HomeMy WebLinkAboutUPPER MEADOW AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87G - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 6 / 2 2 / 9 2
STAFF Ted SheDard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Upper Meadow at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D.,
#54-87G
APPLICANT: Nordick/Neal Partnership
c/o Cityscape Urban Design
3030 South College Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
OWNER: Oak Farm, Inc.
Cottonwood Farm, Inc.
c/o G.T. Land Colorado, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Preliminary P.U.D. for 91 single family
lots on 32.11 acres. The project is located south of Oak Ridge
Drive and west of Lemay Avenue. The zoning is r-p, Planned
Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Upper Meadow at Miramont is in conformance with conditions of
annexation and complies with the Amended Overall Development Plan
for Oak -Cottonwood Farm. A variance from the requirement of having
a minimum of three dwelling units per gross acre is recommended.
The project scores 53% on the Residential Uses Point Chart -and
satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. A variance
from the strict requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance is
recommended based on peculiar topographical and access conditions.
A condition of approval is recommended to accomplish the intent of
the Solar Orientation Ordinance for 14 lots. The proposed land use
is compatible with the surrounding area. The pedestrian
connections and vehicular circulation system are feasible from a
traffic engineering standpoint.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
E
0
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background•
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: r-p; Vacant (Parcel V Amended Oak -Cottonwood O.D.P. -
Uses Allowed in the R-L Zone)
S: r-p; Vacant (Parcel E Amended Oak -Cottonwood O.D.P. -
Low/Medium Density Residential)
E: r-p; Vacant (Parcels Q and P Amended Oak -Cottonwood
O.D.P. - Business Services/Multi-Family, Possible
City Park)
W: FA, FA-1, R, (County); Single Family (Fairway Estates,
Fossil Creek Meadows)
The site was included in a large annexation, known as the Keenland
Annexation, in 1980, and part of the original Oak -Cottonwood Farm
Master Plan approved in October of 1987.
These 32 acres are designated as Parcels G and F and are included
in the latest request to amend the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall
Development Plan. This amendment is being considered concurrently
with the Preliminary P.U.D. request.
As part of the original 1987 Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall
Development Plan, the site was designated as "Patio Homes". A
subsequent O.D.P. amendment in 1989 (Harmony Market
Community/Regional Shopping Center) did not affect the site. There
have been no other P.U.D. submittals on this site.
2. Context Within the Section:
The proposed development is located in the eastern half of a
section that is roughly divided between two established county
subdivisions (Fairway Estates and Fossil Creek Meadows) and Oak -
Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan. Balancing the needs of
an existing rural residential area, and promoting the mixed use
concepts of the City's Land Use Policies Plan has been the primary
guiding principle of master planning the area.
The areas west of Boardwalk Drive (extended) are planned for
residential uses of low to medium density in order to accomplish
the desired blending of City and County development. Upper Meadows
at Miramont is a large lot, single family, residential subdivision
that is designed to be compatible with existing rural residential
homes.
\J
0
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
In addition, the Preliminary P.U.D. is sufficiently separated from
Harmony Market Community/Regional Shopping Center and Lemay Avenue
by transitional land uses designed to buffer the activities
typically found along the perimeter arterials.
3. Land Use:
A. Conditions of Annexation and Zoning
The conditions of annexation and initial zoning in 1980 were as
follows:
1. The zoning is conditioned that development occur under a
master plan in accordance with the zoning ordinance of
the City relating to master planning in effect at the
time of such development.
2. Residential development in the R-P, Planned Residential
District, be limited to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling
units per acre.
Since the project has been included in the Oak -Cottonwood Amended
Overall Development Plan, and since the density is less than eight
dwelling units per acre, the Preliminary P.U.D. request is in
conformance with the conditions of annexation and zoning.
B. overall Development Plan
Upper Meadow at Miramont is indicated as Parcels F and G on the
amended Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan. This
amendment is being considered concurrently with the Preliminary
P.U.D. proposal. These parcels are designated as "Low Density
Residential" on the O.D.P. The request for single family homes,
therefore, is in compliance with the amended O.D.P.
C. Absolute Criterion
The proposal for Upper Meadow at Miramont Preliminary P.U.D. seeks
approval for 91 lots on 32.11 acres for a gross density of 2.83
dwelling units per acre. This density does not meet the absolute
criterion that the average residential density in the project be at
least three dwelling units per acre.
Staff recommends a variance to this absolute criterion based on the
following justifications:
1. The common landscaped areas along Boardwalk Drive,
Highcastle Drive, Mail Creek Ditch and the internal
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
drainageway/green belt are areas devoted to common
purposes rather than privatized within individual lots.
In particular, the streetscape and detention pond along
Boardwalk Drive will directly benefit the general public
as it is classified as a collector street. These design
features are considered upgrades rendering the Plan equal
to or better than a Plan that could have achieved three
dwelling units per acre without such amenities.
2. The internal drainage system has been purposely designed
to follow natural contours with a minimum of engineered
structures and modifications. Grass swales will be
installed versus concrete lined channels. The detention
pond is located as close as possible to the existing low
lying area to avoid unnecessary disturbance. These
drainage considerations reflect City policies to respect
natural systems to the maximum extent possible. The
effect, however, is a loss of density in favor of
creating a more pleasing built environment.
3. The size of the lots (8,000 to 11,000 square feet)
represents a sensitive transition from urban development
to the adjacent rural residential neighborhoods on the
west. This was also done in Clarendon Hills First
Filing, a city development, where lots ranging up to one
acre in size were platted adjacent to Applewood Estates,
an existing county development. The result is a
sensitive transition between urban and rural but also a
loss of density.
4. The balance of the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall
Development Plan offers ample opportunities for higher
densities with approximately 66 acres designated as
"Medium Density Residential/Multi-Family". These
locations are potentially attractive to higher density
housing with proximity to a neighborhood park (Parcel P) ,
a "walk-in" elementary school (Werner), and neighborhood
shopping (Steele's Market). It will be recalled from
the condition of approval that residential development in
the R-P, Planned Residential Zone District, be limited to
a maximum of eight dwelling units per acre. Therefore,
the expectation of higher densities must be tempered by
this zoning condition.
Staff, therefore, recommends a variance from the absolute criterion
that the average residential density be at least three dwelling
units per acre, on a gross acreage basis.
0 •
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to
the provisions of the L.D.G.S. if it can be demonstrated that the
strict application would result in peculiar and exceptional
practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon,
the owner of such property, provided that the variance may be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and
without substantially impairing the purposes of the L.D.G.S.
It is Staff's finding that the natural constraints of Mail Creek
Ditch, and the existing topography and drainage patterns combine to
create a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty. In
addition, the provision of common open space along a collector
street, the sensitive transition in lot size adjacent to existing
rural residential subdivisions, and a low impact drainage system
all act to promote the public good and do not impair the purpose of
the L.D.G.S.
