISR Tb MAKE 7-o T14E N£/G�.,oQ aD /1?EETitlG O n) jlilrfRct-1 / 4-/ [ q`� 6 14-T TfE ,Sc ,," 5 1D E %jri,a77 S i C tf u tL c. t i G Zo w. /-fv t 5 6 rvorcr AI R O Ar w H c c.N Lv r4, s D rs c-u S S f-m 77+4 --- - ,V,2oJ Eei IZE FE ZrZ ED Tv 45 IrH E PA 91c Spu'rM PL40 ! 7 7+ i 2v REPL ,4T .. A-" ittAf /vtEET11JC� 1,c11rH 7HE ICES/AE,vc>=S of _. "Tlf-E VILL-44f A-r ,04V' ►r C E AJo,vSr� 4,✓m1ce-( C.-Ai sisTs cA 4z-c Si/raiZ rfoPLE ,4,,tjP t,-;HoSE FQoPEKTy - - J o r N s TtrE Prt� �E.rt r y o f %'ft tDD E c Cv ry S T 2 c/ c n a,� ev ,— LcIE. ,S �o..JG � Y rc F L rN,4-� ,rj� �r,vETt y /A7 r(iCo2E 'rNgn/ ONE ,s'Tv2Y �-�o,u.ES �i Ev►�r C TN E F- As' S14 E or- r-E,QcE , WE f1I-jo FE.EC, T74-r}T" 8 h(r-4wE4 ! &/ 17uAcE l - i ?Lc/ o D t r-r -e4 Fov' �-{Is Lt%c*,, LT- 4AJOvLD E yttorLE Wtr-H ocia To,-u Hook&S �oP6- 'You /4 c c ,:5 M .- co r.�,-'T� T}t E L a T1.E_ Guys L i tt c US' F>2a A.t TN F- [j(y Ll tLk. &t1 o o it-, WE k.) o /4PPiL4 a- yp✓fe (�c?n1SIDE2 Ar10&J CF- dV2 >v O D S r2Es ( u TI+1-5 M rr�K T-#a,v Yvc/, "'-P+E V, c -/-AGE ^rr Fvult 56A-%U-S -7 Za A iZtso R A vC , u,U 1 r ILi 7 5bevT Cc-L'-+tiS I f wL-Ot Al:pa BC5-ZG t f o sz,1-4^ NJ N. "E YE(Z 720 Arbor Avenue, No. 11 Fort Collins, CO 80526 March 20, 1996 Mr. Michael Ludwig City Planner P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, C080522-0580 Dear Mr. Ludwig, Thank you for your leadership at the neighborhood information meeting to discuss the development of the Park aouth P. U. D., Third Replat- The Board of Directors for the Village at Four Seasons has invited Marc Kiddel to meet with the Board to discuss some of the issues raised at the meeting on March 14, at the Southside Baptist siddel church. A copy of the letter inviting Mrs to our meeting is enclosed for your information. rlill you please place it in your file for this project. Sincerely, /�/L/�!�'�' �- Frank Ericson, Chairman Board of Directors Village at Four 6easons • The Village at Four Seasons 720 Arbor Avenue, #11 Fort Collins, CO 80526 March 20, 1996 Mr. Marc Middel Middel Enterprises 1407 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. Middels The residents of The Village at Four Seasons have some questions and concerns related to the development identified as the Park South P. U. D., Third Replat. A number of us attended the neighborhood information meeting on March 14, at the Southside Baptist Church where we saw the drawing of the proposed residential development. Mr. Ludwig from the City Planning Department and Mr. Rutherford of Stewart and Associates were most helpful in responding to our questions. However, we have some concerns that we would like to discuss with you. The primary concern is the matter of privacy for residents of both_ the Village and Park South. How clbie'-w111 the new comes be to the fence along the east side of our property? Will they all be two story homes or will there be some one story units? You are invited to meet with our Board of Directors. Our next scheduled meeting is April 2, at 9:30 a. m., at Unit 11, 720 Arbor Avenue. If that is not convenient we will be happy to meet at a time and place that you suggest. Cordially, J Frank Ericson, Chairman Board of Directors (223-2577) copy: Michael Ludwig City Planner KCEIVED AUG 1 2 1996 Linda Maher 467 Dennison Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80526 282-3506 August 9, 1996 Dear Mike Ludwig, I am sending this because I am not able to attend the meeting on Monday August 12 about the land use on 46-88F Park South. I support more family homes to be built on that property due to the fact that we do not need another plaza so close to the new one on Shields and the Albertson's plaza. Our school at Lopez could use more children in this area, and when you have homes it give a community a chance to grow. Plaza's are not the answer. It only brings in more activity that we do not need. The traffic would be too much for Horsetooth to handle. The movie theater already brings in enough conjestion. Fort Collins is a growing area so we need more housing to fit the needs. Area's change and we need to accept those changes with a long term use. Plaza come and go, and there is nothing worst than being in a area where the plaza's are half filled. We do not need to populate this area with shopping we have enough. We need to continue to develope community and family areas. Growth with benefit works for all, having families in this area is a benefit. Thank you for your time. Please keep us informed. Sincerely, Linda Maher C� • August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. Please see attached news article that was in the CoIoradoan on July 17, 1996. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, Property Owner W Address L, M Co S Li0 Prope Owner KA z U e® m a Vs s� M9 Spa E'� asl ! 5V Bala, August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: #46-88F This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are Strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, Property Own r Address iCr + � i l� s CC) Q:wb Property Owner August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: 9-46-88F This letter is being written to. support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast comer of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are Strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the - commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, �=�T1 Property Owner Property Owner qzFz Address t • August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: 4146-88F This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast comer of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, 1 Prope,Ay Owner ,,0 6�P iG Address ZMJC—P �Qz cQ,,r2 PropeOwner P�� • • August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: 946-88F This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are Strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great nerd for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, Property Owner Address Al A. PropertyOwner CJ 6 August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: 446-88F This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commercial development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, Prope Owner Address Property Owner August 12, 1996 TO: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins FROM: Property Owner RE: 946-88F This letter is being written to support the applicants request to change the use of the 13.3434 acres to single family residential located on the southeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. We are Strongly opposed to a development of a convenience shopping center, duplex housing or office use. There is a great need for affordable homes and this is what the applicant has been providing for consumers for a number of years. The traffic in the neighborhood has increased substantially with the addition of the commerciai development to the east of this property with the new theaters. Traffic could increase up to 94% if commercially developed versus 6% if residential. The City has already approved a commercial development to the North of the subject property and this will add an intolerable amount of traffic, if developed. Sincerely, Property Owner Address Property Owner J y.1SL c : �✓in LL-� —rc� ) I ✓� I .