The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/25/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 October 25, 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 October 25, 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/92181638861. 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 WEDNESDAY, October 25, 2023. 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 October 25, 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: 921 8163 8861. 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. 3DFNHW SJ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 October 25, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z August Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the August 17, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Master Street Plan Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This purpose of this action item is to seek a recommendation to City Council from the Transportation Board related to proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Seth Lorson, Senior Transportation Planner DISCUSSION AGENDA o No Items listed OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 3DFNHW SJ Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 25, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 17, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the August 17, 2023 Planning Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft August 17, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard 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 August 17, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Katz, Sass, Stackhouse, Stegner, York Absent: Shepard Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Claypool, Guin, Hamlin, Puga, Potyondy, and Manno 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 role of the Commission and noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised with the exception of the Bohlender Funeral Chapel FDP, which was withdrawn by the applicant. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1.Draft Minutes from August 17, 2023, P&Z Hearing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DR AFT Packet pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission August 17, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. 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 York made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the August 17, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land Use Code changes to add specific regulations outlining how the City will make a water adequacy determination for development. The regulations are divided into three different categories: (1) established potable water supply entities; (2) new, or other potable water supply entities; and (3) non-potable water supply entities. The goal is to comply with Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.) and to make sure development has the necessary water supply. Disclosures: Chair Katz disclosed that he had conversations stakeholders to hear their opinions and concerns. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that a slide from Max Moss, was distributed to the Commission regarding his public input presentation. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of the item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Janelle Kechter, 621 Boulder Circle, gave her speaking time to Max Moss. Max Moss, 8270 Cherry Blossom, Windsor, Montava Project, spoke to housing unaffordability and water adequacy. He provided Commission with a PowerPoint slide (hard copy). He requested no action at this time, and at the very most, only add a few sentences as opposed to pages to the current Code. Mike Scheid, ELCO – East Larimer County Water District, commented that, generally speaking, ELCO supports the language that city staff has put together. Staff Response Planner Manager Frickey responded that to the slide presented by Mr. Moss was great, but that staff would need to confirm the numbers. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if there was a timeline for existing water districts making a determination or for the hearing of an appeal to the water district’s decision. Interim Planning Manager Frickey responded that he was unsure if there were any timelines in place. Attorney Potyondy responded that there are timelines in place for filing DR AFT Packet pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission August 17, 2023 Page 3 of 5 an appeal and that he could get the process to the Commission at a later date. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if the process could be expeditious or could the process take an extended period of time. Attorney Potyondy asked for clarification on what was meant by expeditious or extended. He commented that he would be surprised if the process wrapped up in less than 1 year unless there was a settlement and it was resolved. Attorney Potyondy also addressed the process for appeals to the Board of County Commissioners. The statute provides that the appeal must be taken no later than 30-days after the decision of the district. If a decision of the Board of County Commissioners is appealed, this appeal must be made to the District Court of the County that has jurisdiction within 30-days. There is nothing under the statute that prescribes how long after an appeal is made that a decision has to be rendered. Chair Katz commented that some of the stakeholders are questioning the reason for the Code change. Planning Manager Frickey responded that the State statute requires that the City have some sort of water adequacy determination process. It is up to the City’s discretion as to what the process looks like. Chair Katz asked if the City currently has a process and whether it addresses a new water provider. Planning Manager Frickey stated the City’s current process relies on “will-serve” letters from existing water providers, but that the existing Code is silent on how to manage new water providers. Attorney Potyondy commented that there were various ways that the City could have addressed the process of how to make a water adequacy determination. Staff’s recommendation for making policy determinations are being presented to the Commission. The detail provided in this framework aids both staff and the applicant . Less detail would result in greater qualitative judgment. Vice Chair Stackhouse requested clarification on whether existing water providers have the approval authority for private water providers. If not, is the City increasing the authority of the existing water providers? Attorney Potyondy responded that if a governmental entity wanted to provide water service in the water service area of an established water provider, it would need to go through the exclusion process. However, if it is a private entity that wanted to establish the service within an established water provider, this is potentially an open conversation. His understanding is that there is not clear authority one way or another. Vice Chair Stackhouse whether the City has the legal authority to establish clarity and require that all entities receive an exclusion even if it is not explicitly stated or is vague. Attorney Potyondy responded that City attorneys have viewed the code language and they are comfortable with it. Deliberation Vice Chair Stackhouse started with Section 3.13(C)(5). She believes that criteria in the appeals process is substantive based on each level in the appeal would reassess the criteria and that it is not a technical determination. There is benefit in adding clarity that all entities, public or private, will be required to go through this process. On the other side, there is concern about the timeliness of an appeals process. This could increase cost. Member Sass struggles with the “having an appeals process”. He does not feel it is an appeals process for a special district but rather it is going to be the process for someone to form a special district. He feels it is going to prohibit or make it very difficult ways to close the gap. Chair Katz asked if there was a way to provide compensation for existing infrastructure. Member Sass feels strongly that there should be. Chair Katz commented that it is not a surprise that Northern Colorado and Fort Collins need to look into the future for alternative water supplies beyond surface water, due to the cost; however, this is the infrastructure that we have now and there are many complicated variables bring a new system in. This includes the maintenance of different sets of infrastructure, stressing public easements, etc. Chair Katz does not want to see restrictions on new districts coming in, but also understands that existing districts have much already invested. Member York is inclined to support the proposed Code language as is. This gives a starting point for those wanting to come in. Member Haefele agrees. The criteria for exclusion are objective and would suggest that water should be expensive as none of us pays the true cost for our water or electricity. The notion that the cost of water should be limiting is reasonable. There are ways for homes to run with less water. She would not be comfortable making changes to the language. Chair Katz feels the proposed Code language needs changes. Chair Katz asked if a water adequacy determination would be made at building permit? Planning Manager Frickey responded that for new water providers, it would happen at the time of Basic Development Review or Final Plan, but not at building permit. DR AFT Packet pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission August 17, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Chair Katz asked for a definition of “reasonable level of service” for the exclusion,. Planning Manager Frickey responded, yes, and that it links to Municipal Code. This is consistent with language in the Municipal Code. Attorney Potyondy responded that the language in the proposed Land Use Code is based on Section 26-4 of City Code which pertains to utilities. This provision states that the City will not extend water or wastewater service to lands that are being served in the service areas from established districts. The City can waive this if the district becomes incapable of providing a reasonable level of service. Chair Katz asked what reason level of service meant. Attorney Potyondy responded that he has not seen any regulations or previous decisions that elaborate on this. This may be at the discretion of City staff, and ultimately, City Council. Member Sass commented that he struggles due to current Code meeting the statue and understanding where the value is in putting in an entire section of additional Code language beyond what is required by the State. He asked if there was a problem that this is fixing. Member Haefele responded that if there is no current mechanism to address a new water provider or new type of water provider, then it is necessary to write the Code. Vice Chair Stackhouse noted that having the clear rules adds certainty and but new rules will also add costs. Member Sass does not see this helping. Member York feels the proposed Code language is a reasonable compromise on the things the City has control over. Member Sass does not like the 3.13.5 Other Potable Water Supply Needs. He believes it encourages competition in this water district. He feels we are stifling innovation. Attorney Potyondy does not believe that statutory water suppliers are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, but they are subject to statutory and other legal requirements. Member Hafele commented that to some extent the pricing is regulated. Attorney Potyondy responded that he believed so. Chair Katz agrees with member Sass in that we need to have a mechanism to allow another water provider be available to citizens. If the potential water provider feels that it is financially feasible and they can deliver clean, reliable, safe drinking water, they should be allowed to do so. However, the existing water providers do need to participate in the process in a collaborative way, and if they do have stranded capacity, they should be compensated for it. If they do have new infrastructure that will be mixed in with old, it needs to be addressed in an orderly way. Member Sass feels this new Code language makes the new district define where they are going to get their water from, how much they are going to charge to make sure they are in alignment with the existing districts. Member York feels the proposed Code language allows to the City to make decisions based on consistent and reliable information. Member Sass agrees with Chair Katz in that there needs to be compensation; however, this Code language does not address this. Vice Chair Stackhouse feels that the one thing this Code would do is subject private entities to these processes that are right now ambiguous with existing water providers. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked why City staff is proposing to include Code language requiring existing water providers to approve new providers, rather than remaining silent? Planning Manager Frickey responded that if we are silent, we have no criteria to evaluate a new water provider, we do not know where the water is coming from, we do not know the quantity, we do not know the economic feasibility, etc. He noted that the City provides a water utility as well, and the City needs to protect its interests and its investments. There needs to be a clear process to follow in the event of someone doing the same to the City as it is any other water utility. We are trying to create a level playing field regardless of the water district. Chair Katz agrees. Attorney Potyondy commented on the rational underlying why this provision was included in the draft, 13.5(c)(5)(c). Early on in the discussions with staff, this issue and the things the Commission is wrestling with were identified by staff. Staff looked for guidance on how to address it. One of the few areas where policy guidance was found was in City Code, Section 26-4 and the general policy the City has been following, respecting the water service area boundaries of our neighboring water districts. In those discussions, it became clear that not addressing the issue did in fact seem to pick a side. If your silent you are still making a decision. Member Haefele asked if there was any indication or question whether a the existing water providers are capable and have sufficient water rights to serve customers. Attorney Potyondy responded that he has no reason to think that any of the districts will be incapable of serving their water service areas on the basis of the amount of supply. He noted that some of the districts, such as ELCO, are still in the process of acquiring the water rights as needs grow. This was the same model the City of Fort Collins until recently. Chair Katz commented that he understands that there is a substantial available water supply and that it is in agriculture right now and the issue is the cost. Member York commented that the last time this came before the Commission it was voted down, as it was felt that more time was needed for input. There were no arguments in a DR AFT Packet pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission August 17, 2023 Page 5 of 5 substantive way. Vice Chair Stackhouse qualified that some Commission members had questions about the appeal process. Member York went on to say that the discussion during this hearing has been about the merit of whether or not to do this at all. He is surprised at the discussion during this hearing of taking a different tact. Member Haefele agrees and that even in April she was not opposed to this Code change. Vice Chair Stackhouse feels the information received shows a substantive appeals process. She is anxious about how timely the appeals process will occur. She hopes that the City will keep an eye on the potential for a defacto way of avoiding the appeal being heard. She likes competition as it results in the best prices. Chair Katz feels there should be further outreach and updates to the language. He agrees there should be competition, but that the existing districts cannot be hurt by this. He is hesitant. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Land Use Code amendment related to water adequacy determinations. Member Haefele seconded. The Commission notes that the appeals process appears substantive but notes that timeliness will be critical. The Commission noted the importance of encouraging new competition while, at the same time, recognized the infrastructure investments of existing providers. Vote: 4:2. 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 noted. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: October 25, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, ChairDR AFT Packet pg. 9 Staff Report October 25, 2023 FC Moves Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-221-6705 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Master Street Plan Amendments – Request for Recommendation to City Council Summary of Request This purpose of this action item is to seek a recommendation to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission related to proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan as described below. Plan Area Next Steps At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board will make a recommendation to City Council. City Council would then consider adopting the revised Master Street Plan at the November 21, 2023 meeting. Site Location Streets throughout the City of Fort Collins Staff Seth Lorson, Senior Transportation Planner Contents 1. Overview .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Proposed Amendments ............................. 5 3. Attachments ............................................... 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council for the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan. Packet pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Overview Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan (MSP) map serves as the official source for identification of street alignments and classifications for the City. The map shows both existing and future street locations. Implementation of the Master Street Plan occurs through capital improvements which either upgrade a street or intersection, or build an entirely new street, and through requirements of private development to provide ROW and construct street improvements. Updates to the map are done either through a request from a developer proposal or City- initiated based on changing plans, functions, or information. The below requests include City-initiated due to the adoption of the North College MAX Plan, several clean-up items identified during development review, and a developer-requested amendment associated with Montava. Transportation Master Plan defines the Master Street Plan as follows: The major street network is defined by the Master Street Plan (MSP), which informs the development of the Capital Improvement Program. The MSP helps identify projects the City should undertake to support future travel needs and is updated to reflect demand, new infrastructure and planning. Updates to the MSP will reflect future travel needs identified by the regional travel model, input from stakeholder and public comment, and the adoption of the layered network concept. The Master Street Plan can be found here: Transportation Board, August 16, 2023 The Transportation Board considered a list of amendments to the Master Street Plan and removed two proposals requesting more information, those are not included in this package. The board decided to consider the Montava-related amendment separate from the rest. They voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the Montava amendment. The one dissenting vote cited that developers skew traffic impact studies to support their proposal and that more information about future traffic generation was needed. For the remaining 11 amendments (North College & clean-up) they voted 5-2 to recommend approval. The two dissenting votes cited that 1) the changes are not wholistic and they should have been considered before creating the existing MSP, and 2) will not support the reduction in classification of any facility. Packet pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) – Relevant Cross-sections These cross-sections are the most relevant to the proposed MSP amendments and are included for reference purposes. There are additional cross-sections in LCUASS that can be found here: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/fort_collins_figures_7.1f_to_7.13f.pdf 4-Lane Arterial: Packet pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top 2-Lane Arterial: Collector With Parking: Packet pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top 2. Proposed Amendments Street Amendments The proposed amendments include 12 street changes to the map. North College MAX Plan Amendments The North College MAX Plan, adopted by City Council in February 2023, recommends two changes to the Master Street Plan: 1. North Mason Street (Collector): Terminate north of Bristlecone Street and add Bristlecone Street as a Collector between North College Avenue and North Mason Street. North Mason is currently shown passing through two mobile home parks (North College MHP and Poudre Valley MHP) and is no longer consistent with the goals for the City of Fort Collins. This change has been confirmed with extensive community outreach during the North College MAX Plan and by City Planning for rezoning purposes. 2. Red Cedar Circle (Collector): Remove the extension of Red Cedar Circle north of Bristlecone Street and realign to a 90 degree turn at Bristlecone and add Bristlecone as Collector designation between Red Cedar and College Avenue. The intersection of College and Bristlecone is designated as a signalized intersection in the CDOT Access Management Plan. The length of Red Cedar Circle proposed to be removed as a Collector was discussed at length during the North College MAX Plan. The current alignment is shown in the delivery alley behind the former Albertson’s site and has recently not been required to be built by new development because it is unnecessary. Additionally, there are two private streets north of Bristlecone creating adequate access and circulation for the commercial district. Clean-up Amendments The majority of the amendments proposed below were identified during the development review process when closely compared to the current status of actual transportation and land use conditions. 3. East Laurel Street (Collector): Terminate East Laurel as a Collector at Stover Street. The length of Laurel Street between Stover and its eastern terminus does not connect to any other Collector Streets or Arterial Streets. A recent development project at the end of Laurel and the existing commercial center (Safeway) is precluding Laurel from ever extending further east. 4. Red Willow Drive (Collector): Add Collector designation for Red Willow Drive south of Linden Park. This will complete the connection between arterial streets with a Collector Street. Therefore effectively reducing the amount of accesses onto the surrounding Arterial streets (Trilby & Timberline). 5. East Vine Drive (2-Lane Arterial): Reclassify East Vine Drive from 2-Lane Arterial to Collector. The North Lemay overpass (over Vine) has been built which will reduce the amount of vehicles on East Vine. In anticipation of this improvement, Suniga was constructed as an east/west Arterial Street and is intended to take much of the traffic that was formerly on East Vine. 6. Hickory Street (Collector): Remove Hickory Street west of Soft Gold Park from the Master Street Plan. It is currently shown going through two Natural Areas. The Natural Areas Department confirmed that Packet pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top Hickory Street will never be allowed to be built through Magpie Meander Natural Area or McMurry Natural Area. 7. Brightwater Drive (Collector): Relocate Collector to continue on Brightwater Drive to connect to Morningstar Way and remove Collector designation from Parkside Drive. Brightwater Drive was built as a Collector during the development of Water’s Edge Subdivision therefore Parkside is not needed to continue the Collector connection. 8. East Mulberry Street/I-25 Frontage Road (Collector): Realign unnamed future Collector between East Mulberry Street and East Vine Street. Show the street alignment to curve close to I-25 to utilize the existing bridge over the Great Western Railway RR tracks. This alignment maintains the connection between Mulberry and Vine streets and greatly reduces the cost of implementation. The alignment has been discussed with the property owners/developers (Sunstate Development) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 9. North Lemay Avenue (4-Lane Arterial): Reclassify North Lemay Avenue from 4-Lane Arterial to 2-Lane Arterial between Suniga Road and Country Club Road. The recently constructed Lemay overpass project built North Lemay to neck down to a 2-Lane Arterial north of Suniga. This reclassification creates consistency with existing conditions. Additionally, the area around North Lemay is greatly built- out and there is not much expectation there will be greater traffic demand to require 4 lanes in the future. 10. Remington Street (2-Lane Arterial): Reclassify Remington Street from 2-Lane Arterial to a Collector between Mountain Avenue and Stuart Street. Remington currently operates like a collector with on- street parking and serving as a major Bikeway. The city has no plan to actualize an Arterial cross- section on this street which is primarily residential. The reclassification will allow traffic calming measures to be installed such as speed humps, bulb outs, and asphalt art. 11. South Timberline Road & Carpenter Road (CR 32) (Roundabout): Add roundabout at intersection of Timberline and Carpenter. This is an intersection of two two-lane arterial streets and is currently signalized. The intersection has gotten more traffic in recent years due to regional commuting. It is anticipated that the intersection and Carpenter Road (shown as 4-Lane Arterial on the MSP) will be improved. This addition of a roundabout does not guarantee one will be constructed only that an analysis for consideration will be completed. Developer-requested Amendment 12. Timberline Road (2-Lane Arterial): The developers of Montava request that the City of Fort Collins reclassify Timberline Road from a 2-Lane Arterial to a Collector between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road. This section of Timberline is currently not constructed. Montava is designing this street to serve as an internal collector and not serve traffic outside the neighborhood for cut-through purposes. Their intent is to develop a street with lower vehicle volumes and lower speeds to encourage a safer, pedestrian-friendly environment. Attached is the developer’s request and an extensive justification for the proposal. Packet pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 Master Street Plan Amendments Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top Summary Chart of Proposed Changes Conclusion Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council of the above- proposed Master Street Plan amendments. 3. Attachments 1. Map of MSP Amendments 2. Montava Request 3. Presentation Map ID # Street Name Current Classification Proposed Classification 1 North Mason Street Collector Remove 2 Red Cedar Circle Collector Remove 3 East Laurel Street Collector Remove east of Stover 4 Red Willow Drive Collector Add south of Linden Park 5 East Vine Drive 2-Lane Arterial Collector 6 Hickory Street Collector Remove west of Soft Gold Park 7 Brightwater Drive Collector Remove from Parkside Drive 8 Boardwalk Drive 2-Lane Arterial Collector 9 I-25 Frontage Collector Realign with bridge 10 North Lemay Avenue 4-Lane Arterial 2-Lane Arterial 11 Remington Street 2-Lane Arterial Collector 12 International & Greenfields Roundabout Remove 13 Timberline & Carpenter No Roundabout Add Roundabout 14 Timberline Road 2-Lane Arterial Collector Packet pg. 16 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 17 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 MEMORANDUM To:Forrest Hancock Development Director - Montava From:Jeff Planck, P.E. and Mary Gormley, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates Date:August 1, 2023 Project: Montava Master Plan Subject:Master Street Plan Amendment The purpose of this memorandum is to amend the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan adopted in April 2020 and printed in January 2023 for the Timberline Road section between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road in association with the Montava Master development. The overall Montava development is planned to include approximately 4,300 homes, 300,000 square feet of office, 200,000 square feet of retail, and almost 900,000 square feet of industrial uses north of Vine Drive, south of Richards Lake Road, east of Turnberry Road, and west of Interstate 25 (I-25) in Fort Collins, Colorado. MASTER STREET PLAN Timberline Road between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road is identified as a two-lane arterial roadway (See Master Street Plan for City of Fort Collins Clipping below). From the City’s Master Street Plan, the yellow identifies a two-lane arterial whereas the green identifies a two-lane collector. Montava is requesting an amendment to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan for the segment of Timberline Road from Mountain Vista Drive to County Club Road to be reclassified from a two-lane arterial street to a two-lane collector street. It is believed that this section of Timberline Road will serve mostly Montava traffic and will not be used as a regional connector and will see minimal cut-through traffic. Therefore, the arterial roadway classification is no longer recommended. Existing Master Street Plan for City of Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 18 Montava Master Plan Master Street Plan Amendment Memo Page 2 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards provides Fort Collins and Loveland street standards. The site is located within Fort Collins; however, the street standard guidelines for Fort Collins do not provide average daily traffic (ADT) volume thresholds for guidance in determining appropriate street sections. Therefore, the average daily traffic thresholds from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards referencing City of Loveland street standards were utilized in determination of the appropriate cross section for Timberline Road. The long-term 2045 ADT projection along Timberline Road between Mountain Vista Drive and County Club Road was determined by the full buildout of the Montava development as identified in the Montava Master Development Long-Term 2045 Horizon Traffic Study – Supplement to Master Traffic Study dated April 25,2023 . Applicable documents are attached for reference. An average daily traffic volume of 5,300 vehicles per day is projected along Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista Drive for the long-term 2045 horizon. The following table identifies the projected average daily traffic (ADT) compared to the Larimer County Street Standard (applicable documents are attached for reference). Roadway Projected ADT Larimer County Fort Collins1 Loveland2 ADT Roadway Type ADT Roadway Type Timberline Road Between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road 5,300 Not Provided 7,001 to 16,000 Minor Arterial 2-lane) 3,001 to 7,000 Major Collector 1Table 7-1 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Street Standards 2Table 7-2 Loveland (GMA and City Limits) Street Standards As shown in the table above, the projected ADT closely matches the characteristics for a two- lane collector roadway with a lower speed limit and lower traffic volume projection threshold. The roadway is not planned to be a major thoroughfare for regional traffic north of Mountain Vista Drive and will serve the internal traffic volumes associated with the Montava development. Therefore, the roadway segment of Timberline Road between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road is recommended to be identified as a 2-Lane Collector in the Master Street Plan as shown below. Proposed Master Street Plan for City of Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 19 Montava Master Plan Master Street Plan Amendment Memo Page 3 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 CONCLUSION As summarized in the memorandum, the Montava Master Plan development is recommending to amend the classification of Timberline Road in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Timberline Road is identified as a two-lane arterial roadway from Mountain Vista Drive to County Club Road in the most recent Master Street Plan. However, due to the lack of through connectivity with Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista, the inter-Montava connectivity street plan, the projected daily traffic volumes, and the multimodal and traffic calming visions for the roadway, it is believed that Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista Drive meets characteristics of a collector roadway. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City of Fort Collins consider amending the Master Street Plan to classify Timberline Road as collector street from Mountain Vista Drive to Country Club Road. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or require anything further. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Jeffrey R. Planck, P.E. Project Traffic Engineer 08/01/2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 20 City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 21 Pl easant Valley andLakeCanalM c ClellandsCreekDryC re e k Linden m eierLake W a r r e n L a k e Boxelder CreekF o o t h illsC h a nne lLarimer and Wel d CanalArthur DitchBoxel d e r Dit c hMailCreek DitchLakeSherwoodSheldon L a k e Kitchel LakeC a che la Poudre Reservoir Inlet Dixon Canyon Lateral BoxelderCreekLari mer County Can al No. 2New Merc er DitchC o lle g eLake ParkwoodLakeLake Canal Terry Lake InletCachela Po udre Ri v erLak e C anal Fos s il C re ek R e s ervoir I nle tCachela Poudre Reservoir InletClaymoreLake Di xonReservoirLar i mer Co u nty C a nal Boxel derCreekS p rin g C re ekSp r i ng Creek CachelaPo u d r eRiver F o s s i l C r e e kRe s e rv o irR i c h a r d s L a k e D o n a t h L a k e F o s sil Creek Dixon Creek L o n g P o n d F ossilCreekF ossil C r e ekNewM ercer D itch Jacks o nDitchCach e laPo u dre Ri verLakeCanal Sh erwood Lateral P l e a sant Valley a n d LakeCanal Terry LakeHarmonyReservoirR o b ert Benson Lake Lari mer CountyCanal No2 BoxelderDitc h Spring Cree k Little Cache la Poudre Ditch Larimer and Weld Canal HorsetoothReservoi rB o y d L a k e Lee Lake Duc kL akeRig denReservo i rNo. 8 Outlet>> SCollegeAveW Horsetooth Rd W Mulberry St S Shields StRiverside Ave Laporte Ave S Timberline RdSLemayAveStraussCabinRdS Overland TrlN Howes St9thStWLaurel St W Drake Rd E Prospect Rd W Willox Ln S Taft Hill RdW Vine Dr Country Club RdTerryLakeRd EMulberrySt E Vine Dr Richards Lake Rd RemingtonStW Mountain AveTurnberryRdEWillo xLn E Trilby Rd State Highway 392NCollegeAveLandingsDrN Mason StW Prospect Rd E County Road 38 Jeffer s o n S t E Douglas Rd County Road 54G NLemayAveW Elizabeth St WCountyRoad38EE CountyRoad50MountainVistaDrE Lincoln Ave E Harmony Rd E Suniga Rd N Timberline RdLindenmeierRdGre gory R d E Horsetooth RdKechterRdN Shields StS County Road 5W Harmony Rd S Howes StW Douglas Rd NUS H ig h w a y 2 8 7 NOverlandTrlE County Road 36S Mason StLincolnAveBoardwalk DrMain StW Trilby Rd E Drake Rd Ziegler RdCarpenter Rd SCountyRoad13E CountyRoad 30SUS Highway 287E County Road 52 S County Road 11S S u mmit V ie w D r S County Road 7N County Road 17E County Road 48N County Road 19N County Road 5S Timberline RdNTaftHillRdE County Road 54 S County Road 19Giddings RdN County Road 9S County Road 9!"`$ 25 WXYZÉ1 WXYZô392 WXYZÕ14 WXYZÕ14 WXYZÕ14 I³287 I³ 287 I³287 Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA Interstate Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing Potential Roundabout City Limits Growth Management Area Larimer County CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only,and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions,contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any user of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage,loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification ofalldata contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct,indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity.N Master Street Plan forCity of Fort Collins COLORADO 0 1 2 3 Miles Potential Grade Separated Railroad Crossings shown are top priority locations identified in the 2016 Railroad Prioritization Study, and additional grade separationswillbeevaluatedasneeded based on future conditions and opportunities.Potential Roundabout Locations shown are ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 22 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Excerpts ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 23 Table 7-1ins (GMA and City Limits)Street Standards - GeneralParametersFortCol Street Classification:6-Lane Arterial 4-lane Arterial Modified 4-lane Arterial *n 2-lane Arterial Major Collector without parking) Minor Collector with parking) Commercial Local Industrial Local Connector Local Residential Local Alley Rural Residential Local*a Right-of-Way (ROW) Width 141 115' 102’84' 69'81 77'71’63' 57’ *m 12'- 20'46' Roadway Width 107'83' 74' 52'42'54' 50' 44' 36'30’12'-20'28' Median Width 19’&7‘ *b 19'&7' *b Optional *c None Optional *c Optional *c Optional *c Optional *c Optional *c None None Optional *c No. of Travel Lanes 6 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Travel Lane Width *p 11’-12’ 11'-12' 11' 11’ 11’-12' *d 11'12'11 10'10' 16’ 12'-20'0 Designated Bike Lanes?Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N *e N *e N *e N *e N *e Bike Lane - width 7' P 6' B 6.5'*o B 7’ B 7 B 5' w/parking 6' w/lt turn' B 7’ or 8' *h 0'0’ or 6' *f O' *i O' O' P)rotected, (B)uffered B B 8' or None *j 7' or None *j 8' or None *j NotDefinedParkingLaneWidthNoneNoneNoneNoneNone10'7'None Lane Striping Req'd T)ravel, (B)ike, (P)arking T,B T,B T,B T,B T,B T,B,P T,B/P or T,B None T,P or None None None None Min. Parkway Width 10' 10'8'10'8'8'8'8' 8'8' *m NA 9' Min. Sidewalk width * k 7' 6' 6'6'5'5'5'5'5'5'None None Left Turn Lanes Req'd?Y Y Y Y N or Y *d N or Y *j N or Y *j N N or Y *j N NA N Left Turn Lane Width 12' 12' 11' 11 O' or 12' O' or 12' O' or 12'0'O' or 10'O'NA O' Speed Limit, mph 40-45 35 - 45 35 - 45 30-45 30-35 25-30 25 25 25 25 15 25 Fence minimum setbacks, feet from parkway edge of sidewalk 10'8' 8'8'7'7'7’6.5'6.5' 6.5'3' or 8' *l 9' *d Driveway & Street Access Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Curb & Gutter Vertical or V V V V V V V V V VorD VorD VorD Driveover a The maximum length of an Alley shall be 600 feet. Medians shall be 19' wide standard width or 7'wide where a 12' left turn lane is needed. Additional street width shall be required for development requested medians. To provide left turn lanes at intersections, 8' additional roadway width is required to provide an 12' wide left turn lane with 5' buffered bike lanes and 11' travel lanes. Bikes share travel lanes with motor vehicles. If bike lanes are required, additional street width will be required to provide 6' wide bike lanes. An 11' lane for shared parking and bikes is provided. A 7' wide bike lane is provided when parking is removed for a left turn lane. Additional street width up to 4' wider may be required in the travel lane to accommodate higher volumes of bike traffic within and leading to activity areas. j To provide left turn lanes at intersections, parking shall be removed. Additional sidewalk width may be required to accommodate anticipated higher pedestrian traffic volumes within or leading to activity areas. An 8' fence setback is required for a garage door setback of 8' from the alley ROW. With a garage door setback at 20' or greater, the minimum fence setback is 3' from the alley ROW. To use driveover curb and gutter the parkway width must be widened by 1 foot, thereby increasing street ROW width by 2 feet to provide 53 feet. The Modified 4-Lane Arterial is to be applied in constrained right-of-way situations and after review and approval of the City Engineer. 6-ft bike lane is acceptable if built using a continuously poured concrete gutter pan 11 foot lanes may be considered in constrained situations and upon review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer b *k c d *l e f *m 9 h *n o P Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards - Repealed and Reenacted August 1, 2021 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Page 7-6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 24 Table 7-2 Loveland (GMA and City Limits) Street Standards - General Parameters Street Classification: Major Arterial 4-6 Lanes) Minor Arterial 2 Lanes) Major Collector Minor Collector Local Com/lnd Local Resid Lane Alley NA NA >300 101-300 NA 21-100 <50Functional Parameters No. of Dwelling Units Served 16,001-48,000 7,001-16,000 3,001-7,000 1,001-3,000 201-1,000 201-1,000 Max. 200 Max. 200AverageDaily Traffic At Build-out See Table 7-4 See Table 7-4 1 forward access per lot (if access cannot be provided from a lower classification Max. 2 per StreetFrontageAccess No limit No limit No limit No limit Continuity (see definitions) Unlimited Unlimited 2 miles 2640' Max 660’ Max 660’ Max 660' Max 660’ Max 120’ or 140’ 511Min, right-of-way 100’80’60’60’ 58’ 50’16’-20’Land Use Requirements 14’14’14’14’14’ 14’ 14’10’Min. Utility (Each Easement Side) 80-116' 412 40'-56' 4 48' (w/parking) 38' (no parking) 38’ (w/parking) 36' (no parking) 38’34’34' (w/parking) 28’ restricted parking7) 16'-20' (in 16’-20' ROW8) Geometric Parameters Minimum Street ( w/parking) (w/parking)Width (Flowline to flowline) 12’12’12’11’Min. Lane Width' Required3 Required3 Not Req.Not Req.Not Req. Not Req. Not Req.Not Req.Turn Lanes 5'-7' lane2 5'-7' lane2 5'-7' lane25'-7' lane Share Street Share Street Share Street ShareSurfaceBicycles Sidewalk Width1 6’ min.6’ min.6’ min.6’ min.5’ min. 5’ min. 5’ min.NA Detached by 10’ min. Detached by 10’ min. Detached by 6’ min. Detached by 6' min. Detached by 6’ min. Detached by 6’ min. Detached by 5' min.NASidewalkLocation Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical, Drive over or Rollover Vertical, Drive over or Rollover Vertical, Drive over or Rollover Vertical, Drive over orRolloverCurbType 1 Sidewalk may not be required in industrial zones with initial development 2 5' width exclusive of gutter 3 Left turn lanes always required, right turn lanes required if TIS indicates need. 4 Minimum widths must be increased to provide auxiliary turn lanes where needed 5 Required on Taft Ave., Wilson Ave., Eisenhower Blvd., Hwy 287, and 14th St. SW 6 Sidewalks may only be attached when adjacent to single family residential homes through a formal variance per LCUASS Section 1.9.4. 7 One side only______________________________________________________________ 8 May be reduced to 16’ when necessary due to existing obstructions (power poles, etc.) 9 Lane width is measured from lip of gutter to center of lane stripe. 10 Commercial / Industrial area 11 This width includes turn lanes and minimum right-of-way at the intersection 12 This width includes turn lanes and double lefts at the intersection Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards - Repealed and Reenacted August 1, 2021 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Page 7-7 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 25 r "\FORT COLLINS ONLY 84' ROW (min.) 10'10'6' X- „ YPkwy. Walk (min.) -r fmin.1 ^sSBst^. Pkwy.'' 7'(min.) 52' Roadway 15' futiTiEsmt. 15' Util.11'10'11 Esmt.I6'7' 3 3' 7'T ravel Center Travel7 ~ 7 ',w-IWalk , l : min.)lBikeLaneBikeLane->ilL- Bike Lane Buffer 37' Striped Bike Lane 7 ' BikeLane Bike Lane Buffer37'7^'Protected Bike Lane BikeLane ROADWAY WIDTH: 52' RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 84' (min.), plus 18' (min.) utility easement. TRAVEL LANES: Three lanes, (2) 11' wide and a 10' center lane. LEFT TURN LANES: 10' wide provided in center lane. BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 7' wide lane, 3' wide painted buffer. BIKE LANE OPTION: Striped bike lane and protected bike lane options will require City Engineer approval. PARKING: None PARKWAY: 10' (min.) width. Additional width optional. SIDEWALK: 6' (min.) wide. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian traffic in and leading to activity areas. MEDIAN: Not required, except where necessary to control access and/or to provide pedestrian refuge or where developer requested medians are approved by the local entity. Additional roadway and right of way width may be required. WHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity when a Collector street is shown on the Master Street Plan. DESIGN SPEED: 50 MPH SPEED LIMIT: 30 - 45 MPH ACCESS: Access will be limited. Points of access must be approved by the Local Entity. CONTINUITY: Unlimited FENCES: Fences shall be setback a minimum of 2' from back of sidewalk on the property line, whichever is greater. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical. V J r 2-LANE ARTERIAL STREET LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO:FIGURE 7-3FDESIGNFIGUREVDATE: 07/01/21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 26 Travel 7'Travel Lane Bike Lane Bike 100' ROW (min.) 56' Roadway (min.) 7' 6' Walk min.)( min.) Pkwy. 10' Pkwy. 6' min.) 10' 13'13' MEDIAN: 14' (min.) Painted median if required or 16' (min.) raised median if required. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical. FENCES: Fences shall be placed outside of the landscaped buffer yard. LEFT TURN LANES: 12' wide, required at intersection. TRAVEL LANES: Two lanes, 13' wide. 12' wide with Buffered Bike Lane option. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 100' (min.) plus 28' (min.) utility easement. ROADWAY WIDTH: 56' (min.) (Widen where a right turn lane is required). traffic in and leading to activity areas. PARKWAY: 10' (min.) width. Additional roadway and right of way width optional. SIDEWALK: 6' (min.) wide if detached by at least 10'. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian WHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity when a Collector street is shown PARKING: None DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH POSTED SPEED: 40 MPH LOVELAND ONLY CONTINUITY: Unlimited BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 5' wide (exclusive of gutter). min.) Walk Continuous left turn lane as determined by the Local Entity. Additional auxiliary lanes may be needed as determined by the Local Entity. Raised median may be required. LANDSCAPING: Tree, Lawn, Median, and Buffer Area landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, HOA or Metro Districts. Landscape Yard Buffer Yard Width Esmt. Util. 14' Setback Fence on the Master Street Plan or when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be 7,000 to 16,000 vpd. See Table 7-2. ACCESS: No primary access to individual lots. See Table 7-2. 16' Median* Fence Setback 14' Esmt. Util. BUFFERED BIKE LANE OPTIONS: Options will vary depending on the project and will require Engineer approval. 2' Bike lane with 2' buffer option Travel 7' Lane Bike 12' 2' Buff 14' Median* r r ^ I I f T7 y~ y- I Iv-V ik II1 V -><- K.J 2-LANE ARTERIAL STREET LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO:FIGURE 7-3LDESIGNFIGURE070121DATE: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 27 r AFORTCOLLINSONLY 69' ROW (min.) 5' / 8-5' / Pkwy.( min-) 8.5' y-x X42' Roadway Pkwy.( min.)Walk( min.)IIIQ' f Util. ' Esmt.Util.1111I Esmt. |7L 5'U 7' pH Travel Travel T ;I Walk( min.)iBikeBikeLaneLaneBuffer Bike y' Bike Lane-' LaneBuffer I 77' ROW (min.) 8.5'. 8.5' y Pkvvy.( min.) 5'X- Ykwy.( min.) 50' RoadwayWalk( min.) Ttel j| <n Il9' futiT Esmt.12'Util. Esmt. |11'11'Left Turn PU', Travel s Bike ^ Lane Buffer T ravel Bike ' Lane BikeLaneBuffer-ii h, INTERSECTIONS WHERE NEEDED) ROADWAY WIDTH: 421 (Widen to 501 where a left turn lane is required). RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 691 (min.) (Widen to IT where a left turn lane is required.) plus 1 8' (min.) utility easement. TRAVEL LANES: Two lanes, 11' wide LEFT TURN LANES: 1 2' wide at intersection where needed. BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 7' wide lane, 3' wide painted buffer. PARKING: None. Parking must be provided off street for any development adjoining the street. PARKWAY: 8' (min.) width. Additional width optional. SIDEWALK: 5' (min.) width. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian traffic within and leading to activity areas. MEDIAN: Not required, except where necessary to control access and/or to provide pedestrian refuge or when requested by the Developer and approved by the Local Entity. Additional roadway and right of way width may be required. WHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity, when a Collector street is shown on the Master Street Plan. DESIGN SPEED: 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT: 30-35 MPH ACCESS: Access will be limited. Points of access must be approved by the Local Entity. CONTINUITY: The street shall be continuous for no more than 1320 feet. FENCES: Fences shall be setback a minimum of 2' from back of sidewalk or on the property line, whichever is greater. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical curb and gutter.y r COLLECTOR - WITHOUT PARKING LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO:FIGURE 7-4FDESIGNFIGUREVDATE: 07/01/21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 28 r ALOVELANDONLY 80' ROW (min.)Fence Fence7"Setback SetbackWITHOUTPARKING 36' Roadway 6' 6' Pkwy,( min.) Pkwy.( min.) 14'Y7' 7' Util. Util.| Esmt. Esmt.11' 11'6' 6' Walk '( min.) 7 ~Walk( min.)BikeLaneBikeLane1TravelTravel WITH PARKING 48' Roadway 11'11' 5-‘7L 7 '8' 8'5'7d—,' TravelTravelPPBike_ane Bike_ ane ROADWAY WIDTH: 48' with parking. 36' without parking. 50' without parking but with left turn lane. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 80' (min.) plus 14' (min.) utility easement each side. TRAVEL LANES: Two lanes, 11' wide. BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 5' wide when adjacent to a parking or turn lane, 7' wide when adjacent to the curb. PARKING: Developer needs to demonstrate a need for parking if to be installed (No parking within 200' of intersections) PARKWAY: 6' (min.) width. SIDEWALK: 6' (min.) width, detached. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian traffic in and leading to activity areas. MEDIAN: None. Additional width would be required for development requested medians. WHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity, when a Collector street is shown on the Master Street Plan or when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be in the range of 3,001 to 7,000 vehicles per day. DESIGN SPEED: 35 MPH - If intersections are greater or equal to 1/2 mile spacing the City can increase the Posted Speed. ACCESS: 1 forward-direction access per lot (if access cannot be provided from a street of lower classification. CONTINUITY: 2 miles FENCES: Fences shall be placed outside of the landscaped buffer yard. PARKWAY LANDSCAPING: Tree Lawn, Median, and Buffer Area landscaping shall be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, HOA or Metro Districts. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical. STRIPING: The centerline and separate bike and parking lanes shall be marked on the pavement in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 14 Traffic Control Devices and CONST. DWG. 1408L. V J r MAJOR COLLECTOR/COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR STREET LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO: 1 FIGURE 7-4LDESIGNFIGUREV07/01/21DATE: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 29 r "YFORTCOLLINSONLY 81' ROW (MIN.) 8.5' 8.5'X- 54' ROADWAY—j TKWY ______PKWY Park' (MIN.) Buffer Y Park Buffer-!UTIL. ESM'T. mBIKE _? J-ANE 9' TuTiir7 BIKE 1111LANEESM'T.7" TRAVELTRAVEL8' 8'5'5'1MIN. FENCE SETBACK WALK( MIN) WALK( MIN)PARK PARK 6'13'12' BIKE LANE Bike Lane Buffer BIKE_EFTTURN12'12'LANE 7/'-Bike Lane Buffet TRAVEL TRAVEL 54' Roadway - XINTERSECTIONS WHERE NEEDED) ROADWAY WIDTH: 54' RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 81' (min.) plus 18' (min.) utility easement. TRAVEL LANES: Two lanes, 81' (min.) plus 18' (min.) utility easement. LEFT TURN LANES: 12' wide at intersections where needed. BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 5' or 6' wide lane, 3' wide painted buffer. PARKING: Two lanes, 8' wide; parking may be removed at certain locations to provide a left turn lane at intersections where needed. PARKWAY: 8' (min.) width. Additional width optional. SIDEWALK: 5' (min.) width. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian traffic within and leading to activity areas or as required by Area Plans. MEDIAN: Not required, except where necessary to control access and/or to provide pedestrian refuge, additional roadway and ROW width may be required. WHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity, when a Collector street is shown on the Master DESIGN SPEED: 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT: 25-30 MPH ACCESS: Access will be limited. Points of access must be approved by the Local Entity. CONTINUITY: The street shall be continuous for no more than 1320 feet. FENCES: Fences shall be setback a minimum of 2' from back of sidewalk or on the properly line, whichever is greater. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical curb and gutter. JV r COLLECTOR - WITH PARKING LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO:FIGURE 7-5FDESIGNFIGUREVDATE: 07/01/21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 30 r ALOVELANDONLY 60' ROW (MIN.)Fence Fence V -X-WITHOUTPARKINGSetback Setback 6' 6' 36' RoadwayPkwy.( min.) Pkwy.( min.) 14' 14'T T /- Util. Util. Esmt. || Esmt.BIKEBIKE6' 6'irirLN. LN." Walk'( min.) Walk( min.)TRAVEL TRAVEL WITH PARKING 38' Roadway 8'11' 11 8' 7 ^7 ~7 ^ PARK TRAVEL TRAVELPARKAA ROADWAY WIDTFi: 38' with parking: 36' without parking. RIGIHT OF WAY WIDTIH: 60' (min.) plus 28' (min.) utility easement. TRAVEL LANES: Two lanes, 11' wide. LEFT TURN LANES: 11' wide at intersections where needed. BIKE LANES: Two lanes, 7' wide. If parking approved on street sharrows as per MUTCD standard shall be installed PARKING: Developer needs to demonstrate a need for parking if to be installed (None provided at intersections) PARKWAY: 6' (min.) width. SIDEWALK: 6' (min.) width, detached. MEDIAN: None. Additional roadway and right of way width would be required for development requested medians. WIHERE USED: These specifications shall apply as required by the Local Entity when a Collector street is shown on the Master Street Plan or when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day. DESIGN SPEED: 30 MPH POSTED SPEED: 25 MPH ACCESS: Maximum of two (2) per lot per street frontage. CONTINUITY: The street shall be continuous for no more than 2640 feet. FENCES: Fences shall be placed outside of the landscaped buffer yard. LANDSCAPING: Tree, Lawn, Median, and Buffer Area landscaping shall be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, HOA or Metro Districts. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical, drive-over, or rollover (see in table 7-2). STRIPING: Center line only. V J r MINOR COLLECTOR STREET LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REVISION NO: 1 FIGURE 7-5LDESIGNFIGUREV07/01/21DATE: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 31 Montava Master Development Long-Term Horizon Traffic Study Excerpts ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 32 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 April 25, 2023 Mr. Max Moss HF2M Colorado 430 North College Avenue Suite 410 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Montava Master Development Long-Term Horizon Traffic Study Letter – Supplement to Master Traffic Study Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Mr. Moss, This letter is a supplement to the Montava Master Transportation Impact Study (2018 Master Study) completed in October 2018 for the overall Montava development area. The purpose of this supplemental Traffic Study Letter is to provide a traffic analysis for the 2045 horizon with full buildout of Montava to account for changes to the development program and roadway infrastructure plan. The overall Montava project is a master planned mixed use development to be located north of Vine drive, south of Richards Lake Road, east of Turnberry Road, and west of Interstate 25 (I-25). The Montava Master Development includes single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes, multifamily low-rise housing, retail uses, office uses, and industrial uses. A conceptual phasing development plan is attached. Montava is a new urbanism complete community with walkable and bikeable blocks and streets incorporating housing, employment, and shopping in close proximity, intended to meet the needs of all residents to remain on site through integrated land use planning. A vicinity map is attached as Figure 1. This traffic study letter provided additional volumes and recommendations to the surrounding existing and proposed intersections for the Montava Master Development for the long-term 2045 horizon. Regional access to Montava Master Development will be provided by Interstate 25 (I-25) and US-287. Primary access will be provided by Richards Lake Road, Mountain Vista Drive, and Turnberry Road. Direct access will be provided by accesses along Mountain Vista Drive, Country Club Road, Maple Hill Drive, Richards Lake Road, and Giddings Road. The following existing intersections were analyzed into this traffic study: Richards Lake Road and Turnberry Road (Intersection #1) Richards Lake Road and Giddings Road (#2) Richards Lake Road and Busch Drive (#3) Maple Hill Drive and Turnberry Road (#4) Maple Hill Drive and Bar Harbor Drive (#5) Country Club Road and Lemay Avenue (#6) Country Club Road and Turnberry Road (#7) Mountain Vista Drive and Turnberry Road (#8) Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road (#9) Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road (#10) 7(0 77$&+0(17 3DFNHW SJ 126(82) 9(15) 23(53) 59(41) 9(3) 6(3) 29 2 7 34 5 2 5 0 2( 2 71 1 3 1 17 3 3 1 1 11 4 1 1 129(88) 54(109) 13(21) 213(79) 86(62) 42(63) 15 1 6 39 4 2 5 8 40 3 3 28 5 4 18 8 3 2 5 41 9 5 2 132(161) 165(177) 2(0) 19(38) 118(164) 2( 0 2( 0 19 4 1 21 3 8 3 146(107) 4(2) 3( 1 2 49 6 3 5 7 98 2 1 1 26 4 5 1 2 4 1(1) 127(68) 2(0) 2(2) 36(123) 6(17) 2( 1 4( 8 15 1 1 2( 9 2( 1 1 4( 2 5 183(151) 313(266) 25(34) 80(53) 266(416) 4(11) 33 3 8 11 7 5 1 4( 6 99 1 8 5 41 1 0 2 36 4 9 6 39(30) 91(58) 10(9) 218(252) 69(150) 81(321) 9( 1 6 36 6 1 8 8 40 6 2 1 2 22 4 3 12 4 3 0 2 24 2 2 7 5 7 127(178) 15(19) 247(485) 10(10) 29(17) 14(6) 37 0 2 6 3 33 4 1 7 1 2( 1 7 45 1 3 7 63 1 4 1 10 5 0 8 345(310) 243(464) 16(46) 38(28) 398(330) 10(32) 84 5 9 18 1 1 2 9 17 1 2 24 5 3 7 2 97 2 5 3 12 8 2 0 0 9 228(291) 365(652) 261(384) 25(17) 600(492) 65(182) 48 2 2 3 9 48 5 3 9 8 72 7 6 18 1 2 2 6 29 0 6 5 3 80 9 4 10 57(23) 753(1198) 70(93) 102(40) 1127(789) 19(21) 17 3 1 4 5 4( 1 23 9 6 10 4 1 1( 3 18 7 4 11 307(178) 650(1079) 1003(664) 319(309) 26 2 5 2( 2 19 3 2 2 5 12 429(358) 41(43) 155(187) 167(134) 15 6 3 6 5 2( 2 50 4 8 9 3 13 179(88) 256(189) 145(124) 97(103) 126(266) 18(21) 73 1 1 1 90 0 6 4 7 33 4 5 42 1 5 8 42 7 7 1 7 50 1 0 7 14 153(102) 260(159) 30(22) 150(251) 87(223) 28(51) 20 2 5 58 6 6 2 9 75 1 0 6 86 2 4 3 46 7 8 9 4 24 5 2 7 8 15 35(20) 243(239) 30(25) 50(30) 150(254) 43(132) 20 5 0 29 4 2 6 3 13 2 5 8 15 4 0 55 1 7 7 10 2 0 16 51(42) 175(168) 5(10) 5(5) 141(260) 21(82) 15 5 49 6 4 7 9 33 1 3 2 68 6 1 39 1 6 1 3 10 5 17 30(25) 163(265) 58 9 5 4 7 16 0 1 5 7 38 7 7 4 5 28 1 0 18 638(644) 10(65) 394(634) 65(117) 20 1 0 0 35 4 1 9 8 19 187(183) 416(393) 20(20) 45(115) 257(517) 127(177) 20 2 0 43 5 3 7 9 16 6 1 9 1 13 0 2 2 6 33 1 5 4 4 80 1 2 5 20 7(0 3 77$&+0(17 3 3DFNHW SJ 45 6(82) 157(15) 0(53) 1(41) 331(3) 0(3) 0( 2 7 0( 2 5 0 0( 2 12 1 3 1 0( 3 1 1 2( 4 1 1 0(88) 37(109) 60(21) 0(79) 22(62) 20(63) 14 6 1 6 0( 2 5 8 41 3 3 0( 5 4 0( 3 2 5 0( 9 5 2 139(161) 20(177) 9(0) 256(38) 9(164) 13(0) 3( 0 32 2 0 5( 0 62 4 1 23 8 0 91 3 8 3 49(107) 56(0) 12(2) 6(0) 29(0) 3(0) 6( 1 2 12 5 3 5 7 12 0 21 2 1 1 33 5 1 2 13 0 4 148(1) 10(68) 6(0) 183(2) 10(123) 16(17) 2( 1 66 8 8 16 1 1 51 9 35 2 1 1 54 2 5 0(151) 481(266) 130(34) 0(53) 605(416) 71(11) 98 3 8 0( 5 1 91 6 0( 1 8 5 0( 1 0 2 0( 4 9 6 0(30) 975(58) 22(9) 0(252) 1029(150) 26(321) 63 1 6 0( 1 8 8 76 2 1 2 0( 4 3 0( 3 0 2 0( 2 7 5 7 7(0 3 77$&+0(17 3 3DFNHW SJ 46 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Transportation Planner Seth Lorson Planning and Zoning Commission: Master Street Plan Amendments 2023 October 25, 2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 36 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Master Street Plan Defines the major street network Street alignment and classification Supports greater transportation and land use goals of the city Implementation Capital projects Private development ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 37 Headline Copy GoesHereNorthCollegeMAXPlan 3 North Mason: remove north of Bristlecone so it no longer is shown passing through two mobile home parks. Red Cedar: remove north of Bristlecone as it is unnecessary and has not been constructed with new development. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 38 Headline Copy GoesHereClean-up Amendments 4 Proposed Classification Current ClassificationStreetName Remove east ofStoverCollectorEastLaurelStreet Add south of Linden ParkCollectorRedWillowDrive Collector2-LaneArterialEastVineDrive Remove west of Soft GoldParkCollectorHickoryStreet Remove from ParksideDriveCollectorBrightwaterDrive Realign withbridgeCollectorI-25 Frontage 2-LaneArterial4-LaneArterialNorthLemayAvenue Collector2-LaneArterialRemingtonStreet AddRoundaboutNoRoundaboutTimberline & Carpenter ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 39 Headline Copy GoesHereMontavaRequest 5 Timberline Road: reclassify from 2- Lane Arterial to Collector. Street intended to serve internal traffic to Montava development. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 40 Headline Copy GoesHereConclusion 6 Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval to City Council of the proposed Master Street Plan amendments. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 41