The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWATERGLEN PUD PDP ..... APRIL 25 1994 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 71 93A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSThe most practical solution to the reduction of noise at this development is to design a barrier along the entire eastern property line which will. reduce exterior noise levels below the FHWA sound abatement criteria. The model was exercised with four different barrier heights: 8,10,12, and 18 feet, so as to recommend an appropriate design height. The results of the modelling are shown in Table 2.5. As can be seen, a ten -foot barrier (measured from existing ground level) along the east property line is sufficient to bring the projected future noise levels below the FHWA criterion level at the individual lot property lines closest to I-25. Table 2.5 Model Results, Year 2015 Receptor Modelled Noise Level (Leq(h), dBA) (values in bold type exceed FHWA criterion) No Barrier Barrier Height 8 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 18 ft. R4 Multifamily 67.3 66.4 65.8 64.9 61.5 Bldg. H R5 Thornhill Place 69.8 67.2 65.8 64.1 59.9 lot #10 R6 Thornhill Place 69.5 67.5 j 66.3 64.7 60.3 lot #21 R7 Berwick Court 69.5 66.6 65.0 63.3 59.3 lot #10 R8 Berwick Court 69.2 67.2 66.0 64.3 59.9 lot #18 R9 Celtic Lane 66.1 65.4 64.8 64.2 60.7 lot #1 Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 10 Street Oversizing Criteria - Page 3 Any street that only meets one of the above criteria may qualify for street oversizing reimbursement if it makes an immediate traffic operational improvement. These improvements are identified by the City Traffic Engineer and are defined as: 1. Improvement to capacity: The completion of required improvements would remove an existing capacity restriction or significantly increase system capacity that is needed. 2. Safety: Completion of improvements would increase system safety or remove an obsolete design area. 3. Continuation of system: Improvements would complete a portion of a system wide improvement or directly add to the transportation in a continuous manner. There are certain streets identified as important to the long range transportation needs of the City. Improvement of portions of these streets is deemed a community wide benefit and would qualify for street oversizing reimbursement. These streets include: Timberline Road from Harmony Road to Colo. Hwy. 14 North College Avenue from Laporte Ave. to the "Y" Vine Drive from College Avenue to Summitview III. Appeals Process The Director of Development Services may consider waiving the application of any of the criteria for developments determined to be important in providing community -wide benefit that would not otherwise qualify for street oversizing reimbursement. Such development could include, but not be limited to: industry that creates primary jobs, community hospitals, and regional shopping centers. Appeals of the decision of the Director of Development Services shall be made directly to the City Manager within 30 calendar days of the Director of Development Services decision. SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL: WATERGLEN PUD - Preliminary DESCRIPTION: 573 homes on 120 acres DENSITY: 4.78 du/acre General Population 573 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 2005.5 School Age Population Elementary - 573 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 515.7 Junior High - 573 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 120.33 Senior High - 573 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 106 Design Affected Schools Capacily Enrollment Eyestone Elementary 565 534 Lincoln Junior High 740 653 Poudre Senior High 1235 1121 April 14, 1994 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80523 Dear Board Members; C�o��caa o 0 urban design, inc. 3555 Stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (303) 226-4074 FAX (303) 226-4196 As discussed at the March 7th P&Z meeting, we have indicated 36' wide local streets with 48' rights -of -way and - where applicable - 28' streets with 40' rights -of -way, on the revised Preliminary PUD Site and Landscape Plan for Waterglen. The standard utility easements adjacent to these streets will be 12' wide. It is our understanding that this reduced right-of-way width has been proposed by City Staff for local streets throughout Fort Collins; but this new standard has not yet been finally adopted. Technically then, we must request a variance to allow the street right-of-way width that has been proposed by Staff. This letter represents that request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Bill Reynolds, The W.W. Reynolds Companies Libby Glass, The W.W. Reynolds Companies Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates LUVP@P@ urban design, inc. Adopted City Land Use Policies (including 25, 40, and 41) clearly indicate that City participation in infrastructure costs in the northeast area is appropriate. " Note: In the notes provided by Jon Ruiz from our March 24, 1994 meeting, he states that the "City will work out concepts of what work needs to be done, options for funding the work, and timing of funding.... If (the) City and Developer come to agreement on these issues, (the) Developer will not submit waivers to P&Z. Waivers will be requested if (the parties) can't agree..." This is not exactly correct. It is entirely possible that the City and the Developer will agree on a solution that will still require a waiver from P&Z. It was also our understanding that the applicant would be involved in determining the extent of the work required, and the funding options. Revised Land Use Breakdowns and Density Charts are attached. Reductions, color renderings, and 10 sets of prints will be submitted by April 18th. Please distribute copies of this letter to the staff members who attended the March 24th meeting. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, Pre ident Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Bill Reynolds, W.W. Reynolds Companies Libby Glass, W.W. Reynolds Companies Mike Blank, W.W. Reynolds Companies Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates David Love, Love & Associates Armando Balloffet, Balloffet and Associates Matt Delich Lucia Liley, March & Myatt LAn@@P@ urban design, inc. NOISE IMPACTS The Waterglen PUD Noise Impact Assessment completed by Balloffet & Associates indicates that an increase in the height of the proposed berm along 1-25 to 10't is recommended to mitigate the noise impacts from that roadway. As stated in the report, provisions in the City Code are intended to regulate noise generated by a proposed development and the noise impacts of traffic generated by the development on adjacent City Streets; and do not fit the situation at Waterglen. Therefore the Waterglen analysis is based on the commonly used noise criteria specified by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation measures recommended in the study. OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS As discussed in our meeting of March 24th, the applicant is willing to participate in the costs of improvements to Vine Drive by either: Overlaying the existing surface of Vine Drive between Waterglen and Lemay in order to extend the life of the roadway by 10 to 15 years; Improving Vine to the normal, full depth, "off -site" standard between the subject property and Summit View; or Adding up to $1,000/unit to the standard Street Oversizing fee in order to contribute a fair amount to Vine Drive improvements if Vine were to become a part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. It is our understanding that the Staff preference at this time is the first alternative. We will provide a letter outlining a specific proposal early next week. Regardless of the alternative for equitable participation in off -site street improvements, Waterglen should be eligible for reimbursement for the oversizing of Waterglen Drive and the applicable Vine Drive frontage for the following reasons: The City Code states that, "If a street within or adjacent to the development is improved as an arterial or collector street rather than a residential street, the Director of Engineering shall compute the extra expense caused ..... Such extra expense shall be paid by the city out of the street oversizing fund.." Waterglen meets the criteria of being "located between existing development and the nearest fully improved arterial street that provides major access to the development." Anheuser Busch must be recognized as existing development. If Lemay is to be defined as the nearest improved arterial providing major access to the development, Waterglen is located as described in the City criteria. The Streets in question are required to be master planned as a collector and an arterial, respectively. April 7, 1994 Steve Olt Project Planner City or Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Steve; urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (303)226-4074 FAX (303) 226-4196 Attached are eight copies of the Waterglen PUD, Preliminary Site and Landscape Plans, revised in response to the Planning and Zoning board's, comments. Responses to specific concerns include: STORM DRAINAGE Love & Associates have completed the "Preliminary Drainage Report" as requested; and three copies have been submitted directly to the Storm Drainage Utility. The report includes sizing of detention ponds, calculations of release rates, sizing of the box culvert under Vine Drive, delineation of the Cooper Slough wetlands and other items included on the check list provided by the City. RESOURCE PROTECTION Included in the report from Love & Associates, are their findings related to the Cooper Slough. Their investigation determined that the Slough is not a unique warm water spring as had been previously believed, but is fed by ground water and seepage from the Larimer Weld Canal. They have also determined that the water quality, quantity, and temperature will not be adversely affected by the development of Waterglen as proposed. The existing wildlife habitat along the slough is proposed to remain in its existing condition. Based on the February 7th letter from the Division of Wildlife, we have made design adjustments to the preliminary site and landscape plans to achieve a 150' minimum buffer area between the existing Cooper Slough wetlands and the nearest dwelling units. We are also proposing berming and the creation of linear detention/water quality ponds between the slough and the nearby homes. We have also applied the 150' minimum buffer width to the west side of the slough. However, the request that a continuous 6' high cage fence be constructed along the slough in unacceptable to the developer of Waterglen. Also, the request that all lots between Elgin Court and the slough be removed, cannot be accommodated unless the applicant is further compensated for both the value of the land and the proportionate share of the infrastructure costs that would be born by the affected development area. L3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The modelling effort described above indicates that a barrier approximately 10 feet high will adequately protect the nearest residences to I-25 from noise levels considered objectionable by the FHWA for design purposes. Since the Fort Collins Noise Control Code is designed to prevent the