-, �-i L�:� l 1 � � ; i� � `1 �� � / % `� � 1j Z I� i � I � � August 6, 1996 Subject: Amend Overall Development Plan for Park South PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #46-88F Dear Planning and Zoning Board: I wholeheartedly indorse the request to amend the Overall Development Plan from neighborhood convenience shopping center and duplex housing or office uses to single family residential. Traffic is already terribly congested in the area of the Horsetooth and College intersection, McClelland Drive, South Mason Street, and Manhattan Avenue. This situation was made worse by the construction of the 10-screen Carmike Theaters on Horsetooth. Additional construction of a convenience shopping center or offices would make the traffic congestion intolerable. Presently the areas surrounding the Site are residential. This includes Lopez Elementary-school and Troutman Park. A change to Single Family Residential would put the Site more in line with the surrounding neighborhood. To develop the area as a neighborhood convenience shopping center or office uses would only aggravate the presently congested traffic situation and degrade the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Convenient shopping is already near the Site and plentiful. An Alfalfa's market, an Albertson's grocery store, a Total gas station and convenience store, and many restaurants are within walking distances of the Site. Construction of additional stores or restaurants in this area will not be of any benefit to the nearby residents or to other residents of Fort Collins. Amend the Overall Development Plan for the Site to Single Family Housing as soon as possible for the betterment of the surrounding neighborhoods and community. Sincerely, Michael G. Elliott, PE • Augu029, 19G6 Fort Collins Flanning & mooning Board 281 North College Avenue F.C.3bx 580 Fort Collins, Colo. 8C522-0580 Attention: ?fir. Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner Dear MemberSof the Board, de wish to make reference to your letter of August 15 regarding the planning board meeting that occurred on August 26. ";e understand that developitent plan #46-88F Park South FUD`did not come u.D before the p-lar_ning board. We assume it will now come up before the board on September 9. Cur feelings in this village at Four Seasons Community, in which you received approximately 12 letters, have not changed. We do not want close together, high rise; look alil�e two storT�'r.cmes built in back of us. We will accept only sir_gle story homes (preferably duplex housing like ours) built in back of us. No rental hc-es-should be permitted to be built like the builder is doing with some of his homes. We hope you realize our strong desires in this matter and that you will accc=odate us. Thank you. The 'Tillage at Four Seasons 720 Arbor Ave. Unit =,17 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Norman H. Meyer No Text No Text No Text • C Telephone (970) 667-0834 Board Members Planning and City of Fort MICHAEL M. SHULTZ ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 2896 LOVELAND, COLORADO 90539 Zoning Board Collins "44A9 NZ- 1/247 January 27, 1997 re: Preliminary Plan for Park South Dear Board Member: I represent several owners of duplex units that border the Park South development on its west side. These owners have several significant concerns about the compatibility of the proposed two- story housing and the single story duplex units in which they live. The fundamental question is whether the two types of housing are as compatible as is suggested. The following are key issues to them: 1. The issue of one versus two story houses in the row of homes that back up to the duplex units. Under both Criteria A-2.2 (Building Placement and orientation) and A-2.7 (Architecture), the two story single family homes are not compatible with the single story duplex units. Specifically, Criterion A-2.2 expresses the need to ensure privacy through building placement and orientation. In addition, A-2.7 speaks to providing for compatibility through "careful consideration of scale and form." LDGS, p. 37. 2. Under these same criteria, the ten two story units cannot be justified against the 5 single story duplex structures. The number of lots should be reduced to limit the extent of noise, light and loss of privacy to the duplex owners, and to make the two areas compatible in scale and form. The neighbors propose that 5- 6 single story ranch units on wider lots would meet the criteria discussed above. 3. There should be certainty that the backyard setback will be 55 feet for all dwellings that back to the village. Mr. Middel has expressly represented to the Village Association that there would be a rear -yard setback of 55 feet for all houses that abut the Village, yet the plan shows only a 15 foot setback. This should be changed to provide a greater buffer between the two uses. 4. There can be a much better job of landscaping to ensure privacy between the houses and the duplex units. Criterion A-2.13 asks whether landscaping provides for "visual screening" and the "creation of privacy." LDGS, p. 45. The proposal to plant two relatively small tress in each backyard is not enough. Criterion A-2.13 suggests the use of dense plantings of evergreens to create a visual buffer between conflicting lam es. My clients support 0 • that concept. In addition, covenants should require the owners of the homes to maintain and replace landscaping. 5. Applying Criterion A-2.7 (Architecture), we believe that the units that abut the Village duplexes should be required to have an element of brick in them. This criterion specifically suggests that similar materials should be used to promote architectural compatibility between land uses (LDGS, pp. 37-8). The Fence On a different topic, the neighbors are concerned about the alleged agreement between the Association and Mr. Middel regarding the fence between the properties. The neighbors would like assurances from the Association's attorney that the owners in the Village are not entitled to vote on whether a new fence is constructed. In addition, the neighbors do not believe that the Directors can give authority to Mr. Middel to allow the fences for the single family homes to be attached to their fence. Each duplex owner is a co-owner of the land within the Village and the fence. Thus, we think that their permission is required if the homes are to attach their fences to the village fence. Finally, we believe that the fences of the single family homes should be required to be compatible with the village fence. In fact, this might be required under the Village covenants that require all structures built on Village property to go through the Architectural Control Committee. Still, we believe that a requirement of compatibility should be imposed upon Park South. Thank you for your consideration. Yours trulf,` Michael M. Shultz No Text COm- Planning and Environmen rvices Planning Department City of Fort Collins November 23, 1992 NtEMORAINDUM aWA ® PkZ- 11:.