D. variable criteria
The proposed gross density of 2.83 dwelling units per acre is
justified by a score of 53% on the variable criteria section of the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. Points were awarded
based on proximity to an existing Community/Regional Shopping
Center (Harmony Market), proximity to both a reserved neighborhood
park and community park (Fossil Creek), proximity to Werner School,
and proximity to a major employment center (Oak Ridge Business
Park).
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting to discuss both the amended O.D.P. and Upper
Meadow at Miramont was held on April 29, 1992. Minutes to this
meeting are attached. The primary concerns pertinent to Upper
Meadow at Miramont were drainage, treatment of Mail Creek Ditch,
vehicular connections, and lot size.
A. Drainage flows head east and south. Fairway Estates and
Fossil Creek Meadows are both upstream of Upper Meadow at
Miramont so there is no impact on existing residential areas.
B. The treatment along Mail Creek Ditch will be naturalistic.
Blue grass sod will not be planted down to the water's edge.
Rear lot lines are setback from the riparian area. A
pedestrian path is planned along the ditch.
C. There are no direct vehicular connections to the west.
Vehicular access to the west will be from the collector street
system located south of Oak -Cottonwood Farm.
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
D. Lot sizes range from 8,000 to 11,000 square feet. This is a
generous lot size given the fact that a gross density of three
dwelling units per acre is required by the L.D.G.S. The lot
sizes are intended to come as close to providing three units
per acre and still offer a transition to the rural residential
areas.
Staff finds that due to lot sizes and sensitive design, Upper
Meadow at Miramont is compatible with the surrounding area.
5. Solar Orientation:
The Solar Orientation Ordinance requires that 65% of the lots
within a single family P.U.D. or subdivision be oriented to within
30 degrees of a true east -west line. The Preliminary Plan
indicates that 45 out of a total of 91 lots, or 49.45%, are
considered to be solar oriented. If 14 additional lots were
oriented within 30 degrees of true east -west, then there would be
a total of 59 solar oriented lots for the required 65% compliance.
The applicant has submitted a variance request for relief from the
strict requirement of 65% orientation compliance. The request is
attached. In summary, the applicant states the following:
A. The Upper Meadow is constrained on the east by the
existing alignment of Boardwalk Drive which must tie into
Keenland and be constructed according to engineering
design criteria for curve radii. In addition, Mail Creek
Ditch presents the given boundary on the west. Boardwalk
is approximately 70 degrees off true east -west line.
Mail Creek Ditch ranges from 40 to 60 degrees off a true
east -west line. As a result, the developable ground in
between is roughly a diagonal shape angled greater than
30 degrees of true east -west.
B. The need for Highcastle Drive to intersect Boardwalk at
90 degrees determines the orientation of several lots in
the southerly portion of Upper Meadow.
C. The natural drainage pattern within the project needs to
be respected in order to achieve minimal grades and to
provide the needed volume for detention.
According to the Solar Orientation Ordinance:
"When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize
variances under this Article upon its finding that the following
requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied:"
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
11(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil, or
other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the
site, hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict
application of any provision of this Article."
11(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or
difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship
would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any
provision of this Article."
11(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted
is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision
for which a variance is requested".
Staff finds that the variance request is justified. Under
requirement #1, Mail Creek Ditch qualifies as a condition peculiar
to the site which causes a hardship to plat solar oriented lots.
Under requirement #2, the given alignment of Boardwalk Drive, and
the engineering standard that local streets must intersect at 90
degrees with collector streets, create an access difficulty that
causes a hardship in platting solar oriented lots.
Finally, under requirement #3, Staff finds that the plan contains
features that render it equal to or better than a plan that could
have met the 65% solar orientation requirement. These features
include streetscaping along Boardwalk Drive, common internal open
space within the natural drainage system, setbacks from the Mail
Creek Ditch riparian area, and a pedestrian trail along Mail Creek
Ditch. In addition, the larger lot sizes allow siting flexibility
and the ability to provide south facing windows which meets the
intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
In order to promote the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance,
Staff recommends the following condition:
At the time of Final, for only 14 lots necessary to reach 65%
compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques
to accomplish the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
Such techniques may include, but are not limited to,
maximizing the glazing on southern exposures, placing garages
on the north side of the structure, or siting the structure on
the lot so that the home itself is within 30 degrees of a true
east -west line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated on the
Final P.U.D.
6. Transportation:
Boardwalk Drive is the collector street that will serve this P.U.D.
I
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
All lots front on local streets that feed Boardwalk. Lots that
back on to Boardwalk are separated by a common landscaped area.
There are no vehicular street connections to the west.
The applicant has requested that the five cul-de-sacs (Sandreed
Court, Switchgrass Court, Sawgrass Court, and Bulrush Court) be
built to a width of 28 feet from curb to curb versus the standard
width of 36 feet from curb to curb. This request has been
evaluated by the affected City Departments. The recommendation of
City Staff is that a 28 foot width is appropriate for Sandreed
Court and Switchgrass Court. The width of Sawgrass Court and
Bulrush Court should be 36 feet due to the length of these two
streets.
A pedestrian trail is planned to parallel Mail Creek Ditch. This
is primarily a recreational amenity versus a strict transportation
function. In addition, four cul-de-sacs provide internal
pedestrian connections to the interior drainage/open space area.
These pedestrian systems will promote non -vehicular circulation
within the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Three actions are required in order to approve Upper Meadow at
Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D.:
1. Variance to Absolute Criterion Regarding Minimum Density
Staff recommends that a variance be granted allowing relief from
the absolute requirement that the average density, on a gross
acreage basis, be a minimum of three dwelling units per acre. As
justification, Staff finds that the natural constraint of Mail
Creek Ditch and the preservation of the natural drainage system
combine to create a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty
in creating a sufficient number of lots to achieve three dwelling
units per gross acre.
2. Variance to the Requirements for Solar Orientation
Staff recommends granting a variance from the strict requirement
that 65% of the lots be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true
east -west line. The granting of the variance is based on:
A. Because of exceptional topographical conditions peculiar
to the site (Mail Creek Ditch), hardship would be caused
to the subdivider by the strict application of the Solar
Orientation Ordinance.
i 0
Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G
June 22, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
B. Because of exceptional difficulties with regard to access
(alignment of Boardwalk Drive, and 90 degree
intersections with local streets and Boardwalk Drive),
hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict
application of the Solar Ordinance.
C. Because of the incorporation of design features that meet
other City policies and objectives, the plan is equal to
or better than a plan that would have met the 65%
requirement.
3. Approval with Condition
Staff finds that the request for Preliminary P.U.D. for Upper
Meadow at Miramont is in conformance with the conditions of
annexation and complies with the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall
Development Plan. The proposed density is justified by a score of
53% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The
project satisfies the applicable criteria of the All Development
Chart of the L.D.G.S. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of
Upper Meadow at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87G, subject to
the following condition:
At the time of Final, for only 14 lots necessary to reach 65%
compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques
to accomplish the intent of the Solar orientation Ordinance.
Such techniques may include but are not limited to, maximizing
glazing on the southern exposure, placing garages on the north
side of the structure, or siting the structure on the lot so
that home itself is within 30 degrees of a true east -west
line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated on the Final
P.U.D.
a MIX
v
1B.
by
rp
men
ITEM:
NUMBER
no,
to
rip PORTNER
t.,\,RESERVOIR
-P ILP-
-jL.. "Lu
-5
RIM0
7':
by
79
lb
bp
..b
p
awe,
as
r;.-. ripfA
A
44
r1p
by
rip
Oak/Cottonwood PUD, Preliminary
UPPER MEADOWS@ MIRAMONT
Nz';e
ee 54-87G
ITEM:
NUMBER
no,
to
rip PORTNER
t.,\,RESERVOIR
-P ILP-
-jL.. "Lu
-5
RIM0
7':
by
79
lb
bp
..b
p
awe,
as
r;.-. ripfA
A
44
r1p
by
rip
Oak/Cottonwood PUD, Preliminary
UPPER MEADOWS@ MIRAMONT
Nz';e
ee 54-87G
•
0
I I
I I
of
�RE�STENGAiES
�SINCLC-FA111LY - -
I ,urRv. „
f. ceu.n
w
1
I I
e_ I D = _i
o
I I s
um Y
I
I I : I I
IAvACAN�i
ubu CwelY
14-
Rm
VACA
FUTUR
TI-FA Y
'AMR' BUSINESS SERVICE
R
s �f�Sfi 8 SS / h.t n� nl��/ 1L�' �� •
52
m nnny��g\�E'u�
'"G S �;
� JJ.
29 SO
� fin. � �/�� \.,Y i➢r: _ ��:.
!
_ gym %mm
23
24
xi#ae . n 1 is , .ems \ bmmne m2
v__ m •8 25
\'nmE
_ �rFntsleml v� \ n�j ,•5j �\� k �
FUT E\ I \ Y \�dy 2k.•
RESIDEN A \
VKANITY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION
� aa. l�
THE
SITE — --_-- _-- -- UPPER MEADOW
AT
7V!
I RAV�O NT
.—. PRELIMINARY PUT h 1114s2
I LANDSCAPE PLAN
_y
I AND USE BREAKDOWN _ GENERAL NOTES �' --- ��• //_` w
\/\✓JIB �VVI DALE OF PREP,xAmN 5-04-92
REV5KRe5��
.•.-...�.-.-..-........�.— 0 100 200 —_
~ � .. e • ...-.� :. a ...y`�... `� ! • � SIffEf N0. 1 DF '
/ .----- .—.-071T'
1
I I
I
I I
I
I
/ I
I I
I I
I VACANT
NSURE
MULTI -FAMILY I
\ \ BUSINESSOR SERVICES I
\ — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
VACANT
PUSS BEE
EM PARK
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE UPPER MEADOW AT MIRAMONT
A tract of land located in the East Half of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly
described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 1 as bearing, South 00011'05"
West, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 1; thence along the West line of said
Northeast Quarter, South 0011 1'05" West, 1653.58 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North
76122'29" East, 630.70 feet; thence, North 76°22'29" East, 16.38 feet to a point of intersection
with a non -tangent curve concave Easterly, having a central angle of 12142'50", a radius of 644.00
feet and the chord of which bears North 04034'00" West, 142.61 feet; thence along the arc of said
curve 142.90 feet to the end of said curve; thence, North 01 047'25" East, 150.12 feet to the South
line of Boardwalk Drive as shown on the Plat of Harmony Market P.U.D. as filed in the records of said
county; thence along said South line, South 88112'35" East, 68.00 feet; thence departing said South
line, South 01 047'25" West, 150.12 feet to a point on a curve concave Easterly, having a central
angle of 40009'39", a radius of 576.00 feet, and the chord of which bears South 18017'25" East,
395.53 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to 403.74 feet; thence, South 38022'14" East,
310.94 feet to a point on a curve concave Southeasterly, having a central angle of 17049'38", a
radius of 644.00 feet, and the chord of which bears South 29027'25" East, 199.57 feet; thence along
the arc of said curve to 200.38 feet; thence, South 20132'36" East, 441.75 feet to a point on a curve
concave Northeasterly, having a central angle of 07057'14", a radius of 576.00 feet and the chord
of which bears South 24025'45" East, 79.90 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 79.96 feet to
the end of said curve; thence, South 28124'22" East, 336.04 feet to a point on a curve concave
Northeasterly, having a central angle of 61 032' 18", a radius of 766.00 feet, and the chord of which
bears South 59 ° 10'31 " East, 783.74 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 822.72 feet; thence,
South 89156'40" East, 462.89 feet to a point on a curve concave Northwesterly, having a central
angle of 901100'00", a radius of 15.00 feet, and the chord of which bears North 45003'20" East,
21.21 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 23.56 feet to the point of intersection with a
non -tangent line; thence, South 89056'40" East, 50.00 feet to the East line of the Southeast Quarter
of said Section 1; thence along said East line, South 00103'23" West, 97.65 feet; thence departing
said East line, South 89039'26" West, 50.00 feet to a point of intersection with a non -tangent curve
concave Southwesterly, having a central angle of 90000'00", a radius of 15.00 feet and the chord
of which bears North 44056'40" West, 21.21 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 23.56 feet to
the end of said curve; thence, North 89156'40" West, 462.89 feet to a point on a curve concave
Northeasterly, having a central angle of 61'32'18", a radius of 834.00 feet, and the chord of which
bears North 59010'31 " West, 853.32 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to 895.76 feet to the
end of said curve; thence, North 28124'22" West, 48.11 feet to a point on a curve concave Southerly,
having a central angle of 90000'00", a radius of 11.00 feet, and the chord of which bears North
73124'22" West, 15.56 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to 17.28 feet; thence, South
61 135'38" West, 333.81 feet to a point on a curve concave Southeasterly, having a central angle of
27018'34", a radius of 576.00 feet, and the chord of which bears South 47156'21" West, 271.95
feet; thence along the arc of said curve to 274.54 feet to the point of intersection with a non -tangent
line; thence, North 55042'56" West, 54.00 feet; thence, North 45043'48" West, 368.86 feet; thence,
North 23025'49" West, 56.31 feet; thence, North 44019'16" West, 128.28 feet; thence, North
31 °58'23" West, 103.60 feet; thence, South 85131'49" West, 192.23 feet; thence, North
77146'18" West, 30.00 feet; thence, North 13°20'00" West, 114.43 feet; thence, South 89°56'50"
East, 16.69 feet; thence, North 32013'45" West, 284.41 feet; thence, North 0011 1'05" East, 746.68
feet, to the Point of Beginning.
The above described tract contains 37.62 acres, more or less and is subject to all easements, rights -of
ways and restrictions now on record or existing.
THE UPPER MEADOAT MIRAMONT
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
MAY 4, 1992
Area
Gross
Net
Dwelling Units
Single Family
Other
Total Units
Solar Oriented Lots
Density
1,398,815 sq. ft.
1,101,726 sq. ft.
91
0
91
48
is
32.11 acres
25.29 acres
52.75 %
Gross
2.83
du/ac
Net
3.60
du/ac
Coverage
Buildings
227,500
sq. ft.
16.26
%
Street R.O.W.
297,089
sq. ft.
21.24
%
Parking & Drives
40,950
sq. ft.
2.93
%
Open Space:
Common
200,178
sq. ft.
14.31
%
Private
633,098
sq. ft.
45.26
%
Total Open Space
833,276
sq. ft.
59.57
%
Floor Area
Residential
273,000
sq. ft.
Parking Provided
Garages
182
spaces
2.00
/ unit
Other
spaces
Total Vehicles
182
spaces
2.00
/ unit
*Note:
Garages and / or driveways
will accommodate
Handicapped, Motorcycle, and Bike parking
Max. Building Height
36
ft.
Setbacks (unless otherwise noted)
Front
20
ft.
Side
5
ft.
Corner Side
12
ft. *
15 ft. at Garage
Doors
Rear
10
ft.
0 •
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM PUD,
Upper Meadow at Miramont
DESCRIPTION:
91 single family units on 32.11 acres
DENSITY:
2.83 du/acre
General Population
91 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 318.5
School Age Population
Elementary - 91 (units) x .450 (pupils/unit) = 40.95
Junior High - 91 (units) x .210 (pupils/unit) = 19.11
Senior High - 91 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 16.84
Design
Affected Schools Capacity Enrollment
Werner Elementary 568 630
Webber Junior High 900 834
Rocky Mountain Senior High 1312 1191
urban design, inc.
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM
Amended Overall Development Plan
Statement of Planning Objectives
May 4, 1992
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan is proposed to be amended to
reflect the results of three years of planning and development since the current Master Plan
was approved in 1989.
Oak/Cottonwood has evolved into a planned community comprising the following
general planning areas:
The Harmony Market Commercial Area
Made up of parcels R and S, this area provides community -regional shopping
opportunities, auto related commercial, and business services, being developed
in accordance with the design guidelines found in the Harmony Corridor Plan.
The Fairway Estates Buffer Area
This area - which includes parcels T, U, and V - restricts land uses according
to the provisions of a deed restriction negotiated with the adjacent
neighborhood.
The Mixed Use Transitional Area
Parcels N, P, and Q form an area appropriate for multi -family, office/business
services, and neighborhood scale recreational uses as a transition between the
planned low density neighborhoods to the south and west, and the more
intense uses in Harmony Market, OakRidge West, and OakRidge Business Park.
The Miramont Residential Area
This area - including parcels A through L - is really designed as a coordinated
series of neighborhoods. To the extent practical, each neighborhood cluster
will have its own identity and local circulation system, with open space
corridors and the main collector/connector street system forming the primary
unifying design elements.
Except uses allowed by right in the RP zoning district, development at Oak/Cottonwood
Farm will be regulated by provisions of the City of Fort Collins' Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS). Single family residential parcels at Miramont may be developed either as
straight subdivisions, or as PUD's through the LDGS.
Street and lot orientation at Oak/Cottonwood is largely dictated by:
- The pre -determined alignment of Boardwalk Drive
- The pronounced ridge running across the property north of Werner Elementary
- The alignment of Mail Creek and the Mail Creek Ditch
- Natural drainage patterns that - particularly on the flatter portions of the site -
must be respected in order to meet storm drainage requirements.
0 •
As a result, many of the low density residential parcels lend themselves very well to
solar orientation; while other parcels are more appropriately planned with many lots that are
45o to 60o off of true south. It is the intent of the developers of the Miramont area to provide
neighborhoods that reflect the best planning for each parcel. This effort will include meeting
the solar orientation requirements, except when achieving solar orientation can only be done
by diluting the quality of the plan.
The applicant's project goals are consistent with the adopted Goals and Objectives and
the Land Use Policies Plan of the City of Fort Collins with regard to neighborhood planning,
mixed use development, and locational criteria for various land uses. Applicable policies
include:
Policy 3 The City shall promote: Maximum utilization of land within the
city; ... The location of residential development which is close to
employment, recreation, and shopping facilities.
Policy 12 Urban density residential development usually at three of more
units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
* Although several parcels will be developed at densities
below 3 d.u./ac., the overall density is expected to be
between 3 and 5 units/residential acre.
Policy 69 Regional/community shopping centers should locate in areas
which are easily accessible to existing or planned residential
areas.
Policy 74 Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban
design elements) should be provided between residential
neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the
concept of a mixture of land uses.
Policy 75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
Policy 79 Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned
neighborhood and regional/ community shopping centers;
b. Which have easy access to major employment centers;
C. Within walking distance to an existing or planned
elementary school; and
d. Within walking distance to an existing or planned
neighborhood park and within easy access to a
community park; and
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access.
Policy 80 Higher density residential uses should locate:
a. Near... regional/community shopping centers;
b. Within close proximity to community or neighborhood
park facilities;
C. Where water and sewer facilities can be adequately
provided; and
d. Within easy access to major employment centers.
Policy 95 Neighborhood parks ... should be provided in every square mile
section of the City.... Primary access should be by Collector
streets.
Development of Oak/Cottonwood Farm is expected to be complete by the year 2000 ±.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A part of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West, of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort
Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the east line of said Northeast 1/4 as bearing
S 00110'W, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, begins at a point on said east line which bears
S 00' 10'W 81.00 feet from the Northeast corner of said Section 1, and runs thence along said east line, S
00110'W 1345.41 feet to the south line of said Northeast 1/4 to a point which bears N 89156'50" W 700 feet
from the East 1/4 corner of said Section 1; thence along the south line of said Northeast 1/4, N 89156'50" W
1800.95 feet; thence N 3211 3'45" W 284,41 feet to the west line of said Northeast 1/4; thence along said west
line, N 00111'05" E 1736.51 feet; thence S 89148'55" E 400.00 feet; thence N 0011 1'05" e 565.00 feet to
the southerly line of Colorado State Highway No. 68; thence along said southerly line, S 86116'E 50.93 feet, and
again along said southerly line, N 83139'E 603.60 feet, and again along said southerly line, N 89145'15" E
921.30 feet, and again along said southerly line, S 46121'31" E 70.00 feet, and again along said southerly line,
N 89055'30" E 30.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 124.717 acres, and being subject to all easements
and rights -of -way which are existing or are of record.
AND
A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West, of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort
Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the east line of said Southeast 1/4 as bearing
S 00°03'20" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, begins at the East 1/4 corner of said
Section 1, and runs thence S 00°03'20" W 777.92 feet; thence N 891156'40" W 50.00feet; thence N 88113'05"
W 376.97 feet; thence S 00003'20" W 241.64 feet; thence S 79°35'E 229.55 feet; thence N 89046'40" E
201.00 feet to the east line of said southeast 1/4; thence S 00103'20" W 1591.42 feet to the Southeast corner
of said Section 1; thence along the south line of said Southeast 1/4, N 89009'18" W 2683.81 feet to the South
1/4 corner of said Section 1; thence along the west line of said Southeast 1/4, N 00043'06" E 2159.50 feet;
thence S 70037'E 126.42 feet; thence N 14° 10; W 79.38 feet; thence N 19007; E 32.15 feet; thence N 47047'
E 112.02 feet; thence N 16055'30" E 73.67 feet; thence N 21 ° 18' W 129.60 feet; thence N 13020' W 114.43
feet to the north line of said Southeast 1/4; thence along said north line, S 89156'50" E 2517.64 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 156.290 acres, and being subject to all easements and rights -of -way which are existing
or are of record.
AND
A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the North line of the NE 1/4 of Section 1 as bearing N 89158'54" East and with all bearings contained
herein relative thereto.
Commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 1, thence S 0011 1'05" W, 72.70 feet to the South right-
of-way line of Colorado State Highway No. 68;
thence along said South right-of-way line S 86016'06" E, 348.40 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence continuing along the South right-of-way line S 86' 16'06" E, 51.60 feet to the Northeast corner of a tract
of land described in Book 2052 at Page 507, recorded in Larimer County records; thence along the East line of
said Book 2052 at Page 507 S 00' 1 1'05" W, 545.55 feet (recorded S 00125'1 1 " W, 545.55 feet); thence along
the South line of said Book 2052 at Page 507 N 86' 16'06" W, 51.60 feet (recorded N 86 °02'00" West); thence
N 0001 1'05" E, 545.55 feet to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPT
A tract of land situate in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City
of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which considering the West line of the said Southeast 1/4
as bearing N 00143'06" E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary
lines which begin at a point on the said West line which bears N 00°43'06" E 1007.31 feet from the South 1/4
corner of said Section 1 and run thence N 00°43'06" E 710,00 feet along the said West line; thence S 69' 17'
E 680.00 feet; thence S 41 °28'30" E 165.27 feet; thence S 00143'06" W 355.00 feet; thence N 89' 16'54"
W 750.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 9.7702 acres more or less, and excluding all water rights
appertaining thereto.
OAK/COTTONWOQ&FARM OVERALL DEVELOPMENT P
LAND USE BREAKWNN
MAY 4, 1992
PARCEL
LAND USE
GROSS AREA
DWELLING UNITS
DENSITY
FLOOR AREA
A
Multi -Family
10.3
ec.
80
units
7.77
du/ac
sq. ft.+
B
Low Density Residential
16.0
sc.
60
units
3.13
du/ac
sq. ft.+
C
Low Density Residential
8.4
ac.
20
units
2.38
du/ac
sq. ft._
D
Low Density Residential
18.6
sc.
44
units
2.37
du/ac
sq. ft.+
E
Low and/or Medium Density
12.4
sc.
60
units
4.84
du/ac
sq. ft.+
Residential
F
Low Density Residential
11.2
sc.
30
units
2.68
du/sc
sq. ft.+
G
Low Density Residential
20.9
ac.
62
units
2.97
du/ac
sq. ft.+
H
Low Density Residential
14.0
sc.
36
units
2.67
du/sc
sq. ft.+
I
School Drop-off
0.8
ac.
0
units
0
du/ac
sq. ft.+
J
Low Density Residential
13.8
sc.
60
units
3.62
du/ac
sq. ft.+
K
Low and/or Medium Density
13.9
ac.
60
units
4.32
du/sc
sq. ft.+
Residential
L
Low Density Residential
9.6
ac.
10
units
1.05
du/ac
sq. ft.+
M
Open Space/Drainage
1.1
ac.
0
units
0
du/sc
sq. ft.±
N
Multi -Family and/or
9.7
ac.
140
units
14.43
du/ac
5,000
sq. ft.+
Business Services
P
Possible City Park
13.0
ac.
units
0
du/sc
sq. ft.+
0
Business Services and/or
30.7
se.
160
units
4.89
du/sc
250,000
sq. ft.+
Multi -Family
R
Community -Regional
60.3
sc.
0
units
0
du/ac
460,000
sq. ft.+
Shopping Center i9
Business Services
S
Auto Related Road Side
2.9
sc.
0
units
0
du/ac
30,000
sq. ft. +
Commercial
T
Uses Allowed in the RLM
3.8
ac.
36
units
9.47
du/ac
10,000
sq. ft. +
Zoning District
U
Uses Allowed in the RL
4.8
ac.
0
units
0
du/ac
26,000
sq. ft. +
Zoning District
V
Uses Allowed in the RL
6.6
ac.
20
units
3.67
du/sc
sq. ft. +
Zoning District
TOTALS
271.7
ac.
848
units
770,000
sq. ft.±
•
•
•
I
1
Ar�� q
UP u In
Ill
1
1
i
Offf-,e MEADdU AT e/CAMdtvr I-`iAj r tLL.,.)A �C/ iM y Q /1
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
is me critenm acax=aie?
Will the cnteflon
oe sanstiea9
If no, please explain
0,,0F��' ��
Yes No I
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Compatability
2. Neighbomooci Character
3. Land Use Conflicts
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
!
PLANS AND POLICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
I
7. Utility Capacity
I
8. Design Standards
i
9. Emergency Access
10. Security Lighting
I
11. Water Hazards
I
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slooe Hazara
I
13. Significant Vegetation
_
14. Wildlife Haortat
15. Historical LondmarK
16. Mineral Deocsit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water Quality
21. Noise
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
I �/
24. Exterior Lignting
25. Sewages & Wastes
SITE DESIGN
26. Communrry Organization
27, Site Organization
28. Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
Jr4ar
o` of T i• Arc1A
30. Shadows
✓
31. Solar Access
I
32, Privacy
33. Open Space Arrangement
34. Building r+eight
35. Vehicular Movement
36. Vehicular Design
37, Parking
IPOI
38. Active Recreational Areas
!
39. Private Cutdoor Areas
40. Pedestrian Convenience
41, Pedestrian Conflicts
42. Landscaping/Open Areas
43, Lana scacing/Buildings
44. LanascocinglScreening
45. Public Access
46. Signs
l /P Pts7P mE Aac ti RT MA&4 M D N T R. u • 0- . P-a-s 7- `!L /N G
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Earned
Criterion
Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
a
20%
2000feet ofanexisting orapproved neighborhood shopping center,
b
10%
650 feet at an existing transit stop.
C
10%
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping centerHAfflogy. f4AtK E
• 0
d
20%
3500 feet of an existing or reserved neighbomooa park community park or community facility 'Cd M
, , 7
O
W
e
10%
m
1000 feet of a scmcko, meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the State of Color Ida r
r�
co
� i
f
20%
3000 feet of a major employment center /Q 6E 9 K
�D
W
g
5%
1000 feet of a child care center.
h
20%
'North'Fort Collins.
20%
The Central Business District.
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development Credit may be earned as follows:
0 %— For projects whose property boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity:
30%
10 to 15% — For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity.
has 20 to 30%
15 to 20% — For projects whose property boundary contiguity,
20 to 25% — For projects whose property boundary has 30 to 40% contiguity;
25 to 30% — For projects wnos property boundary has 40 to 50% contiguity
if it can Pe demonstrated mat me project will reduce non-renewable energy useoge either through me application of alternorve energy
k
systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required ov City Code. a 5% bonus may be earned
for every 5% reduction in energy use.
Calculate a 1 % bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
m
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project mat are devoted to recreational use, enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus.
"the applicant commits to preserving permanent offsite open space that meets the Gigs minimum requirements calculate the percentage
n
Of this Open space acreage to the total development acreage, enter this percentage as a bonus
If part Of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code.
a
enter 2% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested.
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood tocilitles and services which are not otherwise required by City Code.
p
enter a 1% bonus for every S100 Per swelling unit invested.
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families. enter that
C�
percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 30%.
If a commdirlent 6 moe to develop a specified percentage Of the total number of dwelling units for Type'A" and Type B" handicapped
Z
tang
housing ds tlerned "me CitydOf Fort Collins. calculate the bonus as follows:
T
Type "A" — � tlmes e"
O
r
ajunits
units
vu
M
LLJ
Type'B" —' 0 times rype 'B' units
i otal unrts
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%.
If the site or aalacent property contains an historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following:
3% — For preventing or mitigating outside influences (e.g. environmental, land use, aesthetic. economic and sdool factors) adverse to its
S
preservation:
3% — For assuring that new structures will ben keeping with the charocter of the building Or place, while avoiding total units
3% — For proposing adaptive use of the building or place thatwill lead to its continuance. preservation and improvement in an
appropriate manner.
If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the building, or in an elevated parking
structure as an accessory use to the primary structure. a bonus may be earned as tollows�
t
9% — For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure;
6% — For providing 50-74%of the parking in a structure;
3% — For providng 25-49% of the parking in a structure.
u
tt a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%
TOTAL �3
-30-
E
•
June 3, 1992
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Community Planning and
Environmental Services
P. 0. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Board Members;
cod
YIWP*
urban design, inc.
3030 south college ave., suite 200
fort collins, colorado 80525
(303) 226-4074
This letter represents a request for a variance to the standard requirement that
residential development in the City of Fort Collins achieve a minimum (gross) density of three
dwelling units per acre. The Upper Meadow at Miramont is planned at a net density of 3.6
d.u./ac., but achieves a gross density of only 2.83 d.u./ac.
While the overall density at Miramont is expected to exceed 3 d.u./ac., the Upper
Meadow, and some future filings along the ridge south of the Mail Creek Ditch are proposed
to be developed at lower densities in response to physical constraints, and in order to provide
more variety in lot sizes and housing types.
The proposed lot sizes at the Upper Meadow - typically between 8,000 sq. ft. and
11,000 sq. ft. - would ordinarily achieve a gross density of 3.0 d.u./ ac., or slightly higher.
However, at the Upper Meadow, a perimeter planting buffer is proposed along the Boardwalk
and Highcastle streetscapes, and along the Mail Creek Ditch; and an internal drainageway has
been designed as a well landscaped linear greenbelt/amenity for the neighborhood, rather than
a rigidly engineered channel and holding pond. It is not practical to provide this extent of
landscaped open space, meet the project's planning objective to provide a rich variety of
housing types at Miramont, provide quality streetscapes along the proposed collector streets,
and still develop this parcel at a gross density of over three dwelling units per acre.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We will be looking forward to your
favorable review.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: Peter Kast, G.T. Land Colorado Inc.
Gary Nordick and Bill Neal, Nordick/Neal Partnership
Dennis Donovan, Land Development Services
Stan Myers, RBD
0
i
June 3, 1992
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Community Planning and
Environmental Services
P. 0. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Board Members;
co
Kn@ @OP@
urban design, inc.
3030 south college ave., suite 200
fort collins, colorado 80525
(303) 226-4074
This letter represents a request for a variance to Ordinance No. 142, 1991, the Solar
Orientation Ordinance for the proposed Upper Meadow at Miramont Subdivision. The reasons
this variance is needed include:
1. By reason of conditions peculiar to the site, hardship would be caused to the
subdivider by the strict application of the Ordinance. The site specific conditions that
dictate the orientation of a large number of the proposed lots are:
- The alignment of the existing Mail Creek Ditch is at an angle of between 450
and 60o off of north -south. In accordance with the adopted Goals and
Objectives, the ditch has been incorporated into the planned neighborhood
environment, and landscaped to provide an amenity for the Upper Meadow.
The orientation of adjacent lots dictated by an existing waterway/open space
area was specifically noted as being grounds for a variance by City Staff in
meetings with the Solar Orientation Advisory Committee, and in drafts of the
Solar requirements.
- The predetermined alignment of Boardwalk Drive between Harmony Road and
Lemay roughly parallels the Mail Creek Ditch, reinforcing the proposed lot
orientation.
- The need for Highcastle Drive to intersect both Boardwalk and the Mail Creek
Ditch at 90o t further locks in the orientation of lots in the southerly portion of
the Upper Meadow.
2. The plan submitted is equal to or better than a plan for the subject property
incorporating a higher number of solar oriented lots.
- Where the property is directly abutting Fairway Estates, lots have been oriented
with rear yards opposite the rear yards of the existing lots to the west, in order
to maximize the separation between the existing and proposed homes; and to
facilitate an efficient street, drainage, and utility system.
urban design, inc.
- The natural drainage pattern through the site needs to be respected in order to
achieve even minimal grades, and to provide the needed volume of detention.
This need has presented the opportunity to provide increased buffering between
some lots and Boardwalk, and to increase the quality of the proposed
streetscape; but does not lend itself to solar lot orientation.
Despite these obstacles, over 50% of the lots overall - including 64.5% in the First
Filing - meet the requirements for solar orientation.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We will be looking forward to your
favorable review.
Sincerely,
4EI�don Ward, President
yscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: Peter Kast, G.T. Land Colorado Inc.
Gary Nordick and Bill Neal, Nordick/Neal Partnership
Dennis Donovan, Land Development Services
Stan Myers, RBD
0
0
t'
M
CD June 2, 1992 (File: 9230LT1)
LLi
a.
W
x
1--
F--
Q
o Mr. Mike Herzig
a Fort Collins Development Engineer
o P.O. Bok 580
o Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
co
Dear Mike:
It is proposed that the Upper Meadow at Miramont have 28 foot
streets on four cul-de-sacs. According to the Fort Collins
Design Criteria and Standards for Streets, this street width
will require a variance by the City of Fort Collins.
The reasons for requesting/granting this variance are listed
below:
The streets will have less than 750 ADT on them. The
longest street is Sawgrass Court, which will have 18
dwelling units and generate 160 vehicle trips on an
average weekday. The other street volumes will be
significantly less than this.
- All the streets which are proposed to be 28 feet wide are
cul-de-sacs.
- None of the streets are accessed from an arterial street.
- Lot lines are somewhat staggered on opposite sides of the
streets. It is not likely that the homes would face each
other across the street.
- One side of the street can be signed as "NO PARKING."
However, I recommend allowing parking on both sides of
the street. There will be four or more off-street
parking spaces per dwelling unit. In making observations
of a similar type residential area (Clarendon Hills along
z Hinsdale Drive), the average number of vehicles parked
W on Hinsdale was 3 in a length of 1300 feet. In my
Z judgment, on -street parking in Miramont would be similar.
CD z This amount of on -street parking would present no traffic
J or safety concerns with parking on both sides of the
> street given the anticipated volumes.
U
Z I recommend that the subject streets (Sandreed Court,
o Switchgrass Court, Sawgrass Court, and Bulrush Court) in the
Upper Meadow at Miramont be 28 feet wide (curb to curb). I
o further recommend that parking be allowed on both sides of the
vi street, if at least four off-street parking spaces are
a provided per dwelling unit.
Sincerely,
LL
Q
cc
~ Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
PROJECT:
Develonmelit Services
Planning Department
0
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
Cottonwood Farm, Amended Overall Development Plan
DATE: April 29, 1992
REPRESENTATIVES:
OWNER: Peter Kast, G.T. Land, Colorado, Inc.
DEVELOPER: Gary Nordick, Nordick/Neal Partnership
CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design _
PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. We are concerned about the size of the lots south of Werner
School. These lots will be across from the largest lots in
Fossil Creek Meadows. These lots should be compatible in size
with the existing lots, otherwise, our property values will be
reduced.
RESPONSE: The exact size of these lots is not known at this time,
as this area may be one of the last areas to be developed. Also,
the lots and layouts are shown conceptually only. At the O.D.P.
stage, lots and blocks are usually not indicated. It is -our
opinion, however, that these lots will average around 7,000 square
feet in lot area. Most of these lots will be separated from Fossil
Creek Meadows by the Mail Creek greenbelt.
2. The largest lots should be adjacent to Fossil Creek Meadows to
promote compatibility.
RESPONSE: The largest lots will be along the ridgeline defined by
the Mail Creek Ditch. These lots will be the largest, and most
expensive because of the views, and the potential for walk -out
basements. The O.D.P. will have a range of lot sizes to offer a
variety of choices. The City has a policy that the residential
subdivisions not be less than three dwelling units per acre. These
factors will influence lot sizes.
3. We are concerned about the local street connection, south of
Werner School, to Mail Creek Lane. This will bring
unnecessary traffic into Fossil Creek Meadows. Also, this
connection will encourage short -cutting for commuters who want
to avoid the College and Harmony intersection. This
connection should be reconsidered.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Boy 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
RESPONSE: Presently, Werner School has poor access for families
living in any other neighborhood besides Fossil Creek Meadows. The
proposed turn -around on the east end of the school will allow drop-
offs without impacting Fossil Creek Meadows. Mail Creek Lane was
platted as a local street on the edge of the subdivision with the
purpose of serving the area to the east. By providing an easterly
access, some traffic on Mail Creek Lane may actually be reduced.
4. Werner School has insufficient parking for events. The school
should build more parking so cars are not forced to park on
Mail Creek Lane. During events, we can barely get out of our
driveway and sometimes our driveways are blocked. This lack
of parking is a nuisance and should be remedied by the amended
O.D.P.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment and G.T. Land will talk to Poudre
R-1 about more parking. Mail Creek Lane does become overly
congested with parked cars during school events and during the
afterschool pick-up period. It is difficult to predict how Poudre
R-1 will respond.
5. What are the anticipated uses on Parcels E, K, A, N, Q?
RESPONSE: At this time, these areas are designed to provide
buffering and transitions from the commercial areas to the north
and the arterials on the east. Residential densities could be
patio homes or smaller -lot single family. One of these parcels is
likely to develop as multi -family, but not all.
6. When you say "multi -family", what kind of density?
RESPONSE: At this stage, it is premature to guess the density.
7. What are the proposed connections to Fossil Creek Parkway?
RESPONSE: Under the proposed O.D.P., there is no direct connection
to Fossil Creek Parkway as it is proposed to swing south, and not
be contiguous to Cottonwood Farm. One option would be to provide
a local street connection but this would involve a bridge over Mail
Creek. The exact future alignment for Fossil Creek Parkway has not
yet been determined. It is the desire of the City Transportation
Department that Fossil Creek Parkway not be a direct connection to
Southridge Greens Boulevard, but serve areas further south.
8. What are the options for Fossil Creek Parkway?
RESPONSE: One option is that it would swing south and east and go
south of Portner Reservoir, and intersect Lemay in the Huntington
Hills project. Another option is that it would swing south and
form a tee intersection with an extended Portner Road. As a
collector street, Fossil Creek Parkway will be designed to feed the
traffic from the residential areas onto the arterial street system.
9. Again, it must be emphasized that the local street connection
to Mail Creek Lane is a very big concern. There should be no
connection. This street should be terminated with a cul-de-
sac and traffic forced to go back to Lemay Avenue. We bought
our house before the school and we consider the school to be
intrusive enough. A local street connection would only add to
the intrusion.
RESPONSE: We are sympathetic to this concern. The owner and
developer will discuss options with Poudre R-1 and City of Fort
Collins Transportation Department. The connection is indicated out
of a concern for improving access to the school.
10. The parcels that border Mail Creek Lane' should not be
considered for multi -family. Only_ single family_ is
appropriate so there is no impact on the existing homes along
Mail Creek Lane. -
11. How many homes will the Nordick/Neal Partnership seek approval
for and over what time frame?
RESPONSE: The partnership is looking at a total of about 400 homes.
The time frame depends on the market and interest rates and could
be anywhere from two to four years.
12. With 400 homes, will a new elementary school be built?
Developers should be responsible for building new schools.
Since we live in Oak Ridge, our kids will be forced out of
Werner -by the new families which are closer and may not have
to be bussed. This will be another disruption for these kids
and that is not fair. We will suffer because increased
development cannot be handled by the existing schools.
RESPONSE: The developer will not be building a new elementary
school. Poudre R-1 is responsible for forecasting residential
growth and planning accordingly. The Oak -Cottonwood -Farm Master
Plan was originally approved in 1987 and indicated greater
residential density than that envisioned by the proposed amendment.
Developers work with Poudre R-1 on streets, utilities, drainage,
etc., but developers do not build schools.
13. As residents of two county subdivisions, we would like to go
on record as opposing the amount of street lighting on city
streets. The amount of street lighting on Boardwalk Drive is
simply obnoxious and out of character for the area. This
level of lighting on a collector street should be reduced.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment. Developers install streetlights
according to the strict specifications set by the City of Fort
Collins. Developers have no choice in this area. Your comments
are best directed towards the City and the Light and Power
Department which sets the level of street lighting on public
streets.
0 •
14. Fairway Estates supports the location of the public park. The
developer is encouraged to keep greenbelts, bike paths, etc.
away from Fairway Estates to discourage future residents from
using our system of bridal paths. Our paths are private, and
maintained by our homeowner's association. The paths are not
available to the public. Please design the transportation
system so our paths are not impacted.
15. Where is Fossil Creek Community Park?
RESPONSE: This park is located south of Cottonwood Farm around the
area of Portner Reservoir. It will not be built by developers but
by the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department. It
will not be the size of a neighborhood park, but more like Rolland
Moore Park or Edora Park.
16. We must again take this opportunity to protest the local
street connection into Mail Creek Lane. This street should
terminate in Parcel J, preferably in a new parking lot for
Werner School. We are already overly impacted by daily
traffic such as buses and parents, not to mention the special
events. Also, Hewlett-Packard commuters may use this
connection as a short cut.
RESPONSE: Again, we are sympathetic, but the objective is provide
better access to the school. We will look at design alternatives
to accomplish this objective. Keep in mind, improved access to the
school may actually reduce traffic by not forcing traffic into
Fossil Creek Meadows. Also, Kruse Elementary School, in Golden
Meadows, is scheduled to open up this Fall which may drain off some
of the student population at Werner. Hewlett-Packard commuters are
presently well served by Harmony, College, Lemay, and Trilby which,
as arterials, are designed for higher speeds. The collector street
system within Cottonwood Farm is specifically designed to
discourage long, straight connections in order to reduce speeds and
minimize short -cutting.
17. What is meant by "Business Service"?
RESPONSE: These uses are defined by the Land Development Guidance
System as one of the point charts used to evaluate a land use on a
certain location within the City. The definition is quite broad
and includes activities which are predominantly retail, office, and
service uses, but on a scale smaller than a Neighborhood Center
(Scotch Pines) and smaller than a Community -Regional Shopping
Center (Harmony Market).
18. We are concerned about drainage. Where will storm flows go?
RESPONSE: All storm flows head east and south. The drainage and
grading plan and stormwater detention plans will be reviewed and
evaluated by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. Storm
flows north and east of Mail Creek Ditch must be retained within
the development and released at a controlled rate that is slower
than the historic release rate. This drainage system is referred
to as McClelland -Mail Creek Drainage Basin. Storm flows that are
south of Mail Creek Ditch will be allowed to be conveyed directly
into Mail Creek without detention in order to precede the upstream,
detained flows during a major storm. Please keep in mind that
Fairway Estates and Fossil Creek Meadows are upstream of Cottonwood
Farm. Drainage heads generally east, and south.
19. What will be the treatment along Mail Creek Ditch and Mail
Creek? Will there be development right up the edge?
RESPONSE: No, there will be natural transition area that will be
planted with a mix of drought -tolerant grasses. _Other details are
premature and not fully explored at this time.
20. Mail Creek should be made part of the City park system, and
treated as a natural amenity. This will provide a buffer
between the existing and developing areas. Perhaps a bike
path could be -built along this linear area. The path could
also serve the school.
RESPONSE: This is a good comment and will be passed along to the
Parks and Recreation Department, and the Department of Natural
Resources.
21. Please do not provide Kentucky blue grass and a manicured
level of maintenance along the creek and ditch, -these areas
should be left as natural as possible.
RESPONSE: The developer has experience in this area and has worked
closely with the affected City Departments in Clarendon Hills along
both Fossil Creek and the Burns Tributary. It is not the
developer's desire to place blue grass turf in the riparian areas.
22. What parcel will develop first?
RESPONSE: Parcel G since it is the closest to the existing sewer
line in Boardwalk Drive. -
23. Residential lots should be the same size as in Fairway and
Fossil Creek Meadows. There should be consistency between
subdivisions.
RESPONSE: The City has policies about a minimum of three dwelling
units per acre, as well as providing a variety of housing
opportunities within all areas of the City. For these reason, the
proposed lot sizes, perhaps with the exception of estate lots along
the ridge, will not be equivalent to the larger lots of Fairway and
Fossil Creek Meadows. Again, the developer has experience in this
area with Clarendon Hills (City) going in next to Applewood Estates
(County). In Clarendon Hills, a variety of lot sizes has proven
successful in protecting the character of Applewood Estates.
24. Will development of Parcel G trigger construction of Boardwalk
Drive over to Lemay Avenue? If so, will it be signalized?
RESPONSE: Yes, it is likely that Boardwalk will be extended to
Lemay with development of Parcel G. It will align with Keenland
Drive. Since Keenland and Boardwalk are classified as collectors,
the intersection is eligible for a signal when traffic volumes
warrant signal control.
25. How big will the lots be along ridgeline?
RESPONSE: These lots could range from 12,O00 to 20,000 square feet.
Other parcels will not have lots in this range but will be smaller.