generation of unreasonable noise at a development site, it is not clear that it can be applied to noise which is generated at I-25, a source outside the jurisdiction of the City. Moreover, given -� that the future traffic on I-25 in the year 2015 will not be substantially greater than the current traffic along some of the City's major arterials, it is possible that application of this stringent noise control requirement would constrain residential development in other parts of the City if applied to all new developments. Therefore, this analysis is based on the commonly -used criteria noise levels specified by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) in designing noise barriers to protect communities from highway noise. JIt is recommended that a barrier approximately 10 feet high be designed as part of the development to run along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the P.U.D. To make this barrier most effective, it should continue to the southeast corner of the site, and wrap around to the south of multi -family buildings I, J, and K in Dunattar Commons. The barrier can be designed as a berm (appropriately landscaped), as a masonry or poured concrete wall, or a combination berm and wall totalling ten feet or more. The mini -storage units near the northeast corner of the P.U.D. can be incorporated into the barrier design, as long as they, in conjunction with an earth berm, are at least ten feet high. It is further recommended that the owner investigate the possibility that some portion of the cost of the barrier may be borne by CDOT. CDOT builds noise barriers to protect communities from noise along the interstate highways in Colorado, but the criteria they use to determine if a barrier is cost-effective will most likely deny State funding for this project at this time. However, when I-25 is eventually widened to six lanes the environmental studies carried out at that time by CDOT will investigate noise impacts to adjacent communities. Since The Waterglen P.U.D. will be adequately protected by a ten -foot berm as of its opening, future additional noise protection due to improvements to I-25 may be the responsibility of the CDOT. The train noise analysis shows that the northwest portion of the development will experience noise levels which will approach but, not exceed the FHWA and EPA noise impact criterion. Significant future increases in train traffic may require some additional noise shielding, but this is not required at this time. Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 12 2.3 Projected Highway Noise Levels A noise model of the Waterglen P.U.D. and I-25 was constructed as shown in Figure 2.1. It was calibrated to current conditions by using the traffic counts obtained during the noise measurement period and comparing the model noise results to the measurements. Because traffic differed while measuring at each of the three noise measurement sites, the calibration run was repeated for each location. The STAMINA input and output files for the calibration runs are reproduced in Appendix B. The calibration consisted of building into the model an existing barrier (the Vine Drive overpass), and adjusting the so-called a -values of the model. These parameters are used to modify the decay rate of noise with distance to account for the type of terrain between the source and the receiver. a -values of 0.5 are appropriate for flat, open, soft terrain, such as a plowed field. The calibration results are shown in Table 2.4, below. The model is considered well -calibrated since the differences between the measured and modelled values are less than one decibel in all cases. The human ear is not capable of discerning differences in noise levels of less than one decibel, except in the most stringent laboratory conditions. Table 2.4 Calibration of the Waterglen Model Location Measured.Leq (dBA) Modelled Leq (dBA) Difference 1 (R1) 69.1. 70.0 +0.9 2 (R2) 70.3 70.1 -0.2 3 (R3) 1 65.9 66.4 1 +0.5 Using this calibrated model, several runs were made using future traffic. An initial run with no shielding gives a baseline case. This would be the noise levels expected at the receptor locations within the P.U.D. close to I-25 in the year 2015 if no mitigation measures were taken. Mitigation measures for noise are possible in three areas: control at the source, control along the path of the noise, and control at the receptor location. Control at the source would include the use of enhanced mufflers, engine shielding, lower -noise emitting. tires, or special surfacing on I-25 designed to reduce tire -pavement noise. Control along the noise path includes the use of barriers and berms. Control at the receptor would consist of special sound -proofing for residences near I-25. Noise control at the source is beyond the scope and authority of the developers of Waterglen P.U.D. or of the City of Fort Collins (beyond the City's ability to control excessive noise from individual vehicles on city streets). Noise -proofing of residences along I-25 is possible, but it does not address the issue of outside noise levels in the back yards and other exterior locations. Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 8 This is a considerably larger proportion than normally used for planning purposes for peak -hour highway traffic (5 to 7 percent heavy trucks is considered normal). However, in order to be reasonably conservative, a 10 percent proportion of trucks for the peak hour in the future is used in this analysis. The resulting hourly traffic on I-25 and Vine Drive is shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.2 Traffic Counts During Noise Measurements Vehicle Type Actual Counts One -hour Equivalent Volumes I-25 northbound I-25 southbound East Vine Drive I-25 northbound I-25 southbound East Vine Drive Counts made while measuring noise at Location 1 (14 minutes) Cars 109 103 9 466 440 38 Trucks 19 9 3 81 38 13 Total 128 112 12 547 479 51 Counts made while measuring noise at Location 2 (15 minutes) Cars 120 106 29 478 422 115 Trucks 19 14 5 76 56 20 Total 139 120 34 554 478 135 Counts made while measuring noise at Location 3 (15 minutes) Cars 116 135 13 463 539 52 Trucks 17 19 4 68 76 16 Total '4 133 154 17 531 615 68 Table 2.3 Future Peak Hour Traffic (Year 2015) Roadway ADT Peak Hour Traffic Cars Trucks Total I-25 southbound 14,600 1,183 131 1,314 I-25 northbound 12,600 1,021 113 1,134 E. Vine Drive 3,000 243 27 270 Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 7 2.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 2.1 Noise Survey A brief noise survey was carried out on March 24-25, 1994 to establish a baseline for an analysis of the potential additional noise to be generated by vehicles on I-25 and trains on the Burlington Northern line. Measurements were performed using a Quest Model 1800 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, calibrated at the site with a model CA-22 Calibrator. Appendix A contains detailed worksheets and photos of the measurement sessions, whose results are summarized in Table 2.1, below. Table 2.1 Field Noise Sampling Results Location 1 (near S.E..corner of property) Location 2 (along east property line) Location 3 (100' west of east property line) Time of day 14:02 14:26 14:44 Maximum (dBA) 77.6 79.8 74.9 Minimum (dBA) 45.7 49.8 52.8 L (dBA) 69.1 70.3 65.9 These readings indicate that noise levels in the vicinity of the east property line generally approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (Table 1.1). Since traffic is expected to increase . from current levels, this situation will get worse without mitigative measures. 2.2 Projected Traffic Levels Traffic on I-25 is the predominant source of noise along the eastern boundary of the Waterglen P.U.D. As stated earlier, traffic levels in the future are expected to increase above current levels. During the measurement period, traffic counts were kept, including the number of heavy trucks (see Table 2.2). These large vehicles produce a•large portion of the total noise along a highway, and the proportion of heavy trucks to the total traffic volume is an important parameter in estimating future noise. Total daily traffic expected on an average week -day in the year 2015 was obtained from the City of Fort Collins Transportation Department. These numbers are subject to some adjustment as the overall city modelling process continues. It is assumed, based on advice from the City staff, that peak hour traffic will make up 9 percent of the total daily I-25 traffic in the year 2015. As can be deduced from Table 2.2, the average number of heavy trucks on I-25 during an off-peak afternoon hour currently approaches 12 percent of. the total volume. Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 6 r es 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Waterglen P.U.D. is a proposed mixed-use/affordable housing community located at the northwest quadrant of the crossing of East Vine Drive and I-25 in Fort Collins. The property developers commissioned this noise assessment study to evaluate the expected noise levels within the new community due to external noise sources such as I-25 and a Burlington -Northern main line. This report documents the results of the study, including the noise measurements carried out to characterize the current situation. —� Recommendations are made for appropriate mitigative measures, such as noise walls and berms which will reduce or eliminate noise impacts. 1.1 Approach _ The noise analysis was based on noise measurements of the existing conditions and modelling of expected future conditions. B&A conducted noise measurements at several locations along the proposed property lines between the development and I-25. _e. Traffic counts on I-25, including number of large trucks, were obtained during the noise j, measurement period. -v The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) STAMINA/OPTIMA model was used to estimate future noise. The noise and traffic measurements allowed calibration of a model of existing conditions. Traffic counts obtained during the measurement program were used for the calibration task. The model was then used to estimate the I locations and height of noise walls or other barriers which may be required. Impact from noise due to the design year traffic on I-25 was estimated on the basis of exceedance of ,I the FHWA Noise Abatement Criterion, which for residences and other sensitive exterior receptors is Leq = 67 dBA, as shown in Table 1.1 and Appendix D. This criterion level is used by the-FHWA and most state departments of transportation to determine the need ®� for noise mitigation measures due to highway improvements. The City of Fort Collins noise control criteria were also reviewed (see Table 1.2, and Appendix Q. These criteria are part of the Fort Collins Code prohibiting nuisances, including unreasonable noise. The maximum permissible noise levels refer to noise generated within a property or on the City's public. right-of-way. In this case, the noise is not generated by the developer, nor is it reasonably controllable at the source by the developer or by the City. However, F control of this external noise is possible through appropriate use of barriers. The future condition investigated was the year 2015. This year is selected for two reasons. First, any required noise mitigation measures should protect the development against