�7h7 TO: Mayor and City Council Members TH: Greg Byrne, Director of mmunity Planning and Environme {tal Services FM: Tom Peterson, Pj ng�I` RE: Solar Orientation Ordinance - Audit of the First 350 Lots At their regular meeting of October 5, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins received public comment and reviewed the findings of the required Solar Orientation Ordinance Audit report. The information provided includes the preliminary findings and statistical data that staff has prepared for the first 350 lots processed through the Ordinance, as well as the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. The findings show that between December of 1991 and June 199Z., 447 lots were reviewed and received approval' ' under the Solar Orientation O-rdi$ancc�h�Ordinance,- requires that 65 % of all lots meet the solar orientation standard. Of the 447 lots 2 ) met the requirements of the Ordinance. Y fiances were granted to tifty eight (3590) lots were not required to meet the Ordinance. The variance requests were grant lots and the remaining,157 for several reasons. The —most predominant ones included existing access constraints, severe topographic or existing infrastructure nrobletns. Staff believes that these requests were reasonable and were somewhat expected as develo ments transition to solar oriented lots. Staff believes that additional monitoring should be continued before any final determinations be made on the performance of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. The City mailed the report to 209 interested citizens and community groups. At the hearing on October 5, several spoke favorably about the Ordinance and believed that it was working and meeting the intent to provide solar oriented lots where possible based on preexisting conditions or development constraints. T%v,peoplespoke of the need for attditiotial—amifigation measures for those lots whi'ciz did not meet tie orientation standard and were the orientation standard when the Ordinance required that 65% concerned that only 52g'o of the lots were meeting of the lots comply. tla7 The Planning and Zoning Board recommen _____—_ to monitor the _ th review after the nett 350 lots it was genera y wor g. ey recommended that the Ordinance have ano er received preliminary a prover="t'h�Baarti—ttt no 1Te�c� ures were warranted at i a a ittona nutigatio_n meas this e City should continue to monitor new projects that will not be impacted by existing development in the future, they would review the issue again. They constraints. If the compliance numbers are not increasing stated that compliance with the ordinance was going through a period of adjustment. If you have any questions or comments or would like additional information regarding the Solar Orientation Ordinance audit please feel free to contact me or Janet Meisel at 221-6376. 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80�22-0580 (303) 221-675t� 0 • • E A Report on the Preliminary Audit of the Solar Orientation Ordinance (September 17, 1992) Intent and Background This memorandum address Section 10 of Ordinance No. 142, 1991 requiring that an audit be completed after three hundred fifty (350) lots have received preliminary approval for development. The Ordinance, which was adopted on Second Reading on December 17, 1991, added new solar lot orientation requirements to the LDGS and Subdivision regulations. The Ordinance applies to new preliminary planned unit developments and subdivisions submitted to the City after December 27, 1991. The Ordinance required 65 % of new single family lots to be "solar oriented" and required an audit after 350 lots received preliminary approval and a final audit after the next 350 lots receive preliminary approval. The Ordinance also provides a new density bonus incentive for planned unit developments that exceed the solar oriented lot requirements. Other changes included adopting definitions of a "solar oriented lot"; requiring that developers provide solar oriented lot statistics on site plans and plats; and amending the criteria in the Subdivision Regulations to permit more flexibility on the part of the Planning and Zoning Board in granting variances to the solar regulations. Findin s From December, 1991 through June 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board has approved ten single family development projects ranging in the number of residential lots from 5 to 91 lots per project. A total of 447 lots have been reviewed and approved under the Solar Orientation Ordinance, of which 230 (52%) actually met the requirements of a "solar oriented lot", while 58 lots were granted variances. Seven of the ten develo p.Lojects approved were granted variances to the Or inance.—Three of t ese projects were within 15 percent of the 65 percent needed to meet the Ordinance. These figures can be compared against the random sampling of 1,860 lots approved prior to the enactment of the ordinance, which indicated an overall performance of 55 percent. Attachment A gives a detailed breakdown of each project and the conditions of approval. The Oak Ridge Village loth filing and Hampshire Square II subdivision exceed the 65 % compliance with all lots oriented for solar access. The lowest percentage for conformance was Brittany Knolls 2nd filing at 30% compliance. This project had extreme development constraints due to steep topography and existing access locations. Mountain Ridge Farm was eligible for a 10% density bonus under the Ordinance but chose not to utilize it to increase their density. Attachment B details the statistics of all ten projects. • Most of the variances requested were due to infrastructure improvements already installed adjacent to or within the development. Steep topography or slopes oriented in an east -west direction were also in icat in some o e variance requests. For other projects, existing street configurations were a factor in granting variances. Staff recommended on three of the projects that a condition or approv a plac on a ots not meeting the 65 % standard. The condition was that the lots seeking the variances meet the intent of the solar orientation ordinance through alternative means, such as providing additional glazing on the southern exposure; placing garages on the north side of the structure, or; siting the structure so that it would face south although the lot would not. The Planning and Zoning Board declined imposing this condition on the basis that the condition was not being uniformly applied to all projects asking for variances and that the energy savings and costs resulting from the alternative designs were not clearly known. Other Issues Because