The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/20/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 April 20, 2023 Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Regular Hearing April 20, 2023 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Ted Shepard Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/92601751682. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on April 20, 2022. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 April 20, 2023 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 926 0175 1682. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 April 20, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z February Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the February 16, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel MA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Minor Amendment to the City of Fort Collins’ Northside Aztlan Center located at 112 Willow Street (parcel #9712224901). The proposal is to create a play area for the childcare center by building a six-foot fence, creating four new doorways from the classrooms into the play area, and installing lighting over new doorways. APPLICANT: Jeremy Tamlin City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Jill Baty, Associate Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. Prospect Sports Standalone Modification Requests (3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The first request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that states a limit on the height of a story in a commercial building. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the building can be approved with its necessary height for indoor volleyball, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. The second request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires a new commercial building to be placed within 25’ of an abutting arterial street and 15’ from other streets. The third request is a request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires parking based on land use. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the development can be approved with the proposed parking number, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. APPLICANT: Amanda Hansen RB+B Architects 315 E Mountain Ave, Ste 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clark Mapes, City Planner Packet pg. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 April 20, 2023 4. Enclave at Redwood MJA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed Major Amendment (MJA) of the Enclave at Redwood development plan #PDP210004 that was approved in June 2022. The amendment would eliminate the vehicular street extension of Lupine Street from existing development into the Enclave development, in favor of a pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access-only connection. APPLICANT: Sam Coutts Ripley Designs, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave, Ste 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clark Mapes, City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 20, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 16, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the February 16, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft February 16, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 5 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Julie Stackhouse Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 16, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Katz, Sass, Stackhouse, Stegner, York Absent: Shepard, Haefele Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Myler, Puga, Wuertz, Schumann, Haigh, Guin, and Manno It was noted that Commissioner Sass was held up by a train at the start of the hearing. Chair Katz provided background on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (Commission’s) role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: •While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. •The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for each item. •Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with City Land Use Code (Code). •Should a citizen wish to address the Commission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. •This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission February 16, 2023 Page 2 of 3 Election of officers Commissioner York made a motion to elect Commissioner Katz as the continued Planning and Zoning Commission Chair and that Commissioner Stackhouse be the Vice Chair for the next year. Member Stegner seconded the motion. Vote: 4:0 Agenda Review CDNS Director Paul Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 15, 2022, P&Z Hearing 2. Fleet Maintenance Subdivision 3. 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting 4. Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 MA Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. It was noted that Commissioner Sass joined the hearing at this time. Chair Katz did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the February 16, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Sass seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: No items listed. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business Commissioner Katz thanked Planning Manager Rebecca Everette for her service to the Commission and to the City of Fort Collins as she is transitioning into a role with Larimer County. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 6:07pm. DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission February 16, 2023 Page 3 of 3 Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: April 20, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission: April 20, 2023 Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel - MA230001 Summary of Request This is a request for a Minor Amendment to the City of Fort Collins’ Northside Aztlan Center located at 112 Willow Street (parcel #9712224901). The proposal is to create a play area for the childcare center by building a six-foot fence, creating four new doorways from the classrooms into the play area, and installing lighting over new doorways. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved, the applicant will submit a final set of electronic plans to be filed as the approved plan set. Site Location Northside Aztlan Center is located at 112 Willow Street, approximately 240 feet east of the intersection of College Avenue and Willow Street. Parcel # 9712224901 Zoning Downtown (D) – River Subdistrict. Property Owner City of Fort Collins – Parks Department 413 S. Bryan Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Jeremy Tamlin City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Jill Baty, Associate Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 7 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 7 4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 8 5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ............. 10 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 10 7. Recommendation ..................................... 11 8. Attachments ............................................. 11 Staff Recommendation Approval of the Minor Amendment Packet pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 2 of 11 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • This is a Minor Amendment request to enclose a small area on the west side of the existing building with a six-foot tall fence to create a play area for the childcare center. The request is being made to enable a higher level of childcare programming to be provided at the Northside Aztlan Center. • Work includes creating four new door openings in the exterior of the building leading from the classrooms into the enclosed space. The proposed doors will match existing storefront-type windows. Concrete lintels will be installed above the doors to match the existing lintels in the building. Egress lighting will be mounted above each door. • A single post pyramid cantilever shade structure is proposed to provide 150 square feet of shade in the space. No play equipment will be installed. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Development Status/Background The Northside Aztlan Community Center is a City-owned property located within the 8.29-acre Old Fort Collins Heritage Park. The Northside Aztlan Center is a community fitness and events center that is also home to a wide variety of activities, classes, programs, sports, and special events. Outdoor facilities include a small playground, a lighted skate park, and handball courts. The building, which was constructed in 2007, is a LEED-Certified Gold building. The proposed minor amendment will allow the Center to accommodate a higher level of childcare programming. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Downtown District (D) River, River Corridor, and Innovation Subdistricts Downtown District (D) River Subdistrict Downtown District (D) River, River Corridor Subdistricts Downtown District (D) River Subdistrict Land Use Poudre River Whitewater Park, College Ave.- Poudre River crossing, Powerhouse Energy Campus Commercial and Multi- unit uses Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center, Willow Street Lofts Condominiums Great Western Railway, Commercial uses Packet pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 3 of 11 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Minor amendment for a fence, shade structure, doorways with concrete stoops, and exterior lighting is required to allow for a higher level of childcare programming to be provided at the Northside Aztlan Community Center. It is to be located on the west side of the building, between the building and the railroad tracks that run along the western portion of the site. The fence will be built within a 20-foot gas easement, which is allowed. None of the rest of the project will be located within the easement. The fence will be constructed of six-foot tall black aluminum pickets, rails, and posts. The pickets will be approximately one inch in width and will be spaced approximately 3 ¾ inches apart. The shade structure will include a blue canopy mounted on a single, light ivory colored post. The post will be installed outside of the gas easement, adjacent to the building. Doorways and lintels will match existing on the building. Three new wall luminaires will be mounted 10-feet above grade on the exterior wall within the project area. The proposal provides a site plan showing the location of the lighting fixtures to be installed with the photometric plan. Details of the lighting fixtures are also provided with the proposal. Information about the light color temperature, off-site impacts, and lighting controls are provided with the plans to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code. Packet pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 4 of 11 Back to Top Proposed Site Plan Proposed Elevation Photometric Plan showing footcandle readings at and near property lines. Packet pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 5 of 11 Back to Top Proposed Wall-mounted Luminaire Fixtures Packet pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 6 of 11 Back to Top Proposed Fencing Packet pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 7 of 11 Back to Top 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Pursuant to Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for all projects to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a Neighborhood Meeting is not required for a Minor Amendment application. This project has been processed as a Minor Amendment in accordance with Section 2.2.10 – Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use and referred to P&Z based on the requirements of Section 2.17 – City Projects that all City development projects be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, no neighborhood meeting was conducted. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This application was posted on the City’s Development Review website as it is being reviewed. During the review of the minor amendment, no public comments were received. Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was submitted on December 30, 2022. The project has completed two rounds of staff review, the project documents are substantially complete for review by the Commission. The second submittal resolved staff’s comments. B. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Minor Amendment Submittal – MA230001 Round 1 Comments sent to applicant January 20, 2023. Round 2 Comments resolved on March 9, 2023. 2. Minor Amendment Review The review criteria for a Minor Amendment are used to verify that the proposed changes continue to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. The Land Use Code defines Extent Reasonably Feasible: Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation. 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted notice: Not applicable for Minor Amendments. Written notice: Per LUC Section 2.2.10(A)(5), “Written notice must be mailed to the owners of record of all real property abutting the property that is the subject of the minor amendment application at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Director's decision.” Notice Postcards were sent on April 5, 2023. Packet pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 8 of 11 Back to Top Written notice: April 5, 2023, 20 letters sent. Published Notice: Scheduled for April 9, 2023. C. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant is not requesting any modification of standards. 4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards A. DIVISION 3.2 - SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection This Code Section ensures a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the circulation system and parking, the building, abutting properties, and users of the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. • No landscaping is expected to be disturbed for the installation this project. • Existing trees to remain and be protected. Complies 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking This Code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. • No new parking is proposed as a part of this project. • No changes to the existing circulation is proposed as a part of this project. • Proposed doors intended to be used only to access play area. Complies 3.2.4 – Site Lighting (A)(C)(K) This Code section requires that exterior lighting meet the functional and security needs of the project and are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. • The site is in the Lighting Context Area 2, which allows moderate ambient lighting, typically used for safety and convenience. • The proposed design of the new lighting fixtures meet the Design Standards of this section and will reinforce the lighting fixture style of the existing land use. • The placement of the new light fixtures demonstrates that there is negligible light trespass onto adjacent properties. • The lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature of 3000 Kelvin. Complies 3.2.5 – Trash & Recycling Enclosures The purpose of this standard is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of trash, waste cooking oil, compostable and recyclable materials. • No new enclosures are being proposed Not applicable B. DIVISION 3.3 – ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Packet pg. 16 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 9 of 11 Back to Top 3.3.1(C)(1) – Plat and Development Plan Standards An applicant is required to dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed. • No dedications or easements are required for the project. • Fences are allowed to be constructed in utility easements. • No other construction will occur in the gas easement. Complies C. DIVISION 3.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1(A)(B) This Code section applies to any portion of a development that is within five hundred feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City’s Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or if any portion of the site contains natural habitats or feature of ecological value. Development will protect any existing natural habitats and features. • The site is further than 200 feet from the Cache la Poudre River. Not applicable D. 3.5 – BUILDING STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1– Building Project and Compatibility (B)(C)(E)(F)(G)(I)(J) These subsections require new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area, by using a design that is complimentary. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in the zone district standards contained in Article 4. • The proposed doors will match the existing windows on the building. • The proposed doors will be topped by lintels to match existing. Complies E. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation network of streets, alleys, roadways and trails is in conformance with adopted transportation plans and policies established by the City. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Packet pg. 17 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 10 of 11 Back to Top 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This section ensures that all adopted level of service (LOS) standards are achieved for all modes of traffic. • The scope of work does not change the adopted transportation LOS. Not Applicable 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This section is intended to ensure that emergency vehicles can gain access to, and maneuver within, the project so that emergency personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services without delays. • The scope of work does not change the existing emergency access on site. Not Applicable 5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: DIVISION 4.16- DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) the downtown district is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, employment and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing, located along the backdrop of the Poudre River corridor. It is divided into nine (9) sub-districted as depicted in Figure 18. The development standards for the downtown district are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for high quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian-oriented character. The river subdistrict is intended to reestablish the linkage between the historic core and the Cache la Poudre River (the “river”) through redevelopment in the corridor. This subdistrict offers opportunities for more intensive redevelopment of housing, businesses and workplaces to complement the historic core subdistrict. Improvements should highlight the historic origin of Fort Collins and the unique relationship of the waterway and railways to the urban environment as well as expand cultural opportunities in the downtown area. Redevelopment will extend the positive characteristics of downtown such as the pattern of blocks, pedestrian-oriented street fronts and lively outdoor spaces. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.16(F) – Permitted Uses This section ensures that a change of use or addition of use on the property would go through the prescribed Development Review process as determined in this section. • The scope of work does not change the existing land use at the site. Not Applicable 4.16(D)(3)— Site Design: Outdoor activity This section ensures that, to the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces are placed near their associated users, are linked and visible from streets and sidewalks, and are promoted with arcades, decks, and other useable infrastructure. • Access is only proposed between the new doors and outdoor play space. This space will only be used by children under supervision of staff at the center. Complies to the extent reasonably feasible. 4.16 (E)(5)(b)(4) River subdistrict: Site design Walls, fences and planters need to be designed to match or be consistent with nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. • Due to the fence being located within a gas easement, brick, stone nor other masonry will be required for the fencing.Fencing is high quality and is designed to be consistent with the building. Complies to the extent reasonably feasible. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel, MA230001, staff makes the following findings of fact: Packet pg. 18 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA230001 | Northside Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel – MA 230001 Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 11 of 11 Back to Top • The Minor Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, to the extent reasonably feasible. • The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.16, The Downtown District, Article 4. 7. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Northside Aztlan Center, MA230001, based on the aforementioned findings of fact. 8. Attachments 1. Minor Amendment application 2. Planning Drawings sheets 3. Round 1 Comment Letter 4. Staff presentation Packet pg. 19 [Type here] Minor Amendment #: ___________________ Effective Date: _________________________ THIS BOX IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 281 N. College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524, (970) 416-2745, zoning@fcgov.com Minor Amendment Application Form - Zoning Department All of the requested information on this application is required. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – Electronic Only: 1) The initial submittal shall consist of the following: a. Existing approved plans of the site, landscape, elevation, etc. - whichever sheets are being altered All changes on each sheet should be clouded/bubbled b. All proposed new plans i. A Legal Description is required on all new plan sets 2) Complete and sign this Minor Amendment Application form 3) Fee total is $1,750.00 a. Reduced to $1,500.00 if Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) does not need to review. Note: PFA review requirement includes, but is not limited to: all changes of use, building additions and/or new buildings. 4) All documents shall be emailed to the Development Review Coordinators at drcoord@fcgov.com. a. A Development Review Coordinator will call the applicant for payment. 5) Projects will be routed on Thursdays each week. Comments will be sent to the applicant on the Friday 2 weeks after the routing date. 6) Once all departments approve the proposed changes, the Minor Amendment will be recorded electronically. MINOR AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Detailed description of all changes (including but not limited to HVAC equipment, lighting, etc.) and reason(s) for the request: CERTIFICATION: I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the property (including all owners having a legal or equitable interest in the real property, as defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code; which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the requested action should not lawfully be accomplished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the purpose of inspection, and if necessary, for posting a public notice on the property. Name (please PRINT): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: _______________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________________ Project Name:_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location (Street Address): ________________________________________________________________________________ General Information: List all property owners having a legal/equitable interest in the property (Attach separate sheets if necessary). Owner’s Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: ______________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________________ Telephone: __________________________ Email:___________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s/Consultant’s Name: _________________________________ Name of firm: ____________________________________ Street Address: ______________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________________ Telephone: ___________________________Email: __________________________________________________________________ Packet pg. 20 clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaCharleston, South Carolina Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/7/2023 1:45:02 PMAutodesk Docs://326-014-22 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center/32601422-NSAC-A-22.rvtTitle Sheet & Sheet Index G0.0 CE No.: 326-014-22 112 Willow St Fort Collins, CO 80524 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center February 7, 2023 Minor Amendment Submittal GENERAL City of Fort Collins NSAC Childcare Center 112 Willow St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Minor Amendment Submittal February 7, 2023 G0.00 Title Sheet & Sheet Index Please be aware that Asbestos Containing Material and NAPL contamination has been found in surface soils in the vicinity, and therefore, please plan on using a qualified Asbestos and contaminated soil spotter, if they encounter any suspect materials that will need to be collected and disposed of in an appropriate and legal manner. Please contact Jesse Kathryne Marko, kmarko@fcgov.com, if you have further questions or require a follow up discussion. OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN BY. OWNER (SIGNED)DATE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _________ DAY OF ___________________ A.D., 20 _______. BY __________________________________________________________ AS _________________________________________ (PRINT NAME) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ____________________________________ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ___________________________________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS __________ DAY OF ____________________ 20_____ ______________________________________ DIRECTOR SIGNATURE .0 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL ARCHITECTURAL L1.01 Site Plan A0.10 Existing Conditions Site Plan A2.10 Exterior Elevations ELECTRICAL E0.01 Site Photometric Plan SITE SCALE:1" = 1'-0" CONTEXT PLAN Packet pg. 21 EXISTING CONCRETE FLOWLINER, TYPEXISTING TREES, TYPEXISTING CONCRETEFLOWLINER, TYPSOUTH MAIN ENTRANCEEXISTING NORTHSIDEAZTLAN COMMUNITYCENTER BUILDINGTRAIN TRACKS, TYP20' GAS EASEMENT118 LF NEW ALUMINUM 6' FENCE,REF DETAIL THIS SHEET. INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS.NEW 6'x5'x6"TH CONC STOOPSAT NEW DOORWAYS, TYP OF 4AS SHOWNEXISTING NORTHSIDEAZTLAN COMMUNITYCENTER BUILDINGSOUTH MAIN ENTRANCEPROPOSED FENCEDOUTDOOR PLAY AREA(1554 SF)4'W FENCE GATE TO MATCHWITH CRASH BAR DOORHARDWARE AS SHOWN4'W FENCE GATE TO MATCHWITH CRASH BAR DOORHARDWARE AS SHOWN14'SQ SINGLE POST PYRAMIDCANTILEVER PLAY SHADE, CONC FTGDESIGN AS REQUIRED BY MFR,OR APPROVED EQUAL.MANUF: LITTLE TIKES COMMERCIALEXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLANSCALE: 1"=10'-0"2 / 06 / 2023 3:24:00 PMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.\\Tcep-co-srv-004\300-399\326-014-22 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center\03) AutoCAD\326014-L100.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planningclarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377Kansas City, Missouri970.818.8999123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, ColoradoLincoln, NebraskaFairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaCharleston, South CarolinaSite PlanL1.01PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1"=10'-0"SITE PLAN LEGEND:PROPERTY INFORMATION:LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, NORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITYCENTER, FTCPARCEL #9712224901EXISTING TREE TO REMAINAND BE PROTECTEDNEW CONCRETE STOOPNEW 6' BLACK ALUMINUM FENCELAND USE TABLEZONINGDOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D)EXISTING LAND USECOMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERPROPOSED LAND USECOMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERAND EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTEROCCUPANCYEDUCATION & BUSINESSPARCEL SIZE8.29 AC (361,142 SF)NEW CONCRETE STOOPS AREA 120 SFNOTES:·EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN THE SAME·EXISTING PARKING AREAS TO REMAIN THE SAME·EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS TO REMAIN THE SAMEGENERAL NOTES:1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITECONDITIONS SHOWN ON PLAN, ANY DISCREPANCIES NOTICED INFIELD SHALL BE RELAYED TO ARCHITECT/OWNER PRIOR TOCOMMENCEMENT OF WORK2. UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS ARE UNKNOWN, UTILITYLOCATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO EXISTINGUTILITIES AND SHALL REPAIR ANY SUCH DAMAGE AT THEIR OWNEXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDTHROUGH THE "ONE CALL" SYSTEM BEFORE DIGGING.3. COORDINATE EXTENTS OF STAGING AREAS AND SITE ACCESSWITH OWNER DURING CONSTRUCTION4. UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONSONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALLEXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PRIVATEUTILITIES SHALL BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.5. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT, UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FORPAVEMENT REPAIRS IF DAMAGE OCCURS DURING CONSTRUCTIONGENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:1.PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE ORNO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH,HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THESPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OFNURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLAND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.2.IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITEINCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BEIRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THEIRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYTHE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENTPRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURFAREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UPIRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES,INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATEDWITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, ORWITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITYWITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMSHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTSOF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMSTO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT FORMAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS MANAGERAND MEET PARKS IRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEWSHALL OCCUR DURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATIONREVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ANDCONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION BY PARKSSHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTIONPROCESS.3.TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THATIS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BECONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRINGREVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING.4.SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDEDAND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODESECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS,INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOUGHLYLOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHESAND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLYINCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TOA DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OROTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3)CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND(1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THEISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTENCERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALLPLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEENTHOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED,CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH INSECTION 12-132.5.INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALLBE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURALPRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICKESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPINGFOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THEINSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLELETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROWACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALSAND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.6.MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATIONSYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPEELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER ASPARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS.THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTERESTSHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEREGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS INGOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINEDFREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALLLANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLSSHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TOMAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.7.REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR ISOTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDEDBETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY ANDSTORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY ANDSTORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARYAND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8)FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYSPER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).10.PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA ASSPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURESOR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BEALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OREASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREESPROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROMGRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLEOR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT ANDOF AN OPEN DESIGN.11.THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITHALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSEDGRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTIMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDEINSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTSON THIS PLAN.12.MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAYBE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITECONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY,QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITHTHE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITHTHE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES ANDQUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALLCHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVEWRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13.ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUMDEPTH OF THREE INCHES.TREE PROTECTION NOTES:NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTINGSEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING APROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE ANESTING SURVEY 5-7 DAYS BEFORE TREE REMOVAL OR TRIMMINGTO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE.THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTALPLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILLCOORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERALREPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONALRESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHINANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTEDUNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BENO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORISTOR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORTCOLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BEPERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINSARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTEDAROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OFORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITHMETAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK ORONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BENO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILLWITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANTSHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THESTORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS,SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIALHARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTEDTREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENEDTO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATEDFROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAYAND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTINGPROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION(G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTSTAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPEFROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREASBEING CLEARED.8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUNDFIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BEACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTEDEXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THEAUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTERBARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT ASDESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW:Tree Diameter at Breast Height (inches) Auger Distance From Face of Tree (feet)0-213-425-9510-141015-1912Over 19159. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THESONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OFTREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA.FENCE (OR APPROVED EQUAL)1SCALE: NTS2-RAIL 6' TALL BLACK ALUMINUMAMERISTAR ECHELON II CLASSICCE No.: 326-014-22112 Willow StFort Collins, CO 80524FoCo NSAC ChildcareCenterFebruary 7, 2023Minor AmendmentSubmittal05' 10'20'05' 10'20'Packet pg. 22 W T W D D W S S S -5.61 NORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITY CENTER AZTLAN CENTER UNITED WAYAZTLAN CENTER FUTURE WILLOW STREET LOTS L.O.D.L.O.D.L.O.D.L.O.D.17'-0"43'-0"6'-6"25'-7"12'-3"8'-0"92'-0"R 3 5 5 '-0 " R307'-9" 21'-31_ 2"10'-0" 92'-3" 19'-6"17'-0"6'-6"60'-5" 63'-0"43'-0"144'-2"18'-0"34'-3"6'-0"23'-10"16'-101_2"88'-11"14'-0" 20'-0"76'-0"27'-41_2"24'-9"41'-11_2"PA CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROADVAN VAN204'-0"RIGHT-OF-WAY 6'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE 81LF (EAST SIDE) STANDARDS, TOTAL 17 THIS LOCATION 120'-0"TYP. 71'-113/4" AREA OF WORK clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaCharleston, South Carolina Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/7/2023 2:32:43 PMAutodesk Docs://326-014-22 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center/32601422-NSAC-A-22.rvtExisting Conditions Site Plan A0.10 CE No.: 326-014-22 112 Willow St Fort Collins, CO 80524 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center February 7, 2023 Minor Amendment Submittal SCALE:1" = 20'-0" EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN 0 10' 20'40' Packet pg. 23 FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR114' -0" 4.5 9865 EXIST. WINDOWS TO REMAIN, TYP. 101.1 102.1 103.1 104.1 ALUM. DOOR TO MATCH EXIST. STOREFRONT WINDOWS, TYP. REMOVE SOLDIER BRICK & EXTEND CONC. LINTEL AS REQ. BY NEW DOOR. MATCH EXIST., TYP. 8"8"8" 14' - 0"8' - 0"SINGLE POST PYRAMID CANTILEVER SHADE STRUCTURE, MIN. 150 SF OF SHADE. EXIST. BRICK TO REMAIN, TYP. NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE ELECT.30' - 0"clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaCharleston, South Carolina Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/7/2023 1:44:58 PMAutodesk Docs://326-014-22 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center/32601422-NSAC-A-22.rvtExterior Elevations A2.10 CE No.: 326-014-22 112 Willow St Fort Collins, CO 80524 FoCo NSAC Childcare Center February 7, 2023 Minor Amendment Submittal SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION1 4'0 8'16' Packet pg. 24 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 20, 2023 Jeremy Tamlin City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: North Side Aztlan Center, MA230001, Round Number 1 Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: John Gerwel, , jgerwel@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/06/2023: The gas easement (reception no 20060076879) states that the City reserves the right to occupy the easement so long as the gas line isn't interfered with or endangered. Also no buildings or structures (fences are allowed). So no permanent structures within easements, but the description notes that there will be no playground equipment. But even if you have, say sandboxes, just bear in mind that the owner of the gas line wouldn't have an obligation to repair or move the sandbox if work needed to be done, and nothing should be placed in the easement that might interfere with maintenance work. Comment Number: 1 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/16/2023: The creation of a play area by building a new fence and adding 4 doorways would not trigger the requirement of a traffic evaluation. TIS waived. Comment Number: 1 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Andrew Crecca, , acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of North Side Aztlan Center . If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Project Planner, Brandon Haynes at or bhaynes@fcgov.com. Page 1 of 5 Packet pg. 25 01/09/2023: No Comment from Erosion Control. Based upon the submitted materials it has been determined that this project; will disturb less than 10,000 sq. ft., is not proposed to be in a sensitive area, has no steep slopes (greater than 3H:1V) within or adjacent to the project, and is not part of a larger common development that will or is under construction. Therefore, Erosion Control Material submittal is not needed. If this project substantially changes in size or design where the above criteria now apply, erosion control materials should be submitted. Although the project at this time requires no erosion control material submittal, the project still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other pollutants from the potential of leaving the site and entering the storm sewer at all times during the project in accordance with City Code §26-498. If complaints are received or site observation of the project seem not to prevent the pollutants from being discharged the City may require the project to install erosion and sediment control measures. Nearby inlets that may be impacted by the pollutants, in particular dirt, should be protected as a good preventative practice and individual lots should be protected from material escaping onto the sidewalk through the use of straw wattles or silt fence. If at building permit issuance any issues arise please email erosion@fcgov.com to help facilitate getting these permits signed off. Comment Number: 2 Contact: Kathryne Marko, , kmarko@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control 01/05/2023: Please be aware that Asbestos Containing Material and NAPL contamination has been found in surface soils in the vicinity, and therefore, please plan on using a qualified Asbestos and contaminated soil spotter, if they encounter any suspect materials that will need to be collected and disposed of in an appropriate and legal manner. Please contact Jesse Kathryne Marko if you have further questions or require a follow up discussion. Comment Number: 1 Contact: Stephen Agenbroad, , sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/10/2023: FOR INFORMATION ONLY It is the understanding of the Stormwater Department that this minor amendment will maintain existing grading and drainage patterns and not impede existing drainage. If this understanding is incorrect or if plans change, please contact me to discuss and determine what requirements, if any, will apply. Thank you. Comment Number: 1 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Stephen Agenbroad, , sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/10/2023: INFORMATION ONLY: It does not appear this minor amendment will cause a change to the existing water or sewer services, adjacent City facilities, or the usage within the building. If this is incorrect or if plans change, please contact me directly to discuss. Thank you. Comment Number: 1 Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 2 of 5 Packet pg. 26 01/06/2023: It is the understanding of Light and Power that this minor amendment will not cause a change to the electric capacity needs or the location of our facilities. If this an incorrect understanding or if plans change, please contact me directly at akreager@fcgov.com or (970)224-6152. Thank you. Comment Number: 1 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2023: FOR APPROVAL: The City of Fort Collins is designated as a bird sanctuary for the refuge of wild birds (Municipal Code Chapter 4, Division 8 - Wild Birds: https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CH4ANI N_ARTIIAN_DIV8WIBI) and in order to satisfy the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, it is prohibited for any person at any time in the City to abuse or injure any wild bird or damage a nest with eggs or injure the young of any such bird. A professional ecologist or wildlife biologist is required to complete the nesting survey linked below 5-7 days before conducting tree removal or trimming. If tree removal or trimming is planned, please include the following note on the tree mitigation plan and landscape plan, as appropriate: "NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY 5-7 DAYS BEFORE TREE REMOVAL OR TRIMMING TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY." The Songbird Nesting Survey document will be provided with the comment letter for you to fill out. Comment Number: 1 Department: Forestry Contact: Freddie Haberecht, , fhaberecht@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/10/2023: : FOR APPROVAL Please schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry (fhaberecht@fcgov.com) to talk though the best methods of excavating and the impacts to the trees on site. Comment Number: 1 Page 3 of 5 Packet pg. 27 01/10/2023: FOR APPOVAL The plans should include the following City of Fort Collins notes found at the following website: https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDEST _DIV3.2SIPLDEST_3.2.1LATRPR General Landscape Notes Tree Protection Notes Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable. These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php Comment Number: 2 Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General 01/18/2023: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on the side that fronts the fire lane to the East and the building face to the West. Also some of the existing signage appears to be located behind trees which block the view from Willow Street Comment Number: 1 01/18/2023: FOR PERMIT Any alteration the the existing automatic fire sprinklers system or fire alarm will require a separate permit review through PFA. Comment Number: 2 01/18/2023: PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL When you submit for your building permit though the City of Fort Collins please be advised Poudre Fire Authority is an additional and separate submittal. The link for Poudre Fire Authority’s plan review application can be found at https://www.poudre-fire.org/online-services/contractors-plan-reviews-and-permits/n ew-building-plan-review-application. Comment Number: 3 Page 4 of 5 Packet pg. 28 01/18/2023: INFORMATION – CODES AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS Poudre Fire Authority has adopted the 2021 International Fire Code (IFC). Development plans and building plan reviews shall be designed according to the adopted version of the fire code as amended. - Copies of our current local amendments can be found here: https://www.poudre-fire.org/programs-services/community-safety-services-fire-prev ention/fire-code-adoption - Free versions of the IFC can be found here: https://codes.iccsafe.org Comment Number: 4 Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review 01/09/2023: If any required exits from the building go into and out of this new fenced area, the fence gates must meet the same exiting requirements and provide a clear path out. Comment Number: 1 Topic: General Comment Number: Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2023: We have no comments, but will need to see any future submittals. Comment Number: 1 Department: Zoning Contact: Brandon Haynes, , bhaynes@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/19/2023: FOR APPROVAL • The Aztlan Center is in the River Corridor subdistrict of Downtown Zone District. Code Section 4.16(E)(5)(b)(4)(b) states that brick, stone or masonry fence columns may be required to match or be consistent existing Aztlan building materials and colors. Please show how fence column design that will comply with this standard. o https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART4DI_DI V4.16DODID Comment Number: 1 01/19/2023: FOR APPROVAL • The awnings are allowed to be painted one color. Please include the color for the awnings. o Code Section:4.16(E)(5)(b)(3)(c)(vii) https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART4DI_DIV4. 16DODID Comment Number: 2 Page 5 of 5 Packet pg. 29 Jill BatyAssociate PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionAztlan Center Childcare Facility RemodelMinor Amendment, MA230001April 20, 2023ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 30 Project LocationAztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel 2Located at 112 Willow StreetApproximately 240 feet east of College Ave. & Willow St.S. Shields St. SITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 31 3Address: 112 Willow Street.8.29-acre siteDowntown (D) District – River SubdistrictProgrammed for fitness, events, classes, sportsAdjacent to Great Western Railway. The proposal is to create an outdoor play area adjacent to classrooms. Play area falls within a 20-foot wide gas easement.6’ tall fence4 new doorsEgress lightingShade structureProject ContextAztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 32 4Proposed Scope:• Install 4 doors connecting to interior classrooms.• Install 4 concrete stoops associated with doors.• Install play shade structure. Installed outside of gas easement.• Add 3 exterior wall-mounted luminaires.• Surround site with 6-foot fence. • Fence allowed to be built within gas easement.Project OverviewAztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel Gas easementITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 33 5Proposed Light Fixtures and Fence DetailsProject OverviewAztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 34 6Staff recommends approval of MA230001 - Northside Aztlan Childcare Facility Remodel.In evaluating the request for the Northside Aztlan Childcare Facility Remodel Minor Amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:• The Minor Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards.• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 4, Division 4.16, The Downtown District – River Subdistrict, to the extent reasonably feasible.Staff RecommendationAztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 35 7Thank You.Aztlan Center Childcare Facility Remodel ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 36 Agenda Item 3 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 20, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner SUBJECT PROSPECT SPORTS STANDALONE MODIFICATION REQUESTS (3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the three modification requests for Prospect Sports. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report for Modification 1 – Story Height 2. Attachment 1 for Modification 1 – Applicants Narrative Story Height 3. Staff Report for Modification 2 – Build-To Line 4. Attachment 1 for Modification 2 – Applicants Narrative for Build-To Line 5. Staff Report for Modification 3 – Parking Spaces 6. Attachment 1 for Modification 3 – Applicants Narrative for Parking Modification 7. Attachment 2 for Modification 3 – Applicants Parking Impact Study 8. Staff Presentation (combined) Packet pg. 37 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing April 20, 2023 Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230001 – Height of a Building Story Summary of Request This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that states a limit on the height of a story in a commercial building. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the building can be approved with its necessary height for indoor volleyball, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. The request is one of three related to the proposed gym facility – the other two are #MOD230002 and 230003. Zoning Map Next Steps If the Modification is approved, the applicant would be eligible to submit a development plan for the proposed development with the needed building height as described in this request. Approval of the Modification would be valid for one year following the approval date. Site Location 1600 E. Prospect Road - southwest corner of E. Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive. Parcel # 8720212005. Zoning Employment District (E). Property Owner Max West Inc., c/o/ Jonathan O’Neil 1500 Buckeye Street Fort Collins CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Amanda Hansen RB+B Architects 315 E. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80524 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction ................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 3 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 5 4. Recommendation ....................................... 5 5. Attachments ............................................... 5 Staff Recommendation Approval. Sharp Point Dr. Prospect Park East Business Park Packet pg. 38 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230001 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 2 of 5 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application consists solely of a request for a Modification of a Standard to Section 3.8.17(A)(1)(a), Building Height Measured in Stories. This modification is part of a prospective development plan for a 3-court gym facility for basketball and volleyball. The building would be one story, and the request is based on a building program with three modules for the sports courts, which require a certain ceiling clearance (27 feet) for official indoor volleyball. The code standard limits the height of a story in a commercial building to 25 feet. The request is to allow the height to exceed 25’ as necessary to provide 27-foot ceiling clearance for the three court modules within the overall building design. This necessary height for the three modules is expected to be about 37 feet based on preliminary analysis of site topography and building structure using the height calculation in the land use code. For clarity and efficiency, the request is worded to request a “maximum height of 40’ at the highest point of the building.” The applicants’ narrative thoroughly explains and illustrates the proposed modification. However, it refers to 32 feet as the requested height because it was based on earlier thinking which has since been updated with further understanding of grading on the site and the building structure. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Prospect Park East PUD The site is the last remaining undeveloped site in the Prospect Park East business park development plan, which dates to the early 1980’s. Development has occurred since then through multiple filings. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Employment (E) RC, River Corridor Employment (E) Land Use Business/Office Park Advanced Energy abutting with shared access; various light industrial, office, and institutional uses Agricultural/undeveloped, in the Poudre River floodway. Various light industrial, office, and institutional uses C. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS DISCUSSED IN STAFF REVIEW • Modulation and materiality of the proposed building as explained and shown. • Employment zoning, which allows 4-story buildings, which corresponds to 100 feet as the ultimate stated height limit in the zone. • Compatibility with the context, which includes buildings of similar and larger scale. Packet pg. 39 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230001 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 3 of 5 Back to Top 2. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR220043 A conceptual review meeting was held on June 2, 2022. #CDR 200080. 2. First Submittal – MOD230001 The modification request was submitted on March 24, 2023. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Held January 12, 2023. One attendee was present and had no questions or comments. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign #723. Written Hearing Notice: May 6, 2021, 16 addresses mailed. Published Notice: April 9, 2023. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan or intent of the Land Use Code, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances of a given development plan, would not meet a specific standard of the Land Use Code as stated. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2(H) provides for evaluation of these instances on a case- by-case basis under the following criteria. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result Packet pg. 40 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230001 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 4 of 5 Back to Top in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Modification of 3.8.17(A)(2)(c) Building Height Measured in Stories Summary of Applicant Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It explains that: • The modification is not detrimental to the public good because several significant design measures minimize the effect of the height and mass, emphasize human scale, and fit within the context of existing buildings and streetscapes. • The plan meets subparagraph (1) “equal-to or better than” a plan with a taller building which would be allowed; and likewise a plan for a building limited to 25’ rather than 32’ as proposed, for the reasons stated above. The building provides a suitable transition near the river corridor landscape. • The plan meets subparagraph (2), “defined community need” because of high demand for indoor basketball and volleyball venues in the community. • The plan meets subparagraph (3), “exceptional physical conditions” because of the limited access, which is established by the existing abutting development; and the buildable area of the lot, which is limited by streetscape access easements. • The plan meets subparagraph (4), “nominal and inconsequential” when considered from the perspective of the entire proposed development plan, because of the architectural measures to respond to and blend with the building’s context. Staff Findings Staff finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets criteria (1) and (4) -- “equal-to or better”, and “nominal and inconsequential from the perspective of the whole plan”. Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The building is not detrimental for the reasons noted in the applicant’s explanation as summarized above and articulated in the attached narrative. “Equal or Better”. The plan is equal to or better than a plan with a single story limited to 25 feet or a taller building with multiple stories, for reasons stated previously above, including: • Modulation and materiality of the proposed building as described in the applicants’ narrative, completely avoids any effect of an oversized building story. Proposed Building Design Packet pg. 41 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230001 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 5 of 5 Back to Top • Employment zoning allows 4-story buildings, which would correspond to 100 feet as ultimate height. The proposed 32’ height for building modules is completely compatible with the context, which includes buildings of larger and similar scale. • The building modulation expresses the activities inside, consistent with the intent of building standards in the Land Use Code. “Nominal and Inconsequential”. Any effect of the height of the sports court modules is offset by architectural measures mentioned in this report and the applicants’ narrative, the generous streetscapes, the business park context of the area, and the magnitude of difference between the ultimate presumed height limit of 100’ and the proposed 32’ height. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230001, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The request complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The request satisfies the applicable requirements for approval of Modification of Standards located in Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code. 3. No other Land Use Code standards apply to this request. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230001 to allow a maximum height of 40’ at the highest point of the building, based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 5. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Staff presentation Packet pg. 42 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESIGN NARRATIVE Background Prospect Sports is a planned, new 3-court facility envisioned to fulfill a need for basketball and volleyball courts that are in low supply and high demand in Northern Colorado. It is intended to bolster the community while keeping the integrity, continuity, and connectivity of the sur rounding neighborhood. As an infill project planned for a narrow, undeveloped corner lot in the established Prospect Park area, the property has many physical constraints that limit its development. However, in the time since the Conceptual Review meeting to introduce the project to city staff was held, the design team has developed a thoughtful, attractive and efficient plan and vision for this community amenity. The proposed project will require review and approval by the City of Fort Collins through a Type II PDP process. Due to the physical constraints of the site, two Modifications of Standards will be required to achieve the planned project. In order to confirm support of the Modifications of Standards before completing the detailed design and engineering plans required for the PDP submittal, we are seeking standalone review and approval of these two Modifications of Standards as allowed by the Land Use Code. Approval of the Modifications will not eliminate the requirement for our development plans to be approved through a Type II PDP review process, but with approval of the Modifications we will have better direction for development of our PDP submittal. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 43 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories The following information pertains to the request for modification of section 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Planning Context Figure 1. Zoning Map Figure 2. Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 44 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Figure 3. Concept Site Plan Figure 4. Building Height Context The built context consists of tall, single-story or multi-story buildings. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 45 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Modification of Standards Request The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be cases where circumstances in a given development plan may warrant a design solution that does not comply with a standard as written. Thus, the code includes a provision for ‘Modification of Standards with certain criteria. The criteria for modification requests are in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) as follows: Land Use Code Modification Criteria: The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting o f the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar ener gy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 46 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Modification to 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories The standard states: No story of a commercial or industrial building shall have more than twenty-five (25) feet from average ground level at the center of all walls to the eave/wall intersection or wall plate height if there is no eave, or from floor to floor, or from floor to eave/wall intersection or wall plate height as applicable. Basketball and Volleyball Facility Height Requirements Three gymnasiums, designed for basketball and volleyball, are the main programmatic elements of the proposed Prospect Sports Club. Volleyball courts require the largest clear height above the court of the two sports. The minimum clear height for collegiate volleyball play is 25 feet, but providing more clearance is recommended. For this facility to function as intended by providing a premium experience for athletes, the courts must provide the preferred clearances that athletes expect. Thus, the facility is being designed to provide 27 feet of clearance above the courts. Determining the Height of the “Story” The exterior walls around the gyms will be precast concrete panels featuring attractive surface texture. Above the walls, the top of the gym masses will be articulated by a continuous, horizontal band of translucent windows. These windows will add architectural interest and variety to the building exterior and will contribute even, soft daylight to the building interior. (See figure 5 below) The windows will extend up to the roof, which will slope north to south following the slope of the site. Therefore, the top of the story will be perceived as the top of the band of windows. The building will have two floor levels: the main floor level at which one enters the building and a court- level which is approximately five feet lower. The two levels accomplish two goals: they allow for unobstructed views to the courts on the interior and allow the gym masses to sit deeper within the landscape. The true height of the gym masses will only be apparent on the south, where the court level is at the finished grade. Grade will gradually rise going north and will envelope the gym masses, softening the visual impact of the development and keeping the building height and profile in scale with surrounding natural features. Figure 5 The West Elevation of proposed Prospect Sports Club illustrates how the height of the gym masses follows the slope of the site. A story height calculated from the average ground level to the top of the translucent band of windows will be approximately 32 feet; exceeding the maximum story height for commercial and industria l buildings per the Fort Collins Land Use Code. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 47 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories Strict Application of the Standard This facility’s design would be negatively impacted if it were to meet the strict application of the standard. The only way the building could not exceed 25 feet in height would be by sinking the entire building seven additional feet or by sinking only the gym masses and making up the difference in floor levels on the interior. The former would lead to a very awkward relationship between Prospect and the building’s north façade, as the main level would be low in relation to Prospect Road and the sidewalk. The latter would drastically change the interior, causing more building area to be devoted to vertical circulation and would make the relationship between levels far less affective. Additionally, both methods would eliminate the ADA-accessible emergency exits at gym level and make the building more vulnerable to flooding. The strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. 4.27.D.4.a Dimensional Standards of the Employment District This section of the Land Use Code sets a maximum height of buildings within Employment Districts at four stories. A single-story, 32-foot-high building is well below this height limit and would meet the stated purpose of the code. Based on the heights of adjacent buildings, this building would not look out of context. Fitting within Context Another method being employed to make the building fit within its context is the articulation of each gym volume by dividing the three into separate masses. By breaking up the building façade and creating a pattern of projections and recesses, the height as perceived from Prospect Road will be less consequential. Additionally, the separation of gym masses offers the opportunity to tuck rooftop mechanical equipment on lower roofs in the spaces between; limiting the potential for visual impact. See the figure below. Figure 6 The North Elevation illustrates the articulation of each gym volume. The shorter portion of the building nearest Prospect will further diminish the visual impact of the gym masses as it is less than the maximum story height limit. This step down of the building will promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale and create a gradual transition in height between the public right-of-way and the gym volumes. Conclusions We submit that the Modification should be supported based on the following findings: The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets criteria (1) “equal to or better than”, (2) “substantially address an important community need”, (3) “exceptional physical conditions”, and (4) “nominal and inconsequential from the perspective of the whole plan”: Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The building is being designed to minimize the public’s perception of its height by tucking the larger building masses away from Prospect Road and into the landscape, breaking the larger masses up and softening the visual impact of tops of the masses with a band of windows, and creating lower building masses along the primary public right -of-way that emphasize the ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 48 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.8.17.A.2.c Building Height Measured in Stories human scale. The building will fit within the established pattern of buildings and meet the design standards established for the Prospect Corridor. Equal or Better. The proposed building is planned to be significantly shorter than is allowed in the Employment District. This will provide a more suitable transition from the natural area to the east of the property to the urban development west of the property and fit better alongside the shorter buildings adjacent without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Substantially Address an Important Community Need Granting this modification from the strict application of the standard will provide substantial benefit to the city by substantially addressing several important community needs specifically defined in the city's Comprehensive Plan. This development will provide the opportunity for people to live and access daily services within walking/bicycling distance of where they work , reinvigorate an older office park, and be a prime example of the City supporting a variety of high -quality, indoor recreational opportunities for the entire community. There is a high demand for basketball and volleyball venues in the area, and this facility will help alleviate the need for athletes and their families to travel to other communities to find available court space. Exceptional Physical Conditions. The property is a narrow corner lot within the Prospect East area at the intersection of East Prospect Road (four-lane arterial) and Sharp Point Drive (major collector). The buildable area on the lot is bounded on the south by a private access drive, and the north by a 50-foot pedestrian easement. Limited site access further restricts the design opportunities on the lot. A different, less constricting lot might make sinking the gym masses in to the landscape easier, thereby meeting the standard, however the current lot limits the extent at which this can be done while still meeting other life- safety code requirements. Nominal and Inconsequential. The alternative plan meets the purpose of the standard and the criteria for an exception to the standard by using several architectural design methods to ensure the building responds well to its context and blends into the natural and urban landscape as much as is possible. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by t his Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 1 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 49 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing April 20, 2023 Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230002 – Build-To Line Summary of Request This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires a new commercial building to be placed within 25’ of an abutting arterial street and 15’ from other streets. In this case, existing pedestrian streetscape easements on the subject property prevent placement that close to the street corner. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the building can be approved in its planned location, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. The request is one of three related to the proposed gym facility– the other two are #MOD230001 and 230003. Zoning Map Next Steps If the Modification is approved, the applicant would be eligible to submit a development plan for the proposed development with the building placed further from the street corner than stated in the standard. Approval of the Modification would be valid for one year following the approval date. Site Location 1600 E. Prospect Road - southwest corner of E. Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive. Parcel # # 8720212005. Zoning Employment District (E). Property Owner Max West Inc., c/o/ Jonathan O’Neil 1500 Buckeye Street Fort Collins CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Amanda Hansen RB+B Architects 315 E. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80524 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction ................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 4 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 6 4. Recommendation ....................................... 6 5. Attachments ............................................... 6 Staff Recommendation Approval. Timberline Rd. Sharp Point Dr. Prospect Park East Business Park Packet pg. 50 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230002 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request – Build-to Line Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 2 of 6 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application consists solely of the request for a Modification of a Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(2), Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Existing pedestrian streetscape easements on the property preclude placing the building as close to the corner as the standard states; and the building is proposed at the easement lines The applicants’ narrative thoroughly explains and illustrates the proposed modification. The modification is part of a prospective development plan for a gym facility for basketball and volleyball. The building would be placed at the corner at the easement lines with no intervening parking or drives, which is the more important determinant of building placement. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Prospect Park East PUD The site is the last remaining undeveloped site in the Prospect Park East business park development plan, which dates to the early 1980’s. Development has occurred since then through multiple filings. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Employment (E) RC, River Corridor Employment (E) Land Ue Business/Office Park Advanced Energy abutting with shared access; various light industrial, office, and institutional uses Agricultural/undeveloped, in the Poudre River floodway. Various light industrial, office, and institutional uses Packet pg. 51 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230002 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request – Build-to Line Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 3 of 6 Back to Top C. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS DISCUSSED IN STAFF REVIEW The first consideration was whether a modification is warranted. The build-to-line standards include exceptions that could possibly be interpreted as pertaining to this situation. Existing easements preclude placing the building as close to the streets as the standard states; and the easements are there in order to form an outdoor space in the form of pedestrian streetscapes with generous landscaped setbacks. The code language states: (d) Exceptions to the build-to line standards shall be permitted: 1. in order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between a building and the sidewalk. Such a larger front yard area shall have landscaping, low walls, fencing or railings, a tree canopy and/or other similar site improvements along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity. 2. if the building abuts a four-lane or six-lane arterial street, and the Director has determined that an alternative to the street sidewalk better serves the purpose of connecting commercial destinations due to one (1) or more of the following constraints: a. high volume and/or speed of traffic on the abutting street(s), b. landform, c. an established pattern of existing buildings that makes a pedestrian-oriented streetfront infeasible. Such an alternative to the street sidewalk must include a connecting walkway(s) and may include internal walkways or other directly connecting outdoor spaces such as plazas, courtyards, squares or gardens. The proposal is to place the building as close as possible to the streets, right at the easement lines. The applicants and staff decided to include this modification request to avoid any question of interpreting the standard as written in a subsequent full development plan. Staff will consider a possible code change to this standard to add existing and required easements as exceptions. The landscaped setbacks are part of the larger East Prospect streetscape in this stretch, which is intended to be a landscaped employment corridor as a major city entryway. The Harmony Corridor set a precedent for the idea, which has been successful in this area and along Harmony Road. The intent is to avoid a commercial arterial corridor. The Build-to Line idea is generally more pertinent in commercial streetfronts than business park settings that emphasize a landscape setting and image. Packet pg. 52 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230002 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request – Build-to Line Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 4 of 6 Back to Top 2. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR220043 A conceptual review meeting was held on June 2, 2022. #CDR 200080. 2. First Submittal – MOD230001 The modification request was submitted on March 24, 2023. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Held January 12, 2023. One attendee was present and had no questions or comments. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign #723. Written Hearing Notice: May 6, 2021, 16 addresses mailed. Published Notice: April 9, 2023. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan or intent of the Land Use Code, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances of a given development plan, would not meet a specific standard of the Land Use Code as stated. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2(H) provides for evaluation of these instances on a case- by-case basis under the following criteria. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result Packet pg. 53 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230002 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request – Build-to Line Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 5 of 6 Back to Top in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Modification of 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-To Lines for Streetfront Buildings Summary of Applicant Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. The last two pages directly address the exceptions in the standard in a way that highlight the question of whether modification is warranted. It explains that: • The modification is not detrimental to the public good because the building location matches the established pattern of buildings and parking and provided direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalks. • The plan meets subparagraph (1) “equal-to or better than” because the alternative plan promotes the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale while in context of the established pedestrian easements and landscaped setbacks established in the Prospect Corridor; and access restrictions for public streets. • The plan meets subparagraph (3), “exceptional physical conditions” because the property is a narrow corner lot. The narrowness of the parcel and the existing pedestrian easements and limited access preclude strict application of the standard. • The plan meets subparagraph (4), “nominal and inconsequential” when considered from the perspective of the entire proposed development plan, because the alternative plan meets the purpose of the standard and the criteria for an exception to the standard by providing a main building entrance that faces and opens directly onto connecting walkways, a pedestrian plaza with seating for pick-up / drop-off and direct pedestrian connections to the adjacent public sidewalk and the East Prospect Road/Sharp Point Drive intersection without crossing parking or drives. It matches the established pattern of buildings and parking. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Staff Findings Staff finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets criteria (1) and (3) -- “equal-to or better”, and “unusual exceptional conditions”. Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The building is not detrimental for the reasons noted in the applicants explanation as summarized above and articulated in the attached narrative. “Equal or Better”. The plan is better than a plan with a building brought forward to the Build-to Line dimensions because the building fits within the location established by existing development; and it Packet pg. 54 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230002 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request – Build-to Line Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 6 of 6 Back to Top would be disruptive to the point of infeasibility to demolish the existing streetscapes with a building placement which would interrupt the established pattern. “Physical conditions, exceptional and unusual situations”. The existing pedestrian easements preclude strict application of the standard. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230002, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The request complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The request complies with applicable requirements for approval of Modification of Standards located in Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code. 3. No other Land Use Code standards apply to this request. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230002 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 5. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Staff presentation Packet pg. 55 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESIGN NARRATIVE Background Prospect Sports is a planned new 3-court facility envisioned to fulfill a need for basketball and volleyball courts that are in low supply and high demand in Northern Colorado. It is intended to bolster the community while keeping the integrity, continuity, and connectivity of the surrounding neighborhood. As an infill project planned for a narrow, undeveloped corner lot in the established Prospect Park area, the property has many physical constraints that limit its development. However, in the time since the Conceptual Review meeting to introduce the project to city staff was held, the design team has developed a thoughtful, attractive and efficient plan and vision for this community amenity. The proposed project will require review and approval by the City of Fort Collins through a Type II PDP process. Due to the physical constraints of the site, three Modifications of Standards will be required to achieve the planned project. In order to confirm support of the Modifications of Standards before completing the detailed design and engineering plans required for the PDP submittal, we are seeking standalone review and approval of these three Modifications of Standards as allowed by the Land Use Code. Approval of the Modfications will not eliminate the requirement for our development plans to be approved through a Type II PDP review process, but with approval of the Modifications we will have better direction for development of our PDP submittal. The following information pertains to the request for modification of section 3.5.3(C)(2) 3.5.3(C)(2) 3.5.3(C)(2) 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to BuildOrientation to BuildOrientation to BuildOrientation to Build----to Lines for Streetfront Buildingsto Lines for Streetfront Buildingsto Lines for Streetfront Buildingsto Lines for Streetfront Buildings.... ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 56 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Planning Context The property is located at the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive and is platted as Lot 5 of the Prospect Park East PUD. As a part of the Prospect Park development, substantial pedestrian and access easements were dedicated along both East Prospect Road (50' easement) and Sharp Point Drive (25’ easement). These easements are landscaped with mature trees and contain meandering detached sidewalks. Vehicular access to the site is not allowed from either street frontage but instead is intended to be shared with the existing drive on the north end of Lot 6. An access easement is in place to allow this access to the property. Zoning Map Neighborhood Context ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 57 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Existing Conditions Survey ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 58 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Concept Site Plan Description To best accommodate the site access limitations, our current site concept locates the building near the intersection of East Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive with visitor parking to the west of the building. This allows access to the parking from the shared access drive at Sharp Point Drive within the existing access easement and allows for fire access to the building from Sharp Point Drive. The primary building entrance will be located near the northwest corner of the building near East Prospect Road with a pedestrian plaza and drop-off lane. A direct pedestrian connection is planned from this plaza and building entrance to the adjacent public sidewalk on East Prospect Road, and will double as an emergency vehicle access if required by Poudre Fire Authority. Concept Site Plan ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 59 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Modification of Standards Request The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be cases where circumstances in a given development plan may warrant a design solution that does not comply with a standard as written. Thus, the code includes a provision for ‘Modification of Standards with certain criteria. The criteria for modification requests are in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) as follows: Land Use Code Modification Criteria: The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 60 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Modification (or Exception) to 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings This standard requires buildings to be located no more than fifteen (15) feet from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. For arterial streets, buildings are required to be located at least ten (10) and no more than twenty-five (25) feet behind the street right-of-way of an adjoining street that is larger than a two-lane arterial that does not have on-street parking. If a lot has multiple streets, then the building shall be built to at least two (2) of the streets. For this parcel, this standard would require the building to be located no more than twenty-five (25) feet from East Prospect Road and no more than fifteen (15) feet from Sharp Point Drive. The plans for the Prospect Park neighborhood and the Prospect Corridor Plan established larger setbacks along both of these streets including pedestrian easements to ensure larger landscaped setbacks would be maintained with development. These pedestrian easements prohibit a building location meeting the 3.5.3(C)(2) standard (see diagram below). ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 61 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings In addition, since this parcel is a small corner lot at the intersection of East Prospect Road (four- lane arterial) and Sharp Point Drive (major collector), we are not allowed to create a new public vehicle access point on either road. Instead, access to this lot is required from the access easement that exists on Lot 6 to allow shared access from Sharp Point Drive to this lot (see diagram below). Although the pedestrian easements and access restrictions prohibit a building location meeting these standards, we propose a building and parking design that meets the purpose of Section 3.5.3 and these subsections while still honoring these existing pedestrian and access easements. The main building entrance, pedestrian entry plaza and pick-up / drop-off lanes are planned at the northwest corner of the building. This main entrance faces and opens directly onto connecting walkways with direct pedestrian connections to the adjacent public sidewalk on East Prospect Road with direct access to the adjacent transit routes and the Sharp Point Drive intersection. The pedestrian connection from the building entrance and the adjacent public sidewalk does not cross the parking or drives. See site concept below: ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 62 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Exception Allowance Section 3.5.3.(C)(2)(d) allows exceptions to the build-to line standards to be permitted with one or more of the following criteria: 1. in order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between a building and the sidewalk. Such a larger front yard area shall have landscaping, low walls, fencing or railings, a tree canopy and/or other similar site improvements along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity. The plan proposes a pedestrian plaza with seating at the main building entrance and along the pick-up / drop-off area. 2. if the building abuts a four-lane or six-lane arterial street, (East Prospect Road is a four- lane arterial) and the Director has determined that an alternative to the street sidewalk better serves the purpose of connecting commercial destinations due to one (1) or more of the following constraints: a. high volume and/or speed of traffic on the abutting street(s), East Prospect Road is a four-lane arterial, high-volume and speed) c. an established pattern of existing buildings that makes a pedestrian-oriented streetfront infeasible. The proposed plan matches the established pattern of existing buildings and ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 63 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings utilizes the existing access easements and pedestrian easements making the strict build-to line distances infeasible. Such an alternative to the street sidewalk must include a connecting walkway(s) and may include internal walkways or other directly connecting outdoor spaces such as plazas, courtyards, squares or gardens. The proposed plan includes a main building entrance that faces and opens directly onto connecting walkways, a pedestrian plaza with seating for pick-up / drop-off and direct pedestrian connections to the adjacent public sidewalk existing on East Prospect Road. Conclusions We submit that the proposed concept plan meets the criteria of an alternative plan that can be approved by the Director as an exception to the build-to line standards. However, if a Modification of Standards is required, we submit that the Modification should be supported based on the following findings: The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets criteria (1) “equal to or better than”, (3) “exceptional physical conditions”, and (4) “nominal and inconsequential from the perspective of the whole plan”: Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The building location matches the established pattern of buildings and parking and provides direct pedestrian connections to the adjacent public sidewalk. Equal or Better. The alternative plan promotes the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale while in context of the established pedestrian easements and landscaped setbacks established in the Prospect Corridor and access restrictions for public streets. Exceptional Physical Conditions. The property is a narrow corner lot within the Prospect East area at the intersection of East Prospect Road (four-lane arterial) and Sharp Point Drive (major collector). The narrowness of the parcel and the existing pedestrian easements and limited access prohibits strict application of the standard. Nominal and Inconsequential. The alternative plan meets the purpose of the standard and the criteria for an exception to the standard by providing a main building entrance that faces and opens directly onto connecting walkways, a pedestrian plaza with seating for pick-up / drop-off and direct pedestrian connections to the adjacent public sidewalk and the East Prospect Road / Sharp Point Drive intersection without crossing parking or drives. It matches the established pattern of buildings and parking. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 2 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 64 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing April 20, 2023 Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230001 – Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Summary of Request This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires parking based on land use. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the development can be approved with the proposed parking number, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. The request is one of three related to the proposed gym facility– the other two are #MOD230001 and 230002. Zoning Map Next Steps If the Modification is approved, the applicant would be eligible to submit a development plan for the proposed development with the needed parking solution described in this request. Approval of the Modification would be valid for one year following the approval date. Site Location 1600 E. Prospect Road - southwest corner of E. Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive. Parcel # # 8720212005. Zoning Employment District (E). Property Owner Max West Inc., c/o/ Jonathan O’Neil 1500 Buckeye Street Fort Collins CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Amanda Hansen RB+B Architects 315 E. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80524 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction ................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 3 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 6 4. Recommendation ....................................... 6 5. Attachments ............................................... 6 Staff Recommendation Approval. Sharp Point Dr. Prospect Park East Business Park Packet pg. 65 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230003 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 2 of 6 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application consists solely of the request for a Modification of a Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(2), Nonresidential Parking Requirements. The standard is in a table with a required number of off-street parking spaces for a list of common building uses based on building square feet. If a plan proposes building uses that are not listed in the table, then the number of required spaces is to be the number for the most similar use that is listed. The use falls within the classification of Unlimited Indoor Recreational Use and Facility, which is not listed in the table. The most similar use is Bowling Alley with a requirement of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which would be 93 spaces. The proposed plan can provide 64 spaces. The applicants’ narrative and a supporting Parking Impact Study thoroughly explain and show the rationale for the proposed plan, shown below. 64 SPACES Packet pg. 66 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230003 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 3 of 6 Back to Top B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Prospect Park East PUD The site is the last remaining undeveloped site in the Prospect Park East business park development plan, which dates to the early 1980’s. Development has occurred since then through multiple filings. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Employment (E) RC, River Corridor Employment (E) Land Use Business/Office Park Advanced Energy abutting with shared access; various light industrial, office, and institutional uses Agricultural/undeveloped, in the Poudre River floodway, across Sharp Point Drive Various light industrial, office, and institutional uses C. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS DISCUSSED IN STAFF REVIEW • The first consideration was determining the most similar use for purposes of assigning a parking requirement to guide a plan and review (staff and applicants found bowling alley to be most similar as mentioned above). • The applicants and staff discussed potential for shared parking solutions with abutting properties. The owners are not the same as the business tenants, and the applicants have explained the time and effort spent finding the owners’ representatives, and finding zero interest or willingness for any agreement. • The only way to physically fit the required parking into a development plan would be to have a smaller building with only two courts instead of the proposed three. • Sharp Point Drive allows for 39 street parking spaces, across the street on the east side, which currently get very negligible use because the adjoining property is undeveloped river corridor floodplain land, and nearby development provides ample parking. The plan would be a good use of that asphalt, particularly because much of the demand would be during evenings and weekends when the business park activity would presumably be at its lowest. 2. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR220043 A conceptual review meeting was held on June 2, 2022. #CDR 200080. 2. First Submittal – MOD230001 The modification request was submitted on March 24, 2023. Packet pg. 67 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230003 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 4 of 6 Back to Top 3. Neighborhood Meeting Held January 12, 2023. One attendee was present and had no questions or comments. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign #723. Written Hearing Notice: May 6, 2021,16 addresses mailed. Published Notice: April 9, 2023. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan or intent of the Land Use Code, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances of a given development plan, would not meet a specific standard of the Land Use Code as stated. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2(H) provides for evaluation of these instances on a case- by-case basis under the following criteria. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Packet pg. 68 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230003 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 5 of 6 Back to Top Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Modification of 3.2.2(K)(2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements Summary of Applicant Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It explains that: • The modification is not detrimental to the public good because the plan adequately addresses demand. The plan makes better use of land considering the most common use scenario and reflects city initiatives to mitigate vehicle-centric development. A drop-off and pick-up area is provided and envisioned as a key part of the facility’s use. • The plan meets subparagraph (1) “equal-to or better than” because the parking lot is adequate based on analysis of the specific facility’s intended use. • The plan meets subparagraph (2), “defined community need” because the development would provide opportunity for people to access daily services near where they work, reinvigorate an older office park, and meet high demand for court space to help alleviate the current need for athletes and their families to travel to other communities to find court space. • The plan meets subparagraph (3), “exceptional physical conditions” because of the limited access which is which is established by the existing abutting development, and the buildable area of the lot which is limited by streetscape access easements. • The plan meets subparagraph (4), “nominal and inconsequential” when considered from the perspective of the entire proposed development plan, because it provides an adequate parking lot for most demand scenarios and can be supplemented when necessary by nearby on-street parking. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Staff Findings • The modification is not detrimental to the public good because the plan provides an adequate parking lot for most demand scenarios and can be supplemented when necessary by nearby on- street parking and by a drop-off and pick-up area. This makes efficient use of land and existing asphalt and reflects city initiatives to mitigate vehicle-centric development. • The plan meets subparagraph (1) “equal-to or better than” because the parking lot is adequate based on analysis of the specific facility’s intended use. • The plan meets subparagraph (4), “nominal and inconsequential” for the same reasons noted above. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Packet pg. 69 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MOD230003 | Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request - Height Thursday, April 20, 2023 | Page 6 of 6 Back to Top 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230003, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The request complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The request complies with applicable requirements for approval of Modification of Standards located in Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code. 3. No other Land Use Code standards apply to this request. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Prospect Sports Stand-Alone Modification Request #MOD230003 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 5. Attachments 1. Applicants’ Narrative 2. Applicants’ Parking Impact Study 3. Staff presentation Packet pg. 70 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESIGN NARRATIVE Background Prospect Sports is a planned, new 3-court facility envisioned to fulfill a need for basketball and volleyball courts that are in low supply and high demand in Northern Colorado. It is intended to bolster the community while keeping the integrity, continuity, and connectivity of the sur rounding neighborhood. As an infill project planned for a narrow, undeveloped corner lot in the established Prospect Park area, the property has many physical constraints that limit its development. However, in the time since the Conceptual Review meeting to introduce the project to city staff was held, the design team has developed a thoughtful, attractive and efficient plan and vision for this community amenity. The proposed project will require review and approval by the City of Fort Collins through a Type II PDP process. Due to the physical constraints of the site, two Modifications of Standards will be required to achieve the planned project. In order to confirm support of the Modifications of Standards before completing the detailed design and engineering plans required for the PDP submittal, we are seeking standalone review and approval of these two Modifications of Standards as allowed by the Land Use Code. Approval of the Modifications will not eliminate the requirement for our development plans to be approved through a Type II PDP review process, but with approval of the Modifications we will have better direction for development of our PDP submittal. A Parking Impact Study has been conducted for the Prospect Sports facility and has been submitted with this Modification Request. Please refer to it for additional information. Planning Context The property is located at the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive and is platted as Lot 5 of the Prospect Park East PUD. As a part of the Prospect Park development, substantial pedestrian and access easements were dedicated along both East Prospect Road (50' easement) and Sharp Point Drive (25’ easement). These easements are landscaped with mature trees and contain meandering detached sidewalks. Vehicular access to the site is not allowed from either street frontage but instead is intended to be shared with the existing drive on the north end of Lot 6. An acce ss easement is in place to allow this access to the property. See the ‘Planning Context’ section of the Prospect Sports Club Parking Impact Study for more information regarding site constraints, the proposed building’s site plan, the parking study area, and the transit, cycling and walking environments and networks in the vicinity. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 71 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements Figure 1. Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 72 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements Figure 2. Concept Site Plan ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 73 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements Modification of Standards Request The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be cases where circumstances in a given development plan may warrant a design solution that does not comply with a standard as written. Thus, the code includes a provision for ‘Modification of Standards with certain crit eria. The criteria for modification requests are in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) as follows: Land Use Code Modification Criteria: The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the publi c good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 74 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements Modification to 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements The standard states: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (a) The table below sets forth the number of minimum required and maximum allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. Determining Parking Count Requirements The Prospect Sports facility falls under the classification of Unlimited Indoor Recreation Use in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 5.1.2: “Unlimited Indoor Recreation Use and Facility shall mean establishments primarily engaged in operations and activities contained within large-scale gymnasium- type facilities such as for tennis, basketball, swimming, indoor soccer, indoor hockey, or bowling.” Prospect Sports also easily fits the category of “Health and membership clubs” as is listed as a commercial/retail use which is permitted in the E District, subject to administrative review. Land Use Code subsection 3.2.2.K.2 does not include parking parameters specifically for this classification. Paragraph (d) states “For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed.” In the table in Section 3.2.2(K)(2), the most comparable classification is ‘Bowling Alley’. This is due to a bowling alley and the proposed Prospect Sports facility both having a similar person-to-square feet ratio. Additionally, bowling activities are referenced in the unlimited indoor recreation use definition. The table requires bowling alleys to provide a minimum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. If this standard were to be applied to Prospect Sports Club, 93 off-street parking spaces would be required. This requirement does not reflect how the building is planned to be utilized, even in peak use scenarios. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 75 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements ‘Unlimited Indoor Recreation’ vs. ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ The Fort Collins Land Use Code clearly differentiates between ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ and ‘Unlimited Indoor Recreation’ uses. ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ use is defined as “facilities established primarily for such activities as exercise or athletic facilities; and amusement or recreational services, such as billiard or pool parlors, pinball/video arcades, dance studios, martial art schools, arts or crafts studios; or exercise clubs, but not including bowling alleys or establishments which have large -scale gymnasium- type facilities for such activities as tennis, basketball or competitive swimming. This definition is intended to restrict the type of recreational use allowed to those small-scale facilities containing no more than five thousand (5,000) square feet.” Since the proposed Prospect Sports facility does not fit that description, ‘Limited Indoor Recreation” is not an appropriate classification. A Feasible Off-Street Parking Count Based on Site Constraints 64 parking spaces can be provided on site as designed. The parking configuration illustrated in figure 2 maximizes on-site parking despite significant site constraints and maintains comfortable bike and pedestrian environments. This plan developed as a result of several factors: 1. Existing Access Easement There is an existing access easement to access this site which exists along a portion of the south side of the property. This reduces the number of possible parking configurations. The design team has been working to extend access to the west. 2. Existing Pedestrian and Landscape Easements There exists two very large pedestrian and landscape easements along the entire north and east sides of the site. These swaths of property cannot be used to contribute to the parking count. 3. Maximized Courts in Facility The Prospect Sports facility intends to address the lack o f rentable basketball and volleyball courts in Fort Collins and the surrounding areas. It can contribute to the inventory best by including the highest number of courts possible. For this site, three courts can fit if the parking count can be right-sized. 4. No Opportunity for Parking Share Agreements Extensive work has been done to negotiate a parking share agreement with the owners of the adjacent properties, however neither are willing to participate. Find more information about attempts to initiate parking shares on page 24 of the Parking Study Report. Assessment of Existing Parking Conditions There are approximately 900 feet of on-street parking northbound on Sharp Point Drive from Prospect Ponds Trailhead to Prospect Road. At 23 feet per space, that is approximately 39 on-street parking spaces. These spaces are not likely to be utilized by any other development in the future, as there is not currently a demand for those spaces and the parcel to the east of those spaces is not developed and is zoned as River Conservation. Sharp Point Drive is signed “no parking” in the southbound direction. Peak Parking Demand Calculation The development of this facility has required in-depth analysis of the anticipated building use and users. Page 26 of the Parking Impact Study describes three distinct building use scenarios and identifies the ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 76 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements anticipated peak occupant count for each. The scenario which is the most realistic model to consider when right-sizing parking for this facility is identified and the assumptions that informed this decision are outlined. A Realistic Reduction To reach an appropriate parking demand figure, reductions must be applied to the anticipated number of building occupants to account for carpooling and alternate modes of transportation. Pages 28 and 29 of the Parking Impact Study highlight reasons why parking demand may be reduced based on this specific facility and site, and offers a realistic parking demand. It is anticipated that the off-street capacity currently available on site as designed, in combination with the on-street parking nearby, will provide enough parking capacity to meet peak parking demand during the most typical building use scenario. Strict Application of the Standard This facility’s design would be negatively impacted if it were to meet the strict application of the standard, assuming the standard remains based on the same parking requirements as a bowling alley. Providing 2.5 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet would force the owner to shrink the size of the building and reducing the number of courts offered . In this case, the facility would not meet the demand for rentable court space as well as is currently designed and would pose a real challenge to the project ’s feasibility. Conclusions We submit that the Modification should be supported based on the following findings: The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets criteria (1) “equal to or better than”, (2) “substantially address an important community need”, (3) “exceptional physical conditions”, and (4) “nominal and inconsequential from the perspective of the whole plan”: Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The proposed site layout will adequately address demand in such a way that is not detrimental to the public good. The layout prioritizes the allocation of safe pedestrian and bicyclist connections to adjacent public sidewalks, provides a sizeable drop-off and pick-up zone to further separate vehicular and pedestrian conflict, and includes the required number of handicap parking spaces. The proposed parking layout benefits the community by putting land to better use. By considering the most common use scenario and implementing opportunities to reduce vehicle parking demand, the parking capacity can be much more appropriate and supportive of City initiatives to create a less vehicle-centric community. Equal or Better. The proposed parking lot is sized to provide an adequate number of parking spaces based on an in-depth analysis of the specific facility’s intended use instead of trying to meet the requirements based on a much different facility. Substantially Address an Important Community Need Granting this modification from the strict application of the standard will provide substantial benefit to the city by substantially addressing several important community needs specifically defined in the city's Comprehensive Plan. This development will provide the opportunity for people to live and access daily services within walking/bicycling distance of where they work , reinvigorate an older office park, and be a prime example of the City supporting a variety of high -quality, indoor recreational opportunities for the entire community. There is a high demand for basketball and volleyball venues in the area, and this ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 77 Prospect Sports Club Standalone Modification Request: 3.2.2.K.2 Nonresidential Parking Requirements facility will help alleviate the need for athletes and their families to travel to other communities to find available court space. Exceptional Physical Conditions. The property is a narrow corner lot within the Prospect East area at the intersection of East Prospect Road (four-lane arterial) and Sharp Point Drive (major collector). The buildable area on the lot is bounded on the south by a private access drive, and the north by a 50-foot pedestrian easement. Limited site access further restricts the design opportunities on the lot. This lot, as constrained as it is, can support this development well if the right-sizing of parking requirements is permitted. Nominal and Inconsequential. The alternative plan meets the purpose of the standard and the criteria for an exception to the standard because it provides an adequately-sized parking lot for most demand scenarios and can be supplemented when necessary by nearby, convenient on-street parking. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by t his Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. For these reasons, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 78 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PARKING IMPACT STUDY MARCH 6, 2023 ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 79 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to outline a parking analysis study developed for the proposed Prospect Sports facility and the resulting recommendations for providing a logical amount of vehicular parking for the future building’s users. Prospect Sports will be developed on Parcel Number 8720212005 in the Prospect Park East P.U.D., Lot 5. The currently undeveloped site is situated on the southwest corner of Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive. Prospect Sports will be a specialized indoor athletic venue, servicing basketball and volleyball athletes of Northern Colorado. It will contribute to the area’s inventory of rentable court space, for which there is a high demand. Due to the distinct nature of the facility, there are not straight-forward parking requirements in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. As such, this study presents a recommendation on right-sized parking accommodations for the Prospect Sports facility. This recommendation is derived from in-depth evaluations of (1) travel and traffi c demand of the immediate area, (2) availability of alternate modes of transportation to and from the facility, (3) existing parking available in the vicinity, (4) the facility’s operational programming and times of peak operation, and (5) the building user demographic and their expected behaviors. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 80 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKING ANALYSIS OFF-STREET PARKING CAPACITY REQUIRED PARKING CALCULATION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS PEAK PARKING DEMAND CALCULATION SHARED PARKING PARKING DEMAND REDUCTION STRATEGY STUDY AREA & EXISTING SITE PLAN TRANSIT, CYCLING, AND WALKING ENVIRONMENT CITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK INTRODUCTION PAGE 4 PLANNING CONTEXT PAGE 5 CURRENT PARKING ASSESSMENT PAGE 14 PAGE 16 PAGE 18 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 32 RB+B Architects, Inc. - ARCHITECT BHA Design, Inc. - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Delich and Associates, Inc. - TRAFFIC ENGINEER United Civil Design Group - CIVIL ENGINEER CONTRIBUTORS ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 81 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 4 INTRODUCTION Background Prospect Sports is being created to fulfi ll a need for basketball and volleyball courts that are in low supply and high demand in Northern Colorado. This facility will bolster the community’s access to recreation, contribute to the City’s mission of developing convenient, safe, and connected travel routes, and enhance a key intersection of the Prospect Road Corridor. Trends in Parking The City of Fort Collins’ commendable goal and commitment to implement the 15-minute city concept will strengthen the multi-modal transportation services available to all populations throughout the city. Creating the infrastructure of human- powered transportation will alleviate the focus on automobiles, and thus parking requirements. “The 15-minute city concept is rooted in the idea that cities should be designed to accommodate the needs of people and enhance opportunities for human-powered transportation rather than being designed primarily for automobiles.” - 15-Minute City Analysis, City of Fort Collins In many cases, codes can require more parking than would actually accommodate the needs. This makes development more costly, reduces the total square footage of new development in order to dedicate land use to parking requirements, and makes it harder and less attractive to walk or bike in these areas. Right-Sized Parking for Prospect Park This study evaluates multiple factors to synthesize a ‘Right-Size Parking’ recommendation. This recommendation is meant to strike a balance between what may be implied by the existing Land Use Code parking guidelines, the trend toward multi-modal transportation and the reduction of land allocated to parking lots, and the realistic demand for vehicular parking at the Prospect Sports facility. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 82 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 5 PLANNING CONTEXT STUDY AREA & EXISTING SITE PLAN The parking study area is centered around 1601 Sharp Point Drive, where Prospect Sports is proposed to be developed. This site is the only undeveloped lot in the Prospect Park East PUD, which has established long-term businesses such as Advanced Energy (neighbor to the south), the Larimer County Coroner (neighbor to the west), Advanced Thermovoltaic Systems, and Liberty Commons School. PROSPECT SPORTS This parking study also encompassed a three block radius around the site with analysis of traffi c patterns and transit opportunities already established in the area that service the site. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 83 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 6 PLANNING CONTEXT LOT 6 PROSPECT PARK EAST P.U.D. LOT 4 PROSPECT PARK EAST P.U.D. LOT 5 PROSPECT PARK EAST P.U.D. ∆ SUBJECT PARCEL 107,245 sq. ft. 2.462 acres ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY arter of Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., ECORDED MAY 29, 1984 IN BOOK ESERVATIONS AND NOTES ONR 7, 1984 IN BOOK 2296 AT PAGE DED NOVEMBER 07, 1984 IN BOOK DED NOVEMBER 07, 1984 IN BOOK VENANTS RECORDEDBLE) RECORDED NOVEMBER 08, 1984, RFEITURE OR REVERTERF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, US, MARITAL STATUS,URCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH ENT THAT SAID COVENANT ORED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDEDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED CORDED MAY 13, 2015 AT CORDED NOVEMBER 17, 2011 AT AT RECEPTION NO. 20110070373. LE)ENT AGREEMENT RECORDED D) THE BINDER MAY BE REQUESTEDHIS BINDER AT NO ADDITIONAL T OF $125 PER UPDATE. FOR EACHNG A NEW EFFECTIVE DATE ANDPREVIOUS BINDER. OWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TLE TO WATER RIGHTS OR N AS TO MINERAL INTERESTS,WITH THE NOTICE BASIS OF BEARINGS AND LINEAL UNIT DEFINITION Assuming the North line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., monumented as shown on this drawing, as bearing North 89°42'52" West, being a Grid Bearing of the tate Plane, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2649.07 feet and with allother bearings contained herein relative thereto. The lineal dimensions as contained herein are based upon the "U.S. Survey Foot". ownship Seven North (T.7N.), Range eing more particularly described as 2296 at Page 2456, as reception number ort Collins, County of Larimer, State of s survey. re made in accordance with the 2021 Minimumstablished and adopted by the ALTA and NSPS,of. The field work was completed on September 8 NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within threeyears after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. (13-80-105 C.R.S. 2012) SURVEYOR'S NOTES rty address: 1600 East Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. arking spaces total 0, Disabled spaces 0, Motorcycle spaces 0, Regular spaces 0, Other spaces 0. ervable evidence of earth moving work, no buildings or building construction. c information shown based on ground survey, with 1' contour interval. Benchmark: City of Fortlins Benchmark Foreman. Elevation 4910.33 (NAVD 88 Vertical Datum) ility marking shown were provided by Primo Utility Locating Services, LLC. he Subject Property is in flood zone AE, "areas with Base Flood Elevation (BFE)" per FEMA flood maps and 08069C0983H, revised by LOMR Case No.: 17-08-1354P, effective Feruary 21, 2019. E=4901) djacent parcel ownership provided by county assessor page at the time of survey.mFeet 30 60 Survey of site. Pedestrian easements take up approximately 1/3 of the site. The proposed building also takes up 1/3; leaving 1/3 (approx. 32,000 sf) for site development. N ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 84 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 7 PLANNING CONTEXT Aerial view of site with easement information overlaid. Yellow indicates the existing site access easement which allows pedestrian, vehicular, and emergency services access to the Prospect Sports site. Blue indicates the portion of the site which is within pedestrian access easements. EXISTING SITE PLAN PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PARK I NG IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 8 PLANNING CONTEXT Transit Facilities Currently, the proposed Prospect Sports site is directly serviced by Transfort Bus Route 18. Route 18 operates along Prospect Road, Midpoint Drive, and Sharp Point Drive. There are two transit stops within close proximity to the site: 1. Sharp Point Drive Bus Stop # 1327: approximately 400 feet south from the Prospect Sports site. 2. Prospect Road Bus Stop # 1290: approximately 450 feet west from the Prospect Sports site. During the weekdays, Transfort Bus 18 runs every 10 minutes (based on Time Point Bus Stop ID 1339 Prospect Park Way & Midpoint Dr.) in both the northbound and southbound directions from 6:30am-6:30pm all year long. Transfort Bus 18 does not operate on Sundays. Transit, Cycling, and Walking Environment PROSPECT SPORTS 1 2 ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 86 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 9 PLANNING CONTEXT Cycling Facilities There are bicycle lanes along Prospect Road within the study area. These bicycles lanes connect to other bicycle facilities on Timberline Road and along the Poudre Trail. Sharp Point Drive, Midpoint Drive, and Prospect Parkway are all collector streets that were constructed without dedicated bicycle lanes prior to the current City of Fort Collins standards. Bicycles can share the roadway with vehicles on these streets. The East Poudre Trail is a dedicated bikeway trail that runs parallel to the proposed Prospect Sports facility on the east side of Sharp Point Drive. The west side of Sharp Point Drive is classifi ed as a Shared Roadway/Bike Route accessible from Prospect Road and the East Poudre Trail. Prospect Road is an arterial street with a Buffered Bike Lane providing access to the site. It is expected this will become a Protected Bike Lane after Prospect Road improvements are completed by the City of Fort Collins. Midpoint Drive is a collector street with a High Comfort and Buffered Bike Lane. This bike lane wraps around onto Share Point Drive, joining with the bike path outlined in purple. PROSPECT SPORTS Map showing existing cycling conditions around the Prospect Sports site. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 87 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 10 PLANNING CONTEXT Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks There are sidewalks adjacent to all streets within the pedestrian infl uence area. Many of the street cross section elements were built prior to the current standards. Therefore, some of the sidewalks may be considered to be substandard. The sidewalk along the west side of Sharp Point Drive is a meandering, four foot wide sidewalk with a landscaped parkway between the sidewalk and the street. The sidewalk along the south and north side of Prospect Road is a meandering, four foot wide sidewalk with a landscaped parkway between the sidewalk and the street. The other sidewalks in the area are generally four feet wide, with some having landscaped parkways and others being directly adjacent to the street. Trail Access East Poudre Trail is a dedicated walking/multi-modal that runs parallel to the site on the easterly side of Sharp Point Drive. Pedestrian Access Easements There are two existing Pedestrian Access Easements (PAE) which extend into the site on the North and East sides. These easements were designed to ensure there would be distance and landscape buffers between pedestrian and vehicular traffi c. • A generous PEA runs 50 feet into the site along Prospect Road. • A second generous 25 foot Pedestrian Access Easement runs along Sharp Point Drive. Existing Pedestrian Access Easement along Prospect Road. Existing Pedestrian Access Easement along Sharp Point Drive. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 88 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PARK ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 11 PLANNING CONTEXT Pedestrian Level of Service “Map of Pedestrian Infl uence Area for Level Of Service Analysis” on page 12 shows a map of the area that is within 1,320 feet of the Prospect Spor ts site. The Prospect Sports site is located within an area termed “Transit Corridor”, which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured factors, except for Directness and Security which are LOS B. There will be six pedestrian destinations within 1,320 feet of the Prospect Sports site. These are: 1. Poudre Trail to the east of the site 2. The commercial uses to the south of the site 3. Larimer County Detention Center to the southwest of the site 4. The commercial uses to the west of the site 5. The commercial uses to the northwest of the site 6. The commercial uses to the north of the site There are sidewalks along all streets in the area of the Prospect Sports site. Sidewalks will be built within the development that will connect to existing nearby sidewalks along Sharp Point Drive and Prospect Drive. As mentioned, many of the street cross section elements were built prior to the current standards. Therefore, some of the sidewalks may be considered substandard. Directness: The distance ratio to all pedestrian destinations is less than 1.2 (LOS A) using the existing sidewalk system, except for destination 6. The distance ratio to destination 6 is approximately 2.0 since a pedestrian crossing of Prospect road is necessary. The nearest pedestrian crossing of Prospect Road is the Poudre Trail underpass. However, the number of pedestrians desiring to go to/from destination 6 is likely to be nominal. Continuity: The sidewalk system to all destination areas has no breaks or gaps. However, most of the sidewalks were built prior to current standards and some are build directly adjacent to the streets with no landscaped parkways. Nevertheless, at least LOS C is achieved for all destination areas. Street Crossings: There is one destination area that has a signalized crossing in their route. In order to get to destination 5, there is a pedestrian/bicycle signal at the Prospect Rd./Prospect Parkway intersection. In order to get to destination 6, a pedestrian would likely use the Poudre Trail underpass of Prospect Road. All other destination areas only require a crossing of a minor street. At least LOS B can be achieved to all the destination areas. Visual Interest & Amenity: The visual interest and amenity will be acceptable at LOS C for destination areas 2-6. For destination area 1, the LOS will be A. Security: The security is acceptable at LOS B for all destination areas since most sidewalks are not adjacent to high volume streets and some are separated by landscaped parkways, specifi cally the sidewalks along Prospect Road. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 89 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 12 PLANNING CONTEXT Map of Pedestrian Influence Area for Level Of Service Analysis ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 90 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 13 PLANNING CONTEXT The proposed Prospect Sports site has taken into consideration the existing transit accessibility and considers it to be adequate for multi-modal transportation. With the quick access to the large City of Fort Collins trails system via the Poudre Trail, being serviced by a frequent bus route, and the city’s commitment to the 15-minute city concept, the Prospect Sports site will encourage the shift of transportation to active, human-powered means. City of Fort Collins Goal for the 15-Minute City Implementation is to Shift To Active Modes Trips: The need for motorized transportation is minimized, advancing City climate goals, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emis- sions, congestion, and parking demand. - 15-Minute City Implementation Plan, City of Fort Collins From the analysis done by the City of Fort Collins, the proposed site has a current aggregate bike score of 20-40 and an aggregate walking score of 60-80. With further implementation of the key strategies and planning efforts by the city, we expect these scores to increase as the 15-Minute City concept continues to be implemented. Key City strategies already in place that bolster human-powered transit to the Prospect Sports site: • Paved Recreational Master Plan: Expanding the trails system encourages a reduction in automobile use as well as improves access to daily destinations. • Transit Master Plan: Expanding high-frequency transit supports the reduction of automobile use. • ReCreate - Parks & Recreation Master Plan: This Plan supports the 15-Minute City goals of reducing automobile use and improving access to daily destinations by seeking to expand the trail network and ensure access to parks within a 10-minute walk. City Transportation Network and Prospect Sports Alignment ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 91 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 14 CURRENT PARKING ASSESSMENT Parking Inventory, Land Use, and Existing Traffi c Conditions Land Use and Parking Inventory The Prospect Sports property is undeveloped and is within the Employment District. The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offi ces and institutions. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned offi ce and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The current parking inventory for the undeveloped Prospect Sports site is zero. It is part of the Prospect Park East P.U.D., which is a business center that was master planned in the 1970’s. Lots within this development share access but there are no shared parking agreements between lots. Existing Traffi c Conditions Prospect Road off of I-25 is one of the gateways to Fort Collins. With Timnath Middle-High School having opened in fall 2022, a new interchange, and development plans adjacent to the interchange, the traffi c conditions on Prospect Road are expected to continue to change. To accommodate increased traffi c, the City of Fort Collins is in the process of widening Prospect Road to four lanes east of Sharp Point. The project, called the East Prospect Widening Project, is currently under design, however construction is not currently funded. In 2020, the Sharp Point and Nancy Grey Connection Project was completed just south of the Prospect Sports site. The project provided a much needed link for pedestrian, bike, vehicular, and emergency traffi c. This improved safety, connectivity, and mobility in this area. Advanced Energy and the Liberty Common Elementary School-Plato Campus are both south of the Prospect Sports site and traffi c to those destinations contribute to the traffi c past the site. Sharp Point street conditions are generally focused on supporting students walking and biking to school. At Liberty Common, traffi c circulation and school drop off and pickup patterns have been established that do not require students to cross Sharp Point Drive. The City continues to work with Liberty Common administrators and parents on creating a safe transportation environment. The City recognizes the potential need for a traffi c signal at Sharp Point Drive and Prospect Road. This may be studied as a part of the East Prospect Widening Project. There is an existing signal at Prospect Park Way and Prospect Road that can be utilized for motorists in the area to access Prospect Road. Parking Inventory, Land Use, and Existing Traffi c Conditions Parking Inventory, Land Use, and Existing Traffi c Conditions ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 92 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 15 CURRENT PARKING ASSESSMENT View of Prospect Road, looking west from the Prospect Road-Sharp Point intersection. View of Sharp Point Drive, looking south. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 93 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB Prospect Sports will be a specialized 36,400 square foot facility offering three courts for basketball and volleyball. Courts are reservable for youth and adult league practice and games. The facility aims to address the shortage of such venues in the Northern Colorado region. This facility is not intended for other uses classifi ed as assembly and is not intended to function as after-school care or a summer camp facility. The facility will only be available for rent to host basketball or volleyball practices and games. The majority of the building users will be middle school to adult-age. On a typical weekday, the facility will be operational from approximately 8:00am-9:00pm, but the peak use will occur between 3:30pm-9:00pm. During this time, the play will be divided into two practice session time slots: one from 3:30-5:30pm and a second from 6:00-8:30pm. It is anticipated individuals or leagues will rent a court or half-court during one of these sessions, and it is anticipated there will be a turn-over in patrons between sessions. It will be common for parents and guardians to drop-off youth at the facility or to stay to watch the youth’s practice or game. On some weeknights, one-hour long games may be scheduled. On weekends, the facility will also operate from 8:00am-9:00pm. Games are likely to occur on weekends and may draw a slightly larger quantity of spectators. Courts will be rented similarly to weeknights; in one or two-hour increments. Games drawing more than 30 spectators will take place at this venue only once or twice a year. Only one, highly-attended game will occur at a time, as only one court is designed to accommodate a larger quantity of spectators. It is anticipated highly-attended games will draw 80 spectators or less. Evening rendering of exterior facade from Prospect Road. Facility Description ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 94 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 17 PROPOSED PROJECT: PROSPECT SPORTS Design Priority : Premium Experience Unlike other facilities, this one will be designed to offer a premium experience to athletes and spectators. All aspects of occupant comfort will be considered; including acoustic comfort and air quality. Lighting, materials, and amenities will be designed to support athletic success and enjoyment. Design Priority - Effi ciency The facility is streamlined; designed to provide comfortable amenities to athletes and spectators without wasted space. Spatial effi ciency translates to energy effi ciency; which means the cost to run this facility is minimized. Renderings of the interior spaces of Prospect Sports. Design Priority: Safety & Security Safety measures will include a secure entry that is comparable to the ones which RB+B recommends for today’s K-12 facilities; access control and surveillance for all other exits; fi re alarm and sprinkler systems; adequate site lighting; blast-resistant glazing systems in key locations; video surveillance; and a security system capable of locking down in certain emergencies. Design Priority - Fit into the Neighborhood The property is subject to the covenants of the Prospect Park East P.U.D.., and all plans and specifi cations must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Control Committee. There is some question as to whether there is still an active committee, however the design will be approached in such a way to meet or exceed the requirements set in the protective covenants. In addition, the building and site design will conform to the City of Fort Collins design guidelines. Project Timeline Prospect Sports is expected to be under construction in spring 2024 and opening in spring 2025. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 95 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 18 PARKING ANALYSIS SHARP POINT DRIVEEAST PROSPECT R O A D (100' ROW) 36,410 SF INDOOR BASKETBALL FACILITY 64 SPACES (1.75 SPACES PER 1,000 SF) 14 13 6 6 6 64 SPACES13 6 DROP-OFF LANEEMERGENCY VEHICLEACCESS ONLYEXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS DRIVE Proposed building and parking plan for Prospect Sports PEDESTRIAN PLAZA DROP-OFF LANE ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 96 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PARK ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 19 PARKING ANALYSIS Off-Street Parking 64 parking spaces can be provided on-site. The parking confi guration illustrated on the opposite page maximizes on-site parking while maintaining a comfortable bike and pedestrian environment. This plan developed as a result of several factors: 1.Existing Access Easement There is an existing access easement to access this site which exists along a portion of the south side of the property. This reduces the number of possible parking confi gurations. The design team has been working to extend access to the west. 2.Existing Pedestrian and Landscape Easements There exists two very large pedestrian and landscape easements along the entire north and east sides of the site. These swaths of property cannot be used to contribute to the parking count. 3.Maximized Courts in Facility The Prospect Sports facility intends to address the lack of rentable basketball and volleyball courts in Fort Collins and the surrounding areas. It can contribute to the inventory best by including the highest number of courts possible. For this site, three courts can fi t if the parking count can be right-sized. 4.No Success in Creating Parking Share Agreements Extensive work has been done to negotiate a parking share agreement with the owners of the adjacent properties, however neither are willing to participate. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 97 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 20 PARKING ANALYSIS The Prospect Sports facility falls under the classifi cation of Unlimited Indoor Recreation Use in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 5.1.2: “Unlimited Indoor Recreation Use and Facility shall mean establishments primarily engaged in operations and activities contained within large-scale gymnasium-type facilities such as for tennis, basketball, swimming, indoor soccer, indoor hockey, or bowling.” Prospect Sports also easily fi ts the category of “Health and membership clubs” as is listed as a commercial/retail use which is permitted in the E District, subject to administrative review. Land Use Code subsection 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking, (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use, (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements does not include parking parameters specifi cally for this classifi cation. Paragraph (d) states “For uses that are not specifi cally listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed.” In the table in Section 3.2.2(K)(2), the most comparable classifi cation is ‘Bowling Alley’. This is due to a bowling alley and the proposed Prospect Sports facility both having a similar person-to-square feet ratio. Additionally, bowling activities are referenced in the unlimited indoor recreation use defi nition. The table requires bowling alleys to provide a minimum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. ‘Unlimited Indoor Recreation’ vs. ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ The Fort Collins Land Use Code clearly differentiates between ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ and ‘Unlimited Indoor Recreation’ uses. ‘Limited Indoor Recreation’ use is defi ned as “facilities established primarily for such activities as exercise or athletic facilities; and amusement or recreational services, such as billiard or pool parlors, pinball/video arcades, dance studios, martial art schools, arts or crafts studios; or exercise clubs, but not including bowling alleys or establishments which have large-scale gymnasium-type facilities for such activities as tennis, basketball or competitive swimming. This defi nition is intended to restrict the type of recreational use allowed to those small-scale facilities containing no more than fi ve thousand (5,000) square feet.” Since the proposed Prospect Sports facility does not fi t that description, ‘Limited Indoor Recreation” is not an appropriate classifi cation. Required Parking Calculation ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 98 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 21 PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CALCULATIONS BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE: Most Similar Use Listed in Section 3.2.2(K)(2): Bowling Alley Min. Required Spaces/SF: 2.5/1,000 SF PROSPECT SPORTS: Building Gross Square Footage: 36,410 SF Parking Requirement Table per Land Use; Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.2.2 Required Parking Spaces: 93 Parking Spaces ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 99 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 22 PARKING ANALYSIS Assessment of Existing Parking Conditions On-Street Parking There are approximately 900 feet of on-street parking northbound on Sharp Point Drive from Prospect Ponds Trailhead to Prospect Road. At 23 feet per space, that is approximately 39 on-street parking spaces. These spaces are not likely to be utilized by any other development in the future, as there is not currently a demand for those spaces and the parcel to the east of those spaces is not developed and is zoned as River Conservation. Sharp Point Drive is signed “no parking” in the southbound direction. Off-Street Parking There are no available parking spaces within the study area. Attempts to initiate a parking share with the adjacent properties are detailed in the next section. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 100 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 23 PARKING ANALYSIS Sharp Point Drive Prospect Road 900' availablefor on-streetparking (northbound)Prospect PondsParking LotSCALE: 1"=100'Sharp Point Drive Approximately 39 parking spaces exist along the east side of Sharp Point. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 101 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 24 PARKING ANALYSIS The Prospect Sports design team has attempted to negotiate a parking share with adjacent property owners, Capital Square to the south (yellow) and Basham Group to the west (green). Hatched areas show the potential shared parking opportunities on each neighbor’s site. PROSPECT SPORTS PARKING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 24 PARKING ANALYSIS The Prospect Sports design team has attempted to negotiate a parking share with adjacent property owners, pital Square to the south (yellow) and Basham Group to the west (green). Hatched area shows the potential shared parking opportunies on each site. PROSPECT SPORTS ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 102 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 25 PARKING ANALYSIS The Prospect Sports facility will be the last lot to be developed in the Prospect Park East PUD. While access easements exist between properties, there are no existing parking share agreements. In effort to best utilize the lot’s buildable area and minimize the impact of additional parking in an already parking lot-dense area, the Prospect Sports design team engaged with the two adjacent neighbors to propose a Shared Parking Agreement. The agreement would permit Prospect Sports facility users to utilize the neighbors’ parking on evenings and weekends. Neighbor to the South - 1625 Sharp Point Drive CS1031 COLORADO POWER DST, owned by Capital Square (Glen Allen, VA) Advanced Energy is the current, long-term tenant on the site to the south of the proposed Prospect Sports facility. The Prospect Sports design team approached the ownership group, Capital Square, based out of Delaware, for a potential parking share. Capital Square is not interested in a parking share due to their current lease agreement with their tenants. Neighbor to the West - 1600 and 1612 Prospect Park Way PND FTC LCC, owned by Basham Group (Denver, CO) Currently, the property to the west of the site is occupied by Larimer County as a long-term tenant. In reaching out to the ownership group, it was established that their parking spaces are at maximum occupancy and will not participate in a parking share agreement. Shared Parking Opportunities + Results ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 103 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 26 PARKING ANALYSIS Peak Parking Demand Calculation First, peak occupant models must be determined. The development of this facility has required in-depth analysis of the anticipated building use and users. In these analyses, three distinct building use scenarios were identifi ed. Below, each scenario and the corresponding anticipated peak occupant count is outlined. Scenario 1: Weekday Mornings and Early Afternoons It is anticipated the facility will have its lowest number of occupants on weekday mornings and early afternoons. The early morning and the lunchtime hour will experience the peak usage of this time frame. Estimated Peak Occupancy for Scenario 1: Courts (total): 15 Spectators: 0 Weight Room: 10 Coffee Shop: 10 Facility Employees: 2 Total: 37 total occupants Scenario 2: Weekday Evenings, and Weekends On weekdays, the peak use will occur from 3:30pm-9:00pm since that will see the demand from school-age athletes and adults with standard daytime work schedules. The building occupant counts will be similar during weekends. This estimation is valid for practice or standard league game play. Estimated Peak Occupancy for Scenario 2: Courts (total): 60* Spectators: 15 Weight Room: 15 Coffee Shop: 10 Facility Employees: 3 Total: 103 total occupants * Total determined by eight players and two coaches/offi cials per team, two teams per court, three courts total. Scenario 3: Large Games Games drawing a signifi cant quantity of spectators will take place at this venue only on occasion. If the venue hosts such a game, it will occur in the central court as it is sized to comfortably accommodate more spectators. It is anticipated that highly-attended games will draw 60 spectators or less. Estimated Peak Occupancy for Scenario 3: Game Court: 24** Other Courts: 20 (Total, Non-game use) Game Spectators: 40 Other Court Spectators: 5 Weight Room: 15 Coffee Shop: 10 Facility Employees: 3 Total: 117 total occupants ** Total determined by ten players and two coaches/offi cials per competing team on one court ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 104 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 27 PARKING ANALYSIS Parking Demand Assumptions 1. Only one highly-attended game will occur at a time. The building is being designed to accommodate one game with higher spectator counts. The other two courts will support a lower quantity of spectators. 2. It will be common for youth to walk and ride bikes to the facility. With the Poudre Trail running adjacent to the property and covered bike parking on site, it is likely that many building users, especially those younger than driving age, will walk or bike to the facility. 3. It will be common for youth to be dropped off and picked up. Based on how similar facilities operate, youth are very commonly dropped-off and picked-up by guardians. This is true even for facilities that are isolated from other common community amenities which may attract the multi-tasking parent. Being that the Prospect Sports facility site is located on the edge of central Fort Collins; in an area with grocery stores, restaurants, and other commercial and retail destinations, parents are even more likely to run errands during their child’s practice. This means not every occupant will require a parking space and emphasizes the importance of the generous drop-off and pick-up lane planned near the facility entrance. 4. Courts are rented for a time period by specifi c individuals, teams, and leagues. Parking demand will refl ect that schedule and will generally be steady and predictable. Conclusion Scenario 2 is the most appropriate peak demand model to consider when right-sizing parking for this facility. • Although the occupancy count generated in Scenario 3 is slightly higher, the frequency at which this facility hosts large games is anticipated to be very low. Scenario 2 represents a large portion of this facility’s overall operation. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 105 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 28 PARKING ANALYSIS Actual Anticipated Building Use Prospect Sports is a relatively unique sports facility in that its primary use is dependent on the availability of court space. As such, only so many occupants can actually utilize the building at one time. There is not currently a category it fi ts into well in the Land Use Code off-street parking requirements. As was stated in the ‘Peak Parking Demand Calculations’ section, the facility will be utilized mostly on weekday evenings and weekends. Scenario 2 represents the anticipated peak usage during this time, however on average, the building will experience a smaller number of occupants. These estimates are based on studies of similar facilities. In this facility’s case, right-sizing the parking infrastructure to meet the most common usage would be appropriate. High Pedestrian and Bike LOS Pedestrian and bike access to the site has been determined to be very direct and safe by the traffi c impact study results. Due to the site being along the Poudre Trail and the application of landscape-buffered sidewalks, pedestrians and bicyclists are likely to feel very comfortable traveling to and from the site. Proximity to Public Transit The site is less than 500’ from two transit stops. The ease of accessing the site via public transportation could very likely infl uence building users to choose that mode of transportation to the site. Parking Demand Reduction Opportunities Shared Travel Options One-way travel options are rapidly expanding in Fort Collins. These include walking, transit, e-bike and e-scooter share (Spin), TNCs, carsharing (eGo), and much more. These travel choices give users even more choices for fi rst- and last-mile connectivity and greater opportunity to live a car-free or “car-lite” lifestyle. This site could be a prime example of the city effectively managing a limited resource today while also preparing for changing travel behaviors in the future. On-Street Parking Available for Overflow There are approximately 39 on-street parking spaces on Sharp Point that are available if the facility was to fi nd itself ‘under-parked’ during peak usage. Together with the on-site parking, there would be 99 parking spaces available for Prospect Sports users. Carpooling Teams, leagues, and families will comprise the majority of the building’s users, so carpooling will be common. Youth teammates are likely coming from the same school, and adult leagues are frequently made up of coworkers. Since these teammate relationships are already established, sharing transportation is convenient and reduces parking demand. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 106 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 29 PARKING ANALYSIS Reduction Example It would be benefi cial to not build the Prospect Sports parking lot for the 99th percentile demand day, which would generate so much paved land area that would go unused most of the time. Instead, by considering the most common use scenario and implementing opportunities to reduce vehicle parking demand, the parking capacity can be much more appropriate. The following is an exercise to compare available parking to the average, realistic parking demand. Take the most common peak usage occupant number; 103 occupants during weeknights and weekends, and allow for a 30% reduction to achieve an average occupant count during this time. This equals 72 occupants. Taking into account the likelihood that teammates, families, and adult league members will carpool to the facility, as well as the likelihood of users traveling via another mode of transportation or being dropped-off, a 15% reduction seems reasonable. That equals a parking demand of 61 spaces. The site as is currently designed to accommodate 64 parking spaces; essentially the parking demand for a majority of the building’s operation. Including the off-street parking along the east side of Sharp Point, the facility has enough parking capacity to meet even peak parking demand during weeknights and weekends. Most common peak usage occupant estimate = 30% reduction in occupants to represent typical/non-peak scenario = 15% reduction to account for carshare, alternate modes of transportation = Available on-site parking spaces = Available on-street parking spaces in the vicinity = Total parking spaces available = Total parking spaces (off-street and on-street) less the anticipated parking spaces needed during standard use = 103 occupants 72 occupants 61 parking spaces required 64 off-street parking spaces 39 on-street parking spaces 103 total parking spaces 42 extra parking spaces ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 107 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR K ING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 30 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROSPECT SPORTS 64 OFF-STREET SPACES 39 ON-STREET SPACES The proposed Prospect Sports facility could easily meet demand by offering 64 off-street parking spaces. The 39 on-street spaces available nearby can supplement the off-street capacity if needed. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 108 PROSPECT SPORTS CLUB PAR KING IMPACT STUDY | MARCH 6, 2023 31 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Final Recommendation This study evaluated multiple factors to synthesize a ‘Right-Size Parking’ recommendation for the proposed Prospect Sports facility. A lack of a clear parking requirement for this type of facility in the Land Use Code and the exceptional physical conditions of the site were the catalysts of this investigation. The recommended solution is intended to strike a balance amongst meeting the intent of parking standards, the trend toward multi-modal transportation and the reduction of land allocated to parking lots, and the actual anticipated parking demand for the proposed facility. 64 off-street parking spaces, combined with roughly 39 on-street parking spaces, will be suffi cient to meet the facility’s average-to-peak parking demand while also advancing the purposes of the Land Use Code. The current site plan, which accommodates 60 parking spaces, maximizes parking capacity while maintaining the facility’s ability to contribute the highest quantity of rentable court space for the community’s enjoyment. A number of site-related factors impacted the quantity of possible off-street parking spaces, including signifi cant pedestrian and landscape easements, an existing site access easement, and the established parking lot patterns of adjacent properties. The proposed site layout will adequately address demand in such a way that is not detrimental to the public good. The layout prioritizes the allocation of safe pedestrian and bicyclist connections to adjacent public sidewalks, provides a sizeable drop-off and pick-up zone to further separate vehicular and pedestrian confl ict, and includes the required number of handicap parking spaces. The parking layout ties into the parking context and promotes the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale. ITEM 3, MODIFICATION 3 - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 109 May 26, 2021Clark MapesCity PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionProspect Sports Modification of a Standard#MOD230001ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 110 Location and Zoning2Sharp Point Dr.Prospect Park EastBusiness ParkrTimberline Rd.ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 111 Pedestrian Streetscape Easements(Green)PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssscccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))SITEITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 112 3 Modifications Requested4Proposed Basketball and volleyball gym – 3 Modifications Requested#1: Height of a Building Story#2: Orientation to Build-to Lines#3: Number of Off-Street Parking SpacesITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 113 5Code: No story of a commercial building shall exceed 25 feetE Zone height limit: 4 storiesProposed max. height 32 feet#1 Height of a Building StoryMassing Facing ProspectSide View of MassingITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 114 #2 Build-to Lines6Code:Buildings…no more than 15 feet from an adjoining street smaller than a full arterial or that has street parking. (Sharp Point)Buildings shall be located no more than 25 feet from an adjoining street that is larger than a two-lane arterial anddoes not have street parking.(Prospect)ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 115 Pedestrian Streetscape Easements(Green)ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 116 #3 Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces8Determining a Parking Requirement - code:• Minimum off-street parking spaces required for land uses listed in a table• ‘Unlimited Indoor Recreation’ use is not listed • “For uses not specifically listed the number of parking spaces shall be the number for the most similar use listed Commercial RecreationalMin.a. Limited Indoor Recreation 3/1000 sq. ft.b. Outdoor .1/person capc. Bowling Alley2.5/1000 sq. ft.ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 117 64 Spaces Provided93 RequiredITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 118 39 Street Parking SpacesSiteITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 119 Recommendation11Staff recommends approval of all three Modifications of StandardsITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 120 12Addition of a Permittted Use (APU)A PDP would include APU FYIThe use is identical to Permitted Uses:Health and membership clubs – IF only members and guests were allowedCommunity Facilities – IF publicly ownedSecondary Use in E zone, Prospect East Business Park is 100% Primary ITEM 3, STAFF PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 121 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission: April 2 0 , 2023 Enclave at Redwood, #MJA2 2 0003 Sum m ary of Request This is a proposed Major Amendment (MJA) of t he Enclave at Redwood development plan #PDP2 10004 that was approved in June 2022. The amendment would eliminate the vehicular street extension of Lupine Street from existing development into t he Enclave development, in favor of a pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access -only connection. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved, the applicant will complete a Final Development Plan with pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access only at the Lupine Drive connection to The Enclave development. Site Loca t ion Loca te d at the east end of Lupine Dr , 470 feet east of Redwood Street. Zoning Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Property Owner Aaron Posm a 9555 Kingston Ct. Englewood, CO 80 112 Applicant/Representative Sam Coutts Ripley Designs, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 2 00 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction ................................. 2 2. City Plan Vision and Policy Background .. 4 3. Pertinent Land Use Code Standards ....... 5 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ................... 12 6. Recommendation ................................... 12 7. Attachments ............................................ 12 Staff Recommendation Denial of the Major Amendment. The Enclave Approved Development Plan Exst. Development Street Extension Location Packet pg. 122 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 2 of 12 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Major Amendment is a follow -up matter that was discussed extensively at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on June 16, 2022, where t he Enclave at Redwood development plan was approved by the Commission . The approved plan extends the existing Lupine Drive local street stub into the Enclave development as required under code standard s. The code standards include a provision allowing for Alternative Compliance. There was, and still is, strong opposition by residents of the existing Redwood Meadows development to this vehicular street connection , who contend that Alternative Compliance is warranted. In response, t he Commission discussed the idea of removing the Lupine connection as a local street per se with vehicular access . After discussion , the Commission agreed that staff analysis and findings on a request for Alternative Compliance w ere needed with further consideration beyond the hearing. At the end, the Commission approved the plan as is, but encouraged the applicant to come back with a Major Amendment to the plan, with an Alternative Compliance connection for pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access only. The applicant’s position is that the y a re “agn ostic” and their plan can work either way for their purposes. Accordin gly, t he applicant has submitted this proposed Major Amendment. Approved Plan with street connection - (possible narrowing for traffic calming added) Major Amendment plan with alternative connection for peds, bikes, and emergency access Packet pg. 123 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 3 of 12 Back to Top B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND The existing Meadows at Redwood was developed in 1982 as Phase 1 of the Redwood Village Preliminary PUD, below, which included additional property which never proceeded to development and is now approved as t he Enclave at Redwood. C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF’S REVIEW Main considerations are : • t he purpose of the street pattern standards emphasizing interconnectedness knitting developments together; for which Alternative Compliance is proposed ; • the code language of the p ertinent standards for street connections and extending existing street stubs; • t he code language for Alternative Compliance emphasizing nonvehicular access and level of service ; and Existing Meadows at Redwood development Lupine Drive Stub to be extended into later phases The Enclave Property Redwood Street Conifer Packet pg. 124 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 4 of 12 Back to Top • th e traffic study information regarding level of service . Also, staff is thoroughly familiar with the reasons why homeowners in the existing Meadows at Redwood development oppose the extension of the Lupine Drive street stub as a local street; and staff has given that full consideration and discussion . 2. City Plan Vision and Policy Background Code standards are intended to implement the City’s comprehensive plan--City Plan. A pervasive theme throughout City Plan is for the city to evolve with a unifying interconnected town -like pattern of streets and blocks and not a series of separate individual developments. Excerpts from City Plan are provided below for background understanding to aid evaluation of the pertinent code standards. Underlines are language that staff finds most pertinent. Policy LIV 4.1 - NEW NEIGHBORHOODS Encou rage creativity in the design and construction of new neighborhoods that: » Provides a unifying and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks, walkway spines and other public spaces; » Expands housing options, including higher density and mixed-use buildings; » Offers opportunities to age in place; » Improves access to services and amenities; and » Incorporates unique site conditions. Policy LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by: » Continuing established block patterns and streets to impro ve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; » Incorporating context- sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and » Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized. Policy T 2.3 - LAYERED NETWORK Develop a layered network for Fort Collins that designates a continuous, connected, efficient, convenient and comfortable network for bicycling, walking, transit and vehicles . Policy T 7.3 - NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FOR WALKING Provide an attractive, safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers on neighborhood streets with well-designed streetscapes, including detached sidewalks, parkways and well-defined crosswalks. NEIGHBORHOODS in the overall City Structure Plan Neighborhoods are the primary building blocks of the community. Whether existing or planned, neighborhoods in Fort Collins will vary in the mix of housing types and supporting uses that are provided; the extent to which they are accessible to adjoining districts, schools, parks, civic uses, transit and other services; and their overall character and form. Routine reinvestment in existing properties and some infill on vacant lots is to be expected in all neighborhoods. The degree to which existing neighborhoods are likely to experience more significant changes during the planning horizon will be influenced by location, the age and condition of existing housing stock, and the availability of vacant lots or larger plots of land. The City will continue to use the subarea and neighborhood planning process to address specific issues and Packet pg. 125 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 5 of 12 Back to Top opportunities. Enhancing connectivity within and between existing and future neighborhoods and improving access to nature are priorities for all neighborhoods. ‘Neighborhood Livability and Social Health’ is one of seven organizing outcome areas covered in the City Plan comprehensive vision for the cit y’s continual evolution . It inevitably involve s tensions and different perspectives about quality of life and new impacts f rom co ntinual growth and change. P rinciples and policies recognize those different perspectives and require a degree of interpretation. For example, Principle LIV 2 on page 40, “Promote infill and redevelopment”, is followed on page 41 with Principle LIV 3, “Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows.” These two principles may reflect different perspectives. Likewise, t h e next page 42 in City Plan juxtaposes Principle LIV 4 “Enhance neighborhood livability”, with Principle LIV 5, “Create more opportunities for housing choices.” Again, these principles cou ld be interpreted differently from different perspectives. For exist ing homeowners, “enhancing neighborhood livability” does not typically include gro wth and change that would add more people and their vehicles; while “create more opportunities for housing choices” reflects a whole approach in City Plan to accommodating fo r growth and change. City Plan reflect s multiple different perspectives, and staff attempts to find a balance in development plans. 3. Pertinent Land Use Code Standards A. DIVISION 3.6 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Th e following Section s are intended to ensure that the transportation system is in conformance with adopted transportation plans and policies established by the City. Underlines are language that staff finds most pertinent. Applicable Code Standard Code Language and Evaluation 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity (A) – Purpose Code language: “This Section is intended to ensure that the local street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel. For the purposes of this Division, "local street system" shall mean the interconnected system of collector and local streets providing access to development from an arterial street.” Staff Evaluation Staff finds that the purposes are better met with a local street connection at Lupine, than t hey would be with the alternative access , because of slightly lower efficiency and convenience for automobile traffic. Packet pg. 126 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 6 of 12 Back to Top It is a matter of degree. The proposed alternative could also fit with this purpose statement. That is, the alternative connection could be considered to be a part of the local street system , with Bergen Drive providing access for vehicles within level of service metric criteria . More specific evaluation is under the additional standards discussed below. 3.6.3(B) – General Standard Code language: “The local street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles). The local street system shall provide multiple direct connections to and between local destinations such as parks, schools and shopping. Local streets must provide for both intra - and inter-neighborhood conn ections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them. The street configuration within each parcel must contribute to the street system of the neighborhood.” Staff Evaluation Staff finds that the alternative connection could be considered a part of the local street system thus would contribute to meeting this general standard. However, it would do so to a lesser degree than if Lupine is extended as a local street per se. A local street would provide “multiple direct connections ” for vehicles together with the other modes of access and circulation; and it would knit developments together in the most legible way. Without the vehicular access, the local street system would be slightly less efficient and convenient. It would require out-of-direction travel for vehicular access to a single connection to and from Redwood Street and the many destinations accessed via Redwood. The additional distance would be 560-760 feet of southbound travel for north on Redwood Street. Alternative acce ss with a n obstruction for vehicles separating the two developments would convey a degree of separateness and two different communities of interest rather than Fort Collins being the community of interest into which the multiple developments fit as integral parts. Packet pg. 127 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 7 of 12 Back to Top Exa mple s of alternative connection s : not the same design as proposed; b ut they help convey a sense of the effect of providing pedestrian/bicycle access only along a street alignment, as different from a continuous street system. 3.6.3(F) – Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments Code language: “All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.” Staff Evaluation This standard clearly favors extending Lupine Drive as a local street per se. The City’s whole approach to development is to have neighborhood street connections at least every 660 feet to establish a certain scale and framework for the pattern of development. Packet pg. 128 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 8 of 12 Back to Top The distance between Bergen Drive and Conifer Street is 1,150 feet. The distance along the western edge of the Enclave property between Bergen Drive and the north property line is 1,000 feet. Without the Lupine Street connection, 560 feet of out-of-direction travel is required to access Redwood for a significant number of homes in the Enclave – i.e., d rivers wanting to go north would have to first go south to Bergen Street as the only access. 3.6.3(H) – Alternative Compliance Code language: Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative development plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this Section. (1) Procedure. Alternative compliance development plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Sect ion than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. (2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. Staff Evaluation: There are reasons to support the request for the alternative compliance, and reasons to support the plan as approved. The reasons partially cancel each other out, but staff is unable to find adequate reason to tip the balance in support of the alternative. The following selected wording, repeated from the standards above, tips the balance in favor of connecting the street in staff’s discussions: To recommend approval, staff would need to find that the alternative plan “accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a Packet pg. 129 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 9 of 12 Back to Top plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division.” For that finding, staff would take into account “whether the alternative enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access…” …safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle, pedestria n, and transit modes of travel… … interconnected system of collector and local streets… …efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses… …multiple direct connections… …both intra - and inter-neighborhood connections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them. The street configuration within each parcel must contribute to the street system of the neighborhood. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land. Staff does not find that the alternative compliance plan is “equal or better” considering the direction in all of this language. Note that the most conservative (i.e., maximum) 2040 traffic projection shows that traffic volume on Lupine Street would remain below the desired threshold for public local streets. Packet pg. 130 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 10 of 12 Back to Top If the Commission denies the Major Amendment, staff will follow up with the applicant to incorporate a narrowed “neck down” and crosswalk as a traffic calm ing measure to mark the transition. Staff recommends extending the narrowed portion clear to the property line, increasing the landscaping in this transitional stretch as an attractive low-speed connection. Staff recognizes and acknowledges other language in the standards that could be found to support the request, including: • The alternative would still provide for distribution of the development’s traffic without creating substandard levels of service at any other intersections or streets. • The alternative would foster non-vehicular access. • The alternative connection knits the different developments together with an attractive landscaped connection. Other considerations that could be weighed in support of the request include: • While Lupine Street was originally stubbed to the boundary with the intent to extend into subsequent phases of the Redwood Village development plan, conditions are significantly changed with the Enclave and Northfield multi-family developments as compared to the original plan for more detached houses in the same pattern as the existing Meadows at Redwood development. For what it is worth, note that the Enclave has about 80 more homes than the original Redwood Village plan. TRAFFIC CALMING “NECK DOWN” AND CROSSWALK Packet pg. 131 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 11 of 12 Back to Top • While the alternative would thwart direct access by requiring out-of- direction travel for vehicles, the inconvenience for people driving vehicles, in terms of time and comfort, would be relatively minor and not unusual. For example, Mullein Drive in the existing development requires a similar distance of out -of-direction travel for vehicles. In summary, reasons can be found to support the alternative; and to support the approved plan. To the degree that the reasons cancel each other out, staff considered t he strong and clear desire of existing residents as a potential determining factor. On balance, a fter extensive consideration, staff was unable to find a sound basis to tip the balance in support of the amendment. 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service This Section contains requirements for the transportation needs of proposed development to be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development in order to meet adopted Le ve l of Se rvice (LOS) stan d ard s. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was required under this Section to evaluate the traffic generation and distribution added by the Enclave development. The TIS and a supplemental memo (attached) were part of the origin al approved plan . The memo was an addendum to the TIS to incorporate traffic from the recent Northfield development plan, which connects to and through the Enclave and was not included in the original TIS. Staff provided a memo at the approval hearing explaining why the addendum was done, and explaining that it did not change staff findings or recommendations (also attached). Staff Evaluation In reviewing all the traffic study information, staff finds that the plan can function at an acceptable LOS from a traffic standpoint with either the street connection as approved, or with the alternative connection. Using a maximum assumption for Northfield traffic using Lupine Drive, t he total 2040 daily projected traffic on Lupine is estimated to be 915 trips. The desirable threshold on a Local Street is 1,000 vehicles per day. Packet pg. 132 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 MJA 220003 | Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment Thursday, April 21, 2022 | Page 12 of 12 Back to Top 4. Public Outreach Extensive public discussion occurred during the review of the approved plan, including meetings wit h affected neighbors and two Planning and Zoning Commission hearings (April and June, 2022). 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for t he Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment #MJA2 20003, s taff makes the following findings of fact: • The request for Alternative Compliance with standards in Land Use Code Sections 3.6.3 (A), (B), and (F) to extend the Lupine Street stub into the Enclave as a pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access-only connection that prevents vehicular connectivity, is not equal to or better than the approved plan meeting the standards. This is because the standards emphasize direct multiple street access for vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicycles. • The request is consistent with the Alternative Compliance criteria in Section 3.6.3(H) t o a degree, because of emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access, and the alternative plan would link development projects together with an attractive connection. However, the alternative is not as good as the approved plan, which is more consistent with more of the standards to a greater degree. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request for Alternative Compliance . If denied, then prior to Final Plan approval, staff will require the extension of the Lupine Street to be designed with a narrowed traffic calming “neck down” and a prominent crosswalk. 7. Attachments 1. Alternative Compliance Request 2. Traffic Impact Study (Original) 3. Traffic Memo with Northfield Assumption Added 4. Traffic Memo from City re: Northfield Assumptions 5. P&Z Minutes from 6.16.22 6. Neighbor Comments from 2022 PDP 7. Staff Presentation 8. Applicant Presentation Packet pg. 133 Enclave at Redwood Alternative Compliance Request - Connectivity 10/19/2022 LUC 3.6.3(F) - Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land. Reason for the Request The proposed site plan differs from the standards outlined in LUC 3.6.3(F) along the western boundary of the site by not providing a vehicular connection to Lupine Drive, which was designed to stub in at the eastern property boundary of the Meadows at Redwood PUD. The connection has not been made in order to address comments from Commissions and neighbors heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing which approved the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan. Through recurring neighborhood outreach, it was heard that a connection would not be desirable by the neighbors due to concerns of cut-through traffic and safety concerns. For this reason an alternative design has been proposed to the approved PDP which provides pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access to the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood without providing full vehicular connectivity. Justifications The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant Alternative Compliance only if it finds that: 1.the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division; The purpose of this division revolves around “safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle and pedestrians” - LUC 3.6.3(A). While the approved PDP for Enclave at Redwood, which created a standard connection to Lupine Drive, meets all Code and safety standards, it would likely create an inefficient use and inconvenience to the existing residents automobile use. According to an updated traffic memo attached with this request, the turning movements which involve traffic on Lupine Drive at the Lupine and Redwood intersection would likely triple from the baseline counts studied in 2018 by adding traffic from the Enclave at Redwood and adjacent Northfield development (see exhibit below). Again, this increase is within an acceptable range for the local street classification, but the additional traffic would be noticed by the residences of Redwood Meadows. Given that Lupine Drive is constructed to outdated standards (attached walks, more narrow drive), the additional traffic could present added safety concerns for the residents. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 134 Enclave at Redwood Alternative Compliance Request – Connectivity 10/19/2021 Page 2 of 3 2018 Existing AM/PM Peak Turning Movements 2040 AM/PM Peak Turning Movements (Approved in 2022) The alternative plan proposes to close the connection to Lupine Drive to public vehicular traffic. Efficiency and convenience of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is still accommodated for by providing two, five-foot-wide concrete walks which double as wheel paths for emergency access. A five-foot-wide drivable grass-paver median is located between the concrete walks. The walks are rated to 40 tons, which creates a drivable surface for standard emergency vehicles. A mountable curb and removable bollards are proposed at the connection to guarantee it will not be used by public vehicles. The alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division as equally well as the approved PDP because it does not create substandard conditions at any other intersections or roadways. Additionally, still allows for efficient and convenient movement of bicycles and pedestrians. 2.any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible. The alternative plan maintains adequate facilities for bicycle and pedestrians as mentioned above. Transit was not taken into account in this condition due to the absence of public transportation routes that include Lupine Drive. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 135 Enclave at Redwood Alternative Compliance Request – Connectivity 10/19/2021 Page 3 of 3 The decision-maker shall also “take into account” whether the alternative design achieves the following: •minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, o The alternative design has no substantial impacts on natural features as there are no such defined features in the vicinity. •fosters nonvehicular access, o The alternative design increases the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity by linking existing sidewalks to the street network offered at the Enclave. •provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, o The applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the alternative design does not exceed level of service standards. •enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity o The alternative design increases the connectivity to the street and open space network offered at the Enclave. Residents in the Meadows at Redwood PUD subdivision will now have access to a neighborhood park and regional trail system via the alternative pedestrian connection. •and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. o As mentioned above, the alternative design provides connections from the existing pedestrian network to a proposed neighborhood park and access to Redwood Street. From Redwood Street pedestrians have multiple routes to head west to Neighborhood Commercial Districts along College Ave and Suniga Road. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 136 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC Prepared for: Ripley Design, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Enclave at Redwood August 17, 2021 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 137 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 2 Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction …….…..…………………………………………………………...…….4 2 Existing Conditions …….………………………………………..…..……………...8 3 Project Travel Demand……………………………………………………..……….15 4 Future Traffic Projections…………………………………………..……………....18 5 Site Design and Auxiliary Lane ........……………...……………...………………23 6 Traffic Impact Analysis…….......................…………….…………..……………..24 7 Other Mobility Modes........................................................................................29 8 Conclusions………………………………………………………….……………….31 Appendices……….…………………………………………………………………….…30 Appendix A: LCUASS Right-Turn and Left-Turn Warrants Appendix B: Level of Service Worksheets Appendix C: Figures 4C-3 and 4C-4 MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant Appendix D: Pedestrian/Bicycle Area List of Figures 1 Project Location….……..……………...…………………………………….....……..5 2 Project Site Plan……..…………………………………………………………………6 3 Recent Peak Hour Traffic ….....…..…………………………………….….....…..…9 4 Existing Intersection Configurations ……………..………………….…….…….10 5 Project Trip Distribution……....…………………………………………………….16 6 Project Traffic ………………………………………………….………..…...……....17 7 Background Traffic 2022……...…………………………………...………...……..19 8 Background Traffic 2040 ................................................................................. 20 9 Total Traffic 2022 …………...………………...……………………………..………21 10 Total Traffic 2040 ….............…..……………………………..…...………………..22 11 2022 Intersection Configuration 2022 ............................................................25 12 2040 Intersection Configuration 2040 ..…………..……………………..………27 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 138 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 3 List of Tables 1 Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards…………………………………..…..11 2 Unsignalized Level of Service Definitions ……...…………….…………...…....12 3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions .................................... 13 4 Recent Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service………..…….…....14 5 Estimated Project Trip Generation …………………………………….………....15 6 Future 2022 Intersection Level of Service…………………………………….....26 7 Future 2040 Intersection Level of Service…………………………………….....28 8 Pedestrian Level of Service...............................................................................29 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 139 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 4 1 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a study to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Enclave at Redwood residential Project in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Rollins Consult LLC conducted the study as required by the City for the application associated with the proposed Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Enclave at Redwood is located in the City of Fort Collins, east of Redwood Street and north of Suniga Road. The site is currently undeveloped land. This Project will allow for 230 residential dwellings. The Project site is comprised of approximately 28 acres. The site is located east and south of Redwood Meadows residential area. East and south of the site is the planned Northfield residential Project. Figure 1 illustrates the Project location and study area. The Project site is depicted on Figure 2. The Project proposes the following land uses and transportation elements: • Housing for 230 dwellings. • A community clubhouse and a one-acre park. • Pedestrian and bicycle connections to: Redwood Meadows, Northfield, and Conifer . • The roadway system was designed to connect with Redwood Meadows and with the Northfield site. There are two connections to Redwood Street and two connections to Suniga Road. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 140 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 5 Figure 1 – Project Location ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 141 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 6 Figure 2 - Project Site Plan SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W SS WWW W W W W W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W W SSSS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSLEASING FITNES S MANAG E R / STORA G E MAIL IT / PHO N E PACKAG E WOMEN MEN MAILOFFICE JANITO R BATH HALL PATIO DN2' - 0" SUNIGA ROAD (4-LANE AR T E R I A L )REDWOOD STREET (2-LANE COLLECTOR)STREET CONNECTION TO REDWOOD MEADOWS PARCEL NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT PUBLIC STREET "A"PUBLIC STREET "B"PRIVATE STREET "AA"PRIVATE STREET "BB"PRIVATE STREET "BB"PRIVATE STREET "BB" PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONNECTION TO REDWOOD MEADOWS FUTURE REGIONALTRAIL AND CONNECTION TO NORTHFIELD NORTHFIELD REDWOODMEADOWS PUBLIC STREETCONNECTION TO NORTHFIELD PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION TO NORTHFIELD DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No.DESCRIPTION DATE PloWWed B\: Stephanie Hansen La\oXW: L1 SITE PLAN PrinWed On: 12/29/2020 11:52 AM File Name: L1 SITE PLAN.dZgORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAWI N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C TI O N RIPLEY DESIGN INC.Stephanie Hansen, PLA 419 Can\on Ave. Suite 200Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 DHI COMMUNITIES K\le Hendersonp. 970.219.3838 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LAND PLANNER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HKSMichael Moore, PE 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80203 p. 0303.623.6300 BUILTFORM ARCHITECTURE GROUP Vince Scarano 419 Can\on Ave. Suite 200Fort Collins, CO 80521p. 602.285.9200 APPLICANT 419 Can\on Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 _ fa[ 970.225.6657 _ ZZZ.riple\designinc.com SITE PLAN PDP SUBMITTAL ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD FORT COLLINS, CO SH R20-059 L1 OF XX NORTH 0 40 80 160 SCALE: 1"=80'-0" ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 142 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 7 STUDY SCOPE The scope of work for this study was developed as a supplement to the recent traffic study for the site entitled “Retreat at Fort Collins Transportation Impact Study”, August 2018, prepared by Delich Associates (to be referred to as Retreat TIS). This previous study addressed the potential impacts of a 739-bed student apartment complex. The Enclave at Redwood will generate fewer trips than this previously proposed apartment complex. The scope of the traffic impact study for the Enclave at Redwood will present the potential traffic conditions on Redwood Street at three intersections: • Redwood Street and Suniga Road • Redwood Street and Lupine Drive • Redwood Street and the proposed Street BB This study will focus on the build out of the development looking at both the short and long-range future years of 2022 and 2040. Additional traffic studies will be performed as each phase of development is proposed. The analysis of future year traffic forecasts is based on Projected conditions both with and without the addition of the Project traffic. The following transportation scenarios were analyzed for the AM and PM peak hours: • Existing Conditions – The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing transportation system is described. Peak hour intersection operations are presented from the Retreat TIS. • Project Travel Demand – The traffic generated by the Project will be estimated, distributed, and assigned to the transportation network. • 2022 and 2040 Background Conditions – Future traffic conditions are Projected without the proposed Project for two future years: 2022 the long-range year 2040. The future traffic volumes were obtained from the Retreat TIS. • 2022 and 2040 Total Future Conditions – The traffic associated with the Project will be Projected and added to the Background traffic. The intersection operations will be determined. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 143 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 8 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The transportation system has numerous elements that are described in this chapter. The roadway network identified for this study is described and traffic volume information is presented for the study intersections. ADJACENT LAND USE North and west of the Project is residential use. The proposed Northfield project will be south and east of the Project. Two local roads were designed to provide connections between the Enclave and Northfield. These roads also connect to Suniga road to the east of Redwood Street. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK The primary roadways that serve the Project site are described below. Roadway designations were provided in the Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, March 31, 2020. Roadway Network Redwood Street – This is a two-lane north-south collector street that provides mobility between Old Town north to Willox Lane. There are bike lanes on both sides of the road. Sidewalks exist adjacent to developed areas. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Transfort provides service on Redwood Street with Routs 8 and 81. They provide service between the Downtown Transit Center and Terry Lake Road/Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park (north on College Avenue). Suniga Road – This east-west roadway was recently constructed between College Avenue and Redwood Street. Suniga Road is a planned four-lane arterial street that will provide connectivity between College Avenue and Timberline Road. Additional portions of Suniga Road will be constructed with this Project and the Northfield project. Lupine Drive – This is a two-lane residential street that provides mobility to residents in both Redwood Meadows and The Outpost. Parking and attached sidewalks are provided on both sides of Lupine Drive within Redwood Meadows. West of Redwood Street, Lupine Drive has detached sidewalks and parking on the north side. No parking is allowed on the south side. Similar to most residential streets, there is no posted speed limit. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 144 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 9 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Recent intersection operations were evaluated for both the morning and evening peak hours. Intersection count data was collected in August of 2017 as part of the Retreat TIS. The resulting peak hour turning movements are provided on Figure 3. The current lane configurations of the study intersections are shown on Figure 4. Figure 3 – Recent Peak Hour Traffic ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 145 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 10 Figure 4 – Existing Intersection Configurations Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodologies Transportation professionals evaluate intersections to determine how they are currently operating and will operate in the future. The methods employed can be found in the Transportation Research Board’s, 6th Edition, 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Level of service (LOS) is based on a “graded” system from LOS A, very little to no delays, to LOS F which represents excessive delays and congestion. The City of Fort Collins has established guidelines for acceptable intersection operations. These are provided within the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), originally adopted January 2, 2001, with updates effective September 19, 2016. The guidelines are provided in Table 1. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 146 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 11 Table 1 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Unsignalized Intersection Peak hour levels of motor vehicle delay at unsignalized intersections were estimated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS for the entire intersection and each of the constrained movements is reported. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between average control delay per vehicle and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Chapter 4 ± TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY Section 4.5 Project Impacts Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ± Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page 4-27 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Table 4-2 Loveland (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Intersection Component Major Intersection1 Minor Intersection2 Driveway Overall (City Limits) LOS C LOS C No Limit Overall (GMAs) LOS D LOS D No Limit Any Leg LOS D LOS E No Limit Any Movement LOS E LOS F No Limit 1 Includes all signalized and unsignalized arterial/arterial and arterial/ major collector intersections. 2 Includes all unsignalized intersections (except major intersections) and high volume driveways 3 There are no LOS standards for I-25 Interchanges. 4 On State Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable. Table 4-3 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Overall Any Approach leg Any Movement Signalized D1 E E2 Unsignalized Arterial / Arterial Collector / Collector E3 F4 Unsignalized Arterial / Collector Arterial / Local Collector / Local Local / Local D3 F4 Roundabout E 3,5 E54 E5 1 In mixed use district including downtown as defined by structure plan, overall LOS E is acceptable 2 Applicable with at least 5% of total entering volume 3 Use weighted average to identify overall delay 4 Mitigation may be required 5 Apply unsignalized delay value thresholds to determine LOS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 147 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 12 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Description A £10.0 No delay for stop-controlled approaches. B 10.0 and £15.0 Operations with minor delays. C >15.0 and £25.0 Operations with moderate delays. D >25.0 and £35.0 Operations with increasingly unacceptable delays. E >35.0 and £50.0 Operations with high delays, and long queues. F >50.0 Operations with extreme congestion, and with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2016. Signalized Intersections Peak hour levels of motor vehicle delay at signalized intersections were estimated using methods provided in Transportation Research Board’s 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. This operations analysis method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue Table 3 summarizes the relationship between average control delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 148 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 13 Table 3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Description A £10.0 Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Operations with very low delay, when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. B >10.0 and £20.0 Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: Generally, occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. C >20.0 and £35.0 Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D >35.0 and £55.0 Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays result from unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. E >55.0 and £80.0 Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. F >80.0 Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Occurs with oversaturation when flows exceed the intersection capacity. Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. Queues may block upstream intersections. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2016. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 149 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 14 Existing Intersection Conditions Using the HCM methodology, the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations were determined in the Retreat TIS. The results are summarized in Table 4. As indicated in the table, each of the study intersections is currently operating at acceptable levels of service. Table 4 Recent Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Overall Movement AM Peak PM Peak 1 Redwood St & Suniga Rd T-Stop Control Overall A A EB L/T/R A A NB L/T A A 2 Redwood St & Lupine Dr Two-Way Stop Control Overall A A EB L/T/R A A WB L/T/R A A NB LT A A SB LT A A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 150 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 15 3 PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND This chapter provides an overview of the Project and a description of the travel demand methodology to estimate vehicle trip generation, distribution, and assignment of Project- generated traffic along area roadways and intersections. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Enclave at Redwood allows for 230 dwellings. Figure 2 depicts the site plan. • Detached sidewalks will be provided throughout the site. The internal roadways have been designed to accommodate parking on one side of the road. • A bicycle and pedestrian connection will be provided from the south side of the project to Redwood Meadows. • Connection on the northeast of the site to a future regional trail and the Northfield project. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The trip generation characteristics of the Project were estimated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Table 5 provides the trip generation estimated for the Project. The table also provides a comparison between the Retreat and the Enclave at Redwood. The difference between the two projects shows that the Enclave at Redwood will generate fewer trips than the Retreat. As indicated in the table, the full buildout of the Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,700 daily trips, 106 morning, and 124 evening peak hour trips. Table 5 – Estimated Project Trip Generation Project IN Out Total IN Out Total Enclave at Redwood Multi-Family Detached 220 230 1,698 24 82 106 78 46 124 2,206 45 124 169 208 117 325 (508)(21)(42)(63)(130)(71)(201) Based on ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition PM Difference ITE Land Use Code Project Trip Generation Land Use Land Use Code Size DU's Daily AM The Retreat ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 151 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 16 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION | ASSIGNMENT The distribution of the Project traffic onto the roadway system was based on the pattern established in the Retreat TIS. As documented in the Retreat TIS the distribution was based on “existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment.” The original distribution pattern was adjusted due to the elimination of the connection to Conifer Street. The overall Project trip distribution is depicted on Figure 5. The resulting Project assigned peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. Figure 5 – Project Trip Distribution ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 152 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 17 Figure 6 – Project Traffic ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 153 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 18 4 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Estimates of future traffic conditions both with and without the proposed Project were necessary to evaluate the potential impact of the Project on the local street system. The background base traffic scenario represents future traffic conditions without the addition of the Project, while the total scenario represents future traffic conditions with completion of the proposed Enclave at Redwood. The future years of 2022 and 2040 were analyzed. The development of these future traffic scenarios is described in this chapter. BACKGROUND 2022 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The background traffic Projections reflect growth in traffic from ambient growth and approved Projects in the area. The ambient growth reflects additional traffic due to regional growth both in and outside of the study area. The background traffic at the existing study intersections was based on the traffic Projections from the Retreat TIS. This includes: • The unbuilt portions of Old Town North, Crowne at Old Town North, Waters’ Edge Phase 1, and Northfield Phase 1. • Ambient growth of 2% per year. The resulting Background 2022 traffic Projections for the study intersections are provided on Figure 7. BACKGROUND 2040 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The background traffic Projections for the long-range future year 2040 were also based on the Retreat TIS. This includes all the Projects identified for 2022. The 2040 background projections also include: • Completion of Phase 2 of Northfield. • Completion of Suniga Road to Timberline Road. • Ambient growth of 2% per year. The resulting Background 2040 traffic Projections for the study intersections are provided on Figure 8. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 154 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 19 Figure 7 – Background Traffic 2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 155 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 20 Figure 8 – Background Traffic 2040 2022 TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The total traffic Projections include both the background plus Project traffic. The Project- generated traffic volumes from Figure 6 were added to the 2022 background traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 7 to develop background plus Project peak hour traffic volumes. The resulting 2022 total traffic is depicted on Figure 9. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 156 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 21 Figure 9 – Total Traffic 2022 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The total traffic Projections include both the background plus Project traffic. The Project- generated traffic volumes from Figure 6 were added to the 2040 background traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 9 to develop background plus Project peak hour traffic volumes. The resulting 2040 total traffic is depicted on Figure 10. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 157 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 22 Figure 10 – Total Traffic 2040 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 158 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 23 5 SITE DESIGN AND AUXILIARY LANES SITE DESIGN The Enclave at Redwood was designed with a grid roadway network to allow for two connections to both Redwood Street and Suniga Road. The interconnected grid allows for numerous mobility options. The local street system, of both public and private streets, will accommodate the project and the existing residential homes. AUXILIARY LANES An analysis was conducted to determine the need for auxiliary right-turn and left-turn lanes on the adjacent roadways at both the Project access locations and study intersections. The criteria for auxiliary lanes are based on the LCUASS guidelines. The warrants for the left and right turn lanes are provided in Appendix A. Based on the City’s criteria a: • southbound right-turn lane will be necessary at Redwood Street and Suniga Road for the long-range 2040 conditions. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 159 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 24 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This chapter presents an analysis of the potential impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed Enclave at Redwood on the local street system. The analysis compares the Projected levels of service at each study intersection under future background and total conditions to estimate the incremental increase in the delay caused by the proposed Project. This provides the information needed to assess the potential impact of the Project using the significance criteria. SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA Threshold criteria were applied to determine if the growth in traffic due to regional growth/other Projects and/or the proposed Project has a significant traffic impact at an intersection. If the future traffic Projections for either Background (without Project) or Total (with Project) resulted in any portion of an intersection to exceed the LOS standards, this would be considered an impact. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2022 The future 2022 traffic Projections at the study intersections were analyzed to determine their future operating conditions. The future 2022 intersection geometry is depicted on Figure 11. The intersection operations for 2022 were analyzed with the geometry and traffic control shown on Figure 11. The operational results, for each of the study intersections, are provided in Table 6 for both the background and total traffic scenarios. Note that the results provided in Table 6 indicate both the overall delay/LOS for the intersection and the delay/LOS for each constrained movement and/or approach. The analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 160 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 25 Figure 11 – 2022 Intersection Configurations ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 161 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 26 Table 6 - Future 2022 Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Movement AM Peak PM Peak Background Total Background Total 1 Redwood St & Suniga Rd Two-Way Stop Control Overall A A A A EB LT A A A A WB LT A A A A NB L/T/R B B C C SB L/T/R B B B B 2 Redwood St & Lupine Dr Two-Way Stop Control Overall A A A A EB L/T/R A A A B WB L/T/R A A A B NB LT A A A A SB LT A A A A 3 Redwood St & Street BB T-Stop Control Overall A A WB L/R A B SB LT A A 1. LOS calculations performed using Synchro which is based on the Transportation Research Board HCM 2016. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2040 The future 2040 traffic projections at each of the study intersections were analyzed to determine their operating conditions. The 2040 intersection geometry is illustrated on Figure 12. The operational results, for each of the study intersections, are provided in Table 7 for both the background and total traffic scenarios. The study results for 2040 indicate the study intersections will operate at acceptable levels, except for several movements at Redwood Street and Suniga Road under stop-controlled operations. Table 7 also includes an analysis of Redwood Street at Suniga Road with signalization. The need for signalization of an intersection is based upon guidelines set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Street and Highways (MUTCD), by the Federal Highway Administration, 2009 Editions with revisions dated May 2012. This guiding manual provides nine warrants to determine the need for a signal. Warrant 3 is related to the peak hour traffic. This warrant is provided in Appendix C. Based on the projected 2040 volumes at this intersection it may warrant signalization. The intersection operations with a signal are shown in Table 7 and indicate the intersection would operate acceptably. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 162 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 27 Figure 12 – 2040 Intersection Configurations ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 163 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 28 Table 7 - Future 2040 Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Movement AM Peak PM Peak Background Total Background Total 1 Redwood St & Suniga Rd Two-Way Stop Control Overall B B F F EB LT A A A A WB LT A A A A NB L/T/R F F F F SB L/T/R F F F F SB RT NA B NA B 1 Redwood St & Suniga Rd Signal Overall B B B B EB Approach B B B B WB Approach B B B B NB Approach A A A B SB Approach A A A B 2 Redwood St & Lupine Dr Two-Way Stop Control Overall A A A A EB L/T/R A A B B WB L/T/R B B B B NB LT A A A A SB LT A A A A 3 Redwood St & Street BB T-Stop Control Overall A A WB L/R B B SB LT A A 1. LOS calculations performed using Synchro which is based on the Transportation Research Board HCM 2016. 2. NA – Not Applicable improvement related to the proposed project under Total conditions. FUTURE 2040 IMPROVEMENT MEASURES The proposed improvement measures include the following: • Provide a southbound right-turn lane at Redwood Street and Suniga Road. This improvement is related to the Project. • Signalize Redwood Street and Suniga Road. Signalization is necessary under both Background and Total traffic conditions. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 164 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 29 7 OTHER MOBILITY MODES The City of Fort Collins has established pedestrian and bicycle level of service definitions. They address a number of elements, or quality indicators that impact the environments these users experience. The City’s Pedestrian Plan, February 15, 2011, describes the parameters to evaluate the pedestrian environment. The proposed project is within the “Transit Corridor”. Within Pedestrian Districts, the City has established a LOS B for each of the elements listed below except for Visual Interest and Amenity at a LOS C. The elements identified as important to supporting a beneficial pedestrian environment are: 1. Directness 2. Continuity 3. Street Crossings 4. Visual Interest and Amenity 5. Security Each of these is described in depth in the Pedestrian Plan. The Plan requires that destinations within 1,320 feet of the Project are identified and analyzed for each pedestrian element. This area is depicted in Appendix D. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 8 along with the associated LOS for each element. The crossing at Redwood Street and Lupine Drive may require a striped pedestrian crossing across Redwood. Table 8 – Pedestrian Level of Service Destination Pedestrian Elements LOS Directness Continuity Street Crossing Visual Interest Security Standard LOS Transit District B B B C B Residential Area North B B A B B Future Residential Area East A A A B B Residential Area West A A C B B BICYCLE NETWORK/ANALYSIS The bicycle network within the 1,320 foot area of the project site was evaluated to determine if there were public school sites, recreation sites, and/or community/neighborhood commercial areas. There are no destinations withing the 1,320 foot area. TRANSIT SERVICE Two transit routes travel along Redwood Street adjacent to the project site. Routes 8 and 81 provides looped service with connections between the Downtown Transit Center, ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 165 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 30 PV Mobile Home Park (Hwy 287 at Terry Lake Road), Linden and Vine, and ending back at the Downtown Transit Center. They provide stops along North College Avenue, at the King Soopers and at several social services facilities. The Downtown Transit Center provides connections that serve both Fort Collins and the region. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 166 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 31 8 CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken to analyze the potential long-range traffic impacts of the proposed Enclave at Redwood project in the City of Fort Collins. The following summarizes the results of this analysis: • The proposed project will provide 230 dwellings. The site is approximately 28 acres. The roadway system includes two connections to both Redwood Street and Suniga Road. • The site is located north of Old Town. This land is currently undeveloped. • The Project is expected to generate approximately 1,700 daily trips, 106 trips during the AM peak hour and 124 trips during the PM peak hour. • Currently, the study intersections are operating at acceptable levels. • The Project will require a southbound right-turn lane at Redwood Street and Suniga Road. • Redwood Street at Suniga Road will need signalization to operate acceptably under both Background and Total 2040 conditions. • Under both future 2022 and 2040 background and total conditions, the intersections are projected to operate acceptably with the improvements noted above. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 167 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD| TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CITY OF FORT COLLINS Rollins Consult LLC | 32 APPENDICIES § Appendix A: LCUASS Left-Turn and Right-Turn Warrants § Appendix B: Level of Service Worksheets § Appendix C: Figures 4C-3 and 4C-4 MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant § Appendix D: Pedestrian/Bicycle Area ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 168 Appendix A LCUASS Left -Turn and Right-Turn Warrants ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 169 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 170 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 171 Appendix B Level of Service Worksheets ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 172 Background 2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 173 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 BDFNJURXQG AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 5.7 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 17 55 30 41 89 19 8 33 12 22 45 49 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 17 55 30 41 89 19 8 33 12 22 45 49 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 18 60 33 45 97 21 9 36 13 24 49 53 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 118 0 0 93 0 0 362 321 77 335 327 108 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 113 113 - 198 198 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 249 208 - 137 129 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1470 - - 1501 - - 594 596 984 619 591 946 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 892 802 - 804 737 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 755 730 - 866 789 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1470 - - 1501 - - 507 571 984 563 566 946 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 507 571 - 563 566 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 881 792 - 794 715 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 644 708 - 806 780 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 1.2 2.1 11.4 11.5 HCM LO6 B B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)618 1470 - - 1501 - - 681 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.093 0.013 - - 0.03 - - 0.185 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)11.4 7.5 - - 7.5 - - 11.5 HCM LDQH LO6 B A - - A - - B HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0.3 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 174 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 BDFNJURXQG 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 8.1 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 59 118 16 24 93 19 32 101 43 24 57 35 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 59 118 16 24 93 19 32 101 43 24 57 35 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 64 128 17 26 101 21 35 110 47 26 62 38 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 122 0 0 145 0 0 479 439 137 507 437 112 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 265 265 - 164 164 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 214 174 - 343 273 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1465 - - 1437 - - 497 512 911 476 513 941 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 740 689 - 838 762 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 788 755 - 672 684 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1465 - - 1437 - - 411 481 911 356 482 941 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 411 481 - 356 482 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 707 659 - 801 748 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 681 741 - 508 654 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 2.3 1.3 15.7 14.1 HCM LO6 C B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)525 1465 - - 1437 - - 520 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.364 0.044 - - 0.018 - - 0.242 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)15.7 7.6 - - 7.6 - - 14.1 HCM LDQH LO6 C A - - A - - B HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)1.7 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 175 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 BDFNJURXQG AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.5 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 4 0 11 10 1 4 3 64 2 2 95 7 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 4 0 11 10 1 4 3 64 2 2 95 7 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 4 0 12 11 1 4 3 70 2 2 103 8 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 191 189 107 194 192 71 111 0 0 72 0 0 6WDJH 1 111 111 - 77 77 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 80 78 - 117 115 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 769 706 947 765 703 991 1479 - - 1528 - - 6WDJH 1 894 804 - 932 831 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 929 830 - 888 800 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 763 704 947 754 701 991 1479 - - 1528 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 763 704 - 754 701 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 892 803 - 930 829 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 922 828 - 876 799 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.1 9.6 0.3 0.1 HCM LO6 A A MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1479 - - 890 801 1528 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.002 - - 0.018 0.02 0.001 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.4 0 - 9.1 9.6 7.4 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - A A A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 176 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 BDFNJURXQG 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.4 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 9 0 13 4 0 8 12 156 11 4 99 11 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 9 0 13 4 0 8 12 156 11 4 99 11 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 10 0 14 4 0 9 13 170 12 4 108 12 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 329 330 114 331 330 176 120 0 0 182 0 0 6WDJH 1 122 122 - 202 202 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 207 208 - 129 128 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 624 589 939 622 589 867 1468 - - 1393 - - 6WDJH 1 882 795 - 800 734 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 795 730 - 875 790 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 612 581 939 606 581 867 1468 - - 1393 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 612 581 - 606 581 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 873 793 - 792 727 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 779 723 - 859 788 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.8 9.8 0.5 0.3 HCM LO6 A A MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1468 - - 771 758 1393 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.009 - - 0.031 0.017 0.003 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.5 0 - 9.8 9.8 7.6 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - A A A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 177 Total 2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 178 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 6.3 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 25 55 30 49 97 19 8 38 12 22 53 69 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 25 55 30 49 97 19 8 38 12 22 53 69 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 27 60 33 53 105 21 9 41 13 24 58 75 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 126 0 0 93 0 0 419 363 77 380 369 116 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 222 222 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 288 232 - 158 147 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1460 - - 1501 - - 544 565 984 578 560 936 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 780 720 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 720 713 - 844 775 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1460 - - 1501 - - 441 536 984 515 531 936 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 441 536 - 515 531 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 857 774 - 766 695 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 586 688 - 774 761 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 1.7 2.2 12.1 12.1 HCM LO6 B B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)573 1460 - - 1501 - - 666 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.11 0.019 - - 0.035 - - 0.235 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)12.1 7.5 - - 7.5 - - 12.1 HCM LDQH LO6 B A - - A - - B HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 179 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 7RWDO 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 9.6 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 86 119 16 29 98 19 32 117 43 24 62 46 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 86 119 16 29 98 19 32 117 43 24 62 46 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 93 129 17 32 107 21 35 127 47 26 67 50 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 128 0 0 146 0 0 564 516 138 593 514 118 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 324 324 - 182 182 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 240 192 - 411 332 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1458 - - 1436 - - 436 463 910 417 464 934 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 688 650 - 820 749 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 763 742 - 618 644 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1458 - - 1436 - - 340 424 910 285 425 934 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 340 424 - 285 425 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 644 608 - 768 733 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 641 726 - 434 603 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 3 1.5 19.2 15.9 HCM LO6 C C MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)460 1458 - - 1436 - - 473 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.454 0.064 - - 0.022 - - 0.303 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)19.2 7.6 - - 7.6 - - 15.9 HCM LDQH LO6 C A - - A - - C HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)2.3 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 1.3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 180 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 2.4 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 4 0 11 21 1 16 3 68 7 6 96 7 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 4 0 11 21 1 16 3 68 7 6 96 7 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 4 0 12 23 1 17 3 74 8 7 104 8 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 215 210 108 212 210 78 112 0 0 82 0 0 6WDJH 1 122 122 - 84 84 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 93 88 - 128 126 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 742 687 946 745 687 983 1478 - - 1515 - - 6WDJH 1 882 795 - 924 825 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 914 822 - 876 792 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 724 682 946 732 682 983 1478 - - 1515 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 724 682 - 732 682 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 880 791 - 922 823 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 895 820 - 861 788 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.2 9.6 0.3 0.4 HCM LO6 A A MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1478 - - 874 818 1515 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.002 - - 0.019 0.05 0.004 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.4 0 - 9.2 9.6 7.4 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - A A A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 181 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 02/01/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 7RWDO 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.9 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 9 0 13 10 0 15 12 158 28 16 103 11 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 9 0 13 10 0 15 12 158 28 16 103 11 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 10 0 14 11 0 16 13 172 30 17 112 12 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 373 380 118 372 371 187 124 0 0 202 0 0 6WDJH 1 152 152 - 213 213 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 221 228 - 159 158 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 584 552 934 585 559 855 1463 - - 1370 - - 6WDJH 1 850 772 - 789 726 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 781 715 - 843 767 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 563 539 934 566 546 855 1463 - - 1370 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 563 539 - 566 546 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 842 762 - 781 719 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 758 708 - 819 757 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 10.1 10.3 0.5 0.9 HCM LO6 B B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1463 - - 736 710 1370 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.009 - - 0.032 0.038 0.013 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.5 0 - 10.1 10.3 7.7 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - B B A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 182 HCM 6WK TWSC 3: RedZ.. d & DULYe BB 01/29/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2022 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 0.9 MRYHPHQW :BL :B5 NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 17 4 74 8 1 127 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 17 4 74 8 1 127 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG -NRQH -NRQH -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # 0 - 0 - - 0 GUDGH, %0 - 0 - - 0 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 18 4 80 9 1 138 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 225 85 0 0 89 0 6WDJH 1 85 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 140 - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 5.42 - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 5.42 - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 763 974 - - 1506 - 6WDJH 1 938 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 887 - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 762 974 - - 1506 - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 762 - - - - - 6WDJH 1 938 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 886 - - - - - ASSURDFK :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.7 0 0.1 HCM LO6 A MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NB7 NB5:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)- - 795 1506 - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR - - 0.029 0.001 - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)- - 9.7 7.4 0 HCM LDQH LO6 - - A A A HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)- - 0.1 0 - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 183 HCM 6WK TWSC 3: RedZ.. d & DULYe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acket pg. 184 Background 2040 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 185 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 BDFNJURXQG AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 14 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 40 320 45 135 415 50 40 40 50 30 55 70 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 40 320 45 135 415 50 40 40 50 30 55 70 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 43 348 49 147 451 54 43 43 54 33 60 76 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 505 0 0 397 0 0 984 1233 174 1027 1228 226 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 434 434 - 745 745 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 550 799 - 282 483 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1056 - - 1158 - - 203 176 839 189 177 777 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 570 579 - 372 419 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 487 396 - 701 551 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1056 - - 1158 - - 111 147 839 120 148 777 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 111 147 - 120 148 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 547 555 - 357 366 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 321 346 - 580 528 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 0.8 1.9 53.5 61.8 HCM LO6 F F MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 NBLQ2 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)126 839 1056 - - 1158 - - 218 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.69 0.065 0.041 - - 0.127 - - 0.773 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)81 9.6 8.6 - - 8.6 - - 61.8 HCM LDQH LO6 F A A - - A - - F HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)3.8 0.2 0.1 - - 0.4 - - 5.4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 186 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 Enclave at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Background PM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Dela\, s/veh 81.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 460 65 85 430 35 70 120 145 45 70 65 Future Vol, veh/h 80 460 65 85 430 35 70 120 145 45 70 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channeli]ed - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heav\ Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt FloZ 87 500 71 92 467 38 76 130 158 49 76 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting FloZ All 505 0 0 571 0 0 1130 1363 250 1140 1396 234 Stage 1 - - - - - - 674 674 - 651 651 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 456 689 - 489 745 - Critical HdZ\4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical HdZ\ Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical HdZ\ Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follo. -up HdZ\2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1056 - - 998 - - 158 147 750 156 140 768 Stage 1 - - - - - - 410 452 - 424 463 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 554 445 - 529 419 - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1056 - - 998 - -a 61 a 123 750 - 117 768 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -a 61 a 123 - - 117 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 376 415 - 389 420 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 374 404 - 263 385 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Dela\, s 1.2 1.4 $ 404 HCM LOS F - Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacit\ (veh/h)89 750 1056 - - 998 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.32 0.21 0.082 - - 0.093 - - - HCM Control Dela\ (s) $ 703.8 11.1 8.7 - - 9 - - - HCM Lane LOS F B A - - A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 18.8 0.8 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - Notes a: Volume e[ceeds capacit\ $: Dela\ e[ceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 187 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 BDFNJURXQG AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.2 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 5 0 11 10 1 5 5 120 5 5 135 10 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 5 0 11 10 1 5 5 120 5 5 135 10 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 5 0 12 11 1 5 5 130 5 5 147 11 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 309 308 153 312 311 133 158 0 0 135 0 0 6WDJH 1 163 163 - 143 143 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 146 145 - 169 168 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 643 606 893 641 604 916 1422 - - 1449 - - 6WDJH 1 839 763 - 860 779 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 857 777 - 833 759 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 635 601 893 629 599 916 1422 - - 1449 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 635 601 - 629 599 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 836 760 - 857 776 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 847 774 - 819 756 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.6 10.3 0.3 0.2 HCM LO6 A B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1422 - - 792 695 1449 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.004 - - 0.022 0.025 0.004 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.5 0 - 9.6 10.3 7.5 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - A B A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 188 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 BDFNJURXQG 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.3 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 10 0 15 5 1 10 15 210 10 5 160 10 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 10 0 15 5 1 10 15 210 10 5 160 10 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 11 0 16 5 1 11 16 228 11 5 174 11 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 462 461 180 464 461 234 185 0 0 239 0 0 6WDJH 1 190 190 - 266 266 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 272 271 - 198 195 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 510 497 863 508 497 805 1390 - - 1328 - - 6WDJH 1 812 743 - 739 689 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 734 685 - 804 739 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 496 489 863 492 489 805 1390 - - 1328 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 496 489 - 492 489 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 801 740 - 729 680 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 714 676 - 786 736 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 10.6 10.7 0.5 0.2 HCM LO6 B B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1390 - - 666 650 1328 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.012 - - 0.041 0.027 0.004 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.6 0 - 10.6 10.7 7.7 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - B B A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 189 Total 2040 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 190 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 17.2 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 48 320 45 143 423 50 40 45 50 30 63 90 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 48 320 45 143 423 50 40 45 50 30 63 90 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 52 348 49 155 460 54 43 49 54 33 68 98 MDMRU/MLQRU MDMRU1 MDMRU2 MLQRU1 MLQRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 514 0 0 397 0 0 1026 1276 174 1073 1271 230 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 452 452 - 770 770 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 574 824 - 303 501 - CULWLFDO HGZ\4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - FROORZ-XS HGZ\2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1048 - - 1158 - - 189 165 839 175 167 772 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 557 569 - 359 408 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 471 385 - 681 541 - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 1048 - - 1158 - - 88 136 839 103 137 772 MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU - - - - - - 88 136 - 103 137 - 6WDJH 1 - - - - - - 529 541 - 341 353 - 6WDJH 2 - - - - - - 287 333 - 551 514 - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 1 2 81.4 57.8 HCM LO6 F F MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBLQ1 NBLQ2 EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 6BLQ1 6BLQ2 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)108 839 1048 - - 1158 - - 124 772 HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.855 0.065 0.05 - - 0.134 - - 0.815 0.127 HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)123.7 9.6 8.6 - - 8.6 - - 103.7 10.3 HCM LDQH LO6 F A A - - A - - F B HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)5 0.2 0.2 - - 0.5 - - 4.9 0.4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 191 HCM 6WK TWSC 1: RedZ.. d & SXQLga 01/30/2021 Enclave at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Total PM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Dela\, s/veh 151 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 107 461 65 90 435 35 70 136 145 45 75 76 Future Vol, veh/h 107 461 65 90 435 35 70 136 145 45 75 76 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channeli]ed - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heav\ Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt FloZ 116 501 71 98 473 38 76 148 158 49 82 83 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting FloZ All 511 0 0 572 0 0 1207 1440 251 1226 1473 237 Stage 1 - - - - - - 733 733 - 669 669 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 474 707 - 557 804 - Critical HdZ\4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical HdZ\ Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical HdZ\ Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follo. -up HdZ\2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1050 - - 997 - - 139 a 132 749 135 126 764 Stage 1 - - - - - - 378 424 - 413 454 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 540 436 - 482 394 - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1050 - - 997 - -a 36 a 106 749 - 101 764 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -a 36 a 106 - - 101 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 336 377 - 368 410 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 348 393 - 206 351 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Dela\, s 1.5 1.4 $ 743.8 HCM LOS F - Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacit\ (veh/h)64 749 1050 - - 997 - - - 764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 3.499 0.21 0.111 - - 0.098 - - - 0.108 HCM Control Dela\ (s) $ 1259.5 11.1 8.9 - - 9 - - - 10.3 HCM Lane LOS F B A - - A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 23.6 0.8 0.4 - - 0.3 - - - 0.4 Notes a: Volume e[ceeds capacit\ $: Dela\ e[ceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 192 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.9 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 5 0 11 21 1 17 5 124 10 9 136 10 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 5 0 11 21 1 17 5 124 10 9 136 10 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 5 0 12 23 1 18 5 135 11 10 148 11 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 334 330 154 331 330 141 159 0 0 146 0 0 6WDJH 1 174 174 - 151 151 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 160 156 - 180 179 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 620 589 892 622 589 907 1420 - - 1436 - - 6WDJH 1 828 755 - 851 772 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 842 769 - 822 751 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 601 582 892 608 582 907 1420 - - 1436 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 601 582 - 608 582 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 825 749 - 848 769 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 820 766 - 804 745 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 9.8 10.4 0.3 0.4 HCM LO6 A B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1420 - - 775 709 1436 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.004 - - 0.022 0.06 0.007 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.5 0 - 9.8 10.4 7.5 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - A B A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 193 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 7RWDO 3M 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 1.7 MRYHPHQW EBL EB7 EB5 :BL :B7 :B5 NBL NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 6B5 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 10 0 15 11 1 17 15 212 28 17 164 11 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 10 0 15 11 1 17 15 212 28 17 164 11 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH - -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK - - - - - - - - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - GUDGH, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 11 0 16 12 1 18 16 230 30 18 178 12 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU2 MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 507 512 184 505 503 245 190 0 0 260 0 0 6WDJH 1 220 220 - 277 277 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 287 292 - 228 226 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 476 465 858 478 471 794 1384 - - 1304 - - 6WDJH 1 782 721 - 729 681 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 720 671 - 775 717 - - - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- - MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 454 452 858 458 457 794 1384 - - 1304 - - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 454 452 - 458 457 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 1 771 710 - 719 671 - - - - - - - 6WDJH 2 692 662 - 749 706 - - - - - - - ASSURDFK EB :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 10.9 11.2 0.4 0.7 HCM LO6 B B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NBL NB7 NB5 EBLQ1:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 6B5 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)1384 - - 633 609 1304 - - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR 0.012 - - 0.043 0.052 0.014 - - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)7.6 0 - 10.9 11.2 7.8 0 - HCM LDQH LO6 A A - B B A A - HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 194 HCM 6WK TWSC 3: RedZ.. d & DULYe BB 01/30/2021 E..ODYH DW 5HGZRRG 01/29/2021 2040 7RWDO AM 6\QFKUR 10 LLJKW 5HSRUW 55 3DJH 1 IQWHUVHFWLRQ IQW DHOD\, V/YHK 0.7 MRYHPHQW :BL :B5 NB7 NB5 6BL 6B7 LDQH CRQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF 9RO, YHK/K 17 4 135 8 1 167 FXWXUH 9RO, YHK/K 17 4 135 8 1 167 CRQIOLFWLQJ 3HGV, #/KU 0 0 0 0 0 0 6LJQ CRQWURO 6WRS 6WRS FUHH FUHH FUHH FUHH 57 CKDQQHOL]HG -NRQH -NRQH -NRQH 6WRUDJH LHQJWK 0 - - - - - 9HK LQ MHGLDQ 6WRUDJH, # 0 - 0 - - 0 GUDGH, %0 - 0 - - 0 3HDN HRXU FDFWRU 92 92 92 92 92 92 HHDY\ 9HKLFOHV, %2 2 2 2 2 2 MYPW FORZ 18 4 147 9 1 182 MDMRU/MLQRU MLQRU1 MDMRU1 MDMRU2 CRQIOLFWLQJ FORZ AOO 336 152 0 0 156 0 6WDJH 1 152 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 184 - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 1 5.42 - - - - - CULWLFDO HGZ\ 6WJ 2 5.42 - - - - - FROORZ-XS HGZ\3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - 3RW CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 659 894 - - 1424 - 6WDJH 1 876 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 848 - - - - - 3ODWRRQ EORFNHG, %- -- MRY CDS-1 MDQHXYHU 658 894 - - 1424 - MRY CDS-2 MDQHXYHU 658 - - - - - 6WDJH 1 876 - - - - - 6WDJH 2 847 - - - - - ASSURDFK :B NB 6B HCM CRQWURO DHOD\, V 10.4 0 0 HCM LO6 B MLQRU LDQH/MDMRU MYPW NB7 NB5:BLQ1 6BL 6B7 CDSDFLW\ (YHK/K)- - 693 1424 - HCM LDQH 9/C 5DWLR - - 0.033 0.001 - HCM CRQWURO DHOD\ (V)- - 10.4 7.5 0 HCM LDQH LO6 - - B A A HCM 95WK %WLOH 4(YHK)- - 0.1 0 - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 195 HCM 6WK TWSC 3: RedZ.. d & DULYe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acket pg. 196 Total 2040 Improved ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 197 HCM 6WK SLgQaO..ed IQWeUVecWLRQ SXPPaU\ 1: RedZRRd & SXQLga 02/02/2021 EnclaYe at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Background AM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 MoYement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (Yeh/h)40 320 45 135 415 50 40 40 50 30 55 70 Future Volume (Yeh/h)40 320 45 135 415 50 40 40 50 30 55 70 Initial Q (Qb), Yeh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat FloZ, Yeh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj FloZ Rate, Yeh/h 43 348 49 147 451 54 43 43 54 33 60 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent HeaY\ Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, Yeh/h 338 1068 476 382 1068 476 463 426 792 200 348 370 ArriYe On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat FloZ, Yeh/h 894 3554 1585 987 3554 1585 687 853 1585 208 697 740 Grp Volume(Y), Yeh/h 43 348 49 147 451 54 86 0 54 169 0 0 Grp Sat FloZ(s),Yeh/h/ln 894 1777 1585 987 1777 1585 1540 0 1585 1645 0 0 Q SerYe(g_s), s 1.8 3.4 1.0 6.1 4.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 C\cle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 3.4 1.0 9.5 4.6 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.45 Lane Grp Cap(c), Yeh/h 338 1068 476 382 1068 476 889 0 792 918 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.13 0.33 0.10 0.39 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.00 AYail Cap(c_a), Yeh/h 427 1421 634 480 1421 634 889 0 792 918 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Dela\ (d), s/Yeh 15.2 12.2 11.4 15.9 12.6 11.4 5.9 0.0 5.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Dela\ (d2), s/Yeh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Dela\(d3),s/Yeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),Yeh/ln 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. MoYement Dela\, s/Yeh LnGrp Dela\(d),s/Yeh 15.3 12.4 11.5 16.5 12.9 11.5 6.1 0.0 6.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, Yeh/h 440 652 140 169 Approach Dela\, s/Yeh 12.6 13.6 6.1 6.7 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 18.0 27.0 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Ma[ Green Setting (Gma[), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Ma[ Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 8.4 4.4 11.5 Green E[t Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.7 0.7 2.0 Intersection Summar. HCM 6th Ctrl Dela\11.7 HCM 6th LOS B ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 198 HCM 6WK SLgQaO..ed IQWeUVecWLRQ SXPPaU\ 1: RedZRRd & SXQLga 02/01/2021 EnclaYe at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Background PM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 MoYement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (Yeh/h)80 460 65 85 430 35 70 120 145 45 70 65 Future Volume (Yeh/h)80 460 65 85 430 35 70 120 145 45 70 65 Initial Q (Qb), Yeh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat FloZ, Yeh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj FloZ Rate, Yeh/h 87 500 71 92 467 38 76 130 158 49 76 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent HeaY\ Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, Yeh/h 334 1069 477 317 1069 477 356 562 791 240 360 284 ArriYe On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat FloZ, Yeh/h 894 3554 1585 841 3554 1585 493 1127 1585 279 721 568 Grp Volume(Y), Yeh/h 87 500 71 92 467 38 206 0 158 196 0 0 Grp Sat FloZ(s),Yeh/h/ln 894 1777 1585 841 1777 1585 1620 0 1585 1569 0 0 Q SerYe(g_s), s 3.9 5.2 1.5 4.5 4.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 C\cle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 5.2 1.5 9.6 4.8 0.8 2.8 0.0 2.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.25 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), Yeh/h 334 1069 477 317 1069 477 918 0 791 883 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.26 0.47 0.15 0.29 0.44 0.08 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.22 0.00 0.00 AYail Cap(c_a), Yeh/h 423 1421 634 400 1421 634 918 0 791 883 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Dela\ (d), s/Yeh 16.1 12.8 11.5 16.7 12.7 11.3 6.3 0.0 6.3 6.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Dela\ (d2), s/Yeh 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Dela\(d3),s/Yeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),Yeh/ln 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. MoYement Dela\, s/Yeh LnGrp Dela\(d),s/Yeh 16.6 13.1 11.7 17.2 12.9 11.3 6.9 0.0 6.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, Yeh/h 658 597 364 196 Approach Dela\, s/Yeh 13.4 13.5 6.9 6.9 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 18.0 27.0 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Ma[ Green Setting (Gma[), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Ma[ Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 10.7 4.8 11.6 Green E[t Time (p_c), s 1.4 2.3 0.9 1.9 Intersection Summar. HCM 6th Ctrl Dela\11.4 HCM 6th LOS B ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 199 HCM 6WK SLgQaO..ed IQWeUVecWLRQ SXPPaU\ 1: RedZRRd & SXQLga 01/30/2021 EnclaYe at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Total AM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 MoYement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (Yeh/h)48 320 45 143 423 50 40 45 50 30 63 90 Future Volume (Yeh/h)48 320 45 143 423 50 40 45 50 30 63 90 Initial Q (Qb), Yeh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat FloZ, Yeh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj FloZ Rate, Yeh/h 52 348 49 155 460 54 43 49 54 33 68 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent HeaY\ Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, Yeh/h 341 1091 487 389 1091 487 427 447 782 321 611 782 ArriYe On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat FloZ, Yeh/h 887 3554 1585 987 3554 1585 628 907 1585 435 1240 1585 Grp Volume(Y), Yeh/h 52 348 49 155 460 54 92 0 54 101 0 98 Grp Sat FloZ(s),Yeh/h/ln 887 1777 1585 987 1777 1585 1535 0 1585 1675 0 1585 Q SerYe(g_s), s 2.2 3.4 1.0 6.4 4.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 C\cle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 3.4 1.0 9.8 4.6 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.33 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), Yeh/h 341 1091 487 389 1091 487 874 0 782 932 0 782 V/C Ratio(X)0.15 0.32 0.10 0.40 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.13 AYail Cap(c_a), Yeh/h 423 1421 634 481 1421 634 874 0 782 932 0 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Dela\ (d), s/Yeh 15.1 12.0 11.2 15.8 12.4 11.2 6.1 0.0 6.0 6.1 0.0 6.2 Incr Dela\ (d2), s/Yeh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Dela\(d3),s/Yeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),Yeh/ln 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Unsig. MoYement Dela\, s/Yeh LnGrp Dela\(d),s/Yeh 15.4 12.1 11.2 16.4 12.7 11.3 6.3 0.0 6.2 6.3 0.0 6.5 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, Yeh/h 449 669 146 199 Approach Dela\, s/Yeh 12.4 13.4 6.3 6.4 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.7 18.3 26.7 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Ma[ Green Setting (Gma[), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Ma[ Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 8.9 3.5 11.8 Green E[t Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.7 0.7 2.0 Intersection Summar. HCM 6th Ctrl Dela\11.5 HCM 6th LOS B ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 200 HCM 6WK SLgQaO..ed IQWeUVecWLRQ SXPPaU\ 1: RedZRRd & SXQLga 01/30/2021 EnclaYe at RedZood 01/29/2021 2040 Total PM S\nchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 MoYement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (Yeh/h)107 461 65 90 435 35 70 136 145 45 75 76 Future Volume (Yeh/h)107 461 65 90 435 35 70 136 145 45 75 76 Initial Q (Qb), Yeh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat FloZ, Yeh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj FloZ Rate, Yeh/h 116 501 71 98 473 38 76 148 158 49 82 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent HeaY\ Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, Yeh/h 345 1115 497 329 1115 497 120 184 771 120 155 771 ArriYe On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat FloZ, Yeh/h 889 3554 1585 840 3554 1585 26 379 1585 20 318 1585 Grp Volume(Y), Yeh/h 116 501 71 98 473 38 224 0 158 131 0 83 Grp Sat FloZ(s),Yeh/h/ln 889 1777 1585 840 1777 1585 405 0 1585 339 0 1585 Q SerYe(g_s), s 5.3 5.1 1.4 4.7 4.7 0.8 1.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 0.0 1.3 C\cle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 5.1 1.4 9.8 4.7 0.8 21.9 0.0 2.6 21.9 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.37 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), Yeh/h 345 1115 497 329 1115 497 304 0 771 275 0 771 V/C Ratio(X)0.34 0.45 0.14 0.30 0.42 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.20 0.48 0.00 0.11 AYail Cap(c_a), Yeh/h 422 1421 634 401 1421 634 304 0 771 275 0 771 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Dela\ (d), s/Yeh 16.2 12.3 11.1 16.3 12.2 10.9 10.3 0.0 6.6 10.1 0.0 6.3 Incr Dela\ (d2), s/Yeh 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 14.8 0.0 0.6 5.8 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Dela\(d3),s/Yeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),Yeh/ln 0.9 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.4 Unsig. MoYement Dela\, s/Yeh LnGrp Dela\(d),s/Yeh 16.8 12.6 11.2 16.8 12.5 10.9 25.0 0.0 7.2 16.0 0.0 6.5 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B C A A B A A Approach Vol, Yeh/h 688 609 382 214 Approach Dela\, s/Yeh 13.2 13.1 17.7 12.3 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.4 18.6 26.4 18.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Ma[ Green Setting (Gma[), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Ma[ Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.9 12.1 23.9 11.8 Green E[t Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.9 Intersection Summar. HCM 6th Ctrl Dela\14.0 HCM 6th LOS B ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 201 Appendix C Figures 4C-3 and 4C-4 MUTCD Peak Hour Warrants ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 202 2009 Edition Page 441 150* 100*100 200 300 400 500 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 600 1500400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1600 1700 1800 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 100 200 300 400 75* 100* 1100 1200 1300 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE 'HFHPEHU6HFW& ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 203 Appendix D – Pedestrian /Bicycle Area ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 204 Rollins Consult LLC M E M O R A N D U M To: Spencer Smith, City of Fort Collins Sam Coutts – Ripley Design From: Ruth Rollins, PE Date: June 13, 2022 Subject: Enclave at Redwood – Inclusion of Northfield Traffic Redwood/Lupine Spencer, this memo documents the future 2040 traffic conditions on Lupine Drive at Redwood Street. The traffic projections for the Northfield project were based on information contained in the Northfield Transportation Impact Study, August 2018, prepared by Delich Associates. The residents of Northfield will have roadway connections to the proposed Enclave at Redwood. The daily and peak hour traffic from Northfield was added to the traffic projections previously documented in emails and the Traffic Impact Study Enclave at Redwood, August 17, 2021, by Rollins Consult. Figure 1 depicts the Northfield traffic and the Total 2040 traffic (with the Enclave at Redwood). As shown on the figure the Northfield traffic could result in an additional 185 daily trips on Lupine Drive. The total daily projected traffic on Lupine is estimated to be 915 trips. The desirable threshold on a Local Street is 1,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Redwood Street at Lupine Drive was analyzed based on the future Total 2040 peak hour volumes depicted on Figure 1. The analysis worksheets are attached. As indicated in the analysis results, the peak hour operations for the intersection are expected to be a level of service (LOS) A or B which is within the City’s threshold of LOS D. Let me know if you require any additional information. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 205 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 2 Figure 1 – 2040 Projections ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 206 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 3 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 06/10/2022 Enclave at Redwood 5:00 pm 01/29/2021 2040 Total AM With Northfield Synchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 11 21 1 26 5 115 10 13 132 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 11 21 1 26 5 115 10 13 132 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 12 23 1 28 5 125 11 14 143 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 332 323 149 324 323 131 154 0 0 136 0 0 Stage 1 177 177 - 141 141 - - - - - - - Stage 2 155 146 - 183 182 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 621 595 898 629 595 919 1426 - - 1448 - - Stage 1 825 753 - 862 780 - - - - - - - Stage 2 847 776 - 819 749 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 594 586 898 613 586 919 1426 - - 1448 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 594 586 - 613 586 - - - - - - - Stage 1 822 745 - 859 777 - - - - - - - Stage 2 817 773 - 799 741 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 10.2 0.3 0.6 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1426 - - 774 747 1448 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.022 0.07 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9.8 10.2 7.5 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - A B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 207 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 4 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 06/10/2022 Enclave at Redwood 5:00 pm 01/29/2021 2040 Total PM With Northfield Synchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 1 15 11 1 23 15 206 28 27 154 11 Future Vol, veh/h 10 1 15 11 1 23 15 206 28 27 154 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 1 16 12 1 25 16 224 30 29 167 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 515 517 173 511 508 239 179 0 0 254 0 0 Stage 1 231 231 - 271 271 - - - - - - - Stage 2 284 286 - 240 237 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 470 462 871 473 468 800 1397 - - 1311 - - Stage 1 772 713 - 735 685 - - - - - - - Stage 2 723 675 - 763 709 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 441 444 871 450 450 800 1397 - - 1311 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 441 444 - 450 450 - - - - - - - Stage 1 762 695 - 725 676 - - - - - - - Stage 2 690 666 - 729 691 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.1 11.1 0.5 1.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1397 - - 617 632 1311 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.046 0.06 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 11.1 11.1 7.8 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 208 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: June 15, 2022 To: Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission From: Spencer Smith, Traffic Operations Engineer Re: Read Before Memo: Item #2, Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan __________________________________________________________________ Since the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing on Thursday, April 21st regarding the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan (PDP#210004), residents of the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood raised concerns that the Enclave at Redwood Traffic Impact Study (TIS) did not include potential future traffic volumes on Lupine Drive from the approved Northfield subdivision. The Northfield project is currently under construction and located directly east of the Enclave at Redwood. The Enclave at Redwood and Northfield projects will have public roadway connections at Steeley Drive and Collamer Drive. Traffic Operations staff requested that the Enclave at Redwood traffic engineer provide an addendum to the TIS that would provide an analysis of potential traffic contributions to Lupine Drive from Northfield. Staff received a traffic memorandum on June 13th, 2022, from the applicant, which is included in the agenda packet materials for the record. At the time that the Northfield TIS was approved, the previous plan for the Enclave at Redwood site (in the development review process under a different applicant as “The Retreat”) did not include a roadway connection to Lupine Drive. Therefore, all Northfield traffic that would travel north on Redwood Street was routed to Suniga Road rather than via Lupine Drive. The TIS for the Enclave at Redwood project did include the Northfield TIS in its analysis but was not updated to reflect the change in connectivity with the proposed connection to Lupine Drive. In review of the traffic memorandum, a summary of the findings is highlighted below. Staff has not amended the staff report or staff presentation included in the April hearing, as the overall staff findings and recommendation on the project have not changed. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 209 Traffic Volume Contribution from the Northfield Project: The approved Northfield TIS distributed 5% of the overall project traffic to Redwood Street. The traffic memorandum provided by the Enclave at Redwood traffic engineer routed the entire 5% (185 trips) through the Meadows at Redwood subdivision, via Lupine Drive, to the intersection of Redwood Street and Lupine Drive. The additional trips were then added to the intersection and the Level of Service (LOS) reanalyzed. The revised total traffic on Lupine (including existing, Enclave at Redwood and Northfield) is 915 trips. Analysis of the Redwood Street and Lupine Drive intersection shows that the intersection will still function at an acceptable LOS per the City’s standards. Staff considers this an acceptable conservative approach, since it would not be likely that all Northfield traffic travelling north on Redwood Street would use Lupine Drive. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 210 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 211 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Consent Agenda: 1.Draft Minutes from April 21, 2022, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a ffnal review of the items on the consent agenda and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the consent agenda for the June 16, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Sass seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2.Enclave at Redwood (continuance} Project Description: This is a request for a Project Deve opment Plan to develop a 27.85-acre site formerly referred to as "The Retreat," generally located to the north of Suniga Drive and to the east of Redwood Drive. The proposal will include a replat of the site into one parcel and include 242 dwelling units with a mix of four, six, and eight-plex multi-family units, within a "For Rent" managed community property. A 1-acre park and clubhouse are in the center of the site, and regional trail connection will be located along the Lake Canal. The PDP includes a request for Modification of Sta ndards for the building orientation and connecting walkway requirement. This property is within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Member Stackhouse discfosed she is a regular vo lunteer with Neighbor to Neighbor and, during a regular conversation with Neighbor to Neighbor staff, she was informed the Neighbor to Neighbor organization was contacted by a citizen representative who asked whether Neighbor to Neighbor would consider allowing the developer to create a new road that would cross the Neighbor-to-Neighbor property as an alternative to the planned connection to Lupine Drive. She stated the staff further indicated to her that the organization would be w'lling to do so. but only if the development consisted of affordable housing. She stated that because this proposal does not involve an affordable housing component, she therefore believes this information would not have any Impact on her decision. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported letters were received from Amber Franzel and the Meadows at Redwood HOA expressing concern about the project. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a br'ef overview of the project and noted the Commission's packet included a read-before memo from Pfannfng out 'ning the proposed revisions to the building elevations, the applicants' revised building elevations and supportfng documents, a read-before memo from Traffic staff, a memo from the app icants' traffic analysis related to the Lupine Drive connection discussion, the letters mentioned by Secretary Manno, and the new app licant presentation and video. He noted staff had not revised its presentation or staff report from the April hearing; however, staff will respond following the applicant presentation. Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, reviewed the applicant presentation from the April Commission hearing noting much of the discussion during deliberation was related to the connectivity standards, specifically on Lupine Drive, and on the model variety and quality of the architecture. He noted the two modificattons of standard were both approved at the April hearing. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 212 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Coutts discussed the proposed Lupine Drive connection and discussed a meeting held with the HOA regarding its concern with the connection. He stated the applicants' proposal still stands as is; however, he also presented some alternative designs for the Commissioners to consider. He first discussed the possibility of including a traffic calming situation at the Lupine connection, and second, discussed the possibility of a complete closure of the Lupine connection to the proposed development to public vehicle access. He noted this connection would still allow for bikes, pedestrians, and emergency access. Mr. Coutts outlined the proposal for the northern boundary of the property and its interaction with the natural habitat buffer zone. He went on to comment on the nine new building designs and color variations. Doug Heaton, KTGY Architecture, further detailed the architectural revisions made since the April hearing and discussed how the new designs meet the design standards for multi-family dwellings in the Land Use Code. He noted particular attention was paid to ensure the revised elevations are distinctly different from one another and he detailed those distinctions. He showed a video depiction of the proposed project. Staff Analysis Planner Wray stated the new elevations had not changed staff's findings for compliance with the Land Use Code, or its recommendation. Regarding the letters received, he noted there were comments regarding the compatibility of this project with the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, which is an element of City Plan. He commented on applicable aspects of the Plan and noted it identified this area to be zoned LMN, though there is no requirement related to housing types other than for there to be a variety thereof. He commented on the buffers being provided between the existing neighborhoods and the proposed project. Planner Wray further discussed other comments in the letters, noting the regional trail connection provided is open to the entire community, that the Lake Canal was recognized as having natural habitat buffer, and that the new fencing will be maintained by this development and its HOA. Regarding the Lupine Drive connection, Planner Wray noted he provided a detailed overview of the staff findings for compliance with the City's street connectivity requirements in the Land Use Code. He noted staff supported alternative compliance for not connecting Mullein Drive. Spencer Smith, Traffic Operations, discussed the additional information provided in the read-before memo related to traffic level of service standards and noted the analysis showed the intersection still meets those standards. Tim Dinger, Engineering Development Review, noted the City does not maintain or reconstruct private streets but does provide those services for public streets. Commission Questions Member Hogestad asked about the design of the 6-and 8-plex buildings being essentially the same. Mr. Heaton replied there are 3-bedroom units at either end of the 8-plex units. Member Hogestad stated the elevations are much improved; however, the changes have little to do with the requirements of the Land Use Code in terms of the footprint size and shape varying significantly. Mr. Heaton described the different undulations and sizes of the buildings. Member Hogestad reiterated his questioning of the buildings varying significantly given the bump-outs on the buildings appear to be the same. Member Stackhouse suggested staff provide an understanding of that provision of the Land Use Code. Mr. Heaton stated there are several more undulations on the 8-plex buildings, the building lengths are different, porch configurations and sizes are different, and unit widths vary. Member Hogestad asked about the location of the natural habitat buffer on the northern edge of the property. Mr. Coutts replied the Code requirement is a 50-foot buffer from a natural feature, which is the irrigation ditch on this ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 213 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 4 of 8 site, and the Code al ows for achieving that buffer in several different ways with both quality and quantity aspects. He stated the buffer strip on the north side is part of the buffer needed to meet the requirements. Member Hogestad asked about the width of the strip and its planting consistency. Mr. Coutts replied the plantings are native seed and trees per the specific plant list provided by the City and the width is 14 feet. He also noted the drainage channel continues north off-site that provides an additional buffer, though it is not considered a significant natural feature. Ptanner Wray discussed the staff analysis of the new building designs and stated staff felt the shapes were varied enough to be compliant. Member Stackhouse noted the original proposal was compliant with Sections 3.6.3(F) and 3.6.4 given the Lupine Drive connection and asked if an alternative compliance would need to be sought to close Lupine Drive, and asked to what extent approval of this might set a meaningful precedent. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied the application can be changed at this point from a procedural perspective. Planner Wray stated staff has only just received this information from the applicant and therefore has not had a chance to fully analyze it; however, he noted an approval of alternative compliance would require the finding that the proposed plan is equa, to or better than a complying plan. He noted the Code does not contain criteria for blocking off a street based on neighborhood concerns but does contain a provision that requires connections of pub lic streets to existing stub-outs. Planner Wray stated approval of the new proposal could potentially set a precedent as City Plan does contain a policy regarding interconnected neighborhoods. Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager, noted alternative compliance requests, similar to modification of standards requests. are case and fact specific to individual situations. She stated the Commissioners make findings based on those specific facts and any decision made would not bind a future Commission to making the same decision on a different project. Smith stated that neighborhood connectivity standards probably factor in more in this situation than level of service standards, which can be met without the connection. He stated taking away access points and multiple neighborhood roadway options can exacerbate traffic congestion on arterials; however, that cannot specifically be quantified in this instance. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated alternative compliance is a fairly rigorous standard and typically includes a fafrly comprehensive package of information and an application at an earlier stage allowing staff to fully vet the application. Member Schneider asked if staff supports one or the other of the new alternative options for the connection. Planner Wray replied that only the second option to close the roadway to vehicular access would require alternative compliance; the option to provide traffic calm ing methods would not. He stated that staff would support any traffic calming measures and that there can be support for closing the public street connection, which would not necessarily set a precedent for future dedsions. Everette noted there has not been time for Engineering and Traffic Operations staff in particular to complete a full analysis and provide a complete recommendation. She stated the Commission could approve either option, there just may need to be some work done on the back end by staff if either option is pursued. Member Haefele stated it seems likely that further development going east will have additional connections and Lupine Drive will not become an arterial. She asked if Traffic Operations could provide information on how future traffic in the area will be distributed. Smith replied staff conservatively estimated 5% of Northfield traffic would be routed to Lupine through the project He noted other neighborhoods moving east have additional connection options which are more direct. Ruth Rollins, traffic engineer for the applicant, stated she did a thorough analysis of the connection at Lupine which showed that the roadway system works both with and without providing that vehicular connection. Chair Katz asked if the traffic distribution changed between the two options. Ms. Rollins replied she did not assign any of the project or Northfield traffic to Lupine and she followed the Northfield traffic study assumptions regarding ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 214 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 5 of 8 its traffic disbursement. She stated there would not be traffic from other neighborhoods cutting through the entire development to get to Lupine given the way Lupine is designed. Member Schneider noted the Master Street Plan does not show Lupine Drive extending even to Lemay Avenue. Member Stackhouse asked the applicant if it would be willing to delay the proposal in order to make a request for alternative compliance for the closure of the Lupine Drive connection t,o allow for staff analysis to occur. Mr. Coutts replied the applicant would prefer to have a decision at this meeting given there has already been one continuance. He stated the information that would be part of an alternative compliance application has already been submitted as part of the updated traffic memo, though he admitted that staff had not had the opportunity to analyze it from an alternative compliance perspective. He stated the applicant would prefer to have a conditional approval of attaching an alternative compliance request at final development stage and, if approved by staff at that time, it could move forward. If not approved by staff at that time, the project could move forward as initially proposed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jennifer Jones stated the Meadows at Redwood HOA has been meeting with the applicant since the April meeting and stated she is supportive of the project overall. She requested the Commission consider allowing the closure of Lupine Drive to vehicular access. She stated the connection would still allow for pedestrian and bicycle access which would ultimately be better for both neighborhoods. Amber Franzel thanked the applicants for their work to be good neighbors and make the design work for the full community. She expressed support for the closure of the Lupine Drive connection to vehicular traffic noting level of service standards would still be met. Aaron Oberndorf concurred with Ms. Jones and Ms. Franzel and suggested setting a precedent for a developer working with a neighborhood is positive. Additionally, he supported closing the Lupine Drive connection to vehicular traffic stating bike and pedestrian only access has been shown to be positive in other instances. Applicant Response Mr. Coutts suggested the Commission may want to consider a condition of approval that the applicant provide a formal alternative compliance request to provide bike, pedestrian, and emergency access only to Lupine Drive for administrative review and approval prior to final development plan approval. Staff Response Planner Wray stated staff understands the concerns of the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood and concurred the alternative compliance could be considered and analyzed during final development review. Commission Questions/ Deliberation Member Stackhouse asked if the alternative compliance request would come back before the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied the typical Code process for alternative compliance states that plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements and shall identify how the alternative plan will better accomplish the purpose of the Code section than a complying plan. He stated having a condition to allow further contemplation by staff makes sense and noted the decision maker for alternative compliance is clearly defined; however, the question is whether than can be delegated to the staff level by the decision maker. He stated his opinion at this time is that would be allowable as an administrative decision to be delegated to the CONS Director. He suggested the Commission would make a finding that the plan as proposed with Lupine Drive connecting is in compliance with the condition that, if alternative compliance were to be approved at final plan, that alternative would come into play. He stated the Commission could also request the issue come back before it for a decision. Everette expressed concern a condition on the approval of a project that essentially does not grant approval of the project makes it difficult to move forward with the final development plan process. She commented on the possible use of a major amendment rather than alternative compliance after the approval of the project. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 215 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16. 2022 Page 6 of 8 Member Haefele asked if the alternative compliance could come back before the Commission as a consent item and whether that would needlessly delay the project moving forward. Everette replied the Commission would be the decision maker on a major amendment. She stated the applicant would need to weigh in on whether it would cause a delay. Commissioner Schneider expressed concern that the applicant could opt to not move forward with the alternative compliance if the Commission approves the project as originally planned. Mr. Coutts stated the applicant's intent would be to apply for alternative compliance prior to final development plan and would request a concurrent review. He supported the idea of placing the alternative compliance on the Commission's consent agenda which would allow the developer to move forward with final design. Member Stackhouse supported the architectural changes and expressed a strong preference that an approval of the proposal be conditioned on submission of a proposal for alternative compliance that comes back before the Commission on the consent agenda. She stated she is weary of skipping steps in the process. Member Sass questioned how the lack of a vehicular connection can be justified as being equal to or better than a complying plan. Member Haefele noted there is not an official proposal for alternative compliance and members can always pull consent items. She stated the onus would be on staff to analyze a proposal and determine whether it is equal to or better than a complying plan, or whether another process would be more appropriate. Member Stackhouse concurred with Member Sass that an item should not be on consent if a standard is not met. Chair Katz noted the standard is met with the current application which includes the connecting street. Member Schneider asked about the original modifications of standard that were approved by the Commission in April. Planner Wray replied the Commission approved a modification for the distance between the entrances of two of the buildings and a connecting walkway to be greater than 350 feet and a modification to allow three housing types versus four. He stated the third component that is part of this overall PDP decision is alternative compliance to close access to Mullein Drive, which staff found to meet the criteria for equal to or better than a complying plan to alleviate safety concerns of the close proximity to the Redwood intersection. Chair Katz reiterated the plan as proposed meets Land Use Code standards and stated it should be up to the applicant whether they want to submit a new alternative compliance or major amendment. He noted public opinion is taken into consideration; however, it cannot trump a plan that is compliant with the standards. Member Hogestad stated he believes the Commission can place any condition of approval. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied there are limits to that set in the Land Use Code and, to the extent the applicant is willing to comply with a condition and states so on the record, it can also be imposed as something the applicant is voluntarily willing to do. Chair Katz requested input from the applicant team. Mr. Coutts replied the applicant would prefer to continue with the condition he suggested related to administrative review and approval prior to final development plan approval, and if that is not an option, would prefer the voluntary optional major amendment route. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe commented on this issue being a substantive one on which the decision maker, the Commission, should make a decision, and that would be the most defensible way to proceed. Member Haefele suggested the Commission can move forward with the proposal with the connection expecting that the applicant will seek a major amendment for its closure. She stated that is the cleanest way to move forward despite not being the most predictable outcome for the existing neighborhood. Everette clarified Traffic Operations staff has confirmed they have had a chance to review Ms. Rollins' analysis and information and there are no significant concerns about closing the connection from a traffic perspective; rather, the ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 216 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 7 of 8 primary concern is with compliance with plan direction and the intent of connecting neighborhoods standards from more of a planning perspective. She noted there may not be a great deal of new staff analysis with a major amendment depending on what is proposed. Chair Katz asked if Poudre Fire Authority would review a plan for closure of the connection. Everette replied in the affirmative and noted the applicant's proposal includes an emergency access connection, which is typically sufficient for Poudre Fire Authority. Member Stackhouse stated neighborhood connectivity is the main issue and she has not yet had enough time to be able to make a decision. She agrees the plan as proposed meets the Land Use Code requirements with respect to the through street and the Commission should act on that without predetermining the outcome of looking at an alternative. Member Sass concurred and noted the standard is clear that local streets must provide both inter-and intra neighborhood connections to net developments together with both vehicular and pedestrian connections. He stated giving the applicants the ability to request an alternative seems reasonable but requiring that seems unfair given they have presented a plan that complies. Chair Katz requested the Commissioners discuss the architecture changes. Member Sass supported the changes made to the elevations. Chair Katz also supported the changes and stated the continuance has made for a better product. Member Hogestad agreed the architecture is improved; however, he stated it relied simply on the application of detail on the buildings and is not really what is required by the Land Use Code. Chair Katz noted this is one of the most subjective pieces of the Land Use Code and asked Member Hogestad what he believes does not comply. Member Hogestad replied the Code is attempting to push design to a different result rather than decorating boxes, which is what this design shows. He stated there is little articulation provided in the buildings. Chair Katz asked what would need to occur for Member Hogestad to approve. Member Hogestad replied the footprints of the buildings should be significantly different, per the Code. Member Sass asked how many square feet of difference would be considered significant. Chair Katz noted it is not a defined term and staff currently views the differentiation as significant. Member Haefele stated part of the problem is that square footage is considered a metric of difference; however, that is not defined. Member Hogestad noted the Code references size and shape and stated there is insufficient articulation in the buildings. Chair Katz stated the new Land Use Code updates will be able to better explain these details. Member Hogestad commented on the development having no real identity and stated the Land Use Code was more thoughtful when identifying the need for articulation. Member Schneider commented on the changes in rooflines and coloring that help with compliance. Member Hogestad stated he believes the project simply does not meet the Land Use Code. Member Stackhouse clarified that she would be willing to move forward with a motion for approval without a second condition to require the applicant to submit for alternative compliance. The applicant could then submit a proposal for alternative compliance at a later date, with the proposal analyzed under normal processes. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 217 Ptanning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan, PDP210004, with the following condition: prior to final plan approval, the City's regional stormwater detention pond that the developer will be constructing must meet the naturalized criteria benefiting a natural habitat buffer zone pursuant to the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual and Land Use Code Section 3.4.1. The Commission finds in consideration of the condition and approved modification of standards that the project development plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission herby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project development plan contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Member Haefele agreed with Member Hogestad that the building footprints are not substantially different; however, in reading the Land Use Code, size is one of the ways in which they are allowed to differ. She stated the buildings wi11 look substantially different from the perspective of pedestrians or passersby. She encouraged the applicants to follow through with a major amendment application for the connection closure but stated she would support the motion. Member Schneider thanked the applicant team for working with the existing neighborhood and also encouraged the applicant to submit for alternative compliance or a major amendment. Chair Katz concurred and thanked the members of the public for their comments. Vote: 5:1 with Member Hogestad dissenting. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. M inutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: August 18, 2022. �z:) �.�or , . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 218 1 Yani Jones From:Kyle Dickey <kdickey@newbelgium.com> Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:30 PM To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Enclave at Redwood Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good afternoon. I was reaching out regarding the Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004. I live at 643 Spurge Circle in the Meadows at Redwood. The proposed project currently as is utilizing Mullein and Lupine would have very harmful effect on our neighborhood, especially with regard to traffic. I am respectfully asking that this go under review, and the alternate plan that would not utilize these neighborhood roads be mandated. I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of the day! Kyle Dickey Kyle Dickey Brewery Direct Services New Belgium Brewing Co 970-420-4957 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 219 From:Haley Ford To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] The Enclave at Redwood Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:59:59 AM Hello, I live in the Meadows neighborhood off of Redwood. Many of us still have concerns about the increased traffic, the traffic pattern (stop signs only on Redwood), and associated noise due to the extension of Suniga to the overpass. And now, we are potentially facing at least one cul-de-sac (Lupine) in our small neighborhood being opened up to traffic to at least one proposed new development and possibly two. The roads in the Meadows are not designed to handle a significant increase in traffic flow. Residents appropriately park their vehicles on the road, which works with the current limited traffic flow into/out of the Meadows. The roads are too narrow to handle more traffic from a larger development. Other viable options for traffic flow (such as onto Conifer have previously been considered), and, now with the extension of Suniga, there are more options for entrance and egress that do not negatively impact the Meadows. Residents have previously expressed their opinion of not wanting this connection to Redwood via Lupine, and those concerns were heard by the city. The view of many of the residents in the Meadows on Lupine being opened up has not changed. Additionally, from publicly available plans on the city's website, it looks like there is some form of roadway (unclear from plans whether it will open to Redwood as an entrance/egress) that will be quite close to houses on the south side of the Meadows near Mullein. If this will be an active roadway, it is even closer to the existing houses and will create more traffic/noise/pollution, thus further decreasing quality of life. What kind of buffer, if any, is the developer planning to have between the existing houses and the new development? The primary concern, as outlined above, is increased traffic flow in a small neighborhood. I looked all over Fort Collins for a house to purchase, and I settled on the one I purchased in the Meadows because of it being a quiet, enclosed neighborhood with some nearby open space. Increased traffic in this neighborhood will decrease quality of life while increasing risk to residents from more vehicular traffic. I encourage the city to find alternate roadways for the new development that leaves the Meadows intact. Sincerely, Haley Ford ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 220 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 June 6, 2022 Re: The Enclave housing development and street connectivity concern Dear Planning and Zoning Board members, My name is Amber Franzel, and I am a homeowner in the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood West of the proposed Enclave development. I am writing to express continued concern over the proposal to connect Lupine Drive to the new development, The Enclave, being constructed soon. We want to thank you for the city’s commitment to hearing our concerns, during the last P&Z meeting held on April 21, 2022. I understand that the approval was pushed back to this week over architectural concerns, and that public comment will be accepted for the June 16th meeting. As such, I want to put our concerns on record and update you on our work with DHI Developers and Ripley Designs, which has occurred since the first meeting. During that collaborative meeting with members of the Meadows at Redwoods neighborhood, DHI and Ripley, we discussed their support of the alternative ways to meet the connectivity requirements in city code, and they have been more than willing to come up with creative solutions. The plan has changed from the previous developer, so we are aware that the connection to Conifer is no longer an option due to wetland considerations and a change to the size of the retention pond to the North. However, the suggestion for meeting connectivity requirements by using pedestrian, bike and emergency vehicle access is still supported by the neighborhood, the developer, and the designer. They are also willing to make changes to their overall plan to be “good neighbors”: providing landscape buffers, creating trails systems and commercial businesses that can be used by our neighborhood, sharing the natural area to the south of the property, and planning to build privacy fences. We value their work and the time they have spent making this new property work for everyone in the area. Increased traffic and citizen safety on Lupine Drive, if vehicular traffic were connected is still worrisome despite being made aware that Mullein would not be a through street. It seems, based on information shared from the City, that a traffic study has not been completed with information about trips from both The Enclave and Northfield, which is concerning. Our neighborhood streets are undersized and even at the current amount of traffic, passage through the area can be tricky. Currently, our neighborhood is closely connected, and in the spirit of the Northside Neighborhood Plan, we maintain our own unique culture and connection with each other. Our kids ride around the cul-de-sacs without fear, we host potlucks together, we shovel snow for our neighbors, and parents walk to the bus stop together each morning and afternoon. We enjoy a sense of community that is not felt in many other local neighborhoods, and we hope to keep it that way if possible. We thank you for your decision to close Mullein to through traffic, but we feel that extending Lupine would directly threaten our culture and sense of safety. That being said, we understand the issue of code compliance in terms of needing to connect neighborhoods. Since the neighborhood's creation in the early 80s, we knew there would eventually be ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 221 a connection, but the plans at that time were for our small, single-family neighborhood to be connected to other single-family neighborhoods. Surrounding us with giant apartment complexes and increasing the traffic through them, as well as a connection to the even larger Northfield neighborhood seems out of step with what Fort Collins is looking to accomplish with neighborhood connection. It won’t serve as a way for us to be more accessible to neighboring developments, it will be a thruway for traffic only. With the push from city leaders to provide more accessible walking trails, alternative transportation modalities and sustainable communities, this seems deliberately counter to that, encouraging new neighbors to use vehicles to get to Redwood. Let me be clear, we as a community are not seeking to stop the development; we know the need for new housing to relieve the pressure felt in the city. We’ve even commended the developer on the new idea (at least for Fort Collins) of a build-to-rent property. This is not us not “dealing with change,” as was suggested in the last P&Z meeting. We are simply asking that Lupine Drive be connected for pedestrian, bike, and emergency access only, especially with the added connection to Suniga Road, which was not an available option when we brought this to your attention in 2018. This would still promote connectivity, thanks to a trail system set up along the perimeter of The Enclave but would discourage Lupine being the main point of connection with Redwood and those wishing to travel north. Given the size of our streets, the increased traffic this connection would bring, and the desire to maintain our neighborhood connection and community feel, we hope this is something you will advocate for during this part of the development process. Thanks for your consideration and your representation of the citizens of Fort Collins. Sincerely, Amber Franzel 625 Yarrow Circle amberfranzel@gmail.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 222 My name is Amber Franzel and I am a homeowner in the Meadows at Redwood subdivision. This is the second time I have addressed this board about the development in question; previously The Retreat and now The Enclave. In my last statement, I shared that our neighborhood was deeply concerned about how this project, and its proposed vehicular connection would adversely affect us. We are a close-knit group of people, and in the spirit of the Northside Neighborhood Plan, we maintain our own unique culture and feel. We enjoy a sense of community that is not felt in many other local neighborhoods and we hope to keep it that way. In 2018, we formed a neighborhood group and spent a number of hours meeting as an HOA, attending City sponsored meetings, and working with Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs to discuss our concerns and what could be don e to reduce the impact. The outcome of that work was dubbed “the Alternative Compliance Plan” which eliminated vehicular traffic on Lupine Drive and Mullein Street, while still affording connection through bike and pedestrian access, as well as emergency vehicles. Neighbor to Neighbor was also involved, being willing to sell part of their land to make the connection directly to Conifer a reality. At that time, the P&Z board voted to approve this, saying that our interactions were a shining example of the wa y community members, developers and the city should be communicating, all to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. Well, today, the plan has once again changed and with a new developer on board, our concerns have come full circle, with Lupine Street bein g on the table again for connection, not just to The Enclave but all the way through to the larger Northfield development to the East. Our concerns are the same as before, in terms of a code perspective. Our roads are narrower than the city standard for the amount of traffic this would create, being only 36 feet wide. From my understanding, a collector road needs to be 54 feet wide. Since that meeting in 2018, we have heard little from the developer, the designer or the city about changes to the plan until a week ago when I noticed The Enclave up for a vote at this meeting and an article in the Colorado showed up saying there had been 6 iterations of the plan before today. Our neighborhood, which has been very open to talking about options that will affect us directly, and we hope that the contact being attempted with the new design team will be possible. We as a neighborhood fully supported the plan as Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs had submitted it, and very much support this development as a new model for helping address the growing housing crisis. However, I want to be clear that we are not in favor of the option of opening the streets to vehicular traffic in the future due to our inadequately sized streets, the massive increase in traffic that would come with that and the impact this would have on our connection as a neighborhood. I hope that tonight, you too will support an alternative, and ask that the Developer and Designer submit a new traffic study and as a result, a new plan for street co nnection that does ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 223 not include our streets as a thoroughfare for larger neighborhoods. We appreciate you considering this, and helping to maintain the spirit of our vibrant neighborhood. Thank you. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 224 From:Scott To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Citizen Comments for P&Z Board Public Hearing for PDP#210004 Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:40:22 PM Attachments:The Enclave at Redwood - 2020-07-15 - meeting notes.pdf The Enclave development-2020_0618_ConceptualReview.pdf PZ BOARD_MINUTES from 2018-09-20 regarding the Retreat connection.pdf Please see the correct attachments for the email sent below. apologies for the mistake. Respectfully, Scott ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Scott <sdm1981@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:35 PM Subject: Citizen Comments for P&Z Board Public Hearing for PDP#210004 To: <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Cc: Meadows Redwood <meadowsatredwood@gmail.com> Please accept the following submission of citizen comments that I intend to read at the public hearing on April 21, 2022 regarding The Enclave Development (PDP#210004) and Vehicular Traffic Connection at Lupine Drive through the Meadows at Redwood Neighborhood. As a resident homeowner in the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood I would like to briefly explain my opposition to the vehicular connection of Lupine Drive to the new street named Collamer Drive running East through the Enclave Development and into the Northfield Development. This connection does not meet the intent of the connectivity language in the land use code and presents a clear and dangerous detriment to the 36 homeowners living in the Meadows at Redwood Subdivision. Currently, our neighborhood is closely knit, and in the spirit of the Northside Neighborhood Plan, we maintain our own unique culture and connection with each other. Our kids can ride around and play openly in our 2 cul-de-sacs safely, we host pot lucks together, we shovel snow for our neighbors, and parents walk to the bus stop together each afternoon. We enjoy a sense of community that is not felt in many other local neighborhoods and we hope to keep it that way if at all possible. We feel that extending Lupine Drive into these 2 adjacent massive developments will directly threaten this culture and safety. We understand the issue of code compliance in terms of needing to connect neighborhoods. We as a community are not seeking to stop the development but would like to work with the city and developer to reduce the impact to our little community. We are simply asking that Lupine Drive not be connected to the proposed Collamer Drive for full vehicular traffic and instead be connected for emergency access only. This would still promote connectivity for bikes and pedestrians, thanks to trail systems in both new developments, but discourage Lupine being a cut through between 4 massive developments of rental units. Full vehicular access at the Lupine connection would result in our little 36 home community being put right in the middle of 2 massive developments with 1000’s of rental beds to the West and 2 new ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 225 massive developments with 1000’s more rental beds to the East. None of these 4 adjacent complexes contains single family detached housing like our community does. In addition, Lupine Drive would be the only means to travel North out of the 2 developments to the East resulting in huge increase in cut through traffic on our very narrow street. There have been other recent projects in the area that were successful in doing this kind of an emergency access connection (Horsetooth Village being one of them). In 2018 another developer was interested in this parcel and they worked with our HOA, as the development process intended, to develop a plan to provide access to the north of the site onto Conifer Street leaving the connection at Lupine for pedestrian, bike and emergency vehicle access only. We worked together with Ripley and that Developer on the Alternative Compliance Request which was enthusiastically approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 20, 2018. This alternative compliance plan was developed with exceptional coordination between the developer, designer, and the Meadows at Redwood HOA. I commended that development team for their efforts to work with us to mitigate the threat posed to our neighborhood by this vehicular connection and the planning and zoning board in turn commended our group in whole as a model for how communities can work to draft mutually agreeable outcomes with developers as stated in the attached public record minutes from that meeting. A review of the current plans as submitted and included in the P&Z meeting agenda for 4/21/22 now show a full vehicular connection of Lupine Drive to the new proposed Collamer Drive which does not serve to benefit anyone, least of all the residents of our small community. Further adding to the frustration is the process and timeline for this PDP. The Retreat was in 2018 and we were given time to work with all parties prior to the P&Z meeting however this time the initial Neighborhood Meeting was held on 7/29/20, at which time the drawings available to our HOA (attached with the minutes from that meeting) clearly showed this connection as “emergency access easement only (no thru traffic)”. I must now wonder if this was deliberately intended to pacify our HOA and minimize further investigation by us. Despite the fact that the drawings showed our desired emergency vehicular connection only, we expressed our concern as noted in the attached official minutes, which clearly state in the highlighted sections, that further follow up would be provided for input from our HOA, but nothing further came of it until just last week when we got notice of this P&Z meeting with an agenda that now includes drawings showing this full connection of Lupine to Collamer. 21 months have gone by with no follow up from the city or the developer, during which time our residents have tried to do our due diligence and periodically checked FCGov.com only to see that nothing had been apparently happening as far as we were able to ascertain, leading all of us to believe that this PDP must have been benched much like the previous PDP was 2 years prior. In short we were blatantly misled by the Neighborhood meeting in July of 2020 which not only clearly showed only an emergency vehicular connection but also provided false reassurance of further follow up regarding this very subject. The lack of promised information or solicitation for input of any kind from anyone from the time of that neighborhood meeting to present has robbed us of valuable time we could have spent working with all parties much like we did in 2018. The process has failed us in this instance. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 226 I understand the intent of the connectivity initiative in the land use code and I’m also aware that Lupine Drive meets the technical requirements to be considered for full vehicular traffic access to the new developments but the reality is that with parking on both sides the street Lupine is not only barely passable but also presents nearly a blind corner when turning East or West from Mullein Drive. The bottom line is that this is a potential vehicular connection between 2 drastically different neighborhood types and residences. Given the limitations of the other access points to this development and apparent lack of full movement capability at the other entrance to this site, a connection at Lupine Drive would most definitely result in a "cut through" access for tenants living at this development and the far larger Northfield Development directly to the East. The city master plan has specific provisions (T4.3) to minimize and prevent Cut Through Traffic and also explicitly states that streets should be designed to minimize "through traffic" in neighborhoods (T13.2), which is exactly what we will have here if a full vehicular connection is allowed. I fully support connection for Bicycles, pedestrians and emergency service vehicles between these neighborhoods but must protest a full vehicular connection and want to reiterate my disappointment with this process over the last 2 years. We worked hard to gain approval of a better plan in 2018 and demand that we be allowed the same opportunity this time around. We look forward to working together moving forward to develop an amicable solution in the best interests of all parties much the same way as we did in 2018. Thank you, Scott Metz 1013 Mullein Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 227 The Enclave at Redwood – Project Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7-29-20) Overview City Staff: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Planner Alyssa Stevens, Development Review Liaison Martina Wilkinson, Sr. Manager, Traffic Engineering Spencer Smith, Civil Engineer II Scott Benton, Environmental Planner Applicant: Stephanie Hansen and Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. Matt and Joe Delich, Delich and Assoc. Mark Fields and Jessica Harris, D R Horton Neighborhood Meeting Date: Wednesday July 29, 2020 Proposed Project Review Process  Purpose of meeting is to share conceptual plans at an early stage in process and gather feedback from neighbors for inclusion in record.  The proposed project and an application have not been submitted to the City  A project development plan submittal will start a formal review by staff, with each round of review comprising three weeks  Staff will determine when the project is ready for hearing  Type 1 review and hearing, with an administrative hearing officer as acting decision maker.  Residents who receive this meeting notice will also receive a letter for the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Applicant Presentation  The project has completed the conceptual review stage and a PDP application has not been submitted to the City.  This project is on the same site as a former project called The Retreat at Fort Collins PDP.  The project includes a request to develop approximately 28 acres into a residential project, including approximately 200-220 dwelling units for sale and rent.  437 parking spaces are provided.  The project is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to an Administrative (Type 1) review. Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 228 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Enclave at Redwood Page 2  The residential density is within the range of 4 – 9 dwelling units per acre.  Four different housing types are included (mixture of single-family attached/detached and two-family attached townhomes). The proposed casitas represent a smaller home design for rent (without garage) on common lot.  The concept plan is not showing a street connection to Conifer Street or Lupine Street. Questions/Comments and Answers Comment: Residents of Redwood Meadows neighborhood prefer to not have Lupine Drive, or Mullein Drive connect through to this project. Applicant: The proposed concept does not show these street connections and prefers to keep it that way. City Staff: The City has connectivity requirements in its land use code, and generally supports interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Lupine Drive and Mullein Drive were built with the intent that they would connect into the eventual neighborhood to its east – that is why they were built without a cul-de-sac. When the previous proposal was being reviewed, there was significant concern about the difference in land use (between single family dwellings and student apartment housing), and how the potential additional traffic on Lupine would be very different than what was originally intended. That is why that proposal ended up with a bike / ped / emergency access only along Lupine. With the new proposal, the City will review the land use type, access locations, impact to the neighborhood etc. to determine what type of connection is most appropriate for both Lupine and Mullein Drives. So the answer to your question is that we don’t yet know what the connections will be with this proposal – Once an official submittal has been made, we’ll review access options with the applicant, take input from the neighborhood, and determine what type of access would best meet the Land Use Code. Comment/Question: How will this project provide connections to future regional trail? Applicant: The plan includes internal sidewalks and paths to connect to the planned trail that is aligned with the existing Josh Ames ditch on east border of property. This project will include the portion of the future regional trail on site, with stub-outs to the future trail off-site. Question? What is the distance for west edge of this project to Redwood Meadows? Applicant: The plan shows an approximate 60’-90’ landscape buffer between the neighborhood and this project. Question? What is the purpose of the alleys behind proposed townhomes and duplex buildings? Applicant: The private alleys provide vehicular access to the garages in rear of these buildings, and as a result, allow for building entrances that face street to be more pedestrian oriented. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 229 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Enclave at Redwood Page 3 Question? Is this project including affordable housing? Applicant: No, the project is providing for sale and rent units that are market rate, but more reflective of attainable housing, with the different housing types. The casitas single-family units will provide a lower price point since they are a smaller size without garages. Question: Will there be an HOA? Applicant: Yes, the HOA will maintain all common areas of the project. Question: Will this project be gated? City Staff: No, the City dies not allow gated communities. Question? Is there plans for a roundabout at Redwood/Suniga, and Conifer? Staff: No, since Suniga Road is a 4-land arterial, a roundabout would warrant duel lanes and conditions at that intersection are challenging for that type of intersection. The intersection at Conifer is more suitable for a roundabout with less traffic and potential smaller design. This project will include a traffic study to assess off-site impacts and potential improvements for these intersections. Redwood is a good option for a bike route again since there is less traffic. Question? What is the timing for construction of this project? Applicant: We anticipate 6-9 months for development review, and potential construction beginning fall 2021. Question: How will this project gain access? Applicant: Primary access is provided from Suniga and Redwood at this point. Question: How will this project impact traffic in the area and is a connection to Vine or Conifer needed? Staff: The traffic study will assess the impacts of the proposed project and include recommendations for any infrastructure improvements surrounding site. Street connections to Vine Drive are established at the intersections of Redwood and new realignment of Lemay with grade-separated overpass of Railroad tracts. Staff will assess if a street connection is needed to Conifer. Staff: Next steps – the neighborhood meeting comments will be part of the public record with the Hearing Officer who is the decision maker. From this meeting the applicant will continue to work on their plan and submit for a project development plan. Staff will review the submittal to ensure if it complies with the LUC and then if it is ready for hearing. If you got notice for this meeting you will get notice for this hearing which could be late fall or next year depending on how the project works out. We encourage you to attend the hearing and participate. If the hearing officer approves the project, the applicant goes back and refines the plans and then they start final plans and then record. After that point they can apply for building permits. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 230 From:Libby Nelson To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Project concerns Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:34:22 PM To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my concern for the Enclave at Redwood project PDP21004. My concerns revolve around the possibility of Lupine Drive and Mullein Drive allowing access to this proposed community. The proposal indicates that the project is for 242 multi family dwelling units and appears that the only access will be off of Redwood, which I believe will significantly increase traffic (likely by a factor greater than 10) on Lupine primary and also Mullein. I believe this will be a detriment to the community and people surrounding Lupine and Mullein and exceed the capacity of those roads. I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission denial the proposal until the developer can provide more reasonable access points for its proposed tenants. Thank you, Libby Nelson ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 231 From:jimandsuzanne87@basicisp.net To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Thursday meeting Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 4:32:57 PM To Whom It May Concern: My name is Suzanne O'Donnell. I live at 625 Spurge Circle, Fort Collins, CO. I will not be able to attend the meeting Thursday night, but I did want to provide my input. This is RE: the extension of Lupine Drive and possibly Mullein Drive in our neighborhood. The Enclave development will literally be in my backyard. The Enclave will have access to the newly built street Suniga. The previous developer, Landmark was willing to buy land from N2N and have a road built off of Conifer. Four years later that same land is deemed "Wetlands". Really? Convenient? You may be looking at Lupine on a piece of paper and think that there is room for more vehicles. When the homeowners have their cars and trucks parked on both sides of the street, there is barely enough room for one vehicle to drive down the middle. Our streets are very narrow. Think about how you like it in your neighborhood. The extension is just not necessary. We are a small neighborhood. More traffic is a safety issue also. We have young children and pets that will be affected. Also, with more traffic and noise our quality of life with be diminished. We deserve a safe place to live more than the Enclave think that they need access to our neighborhood. Thank you. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 232 From:c p To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004 Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:17:34 AM In reference to Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004, I would like to oppose the connections of Lupine and/or Mullein Drive as a point of automobile ingress/egress to the development. I believe omitting these connections will still allow for adequate ingress/egress to the development while maintaining the peace of the Meadows at Redwoods subdivision as it currently is. Additionally, Lupine and Mullein Drive as they exist today are too narrow to accommodate a full two-lane flow of traffic and would pose a danger to residents and their property (particularly vehicles parked on the street) who live on Lupine or Mullein and to children who play in the area. Thank you for your consideration, Casey Pore 637 Spurge Circle ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 233 TO: City of Fort Collins Planning and Development Department and Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Meadows at Redwood HOA RE: Meadows at Redwood HOA response to P&Z meeting for The Enclave on 4/21/2022: The Meadows at Redwood HOA has several items of concern regarding the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z Board on 4/21/2022. Firstly, the Meadows at Redwood wants to be clear that the concerns we have are with the City Code and the public participation process. We understand and appreciate the effort that developers, City Staff, and the P&Z Board members make to find balance between often conflicting goals and interests. After the P&Z meeting for the Enclave, The Meadows at Redwood HOA members convened and generated a list of concerns that were left unasked and unanswered, as is the nature of the P&Z Meeting format. We are presenting those concerns below on behalf of the members of The Meadows at Redwood HOA for the City/Developer to address (if possible). It would also be appreciated if this letter can be shared with the P&Z members for them to be aware of our concerns. CONCERN #1: Unfortunately for the households in the Meadows at Redwood, the initial (and only) public presentation (held on 7/29/2020) for the Enclave was missing many critical details that were clarified during the P&Z hearing. For the HOA members, the P&Z meeting was the only place for us to interpret the changes and voice our concerns regarding a multitude of changed elements in the Enclave design. Our HOA members were forced into an uncomfortable situation to essentially vent our concerns to the P&Z Board. This did not feel fair to our neighborhood or to the P&Z Board members. Our HOA felt that a second public participation meeting could have circumvented the “vent” session that our HOA was forced to do at the P&Z Meeting. Also, and more concerning, this process essentially allows a public participation meeting to occur too early in the design. The Enclave development proposed at the P&Z meeting was significantly different than the plans that were presented to the public participation meeting. It feels disingenuous for the City and Developer to present an early concept plan to the public and present a significantly different plan to the P&Z Board for approval. CONCERN #2: Very broadly, the Meadows at Redwood HOA is confused how the Northside Neighborhood Plan is interpreted and implemented. Many of us, as homeowners, were active participants during the Northside Neighborhood plan development in the late 90’s. The HOA would like to meet with City Staff, to help us understand how developments like Northfield and the Enclave meet the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. It feels to us that the character of existing neighborhoods does not match these proposed developments that are clearly moving forward and considered in compliance with the Northside Neighborhood Plan. The Northside Neighborhood plan is constantly cited by development proposals as encouraging a mix of housing types, but the only "single family" style homes in the build out of the plan are the existing old homes built in Andersonville, Redwood Meadows, and Alta Vista ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 234 neighborhoods. Why have these small neighborhoods become the poster child for mixed housing types that the plan was supposed to encourage? Allowing all additional development to be multi-family housing feel disingenuous to the Northside Neighborhood plan. The City’s interpretation and enforcement of these neighborhood plans do have a major impact on adjacent residents to new development. In our case, Lupine becomes a main access point for large apartment complexes, when the interior roads were initially envisioned to simply connect to future phases of The Meadows at Redwood single family home development. CONCERN #3.1: The Meadows at Redwood is very disappointed in the decisions and code requirements requiring the Enclave to connect to the Meadows at Redwood via Lupine. To echo the boards thoughts “change is hard” and we understand that. Our HOA has been very open and amiable to development proposals in our area, despite being completely confused by the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. We understand that we have no negotiating power with how this area develops and that our neighborhood is subject to the process of the City’s codes and developers’ interests. The Meadows at Redwood HOA heard three important points regarding Lupine connection that were discussed at the P&Z meeting: - The City fully understands that connecting Lupine to the Enclave will clearly increase traffic on Lupine. - Based on neighborhood testimony, the City understands that the Meadows at Redwood HOA believes the additional traffic will be a significant reduction in the quality of life for residents in the Meadows at Redwood HOA. - The City believes that the reduced quality of life in the Meadows at Redwood HOA is minor compared to the increased quality of life for all Fort Collins residents by enforcing the interconnectivity requirement at this location. Unfortunately, the decision to require interconnectivity on Lupine is more than a simple “change is hard” type of issue. It isn’t a subtle thing when all of a sudden, your home is on a roadway that is a direct connection to several hundred households. To make it worse, the whole decision feels very arbitrary due to a code that the City is forced to enforce with no consideration to negative impacts to existing residents’ quality of life. This new connection does nothing to improve the Meadows at Redwood. It is also unclear if this connection actually helps any other community members. Again, our HOA has no negotiating power in this decision, but we do need to express our frustration that the City would expect our HOA to just accept this significant change to the character of our neighborhood without some due process that would include our neighborhood input. At the P&Z meeting, board members cited several examples where contentious connectivity was ultimately a non-issue. Can the City provide those examples to us for review? Are there examples of small (36-ish household) communities becoming connected to 400+ dwelling units and having the small subdivision as one of the primary access points? Are there examples of large rental communities connecting to single family home neighborhoods? ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 235 Also, typically with new developments, the multi-family units are built on the exterior perimeter of the development, concentrating traffic and noise to the perimeter of the neighborhood. These developments place the more desirable single-family units on the interior of the development. Our neighborhood is forced into the reverse situation, which is not a best practice for new developments and urban design concepts. The Northside Neighborhood Plan will feature single-family homes being on the outer perimeter of the neighborhood with the interior neighborhood featuring large multi-family buildings. CONCERN #3.2: Ultimately, The Meadows at Redwood HOA is not convinced that the Lupine connectivity is good for either of the neighborhoods or the City as a whole. How is the quality of life improved for The Enclave, Northfield, or Meadows at Redwood with this connection when a full movement at “Road C” provides the same connectivity to Redwood? In the big picture, how does this one connection point improve the quality of life for the general citizens of Fort Collins? The connection only seems to be necessary because the code requires it and there are incomplete existing roadways caused by the incomplete development of the Meadows at Redwood. There are several points we want to refine for the City and P&Z’s further consideration regarding the connectivity at Lupine: First point: The original Meadows at Redwood development was a multiphase project developed in the 80’s and built in the 90’s. What were the connectivity goals at the time of this development? The open-ended roadways at Lupine and Mullein were originally intended to connect future phases of the Meadows at Redwood single family homes. This is still evident on the GIS maps that shows undeveloped Phase 2 of Meadows at Redwood. If Meadows at Redwood Phase 1 was built as a singular development in the 80’s, it very well may have had culdesacs at Lupine and Mullein. Second Point: If Redwood Meadows was a multi-hundred household neighborhood with many access points to main roads, the City’s connectivity requirements would be less significant, as the P&Z Board pointed out and as is the case in other locations that had to deal with large adjacent developments. But, in the Meadows at Redwood HOA case, connecting a small 36 household development to two huge apartment complex developments does not seem like the same scenario. It feels overwhelming to our neighborhood. Third Point: There are many developments built after Meadows at Redwood that were not required to meet connectivity requirements on local streets. There are multiple neighborhoods that use cul-de-sacs when it is clear that these could have been points of local road neighborhood connectivity. Some examples: Willow Springs was not required to provide connectivity to the south future developments. Rossbourough was not required to connect to Casa Granda & Wagon Wheel. Greenstone was not required to connect to Stanton Creek. Fourth Point: Prior conversations about connectivity with the prior development, “The Retreat” went into great depth about why a connection to Lupine was necessary. Primarily that Lupine would be the only location that would allow full movements to Redwood. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e developer was very cooperative and found a creative alternate solution for us. Our HOA was very fortunate to work through this concern with the developer and the City Traffic Dept. Ultimately (and ironically), the Meadows neighborhood was very agreeable to the proposed student development. Fifth point: The proposed traffic generation of the Enclave is not that different than the Retreat ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 236 (despite being student housing). The big difference between the Enclave and the Retreat is that the Enclave development allows Road C to get a full movement at Redwood, whereas the Retreat required right in - right out at Road C. This traffic flow change for the Enclave reduces the traffic at Lupine, which is good for our HOA. However, the previous developer’s limited movement at Road C was a major reason the City was requiring connectivity at Lupine. Now, with full movement at Road C, the need for full movement access at Lupine/Redwood is no longer a strong argument for traffic flow for the Enclave. Sixth Point: The Meadows at Redwood HOA is still not convinced that a north connection to Conifer is unviable. We have reached out to Neighbor to Neighbor and confirmed that the parcel of land to make a connection to Redwood is still available for sale to this developer and we are trying to setup a meeting with the developer to review this option in more detail. Seventh Point: The Meadows at Redwood believes an attractive pedestrian and bicycle connection that would also allow emergency vehicle access to The Enclave from Lupine would be a very positive amenity for existing and proposed developments. It would also provide a better opportunity for the interconnected community that the City desires to build. A ped/bike access point would create less traffic within Meadows at Redwood and the Enclave, making both developments more family friendly. It would also allow neighbors to interact outside of their automobiles, where people tend to be gentler and more friendly. It would be more environmentally friendly, requiring less resources to build and maintain. It would also promote alternative, active modes of transportation that the City is focused on creating. Ultimately, the Meadows at Redwood HOA want a clearer understanding why the City is forcing Lupine connection for connectivity at the detriment of our small neighborhood when both The Enclave developer and the Meadows HOA would be comfortable removing this connection? The Meadows at Redwood appreciates the City’s goal to build stronger neighborhoods thru roadway interconnectivity. However, we are worried that blindly implementing these interconnectivity requirements can cause the reverse effect of creating animosity between neighbors. We hope that there is room in the code interpretation to allow City Staff and P&Z Board members space to use careful judgement in all interconnectivity considerations that occur with new development. The space for this judgement has big implications to the fate of existing small neighborhoods adjacent to large proposed developments. The Meadows at Redwood wholly appreciates the Enclaves’ effort to request a variance for the connectivity requirement at Mullein. Our HOA is still focused on pushing for a similar variance for connectivity at Lupine. OTHER CONCERNS: Unfortunately, there are also a lot of other questions that the HOA members had as we digested the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z meeting. We will list them as points that would have been nice to see and discuss in a public meeting format, prior to the P&Z Meeting. If possible, the Meadows at Redwood would appreciate a response from the City to address these open-ended questions. - The public participation plan (7/29/2020) included single family homes. That home type was removed from the revised Enclave plan presented at the P&Z meeting. How does the removal of this home type improve the vision set forth in the Northside Neighborhood Plan? ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 237 - The alleyway access to the multifamily homes along the Meadows at Redwood HOA does not seem to fit the character of the Northside Neighborhood plan. Where are alley presented in the plan? What other neighborhoods in the plan area have alleys? - The alleyway setback changed from 75’ from property line at the public participation meeting (7/29/2020) to 25’ at the P&Z meeting material. This puts the alley significantly closer to existing Meadows HOA households’ backyards and bedroom windows. - What is the ADT on these private road alleys? Based on the info from the P&Z meeting, it seems like there will be about 250 trips per day in this alleyway, which is about equal to all of the current traffic that The Meadows at Redwood HOA currently generates. - Does the City have any code or maintenance requirements for private roads (alleys)? - Will garbage trucks use the alleys for trash collection? - Will each unit have its own trash can, or will there be centralized dumpsters?, If dumpsters, where are the dumpsters located? - Does The Enclave’s Traffic Study at Lupine include cut-thru traffic from Northfield Development? If not, can the City provide a combined ADT from both developments at Lupine? - What are the City requirements for fences between developments? Who owns and maintains the existing wood fences between The Meadows at Redwood and The Enclave? (currently, they are owned by adjacent Meadows at Redwood HOA households – our HOA does not maintain fences). Can the fences be removed? Will The Enclave install adjacent fences? - How is the regional bikeway along the ditch considered “regional” when it is only a few feet from several dwelling unit front door stoops? From the P&Z meeting materials, it looks like that section of trail is almost a private trail that serves a handful of homes that face it. Are there examples of similar regional bike trails that are so close to front entryway doors? - Will the irrigation ditch corridor actually act like a wildlife corridor since the front doors of dozens of units are just a few feet away from the irrigation ditch? - Can the City provide a detail that shows the buildout of the Northside Neighborhood Plan Area that shows all the new and existing development (streets, sidewalks, trails, buildings and parking areas)? It is really hard to envision what the completed plan will look like. IN CONCLUSION, Thank you for taking time to review these concerns. The Meadows at Redwood HOA requests that the City provide information to help us understand the outstanding questions we have regarding the Northside Neighborhood Plan, Lupine connectivity, and the other concerns that we listed. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 238 With the Planning and Zoning Commission request for a resubmittal by the Enclave developer, will there be a second P&Z hearing, and if so, are items voted on by the P&Z Commission on 4/21 considered settled and final, or do they get additional consideration by the P&Z Commission? We also request that the City provide us with information regarding any next steps our HOA can take to collaborate with the City/developer for alternatives to the Lupine connection. Again, Thanks You, Meadows at Redwood HOA 5/5/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 239 April 20, 2023Clark MapesCity PlannerEnclave at Redwood Major Amendment#MJA230003ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 240 Bowling Alley: 93 spacesProposed Plan: 64 spacesApprovedEnclaveDevelopmentITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 241 Existing Street Stubbed to Boundary of Redwood Village Filing 1The Enclave Approved Development PlanExisting DevelopmentStreet Extension LocationLocation3Approved DevelopmentITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 242 Site Plan4Enclave at RedwoodApproved June 2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 243 LocationITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 244 LocationITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 245 7SiteApproved Plan with street connection (possible narrowing for traffic calming added)Major Amendment plan with alternative connection for peds, bikes, and emergency access Alternative ComplianceITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 246 Alternative ComplianceSection 3.6.3(A)(B)(F)(H) – Street Pattern and Connectivity:Standards require plans to connect and extend streets that are stubbed to the boundary of the plan by previous development.A standard allows for Alternative ComplianceLupine Drive is stubbed out from the existing Meadows at Redwood subdivision to this site.Request for Alternative Compliance to provide a bike, pedestrian, and emergency access as a connection rather than a street.8ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 247 Example Ped/Bike Connection9ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 248 Alternative Compliance – Staff FindingThe decision-maker may grant Alternative Compliance only if it finds that: the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division.Alternative could work; but not as well10ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 249 Enclave at Redwood PDP11STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the Enclave at Redwood Major Amendment #MJA230003If denied, staff will seek a narrowed traffic calming “neck down” and crosswalk to enhance the transitionITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 250 1982 Redwood Village PlanPhase 1 Meadows at Redwood ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 251 Traffic Study NumbersPeak Hour Lupine/ Redwood IntersectionITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 252 ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD –MAJOR AMENDMENTPLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONAPRIL 20, 2023ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 253 SITE CONTEXTSITEE VINE DR N LEMAY AVE N COLLEGE AVECONIFER STLUPINE DRIVESUINGA ROADSITEREDWOOD STREETITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 254 BACKGROUNDP&Z Commission hearings in April and June 2022Significant amount of neighborhood input at hearings around the Lupine Drive connectionOptions presented for potentially closing vehicular access to Lupine DrivePPDP approved at hearing June 2022 with connection to Lupine Drive openCommission encouraged Applicant to come back with Alternative Compliance Request to close vehicular access to LupinePost-approval, applicant held a series of meetings with the HOA to discuss Lupine furtherITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 255 APPROVED SITE PLAN SUMMARYSingle Family for Rent240 Dwelling Units46% Open Space 6 acres Natural Habitat Buffer ZoneITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 256 CIRCULATION NETWORKN LEMAY AVE CONIFER STLUPINE DRIVEREDWOOD STREET SUNIGA ROADITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 257 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONAPPROVED DESIGNITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 258 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE DESIGNITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 259 LUPINE DRIVE CONNCETION - TRAFFICClosing Lupine would increase traffic volumes at the intersection of Redwood Street and Bergen Parkway (BB Street)Full movement intersectionAn analysis was performed at Redwood Street and Bergen Parkway (BB Street) to determine if this location could accommodate the additional traffic with the closure of Lupine Drive.The intersection was found to function acceptably under 2040 total traffic conditions.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 260 CONNECTIVITY ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCELUC 3.6.(H)(2) –REVIEW CRITERIAMust find….Plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or betterLUC 3.6.3(A) Purpose– “to ensure that the local street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience forautomobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel.”Maintain facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transitTake into account…minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 261 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 262 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 263 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONALTERNATE DESIGNITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 264 LUPINE TRAFFIC - CONNECTED22040 AM/PM Peak Turning Movements (Approved 2022)2018 AM/PM Peak Turning MovementsITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 265 BERGEN TRAFFIC – LUPINE CLOSED22040 AM/PM Peak Turning Movements (Approved 2022)2040 AM/PM Peak Turning Movements (Proposed)ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 266 PROJECT TRAFFIC SUMMARYExpected to generate 1,700 daily trips, 106 trips during AM peak hour and 124 trips during the PM peak hourCurrently intersections are operating at acceptable levelsA southbound right-turn lane is required at Redwood Street and Suniga Road (striping provided by applicant)Redwood Street and Suniga Road will need signalization to operate acceptably with, or without this projectITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 267 Supplemental Documents Received after Final Hearing Packet was posted prior to Hearing Packet pg. 268 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:33 AMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 209 Cherry Categories:P&Z Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Randy Callahan <rcallahan@frii.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 6:59:29 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Cc: Randy Callahan <rcallahan@frii.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 209 Cherry Hi > > I would like to submit a public comment about the proposed development at 209 Cherry Street. > > The City of Fort Collins recently provided us with a shadow study for 209 Cherry Street. The study concludes that the shadows cast by the 7 story building will impact private properties across Cherry Street (specifically those in Mason Street North) on December 21, the winter solstice. However it minimizes the impact and asserts that the shadows do not restrict the surrounding building's right to solar access. I disagree with this conclusion. > > According to the shadow study on December 21, our home is in full shade at 9:00 AM, by noon it is in sun. From examining the data in the shadow study, it can be reasonably assumed that our home will be in shadow for 2‐3 hours in the morning throughout parts of the fall and winter. The first 3 hours of the day are are important for providing passive solar heating to our home and for several other homes and businesses at Mason Street North. The building at 209 Cherry will restrict our right to solar access in the morning hours during the coldest time of the year when we depend on passive solar heating. Morning shade for 2‐3 hours is not an inconsequential impact when day length is only 9 hours long. > > The height of the proposed building impedes our solar access and is in conflict with the City of Fort Collins’ sustainable energy action plan. Thank you for entering this into the record for the Planning and Zoning Commission, Patsy Barry and Randy Callahan Homeowners in Mason Street North GENERAL COMMENT Packet pg. 269 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1Packet pg. 270 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1Packet pg. 271 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Saturday, April 15, 2023 7:51 PMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] April 20, 2023 P&Z Meeting - Enclave at Redwood Proposal MJA220003Attachments:PandZ Commssion Letter - April 2023.pdf Categories:P&Z Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Jenny Jones <jonesjennifermarie@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2023 6:46:20 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Cc: Scott Metz <SDM1981@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 20, 2023 P&Z Meeting ‐ Enclave at Redwood Proposal MJA220003 Dear Shar and the Planning and Zoning Commission, My name is Jenny Jones and I am submitting the attached PDF letter to the planning and zoning commission in support of approval of proposal MJA220003 (major amendment to remove the vehicular connection to Lupine Drive for the Enclave project, PDP210004) on behalf of myself and my husband, Scott Metz, who both live at 1013 Mullein Drive. This is on the agenda for the April 20th meeting. Please let us know if you have any comments or concerns, Kind regards, Jenny Jones jonesjennifermarie@gmail.com 970‐222‐1216 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 272 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Fort Collins Dear Commission Members Katz, Stackhouse, Sass, Haefele, Shepard, York, and Stegner, We are writing in support of approval of the amendment to the Enclave at Redwood proposal MJA220003 that would connect the Meadows at Redwood with the new Enclave development via a pedestrian/bike connection instead of a full street. First, we support the overall development of the Enclave at Redwood and understand the benefit of sorely needed housing that it will bring to our community. Our HOA and the developer of the Enclave have been working together for over a year to mitigate traffic impacts that would otherwise significantly disrupt our small neighborhood. However, it is our understanding the City of Fort Collins has commented on the most recent proposal set forth by the developers of the Enclave stating that Lupine Drive be connected for vehicular access through our neighborhood despite ample access points in other cardinal directions and a traffic study indicating that overall traffic access would not be impeded if Lupine Drive was not connected. We understand the City's initiative to provide connectivity in an attempt to foster community but this particular situation simply doesn't meet its intent. Previous versions of the Fort Collins City Plan (2018) had provisions for protecting neighborhoods from "cut through" traffic (T4.3), which will occur if Lupine Drive is connected for vehicular access. It also stated that streets should be designed to minimize through traffic in neighborhoods (T13.2). The new housing in this development would result in excessive and detrimental "cut through" traffic on Lupine Drive because Lupine would be the shortest route for the northernmost two thirds of the development to head south toward old town and north toward shopping centers. The current version of the city plan includes principle T7.3 which states the goal to “Provide an attractive, safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers on neighborhood streets…” Connection of Lupine drive to the new development would decrease overall safety to the neighborhood with additional cut through traffic as traffic would be funneled through narrow streets, making it difficult to have a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers in the neighborhood. We are aware that Lupine Drive meets the technical requirements to be considered for traffic access to the Enclave, but the reality is that when Lupine Drive is actually used on a daily basis, it is not only barely passable by two vehicles side by side but also presents a nearly blind corner when turning east or west from Mullein Drive. Typical use of the street (seen below at multiple times of day) includes parking on both sides, reducing 1 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 273 the size of the street from 36 feet to less than 24 feet. This is 5 feet smaller than Mullein Drive at 29 feet, which was determined to be too narrow for connection in the Enclave and previous area development proposals. The intent of the connectivity initiative is more than fulfilled by the pedestrian and bicycle only access at Lupine Drive without forcing traffic through a small neighborhood of young families and children. Connection and relationship between neighbors in our community and the Enclave has the potential to happen when people are able to bike and walk between neighborhoods; it cannot happen when the Enclave residents are driving through our neighborhood, isolated in their vehicles. Emergency vehicle access is not impeded in the alternative compliance request and perhaps most importantly the safety and culture in our neighborhood will not be threatened. To summarize, we fully support the construction of the Enclave at Redwood development. For those of us who live here, this is not a situation of “change being hard”; we completely understand the need for additional housing and development in Fort Collins. However, as 15 year resident homeowners in the Meadows at Redwood subdivision, we are disappointed that the city would force a vehicular connection despite the exemplary coordination and cooperation between the developer and our neighborhood. Sincerely, Scott Metz and Jenny Jones 1013 Mullein Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 2 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 274 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Monday, April 17, 2023 3:41 PMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Lupine Drive Expansion Categories:P&Z From: jimandsuzanne87@basicisp.net <jimandsuzanne87@basicisp.net> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 2:37 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lupine Drive Expansion An open letter to the Fort Collins P & Z Board Members: My name is Suzanne O'Donnell. I reside with my husband at 625 Spurge Circle. We have lived here for 30 years. I am writing yet another letter concerning the expansion of Lupine Drive. My husband thinks writing this letter is a waste of time. This proposal was brought up many years ago with the Retreat project. The residents of our neighborhood were opposed to it then and the developer do not want or need it either. Years later, nothing has changed. We and the developer still so not see it as being necessary. Our neighborhood is being swallowed up by multi housing projects. The Enclave buildings will be literally in our backyard with a street just 30 feet from our backyard. We did not have a choice about that. Some say that change is hard. Would you want that in your backyard? Please do not add more traffic to our neighborhood to the entrance also. The city wants connectivity. I can understand where that could work, but it is just not a good fit for our small neighborhood. It may look like it would work on paper, but with residents' cars parked on both sides of the street, the street just too narrow. Are the residents supposed to move their vehicles somewhere else? if so, then where? This decision will not affect anyone of you in any way. However, it will affect all of us here 24/7 for forever. It is also a big safety concern with more traffic accidents and fear for the neighborhood children. Please, I beg you, make it an emergency access and a pedestrian and cyclist trail only. Thank you. ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 275 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Monday, April 17, 2023 9:21 PMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Enclave DevelopmentAttachments:20220505_190318.jpg Categories:P&Z Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: phafford5144@gmail.com <phafford5144@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 9:03:15 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Enclave Development I am a homeowner in the Redwood development and wish to express my displeasure regarding the possibility of extending Lupine into the Enclave development. This extension will affect the unity of the Redwood development due to traffic flowing through our street to get to Enclave. The home I own in Redwood is a rental and my home in Severance (in Severance Shores) has a similar "connection" with the neighboring development, Fox Ridge. We have a wide cement " road" between the two subdivisions with yellow foldable pipes separating us from Fox Ridge. So if there is an emergency or other reason to exit through the other subdivision, it becomes possible by pushing the "pipes" down allowing cars to exit. I am attaching a picture of the connecting stretch of "road". I sincerely hope you can see a way to keep these two subdivisions "semi‐connected" without compromising the "community" integrity of Redwood. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Patricia Hafford Phafford5144@gmail.com Sent from my Galaxy ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 276 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 277 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Wednesday, April 19, 2023 8:12 AMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Lupine cul de sac/Meadows at Redwood and Enclave (new development) Categories:P&Z From: Haley <haleyford@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 6:04 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lupine cul de sac/Meadows at Redwood and Enclave (new development) Hello, I live in the Meadows at Redwood, and I am writing to share my concerns about Lupine being connected to the Enclave development. The Meadows at Redwood is a significantly smaller community, and connecting the two neighborhoods will greatly increase traffic in the Meadows. The developer has been responsive to our concerns and has requested alternative compliance to keep Lupine closed to regular traffic while allowing for emergency vehicle access and pedestrian/bike access. The results of the traffic study done by the city indicate that keeping Lupine closed has no negative effects on traffic flow into/out of the Enclave and opening it does not improve it. Removing parking on Lupine when it's already limited would also adversely affect this neighborhood. The pedestrian and bicycle access will only promote interaction, whereas cars driving quickly through will not and will also pose a safety concern to residents of the Meadows who are often outside in our neighborhood with pets and children. I urge the committee to strongly consider the negative impact of opening Lupine to vehicular traffic on the current residents of the Meadows and on the future residents of the Enclave. Thank you, Haley Ford ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 5 Packet pg. 278 TO: City of Fort Collins Planning and Development Department and Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Meadows at Redwood HOA RE: Meadows at Redwood HOA alternative connection compliance for The Enclave at Redwood The Meadows at Redwood HOA remains in favor of the alternative compliance effort to use an emergency access and bicycle/pedestrian connection at the extension of Lupine between the proposed Enclave development and the existing Meadows at Redwood neighborhood. These are the concerns we have regarding the full connection of Lupine Street to The Enclave and Northfield. -The current roadway configuration of The Enclave has rerouted Collamer Street to make it more convenient for thru traffic to access Redwood Street thru the Meadows at Redwood. The Enclave’s Initial submittals forced traffic to wrap to the northside of the Enclave before intersecting with Lupine access to Redwood Street. See image below. Redline is current design, white road was initial proposal: -The new configuration of Lupine/Collamer/Harvest Sun Street is the most direct route to head north from the Enclave and Northfield developments. -There are not any direct connections to the newly aligned Lemay Ave. or to Conifer Street. -All of The Enclave and Northfield access to Fort Collins is via Redwood Street or Suniga Road. -Why, in the spirit of creating connected neighborhoods, are these developers not required to connect to adjacent neighbors on the east and north? ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 279 - Does the City know how much traffic will be generated on connected Lupine Ave? o This is the most direct northside connection will serve:  The Enclave: 238 units 453 Beds 644 Parking Spaces  Northfield: 442 units 1060 Beds 815 Parking Spaces  Total: 680 units 1513 Beds 1459 Parking Spaces o The Meadows at Redwood is various nervous that this will amount to a lot of traffic.  Our HOA understands that any traffic will be more traffic, but we do not understand how much traffic to expect and how much traffic will be an unbearable amount of traffic. • It seems that this is a lot of dwelling units to serve with a local street. - If the City determines that a connection at Lupine is absolutely necessary, can the City also consider modifications to Collamer to make it less obvious connection for the entirety of these two developments? o Can the City/Developer look to re-route Collamer so that it does not create such a direct connection thru these three neighborhoods?  Per LCUASS section7-2A (Neighborhood Safety): “new streets shall be laid out to minimize opportunities for cut-through traffic”  Does the current configuration of Collamer satisfy this goal? o With this connection, is Lupine/Collamer/New Harvest Road actually now considered a minor collector road or a residential collector road?  Does it meet the LCUASS maximum length limits for collector roadways of 2640 feet? (LCUASS 7.2D)  Can the City provide other examples of residential local streets that were converted to collector streets? - The Meadows at Redwood has attached a map showing how the roadway network and new development layout will look like when built. It is obvious to see that there is no noteworthy influence from the Northside Neighborhood plan on the build out of this area. Our HOA would like to understand what the point of the Northside Neighborhood Plan was. o Building Size and Density are completely different. o Ally access in new developments Several of our HOA concerns are repeats of our prior concerns sent to the City following the 4/21/22 Enclave P&Z hearing. We have attached that letter to this letter rather than restate these concerns. Thank You for your consideration of these issues, Meadows at Redwood HOA 4/18/2023 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 280 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 281 PREVIOUS LETTER SENT IN RESPONSE TO 4/21/22 P&Z MEETING TO: City of Fort Collins Planning and Development Department and Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Meadows at Redwood HOA RE: Meadows at Redwood HOA response to P&Z meeting for The Enclave on 4/21/2022: The Meadows at Redwood HOA has several items of concern regarding the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z Board on 4/21/2022. Firstly, the Meadows at Redwood wants to be clear that the concerns we have are with the City Code and the public participation process. We understand and appreciate the effort that developers, City Staff, and the P&Z Board members make to find balance between often conflicting goals and interests. After the P&Z meeting for the Enclave, The Meadows at Redwood HOA members convened and generated a list of concerns that were left unasked and unanswered, as is the nature of the P&Z Meeting format. We are presenting those concerns below on behalf of the members of The Meadows at Redwood HOA for the City/Developer to address (if possible). It would also be appreciated if this letter can be shared with the P&Z members for them to be aware of our concerns. CONCERN #1: Unfortunately for the households in the Meadows at Redwood, the initial (and only) public presentation (held on 7/29/2020) for the Enclave was missing many critical details that were clarified during the P&Z hearing. For the HOA members, the P&Z meeting was the only place for us to interpret the changes and voice our concerns regarding a multitude of changed elements in the Enclave design. Our HOA members were forced into an uncomfortable situation to essentially vent our concerns to the P&Z Board. This did not feel fair to our neighborhood or to the P&Z Board members. Our HOA felt that a second public participation meeting could have circumvented the “vent” session that our HOA was forced to do at the P&Z Meeting. Also, and more concerning, this process essentially allows a public participation meeting to occur too early in the design. The Enclave development proposed at the P&Z meeting was significantly different than the plans that were presented to the public participation meeting. It feels disingenuous for the City and Developer to present an early concept plan to the public and present a significantly different plan to the P&Z Board for approval. CONCERN #2: Very broadly, the Meadows at Redwood HOA is confused how the Northside Neighborhood Plan is interpreted and implemented. Many of us, as homeowners, were active participants during the Northside Neighborhood plan development in the late 90’s. The HOA would like to meet with City Staff, to help us understand how developments like Northfield and the Enclave meet the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. It feels to us that the character of existing neighborhoods does not match these proposed developments that are clearly moving forward ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 282 and considered in compliance with the Northside Neighborhood Plan. The Northside Neighborhood plan is constantly cited by development proposals as encouraging a mix of housing types, but the only "single family" style homes in the build out of the plan are the existing old homes built in Andersonville, Redwood Meadows, and Alta Vista neighborhoods. Why have these small neighborhoods become the poster child for mixed housing types that the plan was supposed to encourage? Allowing all additional development to be multi-family housing feel disingenuous to the Northside Neighborhood plan. The City’s interpretation and enforcement of these neighborhood plans do have a major impact on adjacent residents to new development. In our case, Lupine becomes a main access point for large apartment complexes, when the interior roads were initially envisioned to simply connect to future phases of The Meadows at Redwood single family home development. CONCERN #3.1: The Meadows at Redwood is very disappointed in the decisions and code requirements requiring the Enclave to connect to the Meadows at Redwood via Lupine. To echo the boards thoughts “change is hard” and we understand that. Our HOA has been very open and amiable to development proposals in our area, despite being completely confused by the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. We understand that we have no negotiating power with how this area develops and that our neighborhood is subject to the process of the City’s codes and developers’ interests. The Meadows at Redwood HOA heard three important points regarding Lupine connection that were discussed at the P&Z meeting: - The City fully understands that connecting Lupine to the Enclave will clearly increase traffic on Lupine. - Based on neighborhood testimony, the City understands that the Meadows at Redwood HOA believes the additional traffic will be a significant reduction in the quality of life for residents in the Meadows at Redwood HOA. - The City believes that the reduced quality of life in the Meadows at Redwood HOA is minor compared to the increased quality of life for all Fort Collins residents by enforcing the interconnectivity requirement at this location. Unfortunately, the decision to require interconnectivity on Lupine is more than a simple “change is hard” type of issue. It isn’t a subtle thing when all of a sudden, your home is on a roadway that is a direct connection to several hundred households. To make it worse, the whole decision feels very arbitrary due to a code that the City is forced to enforce with no consideration to negative impacts to existing residents’ quality of life. This new connection does nothing to improve the Meadows at Redwood. It is also unclear if this connection actually helps any other community members. Again, our HOA has no negotiating power in this decision, but we do need to express our frustration that the City would expect our HOA to just accept this significant change to the character of our neighborhood without some due process that would include our neighborhood input. At the P&Z meeting, board members cited several examples where contentious connectivity was ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 283 ultimately a non-issue. Can the City provide those examples to us for review? Are there examples of small (36-ish household) communities becoming connected to 400+ dwelling units and having the small subdivision as one of the primary access points? Are there examples of large rental communities connecting to single family home neighborhoods? Also, typically with new developments, the multi-family units are built on the exterior perimeter of the development, concentrating traffic and noise to the perimeter of the neighborhood. These developments place the more desirable single-family units on the interior of the development. Our neighborhood is forced into the reverse situation, which is not a best practice for new developments and urban design concepts. The Northside Neighborhood Plan will feature single-family homes being on the outer perimeter of the neighborhood with the interior neighborhood featuring large multi-family buildings. CONCERN #3.2: Ultimately, The Meadows at Redwood HOA is not convinced that the Lupine connectivity is good for either of the neighborhoods or the City as a whole. How is the quality of life improved for The Enclave, Northfield, or Meadows at Redwood with this connection when a full movement at “Road C” provides the same connectivity to Redwood? In the big picture, how does this one connection point improve the quality of life for the general citizens of Fort Collins? The connection only seems to be necessary because the code requires it and there are incomplete existing roadways caused by the incomplete development of the Meadows at Redwood. There are several points we want to refine for the City and P&Z’s further consideration regarding the connectivity at Lupine: First point: The original Meadows at Redwood development was a multiphase project developed in the 80’s and built in the 90’s. What were the connectivity goals at the time of this development? The open-ended roadways at Lupine and Mullein were originally intended to connect future phases of the Meadows at Redwood single family homes. This is still evident on the GIS maps that shows undeveloped Phase 2 of Meadows at Redwood. If Meadows at Redwood Phase 1 was built as a singular development in the 80’s, it very well may have had culdesacs at Lupine and Mullein. Second Point: If Redwood Meadows was a multi-hundred household neighborhood with many access points to main roads, the City’s connectivity requirements would be less significant, as the P&Z Board pointed out and as is the case in other locations that had to deal with large adjacent developments. But, in the Meadows at Redwood HOA case, connecting a small 36 household development to two huge apartment complex developments does not seem like the same scenario. It feels overwhelming to our neighborhood. Third Point: There are many developments built after Meadows at Redwood that were not required to meet connectivity requirements on local streets. There are multiple neighborhoods that use cul-de-sacs when it is clear that these could have been points of local road neighborhood connectivity. Some examples: Willow Springs was not required to provide connectivity to the south future developments. Rossbourough was not required to connect to Casa Granda & Wagon Wheel. Greenstone was not required to connect to Stanton Creek. Fourth Point: Prior conversations about connectivity with the prior development, “The Retreat” went into great depth about why a connection to Lupine was necessary. Primarily that Lupine would be the only location that would allow full movements to Redwood. In that case, the developer was very cooperative and found a creative alternate solution for us. Our HOA ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 284 was very fortunate to work through this concern with the developer and the City Traffic Dept. Ultimately (and ironically), the Meadows neighborhood was very agreeable to the proposed student development. Fifth point: The proposed traffic generation of the Enclave is not that different than the Retreat (despite being student housing). The big difference between the Enclave and the Retreat is that the Enclave development allows Road C to get a full movement at Redwood, whereas the Retreat required right in - right out at Road C. This traffic flow change for the Enclave reduces the traffic at Lupine, which is good for our HOA. However, the previous developer’s limited movement at Road C was a major reason the City was requiring connectivity at Lupine. Now, with full movement at Road C, the need for full movement access at Lupine/Redwood is no longer a strong argument for traffic flow for the Enclave. Sixth Point: The Meadows at Redwood HOA is still not convinced that a north connection to Conifer is unviable. We have reached out to Neighbor to Neighbor and confirmed that the parcel of land to make a connection to Redwood is still available for sale to this developer and we are trying to setup a meeting with the developer to review this option in more detail. Seventh Point: The Meadows at Redwood believes an attractive pedestrian and bicycle connection that would also allow emergency vehicle access to The Enclave from Lupine would be a very positive amenity for existing and proposed developments. It would also provide a better opportunity for the interconnected community that the City desires to build. A ped/bike access point would create less traffic within Meadows at Redwood and the Enclave, making both developments more family friendly. It would also allow neighbors to interact outside of their automobiles, where people tend to be gentler and more friendly. It would be more environmentally friendly, requiring less resources to build and maintain. It would also promote alternative, active modes of transportation that the City is focused on creating. Ultimately, the Meadows at Redwood HOA want a clearer understanding why the City is forcing Lupine connection for connectivity at the detriment of our small neighborhood when both The Enclave developer and the Meadows HOA would be comfortable removing this connection? The Meadows at Redwood appreciates the City’s goal to build stronger neighborhoods thru roadway interconnectivity. However, we are worried that blindly implementing these interconnectivity requirements can cause the reverse effect of creating animosity between neighbors. We hope that there is room in the code interpretation to allow City Staff and P&Z Board members space to use careful judgement in all interconnectivity considerations that occur with new development. The space for this judgement has big implications to the fate of existing small neighborhoods adjacent to large proposed developments. The Meadows at Redwood wholly appreciates the Enclaves’ effort to request a variance for the connectivity requirement at Mullein. Our HOA is still focused on pushing for a similar variance for connectivity at Lupine. OTHER CONCERNS: Unfortunately, there are also a lot of other questions that the HOA members had as we digested the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z meeting. We will list them as points that would have been nice to see and discuss in a public meeting format, prior to the P&Z Meeting. If possible, the Meadows at Redwood would appreciate a response from the City to address these open-ended questions. ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 285 - The public participation plan (7/29/2020) included single family homes. That home type was removed from the revised Enclave plan presented at the P&Z meeting. How does the removal of this home type improve the vision set forth in the Northside Neighborhood Plan? - The alleyway access to the multifamily homes along the Meadows at Redwood HOA does not seem to fit the character of the Northside Neighborhood plan. Where are alley presented in the plan? What other neighborhoods in the plan area have alleys? - The alleyway setback changed from 75’ from property line at the public participation meeting (7/29/2020) to 25’ at the P&Z meeting material. This puts the alley significantly closer to existing Meadows HOA households’ backyards and bedroom windows. - What is the ADT on these private road alleys? Based on the info from the P&Z meeting, it seems like there will be about 250 trips per day in this alleyway, which is about equal to all of the current traffic that The Meadows at Redwood HOA currently generates. - Does the City have any code or maintenance requirements for private roads (alleys)? - Will garbage trucks use the alleys for trash collection? - Will each unit have its own trash can, or will there be centralized dumpsters?, If dumpsters, where are the dumpsters located? - Does The Enclave’s Traffic Study at Lupine include cut-thru traffic from Northfield Development? If not, can the City provide a combined ADT from both developments at Lupine? - What are the City requirements for fences between developments? Who owns and maintains the existing wood fences between The Meadows at Redwood and The Enclave? (currently, they are owned by adjacent Meadows at Redwood HOA households – our HOA does not maintain fences). Can the fences be removed? Will The Enclave install adjacent fences? - How is the regional bikeway along the ditch considered “regional” when it is only a few feet from several dwelling unit front door stoops? From the P&Z meeting materials, it looks like that section of trail is almost a private trail that serves a handful of homes that face it. Are there examples of similar regional bike trails that are so close to front entryway doors? - Will the irrigation ditch corridor actually act like a wildlife corridor since the front doors of dozens of units are just a few feet away from the irrigation ditch? - Can the City provide a detail that shows the buildout of the Northside Neighborhood Plan Area that shows all the new and existing development (streets, sidewalks, trails, buildings and parking areas)? It is really hard to envision what the completed plan will look like. IN CONCLUSION, ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 286 Thank you for taking time to review these concerns. The Meadows at Redwood HOA requests that the City provide information to help us understand the outstanding questions we have regarding the Northside Neighborhood Plan, Lupine connectivity, and the other concerns that we listed. With the Planning and Zoning Commission request for a resubmittal by the Enclave developer, will there be a second P&Z hearing, and if so, are items voted on by the P&Z Commission on 4/21 considered settled and final, or do they get additional consideration by the P&Z Commission? We also request that the City provide us with information regarding any next steps our HOA can take to collaborate with the City/developer for alternatives to the Lupine connection. Again, Thanks You, Meadows at Redwood HOA 5/5/2022 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 287 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene MannoSent:Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:34 AMTo:Development Review Comments; Katie ClaypoolSubject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Categories:P&Z Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: John Cunningham <bluemaroguy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:32:49 AM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] To whom it may concern. My name is John Cunningham I live at 649 Lupine Dr, Fort Collins, CO 80524. I am strongly opposed to having lupine dr connected to the new development. This will absolutely negatively affect our neighborhood. If you have any regards for the people who live here currently please don't allow this. With the raised level of the new development any connection would put my house and others at the end of a slope increasing the likelihood of accidents and damage to parked cars on the street . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely. John Cunningham. ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 288