future traffic noise, not just that expected today. Second, reliable traffic estimates are not available beyond the year 2015. B&A also performed a noise analysis related to the potential impact of train noise on the northwest corner of the property. We estimated the total current and expected train traffic on the Burlington Northern line and established the contribution of train noise to ambient hourly or daily Ley. Train noise data were obtained from Burlington Northern's environmental division and other sources. Waterglen P.U.D. Noise Impact Assessment Page 1 " 4[y[y N.S•r�ea. tZ4t BSI t'y{br ti ;i �tj. rr NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT WATERGLEN P.U.D. April 6, 1 The W.W. t:ompany,. ado v Prepared by: Balloffet and Associates, Inc. 2000 Vermont Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525, USA Fig. 16. A 50:50 ratio of open water (solid) to vegetative cover (hatched) can be achieved In several ways, some more desir- able than others. The upper configuration, typical of a wetland basin surrounded by cattail or other emergents, will have a far lower carrying capacity for breeding pairs than the bottom con- figuration, which provides bays and islands of vegetation that allow territorial pairs to Isolate themselves from conspecifics. April 13, 1994 Page 2 We feel that pond management in the area should include managing water levels in the ponds and shaping the ponds for maximum wildlife benefits. Ponds should be shaped with irregular shorelines and with small islands built in the middle also with irregular shorelines. The reason for this is to increase the total edge of the shorelines, and to give ducks a visual barrier to each other during nesting and brood rearing. Enclosed is a diagram that visualizes this concept. Wildlife respond better to ponds of this nature than those with a simple round shape. Water management would include having one of the ponds on the west side mostly full throughout the spring, summer and fall to provide escape cover for duck broods, and a resting area for migrating waterfowl. The other ponds should be managed by fall flooding with high water levels, and then gradually drawn down in the spring to a depth of about 18 inches. During the summer, these ponds could be drained. This will allow moist area plants to grow in the pond bottoms, and will allow better production of aquatic invertebrates such as snails which are very important duck foods. The pond edges could also be planted with some Japanese millett which would provide food for migrating ducks in the fall. By using a fill -drain cycle such as this, natural decomposition will be allowed to take place and a cycle closer to a natural cycle will be established. The Division of Wildlife would be happy to meet with the developer of this proposal to help design the ponds and berms, and to decide on grass mixtures and shrubs which would benefit wildlife. We would also like to do some baseline studies of the water quality and quantity and the number and types of plant and animal species in the slough so any changes can monitored in future. years. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal, and please call if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, P / /0.k4 e5r'z�� Mark Leslie District Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W.Prospect; Fort Collins CO 80526 303-484-2836 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES G��o DIVISION OF WILDLIFE d AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER y Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 For 1PFor People April 13,• 1994 Karen Manci City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Division 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Proposed Waterglen Subdivision In response to your request dated April 5, 1994, the Division of Wildlife would like to comment about specific management practices that we feel should be addressed with the Waterglen Proposal. We feel that the comments we have made both in our first and second responses are still valid concerning disturbance to wildlife along the slough, the need for a 100 yard buffer between the edge of the subdivision and the edge of the wetland area, and the potential negative impacts to the slough from the location of the detention ponds at the head of the slough. We also have concerns about siltation of the slough during the construction phase of the project. Duringconstruction of the detention ponds, the dirt that is removed from the.ponds could be used to build berms linearly along each side of the slough to create a visual and noise barrier from the subdivision. These berms should not be constructed -on the very edge of the water of the slough, but rather on the outer edge of the buffer zones nearest the subdivision. We feel that no trees should be planted along the slough, so as not to encourage avian predators to use the area which might prey on waterfowl. The buffer zone between the slough and the subdivision should be planted in tall native grass species to provide nesting cover for ducks and other birds, and hiding cover for many species of reptiles, amphibians and mammals. The actual grass mix should be determined by consultation with the Soil Conservation Service taking into account the type of soil, and which grasses would have the best chance of growing in the area. Some shrubs such as plum could be planted along the tops or outer edges of the berms to offer food and cover to species such as raccoons and skunks, and passerine birds. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenEerg, Chairman•Thomas M. Eve, Vice Chairman•Louis F. Swift, Secretary Felix Chavez, Member•Eldon Cooper, Member•Rcbecca Frank, Member•William R. Hegberg, Member•Arnold Salazar, Member specified viewing areas and to use the park and otheE open spaces for walking their dogs. (All dogs must be on lease, per City code.) A letter stating the goals and objectives of this natural area, and the need to minimize human disturbance needs to be given to each potential homebuyer and renter within the entire Waterglen Development. The mitigation plan should include a draft copy of this letter for CDOW and Natural Resources review and comments. 3 Impacts to Wildlife: The impact to wildlife was not adequately addressed in the Love and Associates Report. A number of mitigation steps has been proposed by Natural Resources and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (most recent memo attached) to the applicant in writing and at meetings. I have listed these, and others, below that need to be addressed in the mitigation report. o The need for a .300-foot buffer area of no development around the Slough has not been met in all locations. We propose that the applicant provide mitigation funds equal to the appraised value of the undeveloped land that lies within this buffer, but is proposed for development (lots, roads, and walkways), due at the time of issuance of the first building permits within each of the affected phases. The mitigation funds are to be used by the Natural Resources Division for protection or enhancement of the Cooper Slough --either onsite or offsite. o The report needs to provide visual buffering between the Slough and the developed portions of the site to reduce the impact to waterfowl and other wildlife that' use the Slough. This can be accomplished through the use of berming (see CDOW memo), solid board fences at the backs of lots that border the slough, and shrub plantings (native deciduous and only along the border of developed areas adjacent to the Slough). o No trees or shrubs should be planted within the interior sections of the Slough. o All areas disturbed for construction within the Slough Natural Area need to be reseeded with native plains grass and forb species (see attached handout for suggested species). o Jim Ringleman, CDOW Wildlife Researcher, must be consulted for his recommendations on the shape, type, and management of the detention ponds and basins that will be constructed. Jim was out of town and not able to review the information provided in the attached memo from Mark Leslie of the CDOW. Mark recommends the construction of islands. It is my understanding that some of the CDOW staff does not recommend island construction due to their attractiveness to Canada geese. Jim needs to be consulted to provide input on habitat that is more conducive to ducks, and less attractive to geese, including which native plant species should be seeded. (Note: Japanese millet, as suggested by Mark is non-native and should not be used.) o The Cooper Slough Natural Area needs to have signs that tell the neighbors that this area is a wildlife preserve and that the potential to disturb waterfowl and wildlife is high. Residents should be required to limit their access to only 2 Comm ty Planning and Environmenta rrvices Natural Resources Division City of Fort Collins M E M O R A N D U M Date: April 19, 1994 To: Steve Olt, Planner �',Y�{� From: Karen Manci,.Environmental Planner\ Re: Comments on the Waterglen PUD - Preliminary Drainage Report Two weeks ago, on April 5th, I received the Waterglen PUD - Preliminary Report (Love & Associates). On April 4th, I received the Cooper Slough Wetland Delineation: Documentation Report (Cottonwood Consulting). I have not received any other information from the applicant regarding how he plans to mitigate impacts to the Cooper Slough from the development of the Waterglen project. The report from Love and Associates implies that the Waterglen PUD will have minimal impact on the water quality, water quantity, water temperature, and hydrology of Cooper Slough onsite and downstream. If Stormwater agrees with these findings and the developer will agree to produce a mitigation plan for the project, then Natural Resources will not recommend denial of the Waterglen PUD Preliminary Plan. The mitigation plan must be approved by Natural Resources before the Waterglen PUD Final Plan is approved. Natural Resources needs to see this report at least 2 weeks before their comments are due to the Planning Department. The following are,my comments on various natural resource aspects of the project. Wetland Issues: o There is concern that the flush of sediments and pollutants from construction of the project will alter the vegetation and water parameters of the Slough.. Applicant needs to show, specifically, what steps will be taken during construction to mitigate impacts to surface and subsurface waters. o The applicant must agree to do a survey for the federally threatened Ute ladies' tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) this August, as recommended in the Cottonwood Consulting report. 