the Ordinance has only been applied to development projects for 6 months, and most of the lots only received preliminary approval, it is difficult to assess the cost and benefits of the Ordinance at this time. It is also too early to measure the receptivity of the market to these solar oriented lots. No building permits have been issued for any of the lots although infrastructure and road improvements are now being completed on several of the early development approvals. The ordinance has been relatively easy to implement, although both the City staff and the development industry are still "learning" about the ordinance. City staff took approximately 1/2 to 1 hour per development to review for solar compliance and to prepare the written staff reports (the most time was spent on writing reports on variance requests). We have not heard any comment from the development industry concerning additional costs for designing for solar orientation. Nor have we heard any comment at this time that designing for solar orientation contributed any additional costs for construction, plan processing or other costs. Again, it may be too early to fully assess the true costs and benefits of the Solar Ordinance. More discussion is needed, however, on the issue of whether the lots which were granted variances from the basic solar orientation standard should be expected to achieve the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance through other alternative means, for example, building orientation. Summary In general, the Ordinance is achieving the intent to design residential lots with the opportunity to utilize solar energy in the future for energy conservation purposes through proper lot orientation. The fact that 58 lots did not meet the solar orientation requirements should not be of great concern at this time. All of the projects receiving variances had significant constraints which prevented the projects from meeting the solar orientation standard including steep slopes, existing road patterns, existing utility lines, and existing natural features. Three of the projects were, in fact, replats of previously approved projects. 9 The ordinance has been relatively easy to implement, although both the City staff and the development industry are still "learning" about the ordinance. We have not heard any comments from the development industry concerning additional costs for designing for solar orientation. Again, it may be too early to fully assess the true costs and benefits of the Solar Ordinance. Staff will continue to monitor the Ordinance and provide the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council with another audit after the preliminary approval of an additional 350 residential lots is achieved. 9 • ATTACHMENT A 1.) Brittany Knolls PUD, Filing Two, Preliminary, #21-83G Brittany Knolls was approved with 77 lots of which 23 lots (30 %) met the orientation requirements. A variance was granted due to exceptional topographic conditions and existing access requirements of adjacent developments which would cause hardship to the subdivider by the strict application of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. 2.) Warren Farms Subdivision, Second Filing, Preliminary and Final, #53-84H Warren Farms was approved with 19 lots of which 7 lots (37%) met the Solar Ordinance requirements. A variance was requested and approved for the remaining lots due to the existing infrastructure which was already developed on site. 3.) Oak Ridge Village PUD, loth Filing, Preliminary and Final #13-82 AZ Oak Ridge Village PUD proposed 18 attached patio home lots of which all (100%) are in compliance with the Solar Orientation Ordinance. This project is an infill project located in the Oak Ridge Master Plan. 4.) Granada Heights This project was a replat of an original plat approved in August 1979. The utilities, curb and gutter and the detention pond have been constructed. Planning and Zoning Board agreed that it would cause a hardship to apply the 65 % Solar Orientation requirement to this project. The project was approved with 44 lots of which 15 lots (34 %) meet the Solar Orientation requirements. 5.) Speights PUD, Preliminary and Final, #17-92A This project was a small infill project with five (5) lots and the developer requested a variance on three (3) of the lots due to site constraints from existing access points and a farmhouse and mature trees which are to remain on site. A variance was granted on the above stated reasons. 6.) Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, Filing One, Preliminary, #18-92 Mountain Ridge Farm was approved for 41 single family lots of which 32 lots (78 %) met the solar orientation requirements. This project was eligible for a 10% density bonus which would have allowed 5- 6 dwelling units per acre. The developer of this project chose not to use the bonus and maintained a density of 3.7 DUs per acre. This is one of three projects that exceeded the 65 % minimum Solar Orientation requirements. 0 • 7.) Stone Ridge PUD, First Filing, Preliminary, # 21-92C Stone Ridge was approved for a total of 68 lots with 36 lots (53 %) meeting the Solar Orientation Ordinance requirements. A variance was granted due to the existing alignment -of Caribou Drive and due to the incorporation of design features that meet other City policies and objectives. Staff suggested that a condition be placed on the project that the remaining lots needed to achieve the 65 % compliance, should provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board did not act on the recommendation. 8.) Dakota Ridge PUD, First Filing, Preliminary, #60-91D This project was approved with 66 lots of which 36 (55 %) achieve the Solar Orientation Ordinance requirements. A variance was granted due to topographical conditions that are peculiar to the site and access constraints that would cause a hardship for the subdivider. Staff suggested that a condition be placed on the project at time of final, that seven lots which were necessary to reach the 65 % compliance, would provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board did not include the suggested condition. 9.) Hampshire Square II Subdivision, Preliminary, #31-92 This subdivision was recently approved with 18 single family lots of which all 18 meet the Solar Orientation Ordinance. This subdivision exceeded the requirements of the Ordinance. 10.) Upper Meadows at Miramount PUD, Preliminary, # 54-87G The Upper Meadows at Miramount was approved with 91 single family lots of which 45 lots (49%) meet the Solar Orientation Ordinance requirements. The project was granted a variance due to existing access constraints and natural features which will be incorporated into the design of the project. Staff recommended that the project should be approved with a condition to the variance that the additional 14 lots . necessary to achieve the 65 % compliance, should provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board did not act on the recommendation. ATTACHMENT B Solar Ordinance Project Statistics from January through June 1992 Project Total Lots Solar Lots Percentage Brittany Knolls* 77 23 30% Warren Farms 2nd* 19 7 37% Oak Ridge Village loth 18 18 100% Granada Heights* 44 15 34 % Speights PUD * 5 2 40 % Mountain Ridge Farm 41 32 78 % Stone Ridge 1st* 68 36 53 % Dakota Ridge* 66 36 55 % Hampshire Square II 18 18 100% Upper Meadows* 91 45 49 % 447 230 52 % * A variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance was approved for these projects. ITEM NO. 13 rtNryr MEETING D.A 2 22 93 .„ STAFF Sherry All Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Solar Orientation Ordinance - Audit of Second 350 Lots, #38-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is the second audit of the Solar Orientation Ordinance as required under Ordinance No. 142-91. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board receive public comment, consider the information provided and make a recommendation_to the_Cty_ Councl_on the performance of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Solar Orientation Ordinance (No. 142-91), which took effect December 27, 1991, requires that 65% of single family and duplex lots of less than 15,000 square feet in Planned Unit Developments and Subdivisions meet the definition of a solar oriented lot. The Ordinance also requires that an audit be performed after the first 350 lots have received preliminary approval and again, after the second 350 lots have been approved. The information provided includes the preliminary findings and statistical data that has been gathered for the second audit of the ordinance. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Board take public testimony as part of the audit process and make recommendations to City Council on. the performance of the Ordinance. The findings show that 500 lots were reviewed and approved under the Solar Orientation Ordinance and that 314, or 62.8% of these lots met the requi a ordinance. ;Va re granted fo four f th eight developmen proposalsor 101 lots reviewed e secon pe o e audit. The malty of the variances granted were due to infrastructure existing adjacent to or wi in e e opment and due to natural features or topograp i Staff believes that monitoring for an additional six months should be done before any final determinations be made on the performance of the ordinance. COMMUNITY ('LAB;\l\G AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES _;I N. College :\\e. P.L-). liu\ ;,;o hurt Collins. L'(% • REPORT ON THE SECOND AUDIT OF THE SOLAR ORIENTATION ORDINANCE (February 1993) Background The Solar Orientation Ordinance, which took effect December 27, 1991, requires that 65% of single family and duplex lots of less than 15,000 square feet in Planned Unit Developments and Subdivisions be "solar oriented". The ordinance also required two audits to evaluate the effectiveness of the ordinance - the first audit to occur after 350 lots received preliminary approval and the second to occur after an additional 350 lots were approved. The first audit was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on October 5, 1992 and was based on developments reviewed between December 1991, through June 1992. This audit revealed that of a total of 447 lots that received preliminary approval, 230 of these lots (or 52%) met the requirements of a solar oriented lot. Variances were granted by the Planning and Zoning Board for three of the ten development proposals reviewed under the Solar Orientation Ordinance during this time. Based on the findings of the first audit, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to City Council that the review of the Solar Orientation Ordinance continue and that a second review occur after an additional 350 lots received preliminary approval. During the Board's review of the audit, public comment was taken. Comments received were generally related to concerns that the intent of the ordinance was not being met, since less than 65% of the newly created lots were solar oriented and there was not enough experience to determine the effectiveness of this ordinance. Second Audit From July through December 1992 the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and approved eight Planned Unit Developments and Subdivisions. A total of 500 lots were reviewed and approved under the Solar Orientation Ordinance, of which 314 (or 62.8%) met the definition of a solar oriented lot. Variances were granted for four of the eight development proposals, for a total of 101 lots. These figures can be compared with the random sampling of 1,860 lots approved prior to the adoption of this ordinance, which indicated that 55% of the lots being approved were solar oriented. Attachment A gives details on each of the projects reviewed for the second audit. Glenmoor PUD had the highest percentage of solar oriented lots, with 100% of the lots being oriented. Paragon Point 2nd had the lowest percentage for conformance with .the Solar Orientation Ordinance at 11%. Paragon Point has unique natural features and topography that posed constraints in meeting the orientation requirements. Attachment B details the statistics of all eight projects. Most of the variances requested were due to infrastructure existing adjacent to or within the development,Natural eatures and opograp y were also indicated in variance requests. In the case of Hill Pond East, the initial plan reviewed at Conceptual Review and presented at the neighborhood meeting was designed with 81% of the lots being solar oriented; however, this design was not considered sensitive to the natural character of the Spring Creek Corridor by staff or residents who attended the neighborhood meeting. The applicant worked with staff to redesign the project, creating a proposal that was a significant improvement over the first plan. The resulting preliminary plan had 61% of the lots solar oriented and a variance was granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. Other Issues The Solar Orientation Ordinance has now been applied to development projects for one year. Some of these developments have received final approval and are in the initial stages of construction. To date, staff has not received any input regarding costs and benefits related to the ordinance, or market receptivity for solar oriented lots. Implementation of the ordinance continues to be relatively easy, with the majority of staff time spent on the review of plans for solar compliance and time spent on writing reports on variance requests to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. To date, there has been no further discussion on the issue of whether lots that were granted orientation variances should be expected to achieve the intent of the ordinance through other means, such as building orientation. Summary The original intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance was to provide an opportunity for future home owners to use solar energy for energy conservation purposes through the creation of solar oriented lots. The second audit shows an increase in the number of solar oriented lots being designed and approved, from 52% during the first audit, to 62%. While these percentages are still below the required 65% of the ordinance, there is a noticeable increase in the number of solar oriented lots being designed and approved; however, more lots were granted variances durirg the second audit. / It's important to note that there may be cyclical fluctuat' solar orientation statistics, depending on the number of =Lnfill proposals being reviewed (where infrastruct_urP cnnGtra;ntG occur ,mQr-e rP� iPL l and the number of developments proposed on the fringe of the community, where there may be fewer constraints to designing solar oriented lots. We will continue to monitor the Solar Orientation Ordinance and would recommend that another audit be conducted in six months. This six month period coincides with the time of year when the number of development proposals is historically higher and the Spring construction season well underway. Attachment A 1. Sunstone Village PUD, 7th Filing, Preliminary and Final Sunstone Village 7th was approved with 13 of the 28 lots (46%) meeting solar orientation requirements. A variance was approved on the basis of street and utility systems existing and the site being an infill to the remainder of the Sunstone Village area. 2. Huntington Hills PUD, 2nd Filing, Final Huntington Hills 2nd was approved with 77 of the 110 lots, or 70%, meeting the orientation requirement. Huntington Hills 2nd was originally approved in 1984 in the same configuration and expired in 1986. 3. Hill Pond East Subdivision, Preliminary This subdivision was approved with 61% of the lot.- (68 of 112 ) being solar oriented. A variance was granted becau--= the plan proposed a more sensitive treatment to the naturalistic character of the Spring Creek Corridor, than did the originally proposed plan that actually met the 65% orientation requirement. 4. Paragon Point PUD Phase Two, Preliminary Paragon Point received a variance for having 11% of the lots (4 of 36 lots) being solar oriented. The variance was granted on the basis of unique natural features and topography of the site. 5. Fox Ridge at Southridge PUD, Preliminary Fox Ridge was approved with 43 of the 60 lots, or 72% of the lots meeting the solar orientation requirements. This site was part of the original Southridge Greens Master Plan. 6. Kingston Woods PUD 2nd Filing, Preliminary This PUD was approved with 12 out of 22 lots (55%) being solar oriented. A variance was granted on the basis of the site essentially being an infill site with an existing street system to tie into. 7. Silver Oaks PUD, Preliminary Silver Oaks was approved with 72% of the 149 lots (or 93 lots) being solar oriented. This site is the first phase of a larger approved Overall Development plan. 8. Glenmoor PUD, Preliminary and Final The four duplex lots of Glenmoor all met the solar orientation requirement with 100% orientation. The remaining 16 units in this development were multi -family units. • -• ATTACHMENT B Solar Ordinance Statistics - July 1992 through December 1992 Project Total Lots Solar Lots Percentage Sunstone Village 7th* 28 13 46% Huntington Hills 2nd 110 77 70% Hill Pond East* 112 68 61% Paragon Point 2nd* 36 4 11% Fox Ridge 60 43 72% Kingston Woods 2nd* 22 12 55% Silver Oaks 128 93 72% Glenmoor 4 4 100% 500 314 62.8% *A variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance was approved for these projects. No Text 1. Rxi-A 0 PAZ-- 1I7h7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. ABOUT SOLAR ORIENTATION September 27, 1991) What is solar orientation and how does it contribute to energy conservation? Solar orientation is a land use issue. Solar orientation means having buildings oriented to the sun. Proper solar orientation and access saves energy now and preserves the opportunity to use solar energy in the future as conventional energy cost rise, solar technology matures and perceptions change. Solar orientation will enhance market opportunities to save energy through solar use. It is easiest and least expensive to do at the front-end. Most studies show that solar orientation alone can contribute to only modest energy savings, in the range of 6 % to 15 % in traditional single family homes. Simple solar designs can save even more energy. In Fort Collins, the easiest and most effective way to implement solar orientation goals is through the placement of lots in a subdivision. With the exception of larger lots, the placement of the lot ultimately determines the orientation of the building. Most new homes tend to have the majority of windows facing the front and rear of the lot. So, having lots facing north/south generally results in having the most windows facing the sun. Also, most roof lines tend to face either the front or rear of the lot, which can be an important factor in the installation of active• solar systems. 2. Homebuyers today carefully look at utility costs but don't necessarily ask for solar homes. Why not focus on energy efficiency rather than solar orientation? Certainly energy -efficient design is to be encouraged. It is neither the intent nor effect of solar orientation standards to discourage energy efficient design and construction. Solar and energy conservation are ideal complements to each other, and consumers should not be limited to the latter option. The energy efficiency of new homes is greater now than ever. According to the City's Light and Power Utility, the energy efficiency for homes built between 1986-1990 increased dramatically over previous years. There is still more room for improvement in energy efficiency, and this is a topic which may be discussed in the future, when the City begins work on a comprehensive energy policy plan. Many surveys across the country indicate the public wants to see more solar energy use. And energy efficiency is now one of the most important concerns of homebuyers. Solar orientation is a well -established technique for preserving options for improvements to energy efficient homes. In terms of the Energy SCORE of buildings, proper orientation can increased the rating of a building by as many as 4 points. 3. Won't a north -south orientation encourage (or institutionalize) long, narrow lots and �J "two-sided" homes? With the exception of a few large -lot developments, lots in new, typical subdivisions are long and narrow, with most homes built on them being "two-sided." This situation exists because it is cost-efficient for developers and homebuyers - for instance, it minimizes the need for costly public improvements. The solar orientation of lots will not necessarily change these considerations nor set them "in stone." If innovative subdivision designs are proposed in the future, solar orientation standards should be flexible enough to accommodate them, variances may be granted or these standards can be amended. 4. Doesn't this ordinance assume that solar energy will be an important energy source in the future? Aren't you assuming too much? Maybe solar will just be a curiosity. Many factors help determine what energy choices are made in the future. The solar energy tax credits in the early 1980's showed what modest government support can do to encourage alternative energy usage. At the local level, the City of Fort Collins has long-standing policies which promote the use of solar energy. Energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources is mentioned in the City's Goals and Objectives (1977), Land Use Policies Plan (1979), and Energy Conservation Plan (1980). The Strategic Plan for Solar Access (1984) is another policy statement of the City's commitment to solar energy. These existing long-standing policies are what has guided City Council and staff in developing solar orientation criteria. 5. What type of development will be affected by these solar orientation standards? The proposed solar orientation requirements and incentives apply only to new lots in new developments and not to existing lots, subdivisions, homes or buildings. They will not regulate building design or vegetation. They will not apply to large -lot subdivisions, minor subdivisions, or developments in the foothills. 6. How costly would a solar orientation standard be for developers and for the City to administer? Studies in the Pacific Northwest and the Idaho Solar Access Project show that explicit, up -front costs to developers ayes around $20 ner lot which is almost entirely for re -design of subdivision layouts. Costs to the cities for administration of solar ordinances averages around $4 per lot. These costs are higher than what is expected in Fort Collins, because the solar ordinances cited above involve access easements, solar envelopes, figuring solar setbacks for lots, etc., none of which apply to the Fort Collins proposal. Other costs are difficult to measure and include the potential loss in value for lots that can't take advantage of other amenities such as alignment to open spaces and views due to solar orientation. In most cases, subdivision designs can accommodate solar orientation and retain lot values. Wher thi is n the the Plann' g anZoning Joard finds that using the requirements may create a hardship and/or conflict with other community o �ectives, a 2 0 variance may be granted. Studies have indicated that builders and developers in communities with solar access and orientation standards who have adapted to the new requirements have encountered few problems. In some communities, not only have builders learned to live with the standards, but some have become excited about building solar homes. It can be a marketing tool for them. 7. As a developer, if I think I need a variance from the solar orientation criteria, won't it slow the review process or make it more costly? It is beneficial to all concerned that the expectations for a variance from the solar orientation requirements be made explicit as early in the development review process as possible. At conceptual review, staff and a project applicant should identify any potential need for a variance from the solar orientation standard. The staff is currently working with the Planning and Zoning Board to identify a list of possible reasons for granting a variance that would be used to guide the decision of the Board. This list would be included in materials supplemental to the proposed ordinance changes or may be included as part of the City Code. S9f,believes that there may be an initial learning curve before the Board and staff are com o s u es a reasona e vanance request. A variance request would be. processe in co—n unction with a proposed development plan and no additional time delay is expected. The staff believes that the proposed new requirements will not generate an inordinate amount of variance requests. 8. How will solar orientation affect the value of new homes? Staff will continue to work with developers to try to maximize site amenities. Specific "losses" due to solar orientation, such as views and alignment to other amenities such as open space, will be minimized. "Gains" such as modest energy savings, sunnier homes and the potential for future solar gain are expected but difficult to measure, because they depend on the homebuilder and/or homeowner's willingness and interest in solar energy. 9. How will solar orientation affect views? Significant views may exist in any direction, although the most obvious are the mountain views to the west and southwest. Lots can be oriented to open spaces, wetlands, and the Poudre River valley as well as the mountains. The solar orientation standard of 70 percent of lots oriented to a southerly direction still allows for 30 percent of the lots in a subdivision to face east and/or west. Additionally, the 30 degrees from due south for solar oriented lots is flexible enough to allow for some western views. Building design can help maximize what significant views exist 9M from a lot by means of westerly -oriented glazing, porches, etc. 10. Since solar orientation means facing the front or back of houses to the south, won't these homes get overheated during the summer and actually increase utility bills due to higher cooling costs? In our cool climate, heating is a greater concern than cooling. Protecting east and west windows from direct sunlight is also a concern. However, protection from heat gain can be achieved by various window treatments such as glass coatings, dual glazing with a very thin reflective film sandwiched in between, and interior shades and drapes. The best protection is to block direct sunlight before it gets through the window. Such shading includes the use of landscaping, exterior shades, and buildiiig overhangs. 11. How will the solar orientation standards be monitored for their effectiveness, cost, and ease of administration? Staff intends to carefully monitor the number and types of variance requests for the solar orientation standards. Staff does not anticipate a significant number of variances, but if any problems arise, staff will work to rectify them in a timely manner. After one year, staff intends conduct a review of the solar standards to determine as best as possible their costs and benefits, effectiveness and identify any oilier issues which may have come up during their administration.. 12. Can solar lot orientation be achieved through means other than north -south facing lots? Lots that are not oriented in a southerly direction can still benefit from solar gain, although the purpose of the orientation standards is to preserve future options for solar energy usage. In some communities, lots that run east -west are considered "solar lots" if shading from adjacent properties is minimized. This means that these east -west lots need to be quite wide. Assuming that the south -facing windows of a house needs protection from shading from a two-story house to the south at noon on December 21, the setback between buildings should be a minimum of approximately 42 feet. If the two-story house is set back five feet from the property line, the minimum lot width to the north is approximately 90 feet, depending upon the building envelope of the -house to the south. These east -west lots with a wider street frontage would be more costly, and may not be an acceptable option for developers. 4 • 13. Why exempt large -lot subdivisions and minor subdivisions? Staff proposes to exempt large -lot subdivisions from the solar orientation standards because larger lots tend less to determine the orientation of buildings. Additionally, homes on larger lots are more likely custom-built homes so the potential exists for solar gain beyond that found in smaller or average -sized lots. Minor subdivisions are exempted from solar orientation standards because they are predominantly infill or replats, where streets and utilities already exist. If these sites are not conducive to solar orientation, a variance would have to be requested, adding time and expense to the process, which the minor subdivision review was designed to minimize. 14. Won't solar oriented homes eventually be shaded by vegetation, making solar gain negligible? As vegetation matures, it may not only affect solar gain but views as well. Staff has avoided proposing standards which would regulate the choice and placement of trees by a homeowner, but does intend to work with developers and other City departments to provide information to homeowners about "solar friendly" landscape design. This involves, very generally, the placement of deciduous trees to the south of a home to shade windows and roofs in the hotter months, and allow the sun to penetrate during the cooler months. Evergreens can be placed anywhere on the lot where they will not shade the winter sun. They are especially effective on. the northern and northwestern sides of a home to help reduce the affect of cold winter winds. Homeowners placing trees may also want to keep in mind that their neighbors may want to take advantage of solar gain, and adjust tree placement to accommodate them as well. 15. What incentives will the City offer developers to encourage solar orientation in their projects? The staff worked with an Advisory Committee and some representatives of the development community to identify possible incentives. Fee waivers, reduced development standards, reduced processing time, and density bonuses were discussed. Staff proposes to encourage solar orientation beyond the minimum standard by offering a density bonus. A 1 % bonus for every 1 % increase above the 70 % minimum standard up to 10 % is proposed. A 10% bonus allows a developer to increase the number of dwelling units by 1 per acre. 16. If a developer wants to divide a parcel of land in phases, how will the solar orientation standards be enforced? Currently in the LDGS, an applicant is expected to provide an "appropriate" share of site amenities with each phase of a project, but not necessarily a proportional or equal share. This would not change for solar orientation. An applicant would be expected to provide a percentage of solar oriented lots on a preliminary plan, and then as subsequent phases are approved, the 5 �J 0 overall percentage must meet or exceed the original figure. 17. What are the keys to success of solar access ordinances? The lessons learned from cities with solar ordinances suggest several major keys to their success - clear standards, flexibility in how to meet the standards, public involvement in setting the standards and a commitment by staff to enforce the standards and assist the public. MYCHAEL hL SHULIZ • ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 2996 LOVELAND, COLORADO SM39 y� Tckpbo= (970) 667-0142 MAR 2 ® RlCb March 20, 1997 Mike Ludwig Current Planning City of Fort Collins VIA FAX (224-6111) 281. North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 re: Park South PUD Dear Mike: As you know, I represent several owners of duplex units who live next to the proposed Park South development on its west side_ We are writing to encourage the Plannning and Zoning Board to place the Park South project on the consent agenda for its March 24, 1997, meeting. The neighbors have attended all of the hearings on the proposed development. At its January meeting, the Board continued the Park South matter, directing, among other things, that Mr. Middel work with the neighbors to provide a more compatible development. Ina separate letter to the Board, we explained the changes that Mr. Middel had made and gave our support to his revised preliminary plan. While we appreciate the need for careful review of projects, it is difficult for these neighbors to constantly attend public hearings --especially if the matter ends up being continued to still another date. We also appreciate the fact that the Board did continue this matter to allow Mr. Middel and the neighbors to work together. However, we do not believe that there is any opposition to the plan and that it should be unnecessary for the neighbors to have to attend a fourth hearing on the amended PUD_ Therefore, we respectfully request that you ask the Board, on our behalf, to move Park South to the consent agenda lacking objection from any member of the public. Yours truly, v� Michael M. Shultz c: Betty and Jack Aggers Earl Noel Z-d L908 L99 OL6 Ad00 df—Oldd NOSNHOF HOd-d NVL8=6 L661-07--O 6 9 9'17 I* 0 ,_;Z��k--1-� a21e J1"6 4-�e �os� 0 20, y I 3e-� C ej ,fox 3 � a le E CDs /'-na4,t� ,I () /,� * �'y �' ✓ and .�ozvt(�• ¢�a. - 1417 01 IIL_ � 0 March 22, 1997 To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board Re: Park South Development As residents of the Village at Four Seasons, we would like to lend our support to the proposed agreement between Mr. Marc Middel and residents of the Village at Four Seasons. We are in complete agreement with specifically the decision pro- posed in the agreement to build one story homes along our common boundary and to have the homes set back further from our fence. We appreciate all the effort that has gone into this PUD proposal. • Thanking you for your time, Larry and Kay Caldwell 720 Arbor #28 • i No Text No Text • 0 FA iyse.G:�n� Lc� � �BCc-G�i> ,.LlG�2i i l a6 i} • • I • 10 . • C� • • 017 o 000 ••0-0.000) !•C0••OO n_� Co4.L,AJsl Oc.o_ �aSzz ••00•©0 ••C0••®0 • • 0 0.0 0 0� 1�A•2 �E�t3Ens' of ,� �e.. s1 �vN�NG � zoN��]G l�va2 J I f-F[S' LE7—fb2 1S 7ar:;)zes:5 My Lv[>=E A,cJD /i4Y V i Etiv s O*J /Ll2 , M l OD kL-ry f ARK &UF- 5Uppr 2-r -1-7}E -Z£ FL-A-cC A-T A ME.E-n 6jG odirv-k 1:3k- ry /i GG£$LS 41v p % wr %S V uPc8 jC Es 6 X O^x STd R J-4 Mbs • ,�n,�, l3E [3ur�T /3Efl,nla oUR 't7vP�-EX�s . �*A%IE gE.5-,g►c-r,vE Cdv&"4,--rs Lli<E %vim 1-t^vE /nl T?4E Vt L-A66 jkva /SOT o&%ji.y '7-6 '► h -�. 1) f +��t i io �.) PoN v CI N —174-et2 P- PE4Z y SAJCE t.E Ly/- 00G0G•00 1.0(�••00� 7zo /�2go!{ l4,/E, UN1T 0000•®00i 1 • C C • • 0-0-6 �o�i CocLuvS Ceiu, 8os�6 ®•00•©©Ol 10GO0000C ••CO•d:001 0 0 0 • •