1 281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80-522-0580 • (303) 221-6600 - Some of the swales are shown to be crossing the garden plots, please correct this conflict. - Please show all cross -sections for the swales on the drainage plan. - Please use a larger scale for the next submittal, in order to make the drainage plan more readable. - Please provide all necessary drainage details. - Please document all off -site flows (Anheuser Busch) and include them in the appendix. At final the following requirements should be met: - outlet controls for the detention ponds, as well as a grading plan showing the required 1 foot freeboard should be provided. - A SWMM analysis of the pond system should be prepared. - A grading plan with building footprints and elevations, as well as existing and proposed contours at two foot intervals is required. - A plat showing all necessary drainage easements is needed. - Rip rap sizing calculations need to be provided where necessary. - If you have any questions about this review, or what is required for the final submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at the Stormwater Utility at (303) 221-6589 This part of the review is concerned with the water quality issues associated with the Cooper Slough. The approximate wetland boundaries drawn on the drainage plan show some encroachment by development along the South end of proposed Elgin Court on the outlined wetland area. The alignment of the road will need to be adjusted to prevent that. It is further suggested in order to enhance water quality in the slough that the following alternatives be explored. - The bottom of the detention ponds along the slough should be kept close to the groundwater level in order to create an additional wetland buffer area in the slough (wet bottom pond). This will create a wetland pond that would in turn enhance the habitat quality in the corridor around the slough. - The flow path in the detention ponds should be made as long as possible in order to enhance water quality benefits to the slough and minimize the amount and effect of pollutants associated with urban runoff entering the stream ("first -flush" effects). Please reference Urban Drainage and Flood Control manual Volume 3 for design criteria for extended detention pond design criteria. - Within the development area itself the system can be designed in a manner as to minimize "Directly Connected Impervious Area" (DCIA). This can be done through the use of grass lined swales, irrigated grass buffer strips, berms, etc... - The outlet structure from the detention area into the Slough should be designed in a way to minimize sediment loading of the stream. The groundwater investigation provided seems to suggest that the stream is fed by groundwater recharge from the irrigation return flow drain tiles and from the canal. It is agreed that these sources are probably the two main sources of water to the Slough, however it is suggested that this analysis is preliminary and that more longitudinal data (in time) should be collected to ascertain this point. This part of the review deals with the rest of the non -water quality related comments: - All grass swales with slopes less than 2% are required to have concrete pans or underdrains. (A trickle channel may be needed for larger swales. (Side slopes should be a maximum of 4:1 unless some sort of stabilization is utilized.) - Where is the 2.65 Ac. ft. of detention for Basin K being provided? Please label correctly all detention ponds. Utility � vices Stormwater City of Fort Collins From: Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Utility To: Steve Olt, Planning and Environmental Services Love and Associates. Date: 4/20/93 Subject: Waterglen, Preliminary submittal comments It is noted that this review was done using plans that were submitted to the Stormwater Utility on April 4 th which are different from more recent plans submitted to the Planning Department. The Boxelder overflow swale that conveys flows along I-25 is shown to be in the state Right Of Way. Formal approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation will be needed in that case before this preliminary submittal is approved. Cross -sections showing the swale, the berm, and the Interstate highway are needed to verify how the flows are currently being accommodated. Please show on these cross -sections the property line and the Right of Way line. These cross -sections should be done at least on three locations: one at the northernmost part of the property where Q100 is around 250 cfs, in the middle section and another one after the additional overflow from Boxelder Creek (Q100= 1450 cfs). Two cross -sections along East Vine Drive also should be shown. Two Existing buildings are shown to be in the revised floodplain. Since this reconfiguration of the floodplain will concentrate the flows and thus cause higher velocities, these buildings will need to be flood -proofed. Note again that the floodplain boundaries shown on the Drainage plan submitted to the Stormwater Utility on April 4 th is different from the one shown on the updated plan submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board. Please clarify which plan is the correct one. 235 Mathews • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6589 • FAX (303) 221-6239 Engineering is doing the structural analysis on Vine this month and the results will be available by June. This information will help us determine the final overlay thickness to achieve the 10-15 years street life in the overlay option. End of Item 6. HPDesk Local Print for Steve OLT Start of Item 6. Message. Dated: 04107194 at 1451. Subject: Waterglenn Sender: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01 Contents: 2. TO: Steve OLT / CFC52/01 Part 1. FROM: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01 TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2. Engineering had a couple of issues with the Waterglen proposal at Vine and I-25. 1 have talked with Eldon Ward and shared these thoughts for the April P&Z packet: Will Street Oversizing Fund reimburse the developer for on -site collector and arterial construction? No, this project does not meet the criteria approved by City Council for projects that are leapfrogging. Eldon has some information that he believes offers a different interpretation and 1 agreed to look at it in the next week. - What improvements are necessary for off -site street impacts? I will allow an option other than a 36'wide arterial from Lemay to their west property line (about 2.5 miles) that would cost $1.5M. That option is a 36' wide street improvement that would provide a design life of 10-15 years. Our initial guess is 3-4" asphalt overlay over a fabric to reduce cracking and -with some patching. Stewart Engr's estimate of $500,000 is about what we think it will cost. We will be flexible that if some other development along Vines occurs before the street is improved, they should build to arterial structure adjacent to their development and will relieve Waterglen from that protion of the street costs. It is understood that this overlay option does NOT allow Waterglen to recover costs through a repay agreement because the road will have to be reconstructed by the future developments along Vine. The city is not interested in financing the Vine improvements and receiving paybacks through building permits. The timing for the Vine overlay is somewhat flexible, ie, if the grading and utilities begin in the fall, I am willing to look at the following spring to improve Vine, but it could mean more patching costs for Waterglen. Prior to the Vine improvements off -site and during the initial high truck traffic building phase, Waterglen will route all trucks via the frontage road on I-25 and Mulberry. Street Oversizing Criteria - Page 2 C. Any subdivision finally approved after January 1, 1980, qualifies as an existing development once all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, fire hydrants, storm drainage) are complete. 2. Infill developments (i.e., subdivisions or P.U.D.'s completely surrounded by existing development) may have the contiguity requirement waived by the Director of Engineering if the area of the infill development is at least 25% of the area of .the undeveloped land surrounded by existing development. II. Street Criteria For any street to be eligible for reimbursement, it must be master planned as an arterial or collector street. Each street in the development to qualify for street. oversizing reimbursement must meet two of the following criteria: 1. Traffic volumes a. Present traffic volumes are inadequate: Present capacity (prior to this development) is over 5,000 VPD for collector, 6,000 VPD for two lane arterial roadway (24-30 ft. wide, county standard), 10,000 VPD for two lane roadway with left turn lane. b. Future traffic volumes will be inadequate (including this development) and indicate improvement to arterial street width (or collector street width only for collector) will be required within 5 years. 2. Arterial street connects to existing full width improved arterial street. 3. Origin or destination completed. Connects or improves an inadequate or unimproved street between two fully improved streets 4. Street located in an. infill development - defined as a vacant lot or land surrounded by existing development. STREET OVERSIZING CRITERIA Staff recommends that a development proposal would have to qualify for street oversizing reimbursement based on criteria that .would encourage infill projects, contiguous development, and building arterial streets when they. are needed. The following are recommended criteria based on the logical extension of the street infrastructure. These criteria are intended to encourage development in the area immediately outside of existing development (and infill projects) and discourage development of "leap frog" projects by limiting City participation in the construction of arterial and collector streets to those streets which are needed now or in the very near future. Staff believes that, by eliminating our street oversizing obligations in outlying areas that require miles of major arterial be built prematurely, the street oversizing fund could be stablized as a funding mechanism. By spending street oversizing funds on infill areas and on areas that would extend the existing street network in a logical extension of the system, the City would get the most value from its street oversizing dollar, and the street system would grow in a safer, more affordable way. I. Development and Master Plan Criteria The following criteria would have to be met. by any development proposal or master plan to be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement: 1. Contiguity The master plan or development proposal must meet the following definition of contiguity: At least one total side of the proposed development (if rectangular or square. in shape) or 1/6 of its total boundary perimeter must be contiguous with existing development or be located between existing development and the nearest fully improved arterial street that provides major access to the development. Existing development is defined as follows: A. Subdivisions which were approved before January 1, 1980, must have Building Permits issued on at least 50% of the lots in the subdivision to qualify as existing development. B. Subdivisions or PUD's approved after January 1, 1980, will qualify as existing development when the first building permit is issued for construction within the subdivision or P.U.D. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 1994 TO: Steve Olt, Project Planner FROM: Matt Baker, Engineering RE: Proposed Waterglen PUD Engineering staff believes that the Waterglen proposal does not meet the street oversizing criteria and would not be eligible for reimbursement for on -site collector and arterial street construction. City Council adopted criteria with the 1988 Street Oversizing ordinance changes. These criteria are intended to encourage development immediately outside existing development (and infill projects), and to discourage "leapfrog" development by limiting City participation in the construction of oversized streets. Staff believes that, by eliminating our street oversizing obligations in outlying areas that require streets to be built (and maintained) prematurely, the City would get the most value from it's street oversizing dollar by spending street oversizing funds in infill areas and on areas that would extend the existing street network in a logical sequence. The object of these adopted criteria is for the street network to grow in a safer and more affordable way. The Waterglen proposal does not meet the contiguity criteria, the traffic volume criteria, does not connect to an improved arterial, does not complete an origin or destination, and is not an infill development. There are no system or capacity improvements needed on this portion of Vine Drive. Waterglen is not "located between existing development and the nearest fully improved arterial street that provides major access to the development." Vine Drive at the Waterglen site is not an access to the Anheueser Busch (AB) plant by any stretch of the imagination and any improvements to this portion of street will not improve or even affect this traffic. Because the developer is pointing to the AB plant as an example, it is interesting to note that AB constructed all of its perimeter, off -site and interior roads at it's own expense. A copy of the adopted criteria is attached. Waterglen Preli^'nary PUD - Multi -Family DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit IfAII Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 20M fool arm oxlsling orapproved neighborhood shopping center. b 10% 65o real of anoxhling transit slop. . C 10% 4000 fool arm oslsling or approved roglonal shopping center. ' d 20% 3500fool of on oxdsNg oriosotvod noighborhood park community Parker commuNNfacility. 20 LLJ e 10% 1000 fool of a schoamoeting 03 the requiremonts Of the compulsory education lows of the State ofColoroio. < f 20% 3000fool of a majoremplaymont center. W g 5% 1000 foot of a chill coo center. 5 h 20% 'North' Fort Collin 20 I 20% The control ousinossDismct. Aproloclwhao bousdaryls contiguous to adsting urban dovolopmont.Ctodlt maybe earned as follows 0%— Faprolochwhose property boundary has 0 to10%co lIguily. 10 to 15%—For prgoclswhose property boundary has 10 to 20%conllgutly. • 1 30% :151o20%—For sxdooswhoso proportyboundory has 20 to30%contigulty. 201025%—Fa woloclswhom propery bo rWm hm 30 to40%conllgulty: . 25lo30%—Fapro)octswtw propertyboundaryhas401o5o%conllgulty. k It it conbe domominaled :hot lho projocl wl0toduce rats�tonowado omrgyusoago olther throu0h the applicallonorallomolivo enargy by GNCode.a5%bonus may be earned syslonlsorlhroughconmlltodomrgyconsorvatfonmeosurosboyondlhafnomallyregWrod fo ovary5%fodudloninenotgyuse. . Catculolo o t%bawdo every 50 acres incWaed In lho piolecl m Calculale the percentage of the Iola[=as In the project ]hot are devoted to rooeatbnal use. enter 112of that percentage as a bonus. 24 Iflhooppow iconvaistopcowMgpom nloHsltoopenspocetholmeetstheClysminimumroqultomenls,colw lethepercentage n of tNsoponspoco acreage Who lofoldowlopmonl acreage. enter this percentage as a borws, ll part of tho lolodovebprssonl bxlgol Istobo sport on mlghbofhood pullib transit focMlioswNch oo rat olhorwiso roquitodby atyCodu. O enter 2%bonus for Query$100 per dwelling Wl lnvestod. • If pad of the total dovolopmont budget is to be spont on neighborhood facilities and sorvkoswNch are not olhotwbo required byCltyCodo. P enter al% bows far overy5100pot cKvo&V unit lweslod. �• If a cosmilmenl Is being mode to develop a speci0od percentage ofthe total number of dwelling unils fa low income families, enter that Q pefcenlogo as a bows. up to amadmsm d 30%. If a eomrtsllrnonl Is being made todevelop aspeel0ed percentage of the total number of dwelling unlis to Type'A'and Typo'0' handicapped Z housing as defined by the City of Fart CdknLcalculate the bonus as folio x O f Typa'A'— Stlmos T ypowunns M LLJ Typo'0'—t011mos TWOWUdls oZTGT="$ In no case shall the combined bousbe greater than 30%. It the silo oradlocont proportyco holm on historic building or place. a bonus may be earned for the following 3%— For provonling o millgoling oulsido Wluoncos(o.g.or4onmonlal land use. oostholk..ocors *andsocWlfactOfs)ddvofs01011s S proservallm 3% — Fa assuring that nowslruchaesw@ be In keepingwilh the chmoclof of Ina bulkfing apbco.whllowolding total uNis the bulging o lhotwllllead lolls conllrwolce.prosorwibn and lmprovonoN In on 3% — Fa proposing odopllve use of place oppropfblomanner. Ito portion mdlot the roqulod pa*Jng In Iho rr"lldo folly project Is provided undotground vAthln [he builaing.o Inon olovalud paking skuchga anon occossMwo to tho ptkrgiysitucure.o bonus maybo oanod as follows: . t 9% — FopfoAd4g75%amoroollhepakinglnostruchiro;' 6% — Fa pra lding 50.74%of the parking Ina sluctuo., 3% — Fa pra4dng 25.49% of lho parking Ina structure. - u If a corrndlmonl isboing mode bprovide approved oulonalla foo oxlingulshIng systems for the dwgWrg unlls, enter a bonus of 10%. TOTAL 69 -30- Water glen P 'iminary PUD - Single Fam•ft DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 tool of onoxisthgo approved hoighboh00d siopPing cpnt6(. b 1 10% 650(ooi of an oxisling transit stop C 10% 4000 toot of on O)dsltng or approved loglorsal shopping center. d 20% 35M feet of onextsiing or rosorvodm6hbothood Park community Park ocomxnuNry(adkly. 20 L e 10% ' 1000 tool doschooLmeoting all the reguifomonts of rho compulsoryoducalbn la%sof lhoSlolo of Colorado. ) Qf 20% 3000feotofomo)aemplaymnntcentor. . W g 5% 1000 fool oto child cao conlor. 2 h 20% 'North' Fat Collins 20 20% The Conlyd fluslnessDistrict A project whose boundoryls conllgvousto oxlslingurban dovdopmonl.Cnodit may be earned as tolkwm- 0%-For prolochwhose property boundary has 0 to 10%conllgully 1 30% 10 to 15%—For proleclswhose proporryboundaryhos 10 to 20%conligully., :15lo20%—Fadoclswhw proporNbounrlaryhos201o30%c ligully. w 2010 25%—Fa proloctswtosa proportyboundolyhos 30 to 40%contlgulM 251030%—Fa projects whos property (ouxkry hos 4010 50%conllgulry k If [Icon be domonalrolod lsol the project wl0roduco nor -ronowoble enorgyuseoge either lluOou0 Iho opprfcaeon dd attornh o onorgy conservation oawxes beyond that normattyroqutted byCiryCode.o5% borne maybe earned rn Ood systemsar throughcormVenergy (o ovory5%roduclbnin energyuse. COICAol0a1%boron(aovwy SOa eslndudodlnlhoproloct. 2 m Calculate the percentage of the told oaosrn the project Shot we devoted to reaeotbnd use,enler Wall that pacenloge aso beau 12 If the opplicast com M113 to PCOMMng permanent offsite open space Sot meals the Crf1rs minimum roqulromonts calculate the percentage n of INS open space acreage to the total development ocroogo, enter Shb porcenlogo ono bonus It pad of the rotor developmonl budget Is to be spent onnelghbof ood public transit fodrfrlaswhich are not othorwlso roqufrod by City Codo. O enlor 2%bonus to every$100 Pot dwarfing uN11sv051" • If pod of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood(oGGlles and survicoswhIchare not olhonvise requited by City Code. P enter al%bonus to overy$100pot daellirg unit Invostod. �• If a commitment Isboing made to dewlap o sPodfiod percentage of lhotolol numbero(dwolling snits to low Income, families. enter that Ct pomonlogo as a bonus. up to a maximum of 30%. It a commitment Is bang made to devulopa spodliod percentage of the total number of dwollingsWls for Type'P; and Typo'0'toncitcoppod Z housing asdefined try the atyol rat CoMm calculate the bonus as follows Or Typo'A— Stimes TAT M Typo'0"—totlmos Typo'0'unlls lolodurvis . In ro cow gwg lho combkod bops be gi oat et lhm 30%. . rf the site oodjoconl properlycontolmon hbtoic building a ptace.o bonusmaybe earned for the following 3% — Fm prevonlinganNligatkg misido INkances (e.g. erwlrmmonioL land use• oeslholic econorn1c and social (odors) odverw Solis S prosonalkxv 3%— For assuring that nowslructwosv4rfbe lnkooping wUhiho chooclord the building or ploco.whito avoiding total wits 3% — For proposing adoptive use of the building of place IhoMllood to ISsconflnuoroe. prosomilon and Improwmenl Inon oppropdatomonnor. Ila portion or alto( Iho required padArg In the nMllplo forNlyprolocl is provided undorgrourld.wlINn the tulldIng or Inanolowlod p"ng slrucMo ason occossoryuso to Iho plirwryshuclwe•o bonsamaybe earned os follows: . t 9% — Far pravidug 75% or more of the poking Ina Struchxe:' 6% — FaproNang50.74%ofthopa"ino3lruchxo: 3% — Foprovld4g25.49%olthoporWnginastnschue. . U If aco ;nIlmoni bboing made to provide oppromd aulomdla rue eWirgulshingsystems for the dwQ111ng wIls. onlora bonusol ISM TOTAL 56 -30- NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER POINT CHART J For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only Criterion Is the Criterion Applicable Yes No I II III IV Circle the Correct Score Multiplier Points Earned Ixll Maximum Applicable Points a. Transit Route X X 2 0 1 p 2 b. At Collector/Arterial X, X 2 0 5 10 c. Mixed -Use Development X X 2 0 2 4 d. Three Acres or More X X 2 0 4 8 e. From Convenience Center X X 2 0 4 �'j 8 f. Part of Planned Center X X 2 0 5 rj 10 g. Contiguity X X 2 0 5 p 10 h. "North" Fort Collins X X 2 0 1 2 i. Energy Conservation X 112131410 2 C) 8 j. 1 2 0 k. 1 2 0 I. 1 1 1 2 0 Totals v vi Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII g vu continued I a. Is the center contiguous to an existing transit route? b. Is the center located at the intersection of a neighborhood collec- tor and arterial street with primary access taken off the collec- tor? c. Does the center contain two or more different uses? d. Is the center on at least three gross acres of land? e. Is the center located at least .75 miles from any existing or approved Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center or convenience grocery store? (For the purposes of this criterion, the term "approved" shall be defined as having current preliminary or final planned unit development approval). f. Is the center contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center, an office or industrial park, or a multi -family development? g. Is the center located with at least 1/6th of its property boundary contiguous to existing development? h. Is the center located within "north" Fort Collins? i. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the application of alternative energy systems or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix G for Energy Conservation Methods to use for calculating energy conservation points. , 17 -3 - ACTIVITY: Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center DEFINITION: i A shopping and service center situated on seven or less acres with four or more business establishments located in a complex which is planned, devel- oped, and managed as a unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Neighbor- hood convenience shopping center criteria shall apply only to those areas of the City that are zoned R-L, R-L-P, R-L-M, R-H, R-P, R-M-P, M-L, M-M, B-L or B-P, or any other areas of the City if such areas are subject to the zoning condition that no development be approved unless processed as a Planned Unit Development, provided, however that said criteria shall not under any circumstances apply to development in the H-B zone. The principal uses permitted include retail services; personal services; convenience grocery stores (with accessory gas pumps); standard or fast food restau- rants (without drive -up windows); liquor sales (for on- or off -premise con- sumption); beauty or barber shops; dry cleaning outlets; equipment rental (not including outdoor storage); limited indoor recreational uses; pet and aquarium shops; retail stores; and uses of similar character as determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. Secondary uses may include professional offices; limited banking services, such as automated teller machines; mul- ti -family dwellings; medical offices and clinics; small animal veterinary clinics; and child care centers. Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the develop- ment plan. 1. Have steps been taken to minimize any environmental hazards, particu- larly those associated with underground fuel storage tanks; and, if the proposed development is located in or near an environmentally sensitive area, have all applicable state and local environmental standards been met? 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 65% OF THE MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED ON "POINT CHART J" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: I Yes No NA 64�"Zvi u %e w❑i�{n y�ine �� U continued 17 1 1 -35- -AUTO -RELATED AND : -- - --= ROADSIDE-COIV MERCIAL - - - --- - ---- POINT-CHART--D --- - -F. All _Critera 4. , 4a . ::,:-,A Ilcabe:.Criteria. onl ::,,A. pp ' y ; . - _ Criterion Is The: ; Criterion Aplicable Yes No I II III IV Circle The Correct Score Yes VW` No Multiplier Points Earned 1x11 Modmum Applicable Points a "Not.attwo-arterials s :X. X 2 -0::.. _ 2 `:b.. Part of planned center X X 2 0 ' 3 p 6-; c. - :On -non -arterial X z . X 2 0 . -- - 4 8 :_ d. Two`'acres or more X X 2 0 = ` 3 co b" e.°`Mixed-use. = X X 2 0 :. 3= . - b:_: f. Joint parking 1 210 '3 g, Energy conservation X 1 2101 4 �j 8 h...Cohtiguity X `" X 2 0 5 -. :.D 1. Historic,, 1, 2 0 2 J. 1 20 k. 1 2 0 ` VW — Very Well Done Totals �C Percentage -Earned of Maximum.Applicable Points VNI=VII vu —21- Continued •------- --4.---DOES THE--PROJECT--EARN-AT--LEAST-50%--OF THE MAXIMUM POINTS:AS CALCULATED ON "POINT CHART-.D"._-_._---__ry ❑ _ - _ _ __.___-_ FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA? - a.._Is..the activi:ty,a:ocated other than:,at:thle-intersection. of two:,arte'_.. .`: ri al'_:streets? b. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing - neighborhood or community/regional-shopping center; -office or n industrial park? a c. Is the primary access to the activity.'.from anon -arterial street? d. Is the project onat least two acres'of land? }: e.,...Does .the projectxontain _two -or -more. -significant uses .(for '- instance, retail;"'office, residential, hotel/mote.l:and recreation.)? -' f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site"; parking areas and :adjacent,:existng,.or,.future off -site parking. area"s :which contain'-more:.than ten '(10}:.spaces? Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the 9. - application of alternative energy systems or through energy -.conservation measures beyond those normally required -by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix'G for Energy Conservation Methods to, use for calculating energy conservation - - points. -h: `Is.:the'project"'located with at'1east ""1/6th of its: property--toundary.. :contiguous to existing urban development? i. ..-_If the site contains -:a building or place in which -a historic event ,3 .;:occurred,..which has...special. public ... val:ue,:.because`of:.:notable=..archi ecture, _br is of., cultural..'significance."_does. the -_:project fulf.il1 :the -..Mowing criteria. i. Prevent -creation of influences adverse to .its -.preservation; ii. Assure that new structures and uses will be -in --keeping with the character. of the building or place. -_Imitation of period ,_:sty1es_should be avoided; and ii . =Propose-adaptive.-use__of the building or. place`.that will` _ lead to its continuance, conservati:on;::and improvement_in, an -'appropriate. -.manner while respecting the integrity of -'-the { neighborhood. - --- 1 s . -?n- -- -- ACTIVITY: AuT" o-Related and _ - -- -=--Roadside-Cormmerda-I- Those "retail f. and wholesale'commercial activities wh`ichf'_are generally con-, sidered and typically 'found along highways and arterial streets., Uses. -,- include: free standing department -'stores; auction rooms;'automobileservice stations, repair facilities, :car.. washes; boat,;- car, trailer, motorcycle showrooms, sales and rep ai.r;sfiuel :and -ice. sales;_ greenhouses �and% nurseries; warehouses and storage; repair or rental of any article; exterminating shops; drive-in restaurants;. adult book stores.; eating places with. adult.. ..amusement :or.'enter.tainment;-adult_-photo studios.;:'..adul.t..theatres:_:,any.;.uses.. intended'to provide adult: or entertainment; and., other -uses which. are of the same-:general.character. • b CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the develop- ment .plan. 'Yes .-No NA 1. Does the project gain Jts primary vehicular access from a street.other;._ than South College Avenue? `.2. :Are all .repair, painting -and bodywork �::activittes, .ihcl-uding-storage,of .refuse and vehicular parts, planned to-�take -pl:ace.-w.i-thin .an..encl.osed structure? 3. If the'.pro ect 11 contains any uses intended ❑ ❑ to provide aduIt.amusement or entertainment,• does it meet the following requirements: Is'..the use. establ ished; operated- or' mafintained no.: less ;thaii='.500; feet from -:a residential neighborhood`, church and/or school meeting all .the requirements -of the :compulsory education- laws of -.the'. State of -Colorado? b . Is' the use establ i shed'; operated or mai ntai ned no l ess -than -"1 000 feet from another similar use? continued —19— VVAA?-jC&" d? 0: - t�i�PJ!UA Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criterion be satisfied? If no, please explain z � s z Y a Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation 1.2 Comprehensive Plan 1.3 Wildlife Habitat x 1.4 Minecal Deposit 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.6 Lands of Agricultural Importance 1.7 Energy Conservation 1.8 Air Quality 1.9 Water Quality 1.10 Sewage and Wastes A 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA 2.1 Vehicular Pedestrian Bike Transportation 2.2 Building Placement and Orientation w t 2.3 Natural Features ` 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking 2.5 Emergency Access 2.6 Pedestrian Circulation 2.7 Architecture 2.8 Building Height and Views 2.9 Shading 2.10 Solar Access 2.11 Historic Resources 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape W ' 2.14 Signs 2.15 Site Lighting 2.16 Noise and Vibration 2.17 Glare or Heat 2.18 Hazardous Materials A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity )C 3.2 Design Standards 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 Geologic Hazards Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -61- Cy� 1f :y 1 THE LOCHSIDE DDQF -100 n ❑CICIO ns � � ❑OOCICIO❑ fo 2. +xi THE SCOTSMOORE�` r� THE GLENARBOR RUZ, TYPICAL HOUSING TYPES PRE- - --3 - 3 MANUFACTURED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TYPICAL PLAN DETAILS SCALE: l'-50' TYPICAL MANUFACTURED al 0, III��I B• •• IJ—'•�LLII It, 11 I�IIII �I° i �Iv_ HOUSING TYPES MANUFACTURED HOMES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF BATTLEMENT MESA PARTNERS TIPRL WATER OUM l4LUML SEWER BNE NRK LWPEP SLOW. NWL WIOC X0411Y J 4PA55 POND LRA4 ..El 4PA55 4R/35 PO 0 LWSS N.T.S. A SECTION THROUGH NATURAL AREA 'auV'uu" SCALE: 1"=20' LOT LOT pPEN LOi RO.W. BERWiCF POW. LOT 10'-1x1 `EfsUPED -x5 LINE LINE SPICE LINE .WMLN COURT LINE R !L (SON.BOUND) B SECTION THROUGH INTERSTATE 25 BUFFER SCALE: 1'=20' LAND USE BREAKDOWN GENERAL NOTES PROPERTY OESCRIPT ON c Lf.. w nonc .. ... �... .� i....,... — n`ili ei 11. 1 ./2 If m w•W'y �'w .�� Ef NN .. ... _ _ _ I.I..Itnlili 1e.1 wn. rw... .... u.....n .�.vm .-....i.i- m�.�..•.•. If�.",yM Rvw omi,,e `�'il te^afie o' I. FAIRLI IT, onw. ......s. 1.11 w.m .in.Y PRELIMINARY DETAILS,FECI NOTES, & INFORMATION 1- RROWRIMN. 1x-1e-aJ vL�:w�`Na sWn No.2 or No Text v WATERGLEN PRELIMINARY PUD LAND USE BREAKDOWN April 7, 1994 Page 2 of 2 MULTI -FAMILY: Area Gross 640,330.00 sq.ft. 14.70 acres Net 620,517.00 sq.ft. 14.25 acres Dwelling Units 4 Plexes 100 units Other 0 units TOTAL UNITS 100 units Density Gross 6.80 du/ac Net 7.02 du/ac Coverage Buildings 55,000 sq.ft. 8.59% Street R.O.W. 19,813 sq.ft. 3.09% Parking & Drives 70,884 sq.ft. 11.07% Open Space: Active 295,900 sq.ft. 46.21 % Other Common 198,733 sq.ft. 32.03% Private 0 sq.ft. 0.00% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 494,633 sq.ft. 77.25% Floor Area Residential 110,000 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 0 spaces Other 207 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 207 spaces 2.07 spaces/unit Maximum Building Height 36 ft. SUMMARY: Site Area Totals Residential 113.6 acres Neighborhood Perk 11.9 acres Cooper Slough 25.5 acres Non -Residential 7.6 acres TOTAL AREA 158.6 acres Residential Area Gross Residential 4,948,420.0 sq.ft. 113.60 acres Net Residential 3,881,177.0 sq.ft. 89.10 acres Dwelling Units Single Family 477 units Multi -Family 100 units TOTAL UNITS 577 units Solar Oriented Lots 314 units 66% of Single Family Density Gross 5.08 du/ac Net 6.48 du/ac Coverage Buildings 711,900 sq.ft. 14.39% Street R.O.W. 1,067,243 sq.ft. 21.57% Parking & Drives 488,214 sq.ft. 9.87% (including garages) Open Space: Common (Residential Only) 1,763,633 sq.ft. 35.64% Private (Residential Only) 934,330 sq.ft. 18.88% TOTAL RES. OPEN SPACE 2,697,963 sq.ft. 54.52% Floor Area Residential 785,200 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 954 spaces Other 236 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 1190 spaces 2.06 spaces/unit Maximum Building Height 36 ft. WATERGLEN PRELIMINARY PUD LAND USE BREAKDOWN April 7, 1994 MANUFACTURED HOMES: Area Page 1 of 2 Gross 3,371,550.00 sq.ft. 77.40 acres Net 2,586,550.00 sq.ft. 59.38 acres Dwelling Units Single Family 408 units Other 0 units TOTAL UNITS 408 units Solar Oriented Lots 291 units 71 % Density Gross 5.27 du/ac Net 6.87 du/ac Coverage Buildings 551,000 sq.ft. 16.34% Street R.O.W. 785,000 sq.ft. 23.28% Parking & Drives 340,730 sq.ft. 10.11 % (including garages) Open Space: Active 790,600 eq.ft. 23.45% Other Common 197,000 sq.ft. 5.84% Private 707,220 sq.ft. 20.98% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 1,694,820 sq.ft. 50.27% Floor Area Residential 551,000 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 816 spaces Other 0 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 816 spaces 2 spaces/unit • NOTE: Garages and/or driveways will accomodate handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking Maximum Building Height 36 ft. Setbacks (unless otherwise noted) Front 12 ft. (15' at garage doors) Side 0 ft. (10' min. between buildings) Comer Side 8 ft. (15' at garage doors) Rear 0 ft. MODULAR OR CONVENTIONAL HOMES: Area Gross 936,540.00 sq.ft. 21.50 acres Net 674,110.00 sq.ft. 15.48 acres Dwelling Units Single Family 69 units Other 0 units TOTAL UNITS 69 unite Solar Oriented Lots 23 units 33% Density Gross 3.21 du/ac Net 4.46 du/ac Coverage Buildings 103,500 sq.ft. 11.05% Street R.O.W. 262,430 sq.ft. 28.02% Parking & Drives 62,100 sq.ft. 6.63% (including garages) Open Space: Active 269,000 sq.ft. 28.72% Other Common 12,400 sq.ft. 1.84% Private 227,110 sq.ft. 24.25% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 508,510 sq.ft. 54.30% Floor Area Residential 124,200 sq.ft. Minimum Parking Provided Garage/Carport 138 spaces Other 0 spaces TOTAL VEHICLES 138 spaces 2 spaces/unit • NOTE: Garages and/or driveways will accomodate handicap, motorcycle, and bicycle parking Maximum Building Height 36 ft. Setbacks (unless otherwise noted) Front 15 ft. Side 5 ft. Comer Side 12 ft. (15' at garage doors) Rear 10 ft. I Mountain Vista Dr. I I I I ITEM: WATERGLEN PUD - Prel. '' North NUMBER: 7 1-93A Comm-kq Planning and Environmental ervices Planning Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Steve Olt, Project Planner AI?040 Ref: Waterglen P.U.D. - Preliminary, #71-93A Date: April 25, 1994 Staff is recommending three (3) conditions of approval for the Waterglen P.U.D. - Preliminary. These conditions are in addition to the seven (7) conditions contained in the Staff Report (dated 4/25/94) to the Board. These conditions state that: 1. There are lots and proposed homes in some areas around the Cooper Slough that potentially infringe on the wetlands on - site. The developer must provide mitigation measures, in the form of 1 acre for 1 acre, for any disturbance to the wetlands. 2. The proposed daycare in an existing structure in the neighborhood Convenience shopping center portion of the development ``"` located in the revised Boxelder Creek floodplain. This daycare facility must be relocated outside of the floodplain. 3. There is a series of 16 General Notes on the Waterglen P.U.D. Preliminary Details, Notes & Information sheet that is attached to the Preliminary Site & Landscape Plan dated 4/2/94. Due to the evolving status of the development proposal, many of these notes must be revised on or removed from the Site & Landscape Plan. The General Notes on these plans will not be considered to be final and binding until the Final P.U.D. plans are approved and recorded. A e _ l C 1. w r 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 9 5. That the applicant be required to provide necessary off -site street improvements as described in Section 29-678 (6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, with provisions as allowed by the Director of Engineering. 6. That the preliminary drainage report be approved by the City Stormwater Utility prior to submission of final drainage reports and plans for any portion of the development. The City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be warranted due to storm drainage impacts on the development. 7. That the written documentation in regard to the impacts of the proposal on the wildlife habitat and water quality, quantity, and temperature of the Cooper Slough, which would include proposed mitigation efforts to address such impacts, be approved by the City Natural Resources Department prior to submission of final P.U.D. plans for any portion of the development. The City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be warranted due to impacts on the natural areas in the development. 9 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 8 plan for this project can be submitted to the City for review, additional information on the water temperature levels in the Cooper Slough, proposed mitigation measures for the water fowl, and the impacts to the wildlife and the Cooper Slough must be provided. Staff is recommending a condition stating that the written documentation in regard to the impacts of the proposal on the wildlife habitat and water quality, quantity, and temperature of the Cooper Slough, which would include proposed mitigation efforts to address such impacts, be approved by the City Natural Resources Department prior to submission of final P.U.D. plans for any portion of the development. The City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be warranted due to impacts on the natural areas in the development. RECOMMENDATION: The request is in substantial conformance with the Waterglen P.U.D., Overall Development Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A, with the following conditions 1. That the City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center at the time of review of the final P.U.D., in conformance with the design guidelines of the City's Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Policy Plan and the All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S. 2. That the City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed mini -storage area at the time of review of the final P.U.D., in conformance with the All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S. 3. That the landscaping be installed at the minimum sizes and phasing schedule as required in the L.D.G.S. unless the City, after consultation with the applicant, agrees to allowing smaller sized landscape materials in natural areas, the Cooper Slough, drainage areas, perimeter buffering, and common areas prior to submission of the final P.U.D. 4. That the variance request to change the street right-of-way width from 46' to 40' for 28' wide local streets not be granted until such time that an ordinance changing the City Code is approved. 8 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 7 construct off -site street improvements to the nearest arterial street to the west be waived. Under the current City criteria, this development is not eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for improvements within or adjacent to the project. City Code referencing off -site street improvements requires that development improve streets impacted by that development. Therefore, East Vine Drive would need to be improved to North Lemay Avenue, to the west. Section 29-678 (6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins states that "any subdivision which does not have adequate access to an improved arterial street or a planned arterial street is required to improve the impacted off -site streets as determined by the City to include, as a minimum, a 36' wide paved section on an adequate base for the ultimate design of the street as designated on the Master Street Plan or as determined by the Director of Engineering". Staff is recommending a condition stating that the applicant be required to provide necessary off -site street improvements as described in Section 29-678 (6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, with provisions as allowed by the Director of Engineering. A copy of comments relating to an option for off -site street improvements being allowed by Gary Diede, Director of Engineering, is attached to this memo. Also, Engineering staff believes that the Waterglen proposal does not meet the street oversizing criteria and would not be eligible for reimbursement for on -site collector and arterial street construction. A copy of a letter from Matt Baker, Engineering, is attached to this memo. 5. Storm Drainaqe: The Stormwater Utility has stated that the preliminary drainage report that has been submitted is adequate for preliminary and approval. However, additional information is determined to be necessary to complete the review. Staff is recommending a condition stating that the preliminary drainage report be approved by the City Stormwater Utility prior to submission of final drainage reports and plans for any portion of the development. The City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan that are ascertained to be warranted due to storm drainage impacts on the development. Work in the State highway right-of-way will probably be required to construct the noise mitigation berm and drainage channel. Approval by the Colorado Department of Transportation is required before any work can be done in the highway right-of-way. 6. Resource Protection: The Natural Resources Department has stated that the Cooper Slough Wetland Delineation: Documentation Report that has been submitted is adequate for preliminary approval. However, before any final YI Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 6 Criteria of the L.D.G.S. The applicant has provided the City with a Noise Impact Assessment for the Waterglen P.U.D. The analysis is based on the commonly -used criteria noise levels specified by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Colorado Department of Highways in designing noise barriers to protect communities from highway noise. It is recommended that a barrier approximately 10 feet high be designed as part of the development to run along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the P.U.D. The applicant is providing a 10' to 12' high earthen berm, with some landscaping on it, along the entire eastern boundary of the P.U.D. Staff believes that this noise mitigation measure is sufficient to bring the highway noise to acceptable levels in the development. A copy of the Introduction, Noise Analysis, and Findings and Recommendations sections of the assessment are attached to this memo. Street and Right -of -Way Width variance: The current street design standards and City Code require local streets to be 36' wide, flowline to flowline, within a 54' right- of-way. The applicant has requested a variance, from 54' to 481, to the right-of-way width on standard width local streets. The City is in the process of changing the standard local street right-of-way width from 54' to 48'. The ordinance has been approved on first reading by City Council but is not yet finally approved, thereby requiring a variance request. Staff is recommending approval of this variance request. The applicant has also requested a variance to the street and right-of-way widths for Waterglen Place, a portion of Elgin Court, and the four cul-de-sacs served by Elgin Court. The request is for 28' wide streets in 40' rights -of -way. Staff is recommending approval of the street width variance to 28, for Waterglen Place, the portion of Elgin Court north of Lot 32, and the four cul-de-sacs served by Elgin Court. Staff is considering narrowing the right-of-way width for 28' wide local streets from 46' to 40' but no formal action has been initiated to make the change. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition stating that the variance request to change the street right-of-way width from 46' to 401 for 281 wide local streets not be granted until such time that an ordinance changing the City Code is approved. 4. Transportation: This development will gain primary access from Waterglen Drive, a collector street, and Elgin Court, a local street, that will both connect to East Vine Drive. The applicant has requested that Interstate Highway 25 be recognized as the nearest arterial or that the interpretation of City standards requiring this developer to 6 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 5 fairness to different developers and development. Staff is willing to discuss the variance request for a reduction of size of some plant materials. However, any decision on this variance request will be analyzed in the context of its community -wide impact in that it is probable that if this variance was granted that other applicants may request the same variance in the future. Staff is recommending a condition stating that the landscaping be installed at the minimum sizes and phasing schedule as required in the L.D.G.S. unless the City, after consultation with the applicant, agrees to allowing smaller sized landscape materials in natural areas, the Cooper Slough, drainage areas, perimeter buffering, and common areas and that this discussion take place prior to submission of the final P.U.D. Parking: The developer is providing four off-street parking spaces for each single family residential lot (two in a garage or carport and two tandem spaces in the driveway). There will be 207 parking spaces provided in the multi -family portion of the development. This number of spaces is adequate for a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom multi- family dwelling units. Solar Orientation: All of the single family portions of this development are subject to the Solar Orientation Ordinance that requires at least 65% of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single family and two-family residential developments conform to the definition of a solar -oriented lot in order to preserve the potential for solar energy usage. There are 314 of the 477 lots, equalling 66%, that comply with the ordinance. Noise Impacts: There is concern about the noise levels that may be experienced on this site due to its proximity to Interstate Highway 25. Primary concern centers around the residential portions of the development, especially the residential dwelling units east of Waterglen Drive. Section 29-526(D) (1) (b) of the L.D.G.S. (the Land Use Conflicts Chart) states that the chart shall be used to identify the kinds of conflicts that are presumed to exist between different land uses, whether they are neighboring land uses within the development or are adjacent to the development. The types of conflicts on this chart are noise, odor, light and shadow, aesthetics, privacy, access, and safety. Use of the chart promotes the identification of issues related to land use conflicts that shall be considered in evaluating a proposal's compliance with the All Development 5 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P 6 Z Meeting Page 4 significant uses (residential, neighborhood convenience shopping center, and retail/wholesale commercial). The point chart supports the proposed mini -storage use. A minimum of 50% of the Maximum Applicable Points is required. 3. Design: Architecture: There are three models of single family manufactured housing being proposed, and all three are 1-story buildings. The multi -family residential buildings will all be 2 stories high and contain 4 dwelling units each. Additional information on the architectural character of the multi -family buildings (including building height, materials, and colors) must be part of the final P.U.D. submittal and review. No architectural details, building elevations, or detailed layouts for the neighborhood convenience shopping center or mini -storage structures have been provided for review with the preliminary P.U.D. The site layout of these two land uses is determined with the preliminary P.U.D. and is not considered at final review unless a condition requires additional information at the time of final review. Staff is recommending two conditions stating: 1. That the City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center at the time of review of the final P.U.D., in conformance with the design guidelines of the City's Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Policy Plan and the All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S. 2. That the City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site plan and architectural design of the buildings in the proposed mini -storage area at the time of review of the final P.U.D., in conformance with the All Development Criterion of the L.D.G.S. Landscaping: The developer is requesting a variance to reduce the size of the plantings required, to be able to use park grade materials in natural areas, the Cooper Slough, drainage areas, perimeter buffering, and to install landscaping in common areas in longer term phases. The purposes of the City's current standards are to provide instant landscaping effect, ensure better survivability of trees and shrubs during the first 5 years, and provide equity and 4 Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P 6 Z Meeting Page 3 project being located in "north" Fort Collins; d) a bonus for every 50 acres included in the project; and e) a bonus for acreage in the project that is devoted to recreational use. The point chart supports the proposed single family residential density for the Waterglen P.U.D. The gross residential density is 4.52 dwelling units per acre and the earned points will support 5 to 6 dwelling units per acre. * The multi -family residential portion of the P.U.D. has been evaluated against the Residential Uses Density Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., earning 45% of the Base Credit and 24% of Bonus Credit. The total credit earned is 69%. It earned credit for: a) all dwelling units being within 3,500 feet of a reserved neighborhood park; b) all of the dwelling units being within 1,000 feet of a proposed child care center (in the neighborhood convenience shopping center portion of this P.U.D.); c) the project being located in "north" Fort Collins; and d) a bonus for acreage in the project that is devoted to recreational use. The gross residential density is 6.80 dwelling units per acre and the earned points will support 6 to 7 dwelling units per acre. * The neighborhood convenience shopping center has been evaluated against the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart in the L.D.G.S., earning 68% of the Maximum Applicable Points. It earned points for: a) being located at the intersection of a neighborhood collector and arterial street, with primary access taken off the collector; b) containing two or more uses (convenience store, retail/laundry, day care); c) the center being on at least three gross acres of land (3.5 acres); d) being located at least .75 miles from any existing or approved Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center or convenience grocery store; e) being contiguous to and functionally part of an approved multi -family development (part of the Waterglen P.U.D., O.D.P.); and f) being located within "north" Fort Collins. The point chart supports the proposed neighborhood convenience shopping center. A minimum of 65% of the Maximum Applicable Points is required. * The mini -storage has been evaluated against the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart in the Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.), earning 50% of the Maximum Applicable Points. It earned points for: a) being located other than at the intersection of two arterial streets; b) gaining primary access to the site from a non -arterial street (Waterglen Drive); c) being on at least two acres of land (3.7 acres); and d) the project containing two or more 3 l Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A April 25, 1994, P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: ig; existing farmland S: il; existing farmland, light industrial (Imu-Tek Animal Health) E: il; existing farmland, light industrial (C & W, Fort Collins Feeds, defunct Matrix) W: FA-1; existing farmland in Larimer County The property was annexed into the City with the Vine Business Park Annexation in October, 1987. It was placed in the IP, Industrial Park Zoning District with a planned unit development condition. 2. Land Use: This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (P.U.D.) approval for mixed use development on 165.2 acres located on the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25 and bounded by the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north and west sides. The proposal consists of 477 single family and 100 multi -family residential dwelling units on 120.2 acres, 7.6 acres for a neighborhood convenience shopping center site and a mini -storage site, an 11.9 acre neighborhood park site, and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area on 25.5 acres. The gross density for the residential portion of the site (577 dwelling units on 165.2 acres) is 3.49 dwelling units per acre. This density figure includes the neighborhood park site and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area. The applicant has requested that the City purchase both the park site and the Cooper Slough area. Parks & Recreation and Natural Resources are negotiating potential purchases with the developer. If the purchases are made then these areas would be eliminated from the residential density calculations. In that case, the gross residential density would be 4.80 dwelling units per acre (577 dwelling units on 120.2 acres). * The single family residential portion of the P.U.D. has been evaluated against the Residential Uses Density Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.), earning 41% of the Base Credit and 14% of Bonus Credit. The total credit earned is 55%. It earned credit for: a) all dwelling units being within 3,500 feet of a reserved neighborhood park; b) approximately 20% of the dwelling units being within 1,000 feet of a proposed child care center (in the neighborhood convenience shopping center portion of this P.U.D.); c) the 2 0,, ITEM NO. 27 MEETING DATE 4/25/94 STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Waterglen P.U.D., Preliminary - #71-93A APPLICANT: Vine Street Partnership c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 stanford Road, suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: Vine Street Partnership 4875 Pearl East Circle, Suite 300 Boulder, CO. 80301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (P.U.D.) approval for mixed use development on 165.2 acres located on the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25 and bounded by the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north and west sides. The property is zoned IL - Limited Industrial with a planned unit development condition. The proposal consists of 477 single family and 100 multi -family residential dwelling units (a total of 577 dwelling units) on 120.2 acres, 7.6 acres for a neighborhood convenience shopping center site and a mini -storage site, an 11.9 acre neighborhood park site, and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area on 25.5 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (P.U.D.) approval for mixed use development on 165.2 acres located on the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25 and bounded by the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north and west sides. The proposal consists of 477 single family and 100 multi -family residential dwelling units on 120.2 acres, 7.6 acres for a neighborhood convenience shopping center site and a mini -storage site, an 11.9 acre neighborhood park site, and the Cooper Slough natural drainage area on 25.5 acres. A number of conditions are recommended in regard to approval of the convenience shopping center and mini - storage area; the developer's request for installation of plant material smaller than normally required; the developer's request for use of street and right-of-way widths that are more narrow than City standards; installation of off-street improvements as required by City Code; provision of an adequate storm drainage study; and provision of adequate information on the impact of the proposal on the Cooper Slough. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT