Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/26/2025 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingAgenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Krista Kidwell, Project Coordinator SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 2025 PZC SPECIAL HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the February 5, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission special hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Minutes of the February 5, 2025 Special Hearing Packet Pg. 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 1 Planning & Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING 5 February, 2025 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL a.Commission Members Present – •Julie Stackhouse (Chair) •Adam Sass (Vice Chair) •Russell Connelly •David Katz •Shirley Peel •Ted Shepard •York b.Commission Members Absent – •None c.Staff Members Present – •Clay Frickey, Planning Manager •Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney •Melissa Matsunaka, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Admin •Krista Kidwell, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Admin •Justine Vonkoepping, FCTV •Em Myler, Development Liaison •Arlo Schumann, Planner •Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations •Sophia Buckingham •Stephanie Boster d. Guest(s) – •Jorja White Chair Stackhouse provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She 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. She noted that this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 2 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 2 AGENDA REVIEW Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, stated all items will be heard as originally advertised. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. DISCUSSION 1.Prospect Plaza Redevelopment, Site Plan Advisory Review SPA240003 This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to develop a 5-story student oriented apartment building. The plan proposes the demolition of eleven 3-story apartment buildings and a multi-tenant commercial building. The new building proposed will provide 696 rentable bedrooms and 418 parking spaces. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a decision within 60 days of submittal of a Development Application. Arlo Schumann, City Planner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, Campus Delivery 6009, Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU STRATA, 2537 Research Blvd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Staff Presentation Arlo Schumann, Planner, noted this item is a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR). He discussed the site location and showed slides of the site, which is zoned as High-Density Mixed-Use (HMN) and designated as Urban Mixed-Use District in the Structure Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay and is part of the West Central Neighborhoods Subarea Plan. Schumann outlined the requirements of the SPAR process and associated deadlines. He noted that should the Commission not approve the project, that decision can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the CSU Board of Governors. Schumann noted SPAR reviews examine location, character, and extent. Schumann stated the site is approximately 4.5 acres with eleven 3-story residential buildings and a multi-tenant commercial building. The proposal is for a five-story apartment building with 696 bedrooms and a plan to rent by the bedroom. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 3 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 3 Applicant Presentation Tom Berry, Holland Basham Architects, showed slides of the existing site and noted the residential buildings are nearing the end of their useful life. He stated the redevelopment of the site and additional housing aligns with the joint CSU/City Student Housing Action Plan. He stated the proposal is for 225 apartment units consisting of 696 bedrooms, a structured parking garage containing 324 parking spaces, and 46 surface parking spaces. Berry discussed the site design which seeks to separate vehicles from pedestrian and bike areas. He showed renderings of the proposed project and discussed the intention to provide a more human scale along Prospect Road. Berry addressed questions from the Commission’s work session, with the first being how the project is incorporating the contextual heigh setback requirement of the HMN zone. Berry stated three of the four sides of the property are under the jurisdiction of CSU and therefore do not have the lower height requirement; however, along the south side of the property, the building has been limited to four stories. In terms of the requirement for articulation in walls greater than 40 feet in length in the HMN zone, Berry stated there have been efforts to vary materials and break up façades. Regarding the requirements for roof design, Berry stated the design includes sloped parapets, variation in parapet heights, and horizontal shade elements at most of the storefront windows. Regarding entrances and orientation, Berry stated the design is meant to draw users into the main entry corridor. Staff Response Schumann discussed some of the matters raised during the review process, including that the lighting be capped at 3,000 kelvin color temperature, which is in alignment with City standards. He noted the applicant has agreed to that. Additionally, Schumann noted that questions were raised regarding the human scale along Prospect Road. Those Planning concerns have been addressed in design changes, as have comments about landscaping at the southwest corner of the site. Schumann noted the project requested and received a variance from Engineering for the spacing of the site access in relation to the Centre and Prospect intersection, with the condition that the access be a right-in, right-out movement. Schumann stated Engineering requested an additional condition based on the traffic study for an extended drive before the parking starts on the site to provide for safer traffic flows. Schumann outlined comments that were made during the neighborhood meeting, including concerns about traffic impacts and potential conflicts with the site access along Prospect Road, concerns about general pedestrian safety, questions about the existing and planned bus stop, questions about affordability given the existing buildings provide some more affordable units for students, and questions about the displacement of existing student tenants during construction. Schumann showed renderings of the building’s primary access point on Lake Street and the articulation being provided on the long sides of the building. He stated staff is recommending the Commission approve the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan Advisory Review with the findings of fact that the location of the development is consistent with the policies in City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan, the character of the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment conforms with the City’s landscape and other design standards that are adopted by CSU, and the extent of the proposed development is integrated into the surrounding context through on-site and perimeter landscaping, accommodation of existing transit routes and utilities, public sidewalk improvements, ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 4 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 4 and access control to mitigate traffic operations. Schumann stated staff is also recommending a condition that the drive aisle on the Prospect entrance be extended to 75 feet. Commission Questions Commissioner Katz asked about the width of a section of the Lake Street frontage. Berry replied it is about 70 feet. Commissioner Katz asked if there is any articulation in that portion of the frontage. Berry replied it is fairly flat, though there is some depth change where the stone meets the wood paneling. Commissioner Katz asked about the width of the sections between the wood on the Prospect Road frontage. Berry replied they are about 75 feet. Commissioner Katz asked about the current building standards for width without articulation. Schumann replied it is 40 feet maximum. Berry read from the Code section discussing the way façade articulation can be accomplished. Commissioner Shepard asked about the ramp system. Berry showed the ramp location to the accessible waiting area for the bus stop, but noted some reevaluations of floodplain modeling are underway which may change the location a bit. Commissioner Shepard noted there is projected to be about two feet of water depth for the 100-year rain event in the plaza and asked if a floodplain use permit will be sought from the Stormwater Utility. Berry replied in the negative. Commissioner Shepard noted there is a great deal of water passing through the site and asked if the building entrances are flood proofed. Berry replied they are elevated above the floodplain and there are accessible exits to the east, west, and south that would not exit into the floodplain. Commissioner Shepard asked if the flooding diagram that was shown was FEMA or a City drainage basin. Fred Haberecht, applicant team, replied it is a CSU regulated floodplain which is modeled and maintained by CSU in consultation with the City. He noted CSU has an IGA with the City to maintain the floodplain and not exceed flows. Commissioner Shepard asked if there is on-site detention on the site. Megan Walter, Sunny Civil, replied the floodplain is regulated and by CSU and the floodplain map will be updated to show a no- rise in the flood elevation anywhere. Walter noted detention and water quality are City-regulated items and work has been done with City staff, but because the impervious area of the property is being reduced with this project, the requirement for traditional detention has been waived. Additionally, the water quality requirements of the City are being met by implementing water quality ponds throughout the site. Commissioner Shepard asked where the water goes. Walter replied it does flood, but then goes into an inlet, which will be improved with the project, that eventually leads to the Arthur Ditch. Commissioner York asked about the projected lifespan of the new building. Berry replied it is expected to be 30-50 years. Commissioner York noted that is less than the current buildings on the site. He asked about the location of the electrical boxes and whether they will be screened if they are external to the building. Berry replied they are working with City staff on transformer locations and stated one proposed location is along the east side of the site in a breezeway such that they are not visible. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 5 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 5 Commissioner York asked if the traffic study for the Prospect and Centre intersection included bike and pedestrian crossings made at-grade or via the tunnel. Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, replied the numbers represent the crossings at-grade. He stated levels of service are not necessarily evaluated for grade-separated crossings as they do not impact the overall traffic. Commissioner Shepard asked about the enhancement of landscaping along Prospect Road. Berry replied it is not yet in final form, but stated elements such as seating walls, planting beds, and colored concrete or pavers are being considered for the entrance to the pedestrian walkway. He noted there is also a detached sidewalk with a tree lawn further down Prospect and there will be decorative security fencing in front of the courtyards with planting beds likely in front of that. Commissioner Shepard asked if there would be street trees in the tree lawn. Berry replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Shepard asked if the lighting in the exposed areas would be concealed. Berry replied the intention is for a soft glow, though they could look into shielding the light sources. Public Participation Jorja White urged CSU STRATA to consider the direct impact this project will have on students. She commended the focus on transit access and adding extra bedrooms in the redevelopment plan and urged the developers to prioritize rental affordability. Applicant Response Pete Meyer, CSU STRATA Vice President of Real Estate, stated the mission of CSU STRATA is to work on behalf of CSU for the benefit of the students. He noted STRATA is a non-profit and has a fiduciary responsibility that must be balanced with the commitment to CSU. He stated the goal of the project is to provide a continued affordable option for students while also creating an atmosphere that students will enjoy. He also noted they are working with multiple groups to potentially provide housing options for some of the students currently living in Prospect Plaza. Commission Questions and Deliberation Commissioner Shepard asked about the details of the Lake Street improvements. Gilchrist replied that the Lake Street project is a joint project between the City and CSU and is primarily an active modes capital project. Commissioner Shepard asked if CSU STRATA is anticipated to participate financially in the project. Gilchrist replied that is a potential. Commissioner Katz stated this is one of the most intriguing apartment buildings he has seen from a design perspective; however, he expressed concern about the massing of the façades, and noted that, while there are color and material changes, he would like to see more projections and recessions in the design elements to create more articulation. Vice Chair Sass echoed Commissioner Katz’ comments and commended the attention that has been paid to the other sides of the building. Commissioner Shepard also concurred with the comments about articulation and commented on the well-done, generous landscaping along Prospect at Aggie Village North. He suggested that needs to be replicated in this project and encouraged the placement of street trees on 30- or 35-foot centers ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 6 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 6 rather than the required 40-foot centers to help mitigate the building mass. Chair Stackhouse encouraged the developer to keep the project as affordable as possible and stated that may be more important than having additional articulation. Commissioner Katz stated he would like to condition an approval on adding articulation, or he would be voting to deny the project. Vice Chair Sass stated it is important to understand that the Code is quite clear about accomplishing façade articulation and stated this building does not meet that standard. He stated he would like to add a condition as well. Schumann stated his measurements of the plans showed a 40-foot section on the Lake Street façade, and 70-75 feet along the east side of the building. Berry confirmed those measurements. Vice Chair Sass clarified he would like to see the first bay of the east façade have additional articulation, even if that is minimal. Commissioner Shepard and Vice Chair Katz concurred. Commissioner Peel requested staff input regarding their reasoning for recommending approval given the lack of articulation. Schumann replied there is a change in materials and he didn’t know the exact dimensions of each section of material offhand. He noted there is articulation at the ground floor. Additionally, he stated as he was examining the project within the SPAR criteria of location, character, and extent, and the building overall works within the context of CSU’s buildings and CSU’s own building design criteria. Chair Stackhouse asked the applicant to weigh in on whether there is any flexibility to add articulation. Berry stated he believed the charge of the Commission was to either approve or deny the project and make suggestions, with which the applicant could agree; however, it cannot make a decision with a condition. Frickey stated Division 6.11 of the Land Use Code states that conditions of approval are not applicable in SPAR reviews. Chair Stackhouse asked the applicant whether the articulation and landscaping suggestions would be taken into consideration. Berry replied that the applicant team has worked collaboratively with staff on this project and hopes for that to continue; however, the suggestions will need to be evaluated in terms of cost impact. He stated the suggestions could be evaluated. Commissioner Peel stated that while she understands the concerns of her fellow Commissioners, she is fine with the building as is. Commissioner York concurred there is a concern with the amount of massing lacking articulation, and noted that is of particular concern for pedestrians and cyclists. He expressed concern about the entirety of the CSU campus feeling like a large wall. Vice Chair, Sass requested clarification on the 75-foot drive aisle issue and asked how that should be handled procedurally given conditions cannot be made. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated the issue is presented within the staff report and sample motions as a condition and suggested it could be stated as a suggestion rather than a condition should the Commission desire. Chair Stackhouse expressed support for moving forward with approval given the dialogue that has occurred regarding the east side of the building and the landscaping, particularly given Colorado statutes for the SPAR process and the need for affordability. She also encouraged good decision making as final plans are brought forward. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 7 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 7 Commissioner Connelly also expressed support for moving forward with approval and commended the project. He stated he is confident the applicants will act in good faith to address the Commission’s concerns, but noted it is important the project is cost-effective. Commissioner Katz stated he would vote to deny the project as is, though he does want the project to move forward. Commissioner Shepard expressed sensitivity to the affordability issue but noted the project is not subject to City fees. He also commented on the positive change in CSU adding on-campus housing. Vice Chair Sass moved, seconded by Commissioner Connelly, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the development plan submitted showing the location, character, and extent thereof of the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment, SPA240003. This approval is pursuant with the Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-209, and is based on this Commission’s finding that the submitted site development plan meets the applicable Land Use Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 6.11.2(Q) with additional site development detail as described in the comment letter to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University system’s representative and the representative’s responses providing additional plan details satisfactory to support this approval. This decision is further based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion with the applicant on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this Site Plan Advisory Review contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: Shepard, Peel, Connelly, Sass and Stackhouse. Nays: Katz and York. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Stackhouse thanked Ms. White for coming forward with comments and asked that the concerns mentioned be taken into consideration. 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 a.Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 03/26/25 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet 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 Hearing: March 26, 2025 Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan, #ODP240001 This project is being reviewed under the Foundational 2024 Land Use Code https://www.fcgov.com/planning-development-services/luc Summary of Request This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for future phased expansion of a private school campus located northeast of the intersection of International Boulevard and Mexico Way in the Employment (E) zone district. The site is partially developed with an existing school and light industrial building, an existing street and block network, utilities, and basic stormwater infrastructure originally developed in Larimer County. The ODP identifies future land uses, including the private school, as well as potential site access points, an expanded pedestrian network, and approximate locations of natural features. Zoning Map Note: The site was annexed March 14, 2025, and the zoning map does not yet reflect its updated status as part of the City’s Employment (E) Zone District. Next Steps If the ODP is approved, future phased development will require individual Project Development Plan submittals and review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Site Location 2506 Zurich Dr #1 and undeveloped land northeast of the intersection of International Boulevard and Mexico Way. Applicant Angela Milewski, BHA Design, Inc. 111 S Meldrum St. #110 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Owner Michael Cuckler, Heritage Christian Academy 2506 Zurich Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Ryan Mounce, City Planner Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 2 2.Public Outreach ......................................... 4 3.Land Use Code Article 6 Procedural Standards .................................................. 5 4.Article 6 – Administration & Procedures, Overall Development Plan – Applicable Standards .................................................. 6 5.Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 9 6. Recommendation ....................................... 9 7. Attachments ............................................. 10 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Overall Development Plan. E Zone International Blvd. LMN Zone LMN Zone SITE (E Zone) Packet Pg. 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 2 of 10 Back to Top 1.Introduction A.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the proposed Overall Development Plan (ODP) is to guide future phased expansion of a private school campus, including additional classroom, administrative, and recreational/sports field facilities for the Heritage Christian Academy capable of supporting approximately 600 students. The school has been operating at its present location on the northeast portion of the ODP site for nearly two decades and has recently had upwards of 240 students enrolled. The ODP site, 19.76 acres in size, is located northeast of the intersection of International Boulevard and Mexico Way. The site is split approximately between 6 acres of existing development where the school and other light industrial businesses already operate, and 13 acres of vacant land spread across multiple parcels and blocks. The site was recently annexed into the City within the Employment (E) zone district. The applicants have identified a private school for elementary, intermediate, and high school as the principal land use sought across the entire ODP site. In addition, the ODP also includes notations to permit other primary and secondary uses in proportions required by the Employment zone district to preserve flexibility for interim or future development should plans for the enlarged school campus be delayed or scaled back, based on the school’s fundraising efforts. The primary goal of the ODP is to identify additional planning parameters under the City’s Land Use Codes for the pedestrian network, updated stormwater infrastructure, and the location of natural features and approximate buffer zone requirements. Other common ODP parameters such as street and block network and street connectivity are already in place across the site, developed in Larimer County as part of the Industrial Business Park International PUD. The anticipated expansion of school facilities will largely be based on fundraising efforts and the timing of future phases of the ODP is not known at this time. B. BACKGROUND 1.Current Conditions & Prior Development The school has been operating at 2506 Zurich Drive on the northeastern portion of the site for nearly two decades alongside other light-industrial businesses in an existing structure. The school also utilizes outdoor play/sports field areas to the east/southeast located between Zurich Drive and the Lake Canal. The school is seeking future expansion onto the other undeveloped portions of the site, which encompass a portion of the Industrial Business Park International PUD, approved in Larimer County in 1980. Various amendments to the PUD have changed the original parcel boundaries and removed a ‘cul-de-sac’ street that would have mimicked Rome Court in the preceding years. The Industrial Business Park International PUD and subsequent amendments were responsible for establishing the existing street & block network and installing basic utilities and stormwater infrastructure that remain across the site today. Mexico Way on the ODP’s western boundary was also recently upgraded to LCUASS and City standards when the Timbervine Neighborhood was constructed in the mid-2010s. The remaining streets/sidewalks within the ODP site do not meet current LCUASS standards and upgrades and long-term maintenance for the streets will be a key consideration during review of subsequent Project Development Plan (PDPs) as the school campus develops. The ODP was submitted and reviewed by staff concurrently with an application for annexation. The Heritage Annexation was recently completed, with City Council placing the entire ODP site into the Employment (E) Zone District. Second Reading of the annexation occurred at City Council on March 4, 2025. Packet Pg. 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 3 of 10 Back to Top 2.Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) & Larimer County Open (O) Employment (E) & Larimer County Industrial Light (IL) Larimer County Industrial Light (IL) Larimer County Industrial Light (IL) Land Use Single Unit, Single Unit Detached Dwellings & Manufactured Housing Community Undeveloped Land & Office / Light Industrial Office & Light Industrial Undeveloped Land & Office / Light Industrial / Retail C.CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE & CITY PLAN The City’s comprehensive plan, City Plan, embodies the vision and values of the community for the future and are reflected in the Land Use Code’s Purpose statements found in Section 1.2.2. The proposal specifically addresses the goals in City Plan and Land Use Code Purpose statements by requiring high-level planning of the site for future phases of development to ensure proper transportation connections, minimizing impacts to the natural environment by applying the City’s modern buffering standards, and setting up the site and future submittals for high quality design that can compatibly transition between an area of employment and light industrial uses to residential neighborhoods. This ODP specifically addresses the following 1.2.2 Purpose Statements: (J) Minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (K) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. (L) Fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all (M) Encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. Concurrent with the ODP review was the annexation and zoning of the property to the Employment (E) Zone District. This zoning designation also matches the guidance provided in City Plan’s Structure Plan which lists private schools as a principal land use within the zone district, as well as creating walkable campus environment. D.EAST MULBERRY PLAN The ODP site is located within the boundaries of the East Mulberry Plan, recently updated in December 2023. The proposed school campus expansion is consistent with the goals and land use guidance provided by this plan. Specifically, Goal 4, Community Amenities & Services, identifies the need for more services and amenities in the corridor which are presently lacking, including schools and education opportunities. The corridor currently lacks any Poudre School District schools, the nearest being over 1.8 miles away from near the center of the Mulberry Corridor and the project site. The private school campus expansion provides an additional option to consider in the corridor. Another key goal of the plan is Goal 1, Commercial and Industrial Hub, to ensure the overall corridor can maintain and grow as a key employment and light industrial base for the community and region. The school expansion can operate compatibly within an area of existing office and light industrial development while minimizing impacts to other adjacent industrial and employment users. The school has already been operating at its current location in an industrial park side-by-side in the same building as other light industrial users. Packet Pg. 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 4 of 10 Back to Top Finally, the project site is located in the ‘Transitional’ Character Area, which in part seeks to create a compatible transition between the more industrial ‘Airpark’ Character Area to the southwest and the residential neighborhoods south of Vine Drive adjacent to the ODP site. A school campus provides this transition, buffering the residential neighborhoods from potential impacts of light industrial development, ranging from noise, odors, or visual impacts such as outdoor storage. E.OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning parameters for projects that will be developed in multiple phases while allowing sufficient flexibility for detailed planning in subsequent submittals. The Heritage Christian Academy is planning a large expansion of their facilities; however, the timing is largely dependent on fundraising and the timeline for future submittals is uncertain. Against this context, the applicants are required to establish an ODP and basic planning parameters for the site to guide the future campus. In addition to establishing land uses and densities, ODPs often focus on future transportation networks and connectivity, such as establishing a framework for future streets, blocks, and street/multimodal connections to adjacent development. As the site has already undergone previous PUD approvals in Larimer County that established a pre-existing street and block network, the primary considerations during the ODP review have centered on establishing missing framework elements for a specific school campus use, such as more detail on a pedestrian network, and updates for high-level infrastructure planning, including stormwater management, an analysis of future traffic generation, and identifying existing natural features and buffering zones required for future submittals. From a community perspective, most of the interest and comments received about the project relate to access and traffic concerns, such as school drop-off and pick-up times and impacts to intersections such as Timberline Rd and International Boulevard. These questions have formed an important element for analysis in the project’s traffic study to setup more detailed planning and compliance in future Project Development Plan submissions. 2.Public Outreach A.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A joint neighborhood meeting for the ODP and Heritage Annexation took place on September 5, 2024. A meeting summary, including a link to a video recording, is attached. Comments and questions at the meeting focused primarily on transportation and traffic issues related to expansion or intensification of the school use. Concerns were raised about ensuring proper management for student drop-off and pick-up, as well as that the nearby intersection of Timberline Road and International Boulevard is not equipped to handle an influx of traffic. Concerns were also raised about ensuring better striping/bike lanes and providing additional connections to the overall area as only one street, International Boulevard, provides direct access to the industrial park and the Timbervine and Dry Creek neighborhoods. B.PUBLIC COMMENTS: Several email messages have been received to date for the project and staff will forward and any new or additional comments received between the public notice period and hearing to the Commission for their consideration. The handful of comments primarily relate to traffic and streets issues, such as additional traffic generation from the school expansion negatively impacting nearby streets, especially during drop-off and pick-up times, as well as questions regarding the status of street maintenance as it relates to school expansion and the annexation process. Packet Pg. 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 5 of 10 Back to Top 3. Land Use Code Article 6 Procedural Standards A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review for the ODP and annexation was held on March 8, 2024. 2. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting for the ODP and annexation was held on September 5, 2024. 3. First Submittal The ODP project, ODP240001, was initially submitted on September 20, 2024. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Concurrent with the Heritage Annexation Petition (ANX240001): August 6, 2024 (Sign #786) Written Hearing Notice: March 11, 2024, 939 letters sent Published Hearing Notice: March 13, 2025, Coloradoan Confirmation #11120287 Packet Pg. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 6 of 10 Back to Top 4.Article 6 – Administration & Procedures, Overall Development Plan – Applicable Standards A.DIVISION 6.5 – OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The purpose of this division is to outline the procedural requirements and applicable standards that can be applied to Overall Development Plans from across all Articles of the Land Use Code. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 6.5.2(I)(1) Overall Development Plan Standards –Permitted Uses & Zone District Standards This Section requires an ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and zone district standards found in Articles 2 and 4 and any Development Standards contained in Articles 3 and 5 that can be applied at the level of detail of an ODP. Permitted Uses – Employment (E) District The ODP identifies all parcels for Elementary, Intermediate, or High School uses and/or other Employment (E) Zoning Primary or Secondary Uses. The ODP intent is to fully utilize the entire site for a school campus while preserving flexibility for other primary or secondary uses permitted in the (E) zone district during interim periods while the campus develops or if changes in planned enrollment and fundraising reduce the eventual size of the future school footprint. Division 4.2, Table of Primary Uses, indicates that ‘Public/Private schools (elem., interm. & H.S.)’ is a permitted use in the (E) Zone District. Any other land uses proposed on the site under the ODP’s broader notes for Primary and Secondary uses will be reviewed during subsequent Project Development Plan (PDP) submittals for consistency with Permitted Uses in the Employment District. Section 2.5.2(B)(2), Secondary Uses, is a standard in the Employment District that categorizes permitted uses as either primary or secondary uses, and limits secondary uses to no more than 25% of the gross area of the development plan. The proposed ‘Public/Private schools (elem., interm. & H.S.)’ land use is considered a primary use and meets this requirement. Any other land uses which are considered secondary will be subject to restrictions to 25% of the gross area of the ODP if or when they are reviewed as part of subsequent PDP submittals. Complies 6.5.2(I)(2) Overall Development Plan Standards –Residential Density This standard requires an ODP to be consistent with the density ranges of the underlying zone district for any proposed residential uses. No direct residential land uses are proposed as part of the ODP. The Employment (E) District does contain a requirement that any residential development must be a minimum of 7 units per acre and this standard would be applied if residential uses are proposed during subsequent PDP submittals, alongside the secondary use restrictions which would limit residential uses to no more than 25% the gross area of the entire ODP site. Complies Packet Pg. 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 7 of 10 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 6.5.2(I)(3) & 6.5.2(I(4) - Overall Development Plan Standards –Master Street Plan, Street Connectivity, On-Site Access These standards require the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan and Street Pattern and Connectivity standards (Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.7) and also to conform with Transportation Level of Service requirements found in Section 5.4.10 and standards for On-Site Access in Section 5.9.1(C)(6). Section 5.4.5, Master Street Plan requires development applications to comply with the location and classification of streets on the City’s Master Street Plan, potentially accommodating future streets through right-of-way dedications. Within and along the ODP boundary, the Master Street Plan only identifies one street, International Boulevard, a 2-lane arterial. This section of roadway and right-of-way already exist along the site’s southern boundary. Section 5.4.7, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards, requires development applications to develop or extend local street systems that interconnect with adjacent development and the community’s collector and arterial street network, with specific standards for the spacing of streets. This ODP is somewhat unusual in that it is building upon an existing framework of streets established by a prior Larimer County PUD rather than establishing a brand new street network. In addition to the established street system, the presence of natural features and adjacent development prevents additional street connectivity. Regardless, the ODP and adjacent development is well- served by three north-south streets (Mexico Way, Munich Way, Zurich Drive) and two east-west streets (International Boulevard, Zurich Drive). The spacing of intersections along International Boulevard exceeds the minimum requirements of Section 5.4.7 which requires a maximum separation of 1,320 feet. The existing separation along International Boulevard between Zurich Drive and Munich Way is approximately 640 feet, and the separation between Munich Way and Mexico Way is approximately 630 feet. Section 5.4.7(E) requires developments to contribute towards developing a local street system that will eventually provide access to multiple arterial streets within the same section mile unless infeasible by unusual features, existing development, or natural features. Within the ODP boundary, additional street connectivity to contribute to this standard is not possible and the general vicinity will continue to lack access to multiple arterial streets due to the presence of natural features such as Dry Creek, the Lake Canal, and the BNSF Railroad switching yard along Vine Drive. Long-term, the City’s Master Street Plan identifies an extension of International Boulevard further to the west, eventually linking to Cordova Road which will provide additional arterial street access to Lemay Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Mulberry Road. This future connectivity is dependent on either additional development occurring along International Boulevard’s path or a City Capital Project. Section 5.4.7(F) requires local street connections to adjacent development at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. The ODP is primarily bounded by existing streets with the exception of its northern and northeastern boundary. At these locations, existing connectivity via Mexico Way already provides the necessary spacing interval to adjacent development or is infeasible due to the presence of a natural feature (Lake Canal) and no connecting opportunity in existing adjacent development. Complies Packet Pg. 15 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 8 of 10 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Finally, the ODP also complies with Transportation Level of Service requirements outlined in Section 5.4.10 and direct on-site access to individual destinations as required in Section 5.9.1(C)(6). The proposal plan and the existing framework of streets meets and exceeds LCUASS and connectivity standards and is establishing a new bike and pedestrian framework across the site to accommodate anticipated internal pedestrian traffic to meet individual destinations of the internal campus, complying with 5.9.1(C)(6). This pedestrian network is represented on the ODP map through a series of dotted lines creating a new north-south spine across ODP Parcels A & B, as well as an east-west spine on the southern portion of ODP Parcel A. In addition, the pedestrian connection is illustrated along all streets of the ODP, as with the exception of Mexico Way, future submittals will be required to establish street frontage improvements and installation of street sidewalks meeting LCUASS standards. Given a higher level of anticipated pedestrian traffic of the school campus, there is the opportunity to provide an enhanced street sidewalk network. The ODP also submitted a Traffic Impact Study with an assumption for a total of 600 students and relevant analysis for a school land use, including drop-off and pick-up queuing. While a final location for the drop-off area may change, it is currently anticipated to take place along the western section of ODP Parcel A. Based on the projected traffic to be generated by development within the ODP, the traffic study meets LCUASS Level of Service standards, including the Timberline/International intersection in the short term. The study indicates a traffic volume signal warrant is met under the long-range (2045) analysis, primarily due to growth in background traffic on Timberline Rd. The City’s Master Street Plan already anticipates future widening of Timberline Road to 4- lanes and a potential signalized intersection at International Boulevard as an arterial/arterial intersection at a half-mile spacing. 6.5.2(I)(5) – Overall Development Plan Standards – Natural Features These standards require an ODP to identify the general location and approximate size of natural habitats and features and potential buffer zones as required by Section 5.6.1(E). The project submitted an Ecological Characterization Study and alongside City Environmental Planning staff identified the following natural habitats and features on-site or in adjacent development, along with recommendations for establishing appropriate buffer zones or mitigation measures at the time of subsequent Project Development Plan reviews:  Lake Canal, primarily along ODP Parcel C’s northern/eastern boundary. Requirement: Establish 50-ft Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.  Offsite Stormwater Wetlands (adjacent Timbervine Development). Requirement: No buffer necessary as the feature does not extend onto ODP site and is separated by an existing fence.  Existing Naturalized Drainage Feature/Wetland within ODP Parcel B. Complies Packet Pg. 16 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 9 of 10 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings alternative mitigation including significant habitat uplift within designated stormwater areas on the southern portion of ODP Parcel A. 6.5.2(I)(6) – Overall Development Plan Standards – Drainage This standard requires the ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan for its location. The ODP has submitted a drainage report reviewed by City Stormwater Staff which complies with the Dry Creek Drainage Basin. The drainage report discusses both existing drainage infrastructure already installed on site as part of earlier development of the Industrial Business Park International PUD and additional infrastructure needed to support compliance with modern City standards during subsequent Project Development Plan reviews. Complies 6.5.2(I)(7) – Overall Development Plan Standards – Housing Mix This standard requires the ODP to apply any standards related to housing density and housing mix across the entire plan rather than future Project Development Plan reviews. At this time, this standard is not applicable. The ODP does not directly propose any housing. While up to 25% of the area could be developed as housing as part of broader flexibility to permit other Employment (E) District permitted uses, including residential, the E District does not contain specific requirements for housing mixes. N/A 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan, ODP240001, Staff makes the following findings of fact: (1) The Overall Development Plan complies with Section 1.2.2(A) of the Land Use Code and the City Plan Structure Plan, City Plan Principles and Policies, and associated policies and goals of the East Mulberry Plan. (2) The Overall Development Plan complies with applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 6 of the Land Use Code. (3) The Overall Development Plan complies with the applicable review standards for Overall Development Plans of Section 6.5.2(I)(1) through (7). 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Heritage Christan Overall Development Plan, ODP240001, based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report, staff report attachments, and hearing materials. Packet Pg. 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP240001 | Heritage Christian Academy ODP Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Page 10 of 10 Back to Top 7. Attachments 1. Applicant Project Narrative 2. Applicant Statement of Planning Principles & Policies 3. Overall Development Plan Map 4. Traffic Impact Study 5. Drainage Report 6. Ecological Characterization Study 7. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 8. Public Comments 9. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 18 Project Information and Design Narrative Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan September 18, 2024 Heritage Christian Academy is beginning its path towards becoming a full two-track school. As they grow to two tracks and double the size of the student body, Heritage Christian Academy must expand its facilities. To support the growth of the school, HCA has purchased approximately 13.6 acres of property located adjacent to, and west of, the existing school site within the Industrial Business Park International PUD, currently located in unincorporated Larimer County. On March 8, 2024, a Conceptual Review meeting was held with the City of Fort Collins and HCA was encouraged to begin with Annexation and Zoning of the property, followed by an Overall Development Plan since the planned expansions are likely to be phased. Annexation documents have been submitted to the City and are currently under review. This submittal of the Overall Development Plan (ODP) follows the request for Annexation and anticipated Employment (E) zoning of the property. The project phasing may change based on how the project is funded, but at this time is anticipated to begin with the lots south of Zurich Drive (approximately 10 acres) followed by the property north of Zurich Drive (approximately 3 acres). Roads and utilities are already existing within the ODP area, but required improvements will be determined and constructed as required to support each phase in compliance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and other applicable city codes. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Statement of Planning Objectives Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan September 18, 2024 Overview Heritage Christian Academy is beginning its path towards becoming a full two-track school. As they grow to two tracks and double the size of the student body, Heritage Christian Academy must expand its facilities. To support the growth of the school, HCA has purchased approximately 13.6 acres of property located adjacent to, and west of, the existing school site within the Industrial Business Park International PUD, currently located in unincorporated Larimer County. On March 8, 2024, a Conceptual Review meeting was held with the City of Fort Collins and HCA was encouraged to begin with Annexation and Zoning of the property, followed by an Overall Development Plan since the planned expansions are likely to be phased. Annexation documents have been submitted to the City and are currently under review. This submittal of the Overall Development Plan (ODP) follows the request for Annexation and anticipated Employment (E) zoning of the property. Existing Land Uses within the property include: Institutional/Civic/Public (school), and Vacant, undeveloped properties Existing adjacent land uses include: Commercial uses – south Residential uses – north Industrial uses – east Vacant, undeveloped property – west Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the ODP City plans governing and influencing the ODP area include: ·City Plan (updated 2019) ·East Mulberry Plan (updated December 5, 2023) ·Land Use Code Phase 1 Update (effective May 17, 2024), and ·Potential Land Use Code Phase 2 Updates (in progress) Appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: Neighborhood Livability and Social Health Principle LIV 1: Maintain a compact pattern of growth that is well served by public facilities and encourages the efficient use of land. The Overall Development Plan aligns with and helps to achieve applicable policies in this category. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 20 Policy LIV 1.1 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA (GMA) The proposed ODP is located within the City’s GMA, has historically been part of the East Mulberry Enclave and is currently being annexed into the City of Fort Collins. POLICY LIV 1.2 - AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA The proposed ODP maintains the GMA as currently configured. POLICY LIV 1.5 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICIES The proposed ODP allows for the use of standard City policies for public improvements to be implemented including developer participation in infrastructure upgrades. POLICY LIV 1.6 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES The proposed ODP includes developed properties already served by public utilities including water and sewer. Stormwater facilities exist on the site and will be modified as needed with future site development to meet City requirements. Public roads within the ODP area already exist, and future site development will allow additional pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be made based on City requirements. Environmental Health Policy ENV 1.6 – WILDLIFE CORRIDORS The ODP identifies and protects the adjacent Lake Canal corridor and implements a 50’ buffer for any future development or redevelopment. Safe Community Policy SC 3 – FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT The ODP does not allow for development within any mapped 100-year floodplain or hazard area. In addition, the ODP supports applicable goals of the East Mulberry Plan including: Goal 1: COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL HUB by fostering a healthy and prosperous commercial and industrial hub for the City, while remaining viable for small businesses and industry, and 1.T.1 by maintaining flexibility for future land uses that act as a buffer between industrial and residential areas, thereby supporting the continued viability of industrial and commercial areas. Description of existing and proposed open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, wetlands and natural areas The ODP property includes both a developed site and undeveloped lots within the Industrial Business Park International Plat. The developed lots include the former industrial building that now houses the Heritage Christian Academy and a smaller leased space. A playground and softball/baseball field and playground are located east of the school. The intent is to retain the existing school building facilities and parking, and to develop new school facilities on the undeveloped parcels in phases over time. The final locations of buildings, parking, open space and landscaping will be determined with site-specific development plans for the property. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 21 Lake Canal is adjacent to the northeast boundary of the property near the current school site. The Ecological Characterization Study indicates the canal as a wildlife corridor and recommends a 50-foot buffer which has been indicated on the ODP plan. No new facilities are planned within the buffer area. Two offsite stormwater wetlands exist associated with the Timbervine neighborhood detention ponds. These stormwater wetlands are greater than 1/3 without significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds, which warrants a 100-foot buffer to create a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. However, since the existing 6’ height privacy fence limits the value of a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone south of the fence, no buffer is indicated on the ODP property in this location based on the recommendations of the Ecological Characterization Study. The existing school site includes landscaping (trees and shrubs) along the building perimeter and within the parking areas. The remainder of the ODP property west and southwest of the school site is undeveloped containing dryland grass vegetation and existing stormwater channels. Future development areas will include landscaping to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. Public streets in the ODP area exist including Zurich Drive, Mexico Way, Munich Way and International Boulevard. Sidewalks exist on Zurich Drive west to Munich Way, on the north side of International Boulevard, and on the east side of Mexico Way. The existing school has three access drives on Zurich Drive. Future development will allow for the completion of continuous sidewalk connections within the ODP area. Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses ·Existing HCA Population: 38 staff and 250-290 students (this has fluctuated over the last couple of years) ·Proposed maximum population of entire campus with new development: 60 staff and 600 students Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant The ODP allows for the expansion of the growing Heritage Christian Academy. The ODP is required since the planned expansions are likely to be designed and constructed in more than one phase. The ODP follows the recent request for Annexation and anticipated Employment (E) zoning of the property and cannot be approved until the Annexation and Zoning are complete. Once the ODP is approved, the intent is to move forward with fundraising and future design of the initial phase(s) of the school’s expansion. These subsequent site-specific development plans will require approval by the City of Fort Collins and must comply with city standards and codes. Written narrative addressing each /issue raised at the neighborhood meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on September 5 at the Heritage Christian Academy. Key questions/concerns raised were regarding traffic – specifically concerns regarding the safety at ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 22 the intersection of International Boulevard and North Timberline Road. The ODP includes a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that outlines the impacts that the proposed development would have on the existing facilities. The TIS demonstrates the ODP’s compliance with the standards of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for traffic at the time of development. Future developments within the ODP area will include additional project-specific Traffic Impact Studies to determine improvements required with each development phase. There was a question if the school’s planned athletic fields would be lighted. This has not yet been determined, but details for any planned site and field lighting will be required to be reviewed at the time of site development (Project Development Plan) and must meet the standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Name of the project as well as any previous name(s) the project may have been known by · Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan · Heritage Annexation (pending) · Part of Industrial Business Park International PUD (unincorporated Larimer County) A narrative description of how conflicts between land uses are being avoided or mitigated A K-12 school use is a compatible use with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial/industrial uses. The existing land uses to the east of the ODP area include the existing Heritage Christian Academy and a variety of Industrial uses. The planned ODP will integrate with the existing school to create a campus of facilities for the Heritage Christian Academy students. The nearest residential use is the southernmost multifamily building in the Timbervine neighborhood and is located over 80’ from the ODP boundary and separated from the property by a 6’ height privacy fence, pedestrian path and a stormwater detention pond. This existing buffer minimizes potential conflicts between the residential neighborhood and the proposed school use. The property west of the ODP area is undeveloped, but likely to develop as similar commercial/industrial uses supported by the East Mulberry Plan. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 25 This document, together with the concepts and recommendations presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization from Kellar Engineering LLC shall be without liability to Kellar Engineering LLC. Heritage Christian Academy Expansion 2506 Zurich Drive, Fort Collins, CO Traffic Impact Study KE Job #2024-044 Prepared for: United Civil Design Group 19 Old Town Square #238 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: skellar@kellarengineering.com www.kellarengineering.com 970.219.1602 phone January 16, 2025 Sean K. Kellar, PE, PTOE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 26 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Existing Conditions and Roadway Network 3 2.1 Recent Traffic Volumes 4 3.0 Proposed Development 7 4.0 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities (Multi-Modal LOS) 7 4.1 Trip Generation 7 4.2 Trip Distribution 8 4.3 Traffic Assignment 8 4.4 Short Range and Long Range Total Peak Hour Traffic 8 5.0 Traffic Operation Analysis 18 5.1 Analysis Methodology 18 5.2 Intersection Operational Analysis 18 5.3 Stacking Length for Parent Drop-off 18 5.4 Internal Drop-off/Pick-up Area Circulation 19 5.5 MUTCD Signal Warrant Analysis 27 6.0 Findings 30 List of Figures: Page Figure 1: Vicinity Map 5 Figure 2: Site Plan 6 Figure 3: Recent Peak Hour Traffic 10 Figure 4: 2025 Background Peak Hour Traffic 11 Figure 5: 2045 Background Peak Hour Traffic 12 Figure 6: Trip Distribution 13 Figure 7: Site Generated Traffic (Phase 1) 14 Figure 8: Site Generated Traffic (Phase 1 + Build-Out) 15 Figure 9: 2025 Short Range Total (Phase 1) 16 Figure 10: 2045 Long Range Total (Phase 1 + Build-Out) 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 27 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Tables: Page Table 1: Trip Generation 9 Table 2: Recent Peak Hour Operations 20 Table 3: 2025 Background Peak Hour LOS Operations 21 Table 4: 2045 Background Peak Hour LOS Operations 22 Table 5: 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour LOS Operations 23 Table 6: 2045 Long Range Total Peak Hour LOS Operations 25 Appendices: Page Appendix A: Recent Traffic Counts 32 Appendix B: Base Assumptions (TIS Scoping Form) 36 Appendix C: Level of Service (LOS) Tables 37 Appendix D: Queue Length 38 Appendix E: HCM Calculations (Synchro) 40 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 28 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 3 1.0 Introduction This Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is for the proposed Heritage Christian Academy (HCA) expansion project located at 2506 Zurich Drive in Fort Collins, CO. The purpose of this TIS is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential traffic related impacts on the adjacent street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified traffic impacts. Kellar Engineering LLC (KE) has prepared the TIS to document the results of anticipated traffic conditions in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) and to identify any projected impacts to the transportation system. Full build- out of the project site is anticipated to generate an additional total of approximately 893 daily weekday trips, 284 AM total peak hour trips, and 191 School PM total peak hour trips. See Table 1: Trip Generation. 2.0 Existing Conditions and Roadway Network The project site is located west of the Timberline Rd/International Blvd intersection in Fort Collins, CO. Timberline Road is a north-south roadway that is classified as a 4-lane arterial on the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. The posted speed of Timberline Road is 45 mph south of International Blvd, and 35 mph north of International Blvd. Bicycle lanes exist on Timberline Road. This portion of Timberline Rd has a two-lane cross section with a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane. The Timberline Rd/International Blvd intersection has stop sign control with the stop sign facing International Blvd. International Blvd is an east-west roadway that is classified as a 2-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. A sidewalk exists along the north side of International Blvd. International Blvd has an eastbound left-turn lane and an eastbound right-turn lane at the International Blvd/Timberline Rd intersection. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 29 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 4 2.1 Recent Traffic Volumes Recent peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted using data collection cameras on Tuesday, 9/24/24 when school was in session. The traffic counts were conducted during the peak hours of adjacent street traffic in 15-minute intervals from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. These turning movement counts are shown in Figure 3 with the count sheets provided in Appendix A. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 30 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 5 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 31 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 6 Figure 2: Site Plan (For reference only. Provided by Architect. See Architectural Drawings for more information) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 32 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 7 3.0 Proposed Development The proposed project consists of an expansion of the existing Heritage Christian Academy. See Table 1: Trip Generation and Figure 2: Site Plan. 4.0 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities (Multi-Modal LOS) The proposed project will be designing and constructing a sidewalk along the north side of Zurich Drive that will connect to the existing sidewalk at the Mexico Way/Zurich Drive intersection. This will tie into the existing neighborhood’s sidewalk system to the northwest of the project site. This sidewalk connection will provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity per the LCUASS criteria. See Figure 2: Site Plan. As cities continue to grow and become more urban, the emphasis upon all modes of transportation becomes more important. The following addresses the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that will be available in the vicinity of the project site. The residential area to the northwest was identified as a pedestrian destination within 1,320 feet of the project site. The LOS for the pedestrian LOS categories will be B or higher with the proposed development for the measured categories. The residential area to the northwest was also identified as a bicycle destination. The LOS for bicycle connectivity is B. An existing transit stop (Bus Stop ID: 1600) exists at Timberline/Donella approximately 850’ south of the Timberline/International intersection. Due to the proposed use, transit use is anticipated to be nominal for the project site. Looking at long-term pedestrian and bicycle (ped/bike) needs for the area in the future, the intersection of Timberline/International will likely need more ped/bike connectivity in the future. Additionally, a long-term secondary point of ped/bike access for the existing neighborhood to the west will likely be needed. It is recommended that the City work with future development and capital projects to provide these ped/bike connections. 4.1 Trip Generation Site generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 33 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 8 Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip generation rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. For this study, KE used the ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual average trip rates. Since traffic on the adjacent streets and intersections is highest during the weekday peak hours, this study analyzed the weekday peak hour traffic. Full build-out of the project site is anticipated to generate an additional total of approximately 893 daily weekday trips, 284 AM total peak hour trips, and 191 School PM total peak hour trips. See Table 1: Trip Generation. 4.2 Trip Distribution Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns and volumes, anticipated surrounding development areas, and the proposed access system for the project. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of site generated traffic that approaches the site from a given direction and departs the site back to the original source. Figure 6 illustrates the trip distribution used for the project’s analysis. 4.3 Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment was obtained by applying the trip distributions to the estimated trip generation of the development. Figure 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. 4.4 Short Range and Long Range Total Peak Hour Traffic Site generated peak hour traffic volumes were added to the background traffic volumes to represent the estimated traffic conditions for the short range 2025 horizon and long range 2045 horizon. The background (2025) and short range (2025) total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 8 respectively. The long range background (2045) and long range (2045) total traffic volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 9. The traffic analysis in this study includes the traffic generated from the proposed development plus the increase in background traffic of 2% per year per the growth projections from the NFRMPO (North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization). ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 34 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 9 Table 1: Trip Generation (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition) ITE Code Land Use Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips School PM Peak Hour Trips Size Rate Total Rate % In In % Out Out Total Rate % In In % Out Out Total 532 Private School (K-12) - Phase 1 90 Stdnts (new) 2.48 223 0.79 63% 45 37% 26 71 0.53 42% 20 58% 28 48 532 Private School (K-12) -Build-Out 270 Stdnts (new) 2.48 670 0.79 63% 134 37% 79 213 0.53 42% 60 58% 83 143 Total 360 Stdnts (new) 893 179 105 284 80 111 191 Stdts = Students *Existing HCA Population: ~240 Students **240 Students (existing) + 90 Students (Phase 1) + 270 Students (Build-Out) = 600 Students (Total) ITEM 2, Packet Pg. 35 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 10 Figure 3: Recent Peak Hour Traffic ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 36 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 11 Figure 4: 2025 Background Traffic ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 37 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 12 Figure 5: 2045 Background Traffic ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 38 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 13 Figure 6: Trip Distribution ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 39 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 14 Figure 7: Site Generated Traffic (Phase 1) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 40 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 15 Figure 8: Site Generated Traffic (Phase 1 + Build-Out) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 41 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 16 Figure 9: 2025 Short Range Total (Phase 1) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 42 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 17 Figure 10: 2045 Long Range Total (Phase 1 + Build-Out) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 43 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 18 5.0 Traffic Operation Analysis KE’s analysis of traffic operations in the site vicinity was conducted to determine the capacity at the identified intersection. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the Highway Capacity Manual. 5.1 Analysis Methodology Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. LOS ranges from an A (very little delay) to an F (long delays). A description of the level of service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual are provided in Appendix E. 5.2 Intersection Operational Analysis Operational analysis was performed for the short range 2025 horizon and the long range 2045 horizon. The calculations for this analysis are provided in Appendix E. Using the short range total traffic volumes, the project is projected to operate acceptably with all studied intersections and access points meeting LCUASS LOS criteria. See Table 4: 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation. 5.3 Stacking Length for Parent Drop-off The main drop-off/pick-up area is at the western portion of the site east of Mexico Way. Full build-out student enrollment is approximately 600 students. To be conservative, 600 vehicles were used in the queuing length (stacking length) calculation. Using an average 1-minute drop- off time and an average vehicle length of 26’, the total required on-site stacking length will be approximately 260’ (10 vehicles). The parent drop-off area is adequately designed to handle this stacking length onsite. This is conservative considering that some students will be walking to school and some parents may carpool. It is important to note that at the beginning of the school year parents may take more time when dropping off the students and the average drop- off time may exceed 1 minute. However, it is anticipated that the student drop-off time will reduce after the first couple weeks of school when the parents and students have developed a more efficient routine. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 44 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 19 5.4 Internal Drop-off / Pick-up Area Circulation The internal drop-off/pick-up area is at the western portion of the site east of Mexico Way. This area is designed appropriately to handle the school’s drop-off/pick-up circulation. The internal drop-off/pick-up area is designed adequately to handle adequate vehicle stacking length onsite. One-way traffic circulation is recommended for the parent drop-off area within the parking area for efficient traffic circulation. Additionally, it is recommended that the school implement trained staff and/or trained volunteers (wearing proper PPE) to help direct traffic during the peak drop- off/pick-up times. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 45 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 20 Table 2: Recent Peak Hour Operations Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS Timberline Rd/International Blvd (Stop-Control)EB Left F (56.7 sec) E (45.6 sec)Y EB Right E (49.3 sec) B Y EB Approach E (49.9 sec) C Y NB Left B A Y NB Thru A A Y NB Approach A A Y SB Thru A A Y SB Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y Overall A A Y Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS International Blvd/Mexico Way EB Left/Thru A A Y EB Approach A A Y WB Thru/Right A A Y WB Approach A A Y SB Left/Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 46 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 21 Table 3: 2025 Background Peak Hour Operations Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS Timberline Rd/International Blvd (Stop-Control)EB Left F (60.6 sec) E (48.0 sec)Y EB Right F (54.9 sec) B Y EB Approach F (55.4 sec) C Y NB Left B A Y NB Thru A A Y NB Approach A A Y SB Thru A A Y SB Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y Overall B A Y Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS International Blvd/Mexico Way EB Left/Thru A A Y EB Approach A A Y WB Thru/Right A A Y WB Approach A A Y SB Left/Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 47 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 22 Table 4: 2045 Background Peak Hour Operations Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS Timberline Rd/International Blvd (Stop-Control)EB Left F (*)F (*) EB Right F (*)D EB Approach F (*) F (71.3 sec) NB Left C B NB Thru A A NB Approach A A SB Thru A A SB Right A A SB Approach A A Overall F (121.3 sec) B *Delay computation exceeds 300 sec. See Synchro outputs in Appendix for more information Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS International Blvd/Mexico Way EB Left/Thru A A EB Approach A A WB Thru/Right A A WB Approach A A SB Left/Right A B SB Approach A B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 48 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 23 Table 5: 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operations Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS Timberline Rd/International Blvd (Stop-Control)EB Left F (84.1 sec) F (55.2 sec)Y EB Right F (67.6 sec) B Y EB Approach F (69.0 sec) C Y NB Left B A Y NB Thru A A Y NB Approach A A Y SB Thru A A Y SB Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y Overall B A Y Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS International Blvd/Mexico Way EB Left/Thru A A Y EB Approach A A Y WB Thru/Right A A Y WB Approach A A Y SB Left/Right A A Y SB Approach A A Y ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 49 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 24 Table 5: 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operations (Continued…) Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS International Blvd/Zurich Dr EB Left/Thru A A Y EB Approach A A Y WB Thru/Right A A Y WB Approach A A Y SB Left/Right B B Y SB Approach B B Y Level of Service (LOS)LOS ComplianceIntersectionMovementAMPM LOS LOS International Blvd/Munich Way EB Left/Thru A A Y EB Approach A A Y WB Thru/Right A A Y WB Approach A A Y SB Left/Right B B Y SB Approach B B Y ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 50 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 25 Table 6: 2045 Long Range Total Peak Hour Operations Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS Timberline Rd/International Blvd (Stop-Control)EB Left F (*)F (*) EB Right F (*) F (51.7 sec) EB Approach F (*) F (194.6 sec) NB Left F (55.2 sec) B NB Thru A A NB Approach A A SB Thru A A SB Right A A SB Approach A A Overall F (*)D *Delay computation exceeds 300 sec. See Synchro outputs in Appendix for more information Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS International Blvd/Mexico Way EB Left/Thru A A EB Approach A A WB Thru/Right A A WB Approach A A SB Left/Right B B SB Approach B B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 51 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 26 Table 6: 2045 Long Range Total Peak Hour Operations (Continued…) Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS International Blvd/Zurich Dr EB Left/Thru A A EB Approach A A WB Thru/Right A A WB Approach A A SB Left/Right C C SB Approach C C Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Movement AM PM LOS LOS International Blvd/Munich Way EB Left/Thru A A EB Approach A A WB Thru/Right A A WB Approach A A SB Left/Right C B SB Approach C B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 52 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 27 5.5 MUTCD Signal Warrants The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based upon the warrants set forth in Chapter 4 in the MUTCD. The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based solely upon the warrants, since the installation of traffic signals may increase certain types of crashes. Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver expectations, and land use must also be evaluated. The installation of a traffic control signal should be considered if one or more of the following traffic signal warrants are met: • Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3: Peak Hour • Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume • Warrant 5: School Crossing • Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System • Warrant 7: Crash Experience • Warrant 8: Roadway Network • Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. For this analysis, KE conducted the peak hour signal warrant as the peak hour warrant is the easiest signal warrant that could be met at a stop-control intersection and therefore the most conservative approach. The peak hour traffic signal warrant is not projected to be met at the Timberline Rd/International Blvd intersection for the 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour scenario. See below figures for more information. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 53 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 28 2025 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Warrant Not Met at Timberline Rd/International Blvd (1407, 28) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 54 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 29 2025 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Warrant Not Met at Timberline Rd/International Blvd (1285, 24) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 55 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 30 6.0 Findings Based upon the analysis in this study, the proposed Heritage Christian Academy expansion project located at 2506 Zurich Drive in Fort Collins, CO demonstrates compliance with the standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for traffic at the time of development. The findings of the TIS are summarized below: Full build-out of the proposed project is anticipated to generate an additional total of approximately 893 daily weekday trips, 284 AM total peak hour trips, and 191 School PM total peak hour trips. The project complies with the Levels of Service (LOS) requirements for traffic, the City of Fort Collins Transportation Plan, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). The study intersections will operate acceptably and comply with the intersection levels of service (LOS) requirements in the LCUASS with the development of the project and background traffic in the 2025 Short Range Total future. The peak hour traffic signal warrant is not projected to be met at the Timberline Rd/International Blvd intersection for the 2025 Short Range Total Peak Hour scenario Due to the increase in traffic volumes on Timberline Road, the traffic model results show the potential for unacceptable LOS for the year 2045 long range total future at the Timberline Rd/International Blvd intersection. A traffic signal or roundabout intersection improvement project should be considered by City as a possible long range regional improvement in the future. The existing street improvements are sufficient to accommodate the proposed project’s traffic in accordance with the LCUASS criteria. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 56 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 31 APPENDICES: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 57 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 32 Appendix A: Recent Traffic Counts ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 58 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 33 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 59 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 34 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 60 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 35 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 61 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 36 Appendix B: Base Assumptions (TIS Scoping Form) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 62 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 37 Appendix C: Level of Service (LOS) Table Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection (LOS)Average Total Delay Average Total Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh) A B C D E > 35 F > 80 > 50 LCUASS Table 4-2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 63 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 38 Appendix D: Queue Length ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 64 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 39 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 65 HCA Expansion TIS -Page 40 Appendix E: HCM Calculations (Synchro) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 66 Recent AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 265 159 307 803 67 Future Vol, veh/h 24 265 159 307 803 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 288 173 334 873 73 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1553 873 946 0 - 0 Stage 1 873 - - - - - Stage 2 680 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 125 349 725 - - - Stage 1 409 - - - - - Stage 2 503 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 95 349 725 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 95 - - - - - Stage 1 311 - - - - - Stage 2 503 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 49.9 3.9 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)725 - 95 349 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.238 - 0.275 0.825 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 - 56.7 49.3 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 1 7.3 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 67 Recent AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 65 16 24 57 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 65 16 24 57 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 71 17 26 62 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 43 0 - 0 101 30 Stage 1 - - - - 30 - Stage 2 - - - - 71 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1566 - - - 898 1044 Stage 1 - - - - 993 - Stage 2 - - - - 952 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1566 - - - 898 1044 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 898 - Stage 1 - - - - 993 - Stage 2 - - - - 952 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1566 - - - 898 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.069 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A - - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 68 Recent PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 153 173 574 463 31 Future Vol, veh/h 20 153 173 574 463 31 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 166 188 624 503 34 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1503 503 537 0 - 0 Stage 1 503 - - - - - Stage 2 1000 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 134 569 1031 - - - Stage 1 607 - - - - - Stage 2 356 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 110 569 1031 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 110 - - - - - Stage 1 497 - - - - - Stage 2 356 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.6 2.1 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1031 - 110 569 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.182 - 0.198 0.292 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 45.6 13.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - E B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0.7 1.2 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 69 Recent PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 43 62 34 51 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 43 62 34 51 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 47 67 37 55 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 104 0 - 0 135 86 Stage 1 - - - - 86 - Stage 2 - - - - 49 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1488 - - - 859 973 Stage 1 - - - - 937 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1488 - - - 858 973 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 858 - Stage 1 - - - - 936 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1488 - - - 858 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.065 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 70 2025 Background AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 270 162 313 819 68 Future Vol, veh/h 24 270 162 313 819 68 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 293 176 340 890 74 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1582 890 964 0 - 0 Stage 1 890 - - - - - Stage 2 692 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 120 342 714 - - - Stage 1 401 - - - - - Stage 2 497 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 90 342 714 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 90 - - - - - Stage 1 302 - - - - - Stage 2 497 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 55.4 4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)714 - 90 342 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.247 - 0.29 0.858 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.7 - 60.6 54.9 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 1.1 7.9 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 71 2025 Background AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 66 16 24 58 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 66 16 24 58 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 72 17 26 63 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 43 0 - 0 102 30 Stage 1 - - - - 30 - Stage 2 - - - - 72 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1566 - - - 896 1044 Stage 1 - - - - 993 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1566 - - - 896 1044 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 896 - Stage 1 - - - - 993 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1566 - - - 896 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.07 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A - - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 72 2025 Background PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 156 176 585 472 32 Future Vol, veh/h 20 156 176 585 472 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 170 191 636 513 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1531 513 548 0 - 0 Stage 1 513 - - - - - Stage 2 1018 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 129 561 1021 - - - Stage 1 601 - - - - - Stage 2 349 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 105 561 1021 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 105 - - - - - Stage 1 489 - - - - - Stage 2 349 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18 2.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1021 - 105 561 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 - 0.207 0.302 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 48 14.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - E B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0.7 1.3 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 73 2025 Background PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 44 63 35 52 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 44 63 35 52 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 48 68 38 57 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 106 0 - 0 137 87 Stage 1 - - - - 87 - Stage 2 - - - - 50 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1485 - - - 856 971 Stage 1 - - - - 936 - Stage 2 - - - - 972 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1485 - - - 855 971 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 855 - Stage 1 - - - - 935 - Stage 2 - - - - 972 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1485 - - - 855 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.066 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 74 2045 Background AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 121.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 402 241 465 1217 102 Future Vol, veh/h 36 402 241 465 1217 102 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 437 262 505 1323 111 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2352 1323 1434 0 - 0 Stage 1 1323 - - - - - Stage 2 1029 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 39 ~ 191 474 - - - Stage 1 249 - - - - - Stage 2 345 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 17 ~ 191 474 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 17 - - - - - Stage 1 111 - - - - - Stage 2 345 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s$ 670.2 7.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)474 - 17 191 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.553 - 2.302 2.288 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 21.6 -$ 1062.1$ 635.1 - - HCM Lane LOS C - F F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.3 - 5.5 35.4 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 75 2045 Background AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 99 24 36 86 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 99 24 36 86 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 108 26 39 93 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 154 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 108 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1537 - - - 838 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 916 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1537 - - - 838 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 838 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 916 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1537 - - - 838 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.112 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.8 HCM Lane LOS A - - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 76 2045 Background PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 232 262 870 702 47 Future Vol, veh/h 30 232 262 870 702 47 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 33 252 285 946 763 51 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2279 763 814 0 - 0 Stage 1 763 - - - - - Stage 2 1516 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 44 404 813 - - - Stage 1 460 - - - - - Stage 2 200 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 29 404 813 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 29 - - - - - Stage 1 299 - - - - - Stage 2 200 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 71.3 2.7 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)813 - 29 404 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.35 - 1.124 0.624 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 -$ 409.3 27.6 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 3.7 4.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 77 2045 Background PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 65 94 52 77 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 65 94 52 77 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 71 102 57 84 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 159 0 - 0 206 131 Stage 1 - - - - 131 - Stage 2 - - - - 75 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 - - - 782 919 Stage 1 - - - - 895 - Stage 2 - - - - 948 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 - - - 781 919 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 781 - Stage 1 - - - - 894 - Stage 2 - - - - 948 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 10.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1420 - - - 781 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.107 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 10.2 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 78 2025 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 14.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 292 200 313 819 75 Future Vol, veh/h 28 292 200 313 819 75 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 30 317 217 340 890 82 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1664 890 972 0 - 0 Stage 1 890 - - - - - Stage 2 774 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 107 342 709 - - - Stage 1 401 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 74 342 709 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 74 - - - - - Stage 1 278 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 69 4.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)709 - 74 342 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 - 0.411 0.928 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 - 84.1 67.6 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - 1.6 9.5 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 79 2025 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 5: International Blvd & Zurich Dr 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 312 260 15 8 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 312 260 15 8 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 339 283 16 9 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 299 0 - 0 630 291 Stage 1 - - - - 291 - Stage 2 - - - - 339 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1262 - - - 446 748 Stage 1 - - - - 759 - Stage 2 - - - - 722 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1262 - - - 446 748 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 446 - Stage 1 - - - - 759 - Stage 2 - - - - 722 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1262 - - - 446 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.019 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 13.2 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 80 2025 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 7: International Blvd & Munich Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 303 245 15 9 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 303 245 15 9 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 329 266 16 10 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 282 0 - 0 603 274 Stage 1 - - - - 274 - Stage 2 - - - - 329 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1280 - - - 462 765 Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 729 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1280 - - - 462 765 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 462 - Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 729 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1280 - - - 462 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.021 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 13 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 81 2025 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 66 16 39 67 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 66 16 39 67 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 72 17 42 73 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 59 0 - 0 110 38 Stage 1 - - - - 38 - Stage 2 - - - - 72 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - - 887 1034 Stage 1 - - - - 984 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - - 887 1034 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 887 - Stage 1 - - - - 984 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1545 - - - 887 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.082 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 82 2025 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 180 193 585 472 35 Future Vol, veh/h 24 180 193 585 472 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 196 210 636 513 38 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1569 513 551 0 - 0 Stage 1 513 - - - - - Stage 2 1056 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 122 561 1019 - - - Stage 1 601 - - - - - Stage 2 335 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 97 561 1019 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 97 - - - - - Stage 1 477 - - - - - Stage 2 335 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.6 2.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1019 - 97 561 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.206 - 0.269 0.349 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - 55.2 14.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - F B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 1 1.6 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 83 2025 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 5: International Blvd & Zurich Dr 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 195 222 6 9 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 195 222 6 9 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 212 241 7 10 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 248 0 - 0 457 245 Stage 1 - - - - 245 - Stage 2 - - - - 212 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1318 - - - 562 794 Stage 1 - - - - 796 - Stage 2 - - - - 823 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1318 - - - 562 794 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 562 - Stage 1 - - - - 796 - Stage 2 - - - - 823 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1318 - - - 562 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.5 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 84 2025 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 7: International Blvd & Munich Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 186 215 7 9 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 186 215 7 9 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 202 234 8 10 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 242 0 - 0 440 238 Stage 1 - - - - 238 - Stage 2 - - - - 202 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1324 - - - 574 801 Stage 1 - - - - 802 - Stage 2 - - - - 832 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1324 - - - 574 801 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 574 - Stage 1 - - - - 802 - Stage 2 - - - - 832 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1324 - - - 574 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 85 2025 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 44 63 42 62 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 44 63 42 62 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 48 68 46 67 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 114 0 - 0 141 91 Stage 1 - - - - 91 - Stage 2 - - - - 50 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1475 - - - 852 967 Stage 1 - - - - 933 - Stage 2 - - - - 972 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1475 - - - 851 967 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 851 - Stage 1 - - - - 932 - Stage 2 - - - - 972 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1475 - - - 851 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.079 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 86 2045 Long Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 459.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 491 393 465 1217 129 Future Vol, veh/h 52 491 393 465 1217 129 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 57 534 427 505 1323 140 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2682 1323 1463 0 - 0 Stage 1 1323 - - - - - Stage 2 1359 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 24 ~ 191 462 - - - Stage 1 249 - - - - - Stage 2 239 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 2 ~ 191 462 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 2 - - - - - Stage 1 ~ 19 - - - - - Stage 2 239 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s$ 2282.5 25.3 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)462 - 2 191 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.925 -28.261 2.794 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 55.2 -$ 15717.7$ 859.6 - - HCM Lane LOS F - F F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 10.7 - 9.1 47.1 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 87 2045 Long Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 5: International Blvd & Zurich Dr 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 508 463 59 35 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 508 463 59 35 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 552 503 64 38 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 567 0 - 0 1087 535 Stage 1 - - - - 535 - Stage 2 - - - - 552 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1005 - - - 239 545 Stage 1 - - - - 587 - Stage 2 - - - - 577 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1005 - - - 239 545 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 239 - Stage 1 - - - - 587 - Stage 2 - - - - 577 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 22.9 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1005 - - - 239 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.159 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 22.9 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 88 2045 Long Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 7: International Blvd & Munich Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 473 403 60 35 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 473 403 60 35 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 514 438 65 38 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 503 0 - 0 985 471 Stage 1 - - - - 471 - Stage 2 - - - - 514 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 275 593 Stage 1 - - - - 628 - Stage 2 - - - - 600 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 275 593 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 275 - Stage 1 - - - - 628 - Stage 2 - - - - 600 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 20.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1061 - - - 275 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.138 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 20.2 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 89 2045 Long Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 99 24 96 121 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 99 24 96 121 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 108 26 104 132 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 130 0 - 0 186 78 Stage 1 - - - - 78 - Stage 2 - - - - 108 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - - 803 983 Stage 1 - - - - 945 - Stage 2 - - - - 916 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - - 803 983 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 803 - Stage 1 - - - - 945 - Stage 2 - - - - 916 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1455 - - - 803 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.164 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 90 2045 Long Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 2: Timberline Rd & International Blvd 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 33 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 326 330 870 702 59 Future Vol, veh/h 47 326 330 870 702 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 - 400 - - 300 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 51 354 359 946 763 64 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2427 763 827 0 - 0 Stage 1 763 - - - - - Stage 2 1664 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 35 404 804 - - - Stage 1 460 - - - - - Stage 2 169 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 19 404 804 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 19 - - - - - Stage 1 254 - - - - - Stage 2 169 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 194.6 3.6 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)804 - 19 404 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.446 - 2.689 0.877 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13 -$ 1185.7 51.7 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.3 - 6.8 8.8 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 91 2045 Long Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 5: International Blvd & Zurich Dr 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 336 363 26 37 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 336 363 26 37 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 365 395 28 40 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 423 0 - 0 774 409 Stage 1 - - - - 409 - Stage 2 - - - - 365 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - - 367 642 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 702 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - - 367 642 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 367 - Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 702 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 16 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1136 - - - 367 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.11 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 16 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 92 2045 Long Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 7: International Blvd & Munich Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 299 336 27 37 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 299 336 27 37 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 325 365 29 40 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 394 0 - 0 705 380 Stage 1 - - - - 380 - Stage 2 - - - - 325 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 403 667 Stage 1 - - - - 691 - Stage 2 - - - - 732 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 403 667 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 403 - Stage 1 - - - - 691 - Stage 2 - - - - 732 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1165 - - - 403 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.1 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 14.9 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 93 2045 Long Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC 9: International Blvd & Mexico Way 10/22/2024 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro Report Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 65 94 79 114 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 65 94 79 114 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 71 102 86 124 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 188 0 - 0 220 145 Stage 1 - - - - 145 - Stage 2 - - - - 75 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1386 - - - 768 902 Stage 1 - - - - 882 - Stage 2 - - - - 948 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1386 - - - 766 902 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 766 - Stage 1 - - - - 880 - Stage 2 - - - - 948 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 10.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1386 - - - 766 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.162 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 94 SeanKellar,PE,PTOE PrincipalEngineer Education B.S., Civil Engineering, Arizona State University – Tempe, AZ Registration Colorado, Professional Engineer (PE) Wyoming, Professional Engineer (PE) Idaho, Professional Engineer (PE) Arizona, Professional Engineer (PE) Kansas, Professional Engineer (PE) Missouri, Professional Engineer (PE) Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) Professional Memberships Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Industry Tenure 24 Years Sean’s wide range of expertise includes: transportation plan- ning, traffic modeling roadway design, bike and pedestrian facili- ties, traffic impact studies, traffic signal warrant analysis, parking studies, corridor planning and access management. Sean’s experience in both the private and public sectors; passion for safety and ex- cellence; and strong communication and collaboration skills can bring great value to any project. Prior to starting Kellar Engineering, Sean was employed at the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) as the District Traffic Engineer for the Kansas City District. Sean also worked for the City of Loveland, CO for over 10 years as a Senior Civil Engineer supervising a division of transportation/traffic engineers. While at the City of Loveland, Sean managed several capital improvement projects, presented several projects to the City Council and Planning Commission in public hearings, and managed the revisions to the City’s Street Standards. Sean is also proficient in Highway Capacity Software, Synchro, PT Vissim, Rodel, GIS, and AutoCAD. WORK EXPERIENCE: Kellar Engineering, Principal Engineer/President – January 2016 – Present Missouri Department of Transportation, District Traffic Engineer, Kansas City District – June 2015 – January 2016 City of Loveland, Colorado, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department – February 2005 – June 2015 Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, Project Manager - February 2004 – February 2005 Dibble and Associates Consulting Engineers, Project Engineer – August 1999 – February 2004 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT Packet Pg. 95 OVERALL DRAINAGE REPORT 19 OLD TOWN SQUARE #238 | FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 | 970-530-4044 | www.unitedcivil.com H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY Industrial Business Park International PUD Fort Collins, CO Prepared for: Heritage Christian Academy 2506 Zurich Drive #1 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: January 22, 2025 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 96 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO i U24018_Drainage Report January 22, 2025 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Heritage Christian Academy Improvements Fort Collins, Colorado Project Number: U24018 Dear Staff: United Civil Design Group, LLC. is pleased to submit this Overall Drainage Report for the Heritage Christian Academy site in Fort Collins, Colorado. In general, this report serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with future improvements related to the existing property and the planned site. The site was previously analyzed by Lamp Rynearson Associates in March 2018. The current condition of the site appears to reflect the design established by Lamp Rynearson Associates, approved through the Larimer County development review process. The March 2018 Final Drainage Report for the Industrial Business Park International PUD (referred herein as “The March 2018 Final Drainage Report) is referenced with this ODP report. We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins is to assure general compliance with criteria established with the March 2018 Final Drainage Report, and standardized criteria contained in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This report was prepared in compliance with technical criteria set forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. If you should have any questions or comments as you review this report, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, United Civil Design Group Colton Beck, PE Project Manager ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 97 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO ii U24018_Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. General Location and Description ......................................................................................................................1 A. Location and Project Description ................................................................................................. 1 B. Description of Property ................................................................................................................ 2 C. Floodplains ................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Drainage Basins and Sub-Basins .........................................................................................................................3 A. Major Basin Description ............................................................................................................... 3 B. Sub-Basin Description .................................................................................................................. 3 III. Drainage Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................................3 A. Regulations ................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) ................................................................................ 3 C. Hydrological Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 4 D. Hydraulic Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 4 E. Modifications of Criteria .............................................................................................................. 4 IV. Drainage Facility Design .....................................................................................................................................5 A. General Concept ........................................................................................................................... 5 B. Specific Details ............................................................................................................................. 5 V. Erosion Control ...................................................................................................................................................8 VI. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................8 A. Compliance with Standards ......................................................................................................... 8 B. Drainage Concept ......................................................................................................................... 8 C. Stormwater Quality ...................................................................................................................... 8 VII. References ......................................................................................................................................................9 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Hydrology Calculations APPENDIX B – Hydraulic Calculations B.1 – Low Impact Development Calculations (Reserved for future submittal) B.2 – Water Quality Calculations B.3 – Detention Computations B.4 – Inlet Sizing Calculations (Reserved for future submittal) B.5 – Storm Pipe Calculations (Reserved for future submittal) B.6 – Curb Channel Calculations (Reserved for future submittal) B.7 – Weir Calculations (Reserved for future submittal) APPENDIX C – Referenced Materials APPENDIX D – Drainage Plan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 98 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 1 U24018_Drainage Report I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Heritage Christian Academy site (referred herein as “the site”) exists as a portion of the Industrial Business Park International PUD, located in the northwest and southwest quarters of Section 8, T7N, R68W of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The entirety of the property, consisting of approximately 20.1-acres, is located west of South Timberline Road and east of Mexico Way. The east side of the school property currently exists as a school building with adjacent parking and athletic field; the west side exists in an overlot graded condition. The future Heritage Christian Academy site improvements are limited to 13.6-acres of disturbed area west and southwest of the existing school facility. Dry Creek, the ultimate discharge location for stormwater within the Industrial Business Park International PUD, is located south of the development. The existing site improvements (i.e., infrastructure east of Munich Way) drain stormwater primarily to the south by way of surface drainage to drainage swales constructed along International Blvd. Future improvements (i.e., west of Munich Way) are intended to drain to an existing detention pond (i.e., Pond B) constructed in 2020. Pond B is constructed to release stormwater to an existing drainage swale system in International Blvd and ultimately to Dry Creek. Below is an aerial map depicting the vicinity of the site. Dry Creek exists to the south, and the Timbervine Subdivision borders the site to the north. Other nearby subdivisions are represented below. FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP The site improvements will ultimately include the construction of new education and athletic facilities with associated landscaping, walks, and parking lots. This drainage report presents the overall drainage plan for the development. In general, this report serves to provide an analysis of the drainage impacts associated with the development of site as it relates to existing and future drainage facilities on-site. The project is currently in the ODP stage; additional design information will be provided with further site design (i.e., PDP and FDP applications). Me x i c o W a y Mu n i c h W a y Project Site Pond B Timbervine Subdivision Dry Creek Subdivision East Ridge Subdivision ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 99 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 2 U24018_Drainage Report B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property east of Munich Way exists in a fully developed condition. The school facility east of the Munich Way exists with concrete and asphalt pavement, sidewalks, rooftop, and landscaping. In its existing school facility and associated impervious areas drain stormwater by means of sheet flow, concrete pans, curb and gutter. The existing site ultimately drains off-site to drainage swales along International Blvd. Below are summaries of key components of the school facility in its existing conditions. Land Use - The site’s current land use is commercial/industrial. Ground Cover - The site exists as a school development with concrete and asphalt pavement, sidewalk, rooftop, and surrounding grass landscaping. The majority of landscaping is specific to a maintained athletic field. Existing Topography – The site slopes in a multitude of directions away from the existing on-site building; however, runoff ultimately drains south down Zurich Drive to a system of drainage swales along International Blvd. Grades – In general, the existing site is sloped to the east and south at approximately 0.5% to 1.0%. Soil Type - The USDA’s Web Soil Survey shows that the eastern portion of the property consists of both “Type B” and “Type C” soils, namely Flouvaquents (nearly level) and Loveland Clay Loam (0% to 1% slopes). Utilities – The following dry utility lines run along the south side of the site: gas, electric, fiber optic. Water mains and sanitary sewer are also present to the south of the school facility in Zurich Drive. Drainage Features and Storm Sewer – The eastern portion of the campus is adjacent to the Lake Canal - stormwater does not appear to be conveyed to this canal. A series of storm sewer and drainage swales exist at the downstream end of the business park along International Blvd – this infrastructure conveys the eastern portion of the Industrial Business Park International PUD. A 30” outfall exists at the downstream end of the mentioned drainage features. Refer to the Drainage Plan for visual context. The property west of Munich Way exists in a partially developed, overlot-graded condition. Apart from the completion of connecting roadways and underground utilities to support the Industrial Business Park International PUD, the remainder of the private land remains largely undeveloped. The existing land is currently graded to drain southerly to an existing detention pond, namely Pond B. Below are summaries of key components of the western side in its existing conditions. Land Use - The site’s current land use is commercial/industrial. Ground Cover - The site exists in an overlot grading condition. Existing Topography – The site generally slopes to the south to an existing detention pond (Pond B). Grades – In general, the western portion of the site is sloped the south at approximately 0.5% to 2.0%. Soil Type - The USDA’s Web Soil Survey shows that the eastern portion of the property consists of both “Type B” and “Type C” soils, namely Flouvaquents (nearly level), Loveland Clay Loam (0% to 1% slopes), and Table Mountain Loam (0% to 1% slopes). The on-site soils provide moderate infiltration and are suitable for development. Utilities – The following dry utility lines run along the perimeter of the site: gas, electric, cable TV, fiber optic. Water mains and sanitary sewer are also present in the recently constructed roadways to support the Industrial Business Park International PUD. Drainage Features and Storm Sewer – A detention pond (Pond B) exists on-site to support the development of the school site. This detention pond exists with an outlet structure and 18” outfall pipe that drains to an existing drainage swale in International Blvd south of the project site (refer to Drainage Plan for visual context). In addition to the controlled release from Pond B, stormwater within the Industrial Business Park International PUD drains to the mentioned drainage swale and ultimately to a 30” RCP outfall. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 100 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 3 U24018_Drainage Report C. FLOODPLAINS The existing site is in the vicinity of the Dry Creek Floodplain, which is a FEMA- designated 100-year floodplain and floodway. The existing site, being outside the bounds of the Dry Creek FEMA floodplain, is located in an area with minimal flood risk. The FEMA FIRM Panel # is 08069C0983H effective 5/2/2012. The current FEMA FIRM Map is included in the appendices. FIGURE 2: FLOODPLAIN MAP II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION The existing site is located within the Dry Creek drainage basin. The site drains downstream within the Dry Creek Basin and is ultimately conveyed to the Cache La Poudre River. No known master planning improvements are associated with or adjacent to the site. B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION A portion of the school property exists within the Industrial Business Park International PUD plans completed by Lamp Rynearson & Associates. The March 2018 Final Drainage Report, including the associated Drainage Plan, is provided in the appendices. The project area exists within Basins B1, B2, and B3 of the drainage design. These basins are designed to convey stormwater to the existing, downstream Pond B within Basin B1. Characteristics of these planned basins are further described under this cover. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS The design criteria for this study are directly and primarily from the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (referred to herein as FCSCM). Mile High Flood District Criteria Manuals Volumes 2, and 3 (referred to herein as MHFD) are also referred to with the drainage design. B. DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREA (DCIA) The “Four Step Process” that is recommended with the FCSCM in selecting structural BMPs for redeveloping urban areas. The following portions of this summary describe each step and how it has been utilized for this project: Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices The objective of this step is to reduce runoff peaks and volumes and to employ the technique of “minimizing directly connected impervious areas” (MDCIA). This project accomplishes this by: Project Area ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 101 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 4 U24018_Drainage Report Routing the roof and pavement flows through bioretention facilities and vegetated buffers to increase the time of concentration, promote infiltration and provide water quality. Step 2 – Provide Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) The objective of providing WQCV is to reduce the sediment load and other pollutants that exit the site. For this project WQCV is provided within the existing water quality and detention facility. Low Impact Development (LID) is also to be provided with site improvements. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways The site is upstream of Dry Creek and the use of LID will help slow runoff from the site and benefit the stabilization of the Dry Creek drainageway. In addition, this project will pay stormwater development and stormwater utility fees which the City uses, in part, to maintain the stability of the City drainageway systems. Step 4 – Consider Need for Site Specific and Source Control BMPs Site specific and source control BMPs are generally considered for large industrial and commercial sites. The redevelopment of the existing site will include multiple site-specific and source controls, including dedicated maintenance personnel providing landscape maintenance and snow and ice management. Other site-specific and source controls are to be better known and addressed with future PDP and FDP submittals. C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, provided by Figure RA-16 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, are utilized for all hydrologic computations related to the site in its existing/historic and future conditions. Since this site is relatively small and does not have complex drainage basins, the peak flow rates for design points have been calculated based on the Rational Method as described in the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) with storm intensity correlating with the time of concentration for each sub-basin. This method was used to analyze the developed runoff from the 2-year (minor) and the 100-year (major) storm events. The Rational Method is widely accepted for drainage design involving small drainage areas (less than 20-acres) and short time of concentrations. Runoff coefficients are calculated from a composite imperviousness based on surface type. The HCA site appears to have been assigned assumed future impervious values with the March 2018 Final Drainage Report by way of Land Use (i.e., Light & Heavy Industrial), accounting for impervious values ranging between 80% - 90%. Areas at the south end of the site, where detention area was accounted for, had an assumed imperviousness of 40%. Similar assumptions found in the March 2018 Final Drainage Report are provided with this ODP report as FCSCM provides similar impervious values for Commercial and Industrial land uses (80% - 90%). Detailed, site-specific runoff coefficient calculations will be provided by way of surface type with PDP and FDP submittals as the site layout develops. D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA The developed site will convey runoff to existing design points via swales, concrete pans, and pipes. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) are referenced for all hydraulic calculations. Drainage conveyance facility capacities ultimately proposed with the development project, including an extended detention pond, shall be designed in accordance with criteria outlined primarily in the FCSCM or the Mile High Flood District’s Criteria Manual where necessary and not covered by FCSCM. E. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA The original design of the Industrial Business Park International PUD was completed under design standards per Larimer County. With the annexation of the property in the City of Fort Collins, the constructed drainage system will be further analyzed in relation to the FCSCM with the inclusion of Low Impact Development requirements. There are currently no variance requests proposed with the future stormwater design of the site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 102 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 5 U24018_Drainage Report IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT Developed runoff will be designed to largely maintain planned drainage patterns. Existing conveyance methods include sheet flow, concrete pans, curb and gutter, inlets, and storm sewer that ultimately drain south to Pond B for water quality treatment and detention storage. Per City standards, water quality and low impact development (LID) will ultimately be proposed with the project to mitigate the impervious areas that are being modified with the development. B. SPECIFIC DETAILS Hydrology Site improvements intend to adhere to the drainage design established by the March 2018 Final Drainage Report and the FCSCM. The entirety of the school property is to be annexed into the City of Fort Collins, however, the project site is limited to approximately 14.57-acres related to the partially developed area of the industrial business park, namely drainage basins B1, B2, and B3 of the March 2018 Final Drainage Report. The table below summarizes the hydrologic impact associated with the site improvements relative to the planned conditions provided in the March 2018 Final Drainage Report. Refer to the Drainage Plan, hydrology calculations, and references attached for additional information. TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY Project Area Planned Proposed Overall Area (acre) 14.6 15.3 % Imperviousness 72.0% 72.0% (1) (1) The proposed imperviousness is assumed at 72% for ODP purposes; hydrology and impervious calculations will be analyzed with future PDP and FDP submittals as the site plan progresses. A discrepancy in area between the planned basin area and proposed basin area is due to the physical area that drains to the existing Pond B. Based on existing topography along Zurich Drive and the western side of the school facility, it appears that more area exists within Basin B than originally assumed. This minor discrepancy is not an indictment on the March 2018 Final Drainage Report and calculations, nor is the larger drainage area considered a concern, but this actuality will be further evaluated with the overall site release on future PDP and FDP submittals. On-site Basins The following basins provide drainage delineations for the site in its improved condition. Refer to Appendix A for hydrology computations and Appendix B for calculations related to Water Quality, Low Impact Development, and other hydraulic features. Basin B Sub-drainage basins B1-B3 of the March 2018 Final Drainage Report represent areas where runoff is captured and conveyed to Pond B. For purposes of this Overall Drainage Report, the mentioned basins are combined into one basin (i.e., Basin B). This overall basin consists of roofs, concrete and asphalt paving, and landscaping. This basin will be sub-divided into several basins with future submittals. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 103 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 6 U24018_Drainage Report Stormwater Quality Stormwater quality is required to be provided for the new/planned impervious area on the site. The existing Pond B was designed with 0.48 acre-ft of volume for extended detention purposes – this volume was calculated per MHFD computations assuming a composite imperviousness of 72.0% and an additional 20% factor for additional capacity for ODP purposes. Below is a minimum required WQCV calculation per the FCSCM. WQCV = a(0.91i3 – 1.19i2 + 0.78i) WQCV = 1.0 x (0.91(0.72)3 – 1.19(0.72)2 + 0.78(0.72)) WQCV = 0.28 V = (WQCV12) x A x 1.2 V = (0.2812) x 15.3 x 1.2 V = 0.44 acre-ft The original WQCV design of Pond appears to be adequate for City of Fort Collins standards; however, based on a recent topographic survey, the constructed pond appears to exist with insufficient volume per the March 2018 Final Drainage Report. The current WQCV capacity is 0.25 acre-ft. To meet requirements per City of Fort Collins, one of the following options, or perhaps a combination of the following options, will need to be considered with the development of the site: 1) Replace/reconstruct the outlet structure with additional water quality depth. 2) Re-grade the existing pond to generate additional volume. 3) Reduce the required standard WQCV to 50% by implementing LID methods to treat 50% of the site. 4) Reduce the required standard WQCV to 25% by implementing LID methods to treat 75% of the site. Regarding WQCV and LID, the intention of this ODP report is to affirm adherence to FCSCM. The provided options will be addressed and selected with future PDP and FDP submittals. Low Impact Development (LID) In December of 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted the revised Low Impact Development (LID) policy and criteria which requires developments within City limits to meet certain enhanced stormwater treatment requirements in addition to more standard treatment techniques. The proposed development will be required to meet the newly adopted LID criteria which requires the following: - Treat no less than 75% of any newly added impervious area using one or a combination of LID techniques. - Treat no less than 50% of any newly added impervious area using one or a combination of LID techniques when at least 25% of any newly added pavement is provided with permeable pavement. Detention Detention is required to be provided for the new/planned impervious area on the site. The existing Pond B was designed with 3.3 acre-ft of required 100-year detention volume; the pond was constructed with a capacity of 4.7 acre-ft. The existing Pond B was designed assuming a composite imperviousness of 72.0% utilizing the Modified FAA Method. The 100-year release rate (2.91-cfs) was designed in accordance with criteria established for development within the Dry Creek Basin (i.e., 0.20 cfs/acre) and the area (14.57-acres) assumed with the March 2018 Final Drainage Report. The nature of the existing detention pond and outlet structure are recognized as design constraints for the school site improvements; however, modifications to the outlet structure orifice plate may be necessary for 100-year release purposes. The existing Pond B was designed to detain 14.57-acres of developed area, though it appears that additional developed land does drain to Pond B. An additional volume of 0.58 acre-ft is anticipated from what was originally assumed (3.3-acre-ft). Despite this modification to the design of Pond B, the existing pond was constructed with extra capacity up to 4.70 acre-ft. Therefore, provided potential modifications to the 100-year orifice plate, the existing Pond B was sufficiently sized to meet required detention volume requirements per the FCSCM. On the following page is a 100-year detention calculation per the FCSCM at a duration of 120-minutes. Refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for new calculations per FCSCM. WQCV = Water Quality Capture Volume, watershed inches a = 1.0 for 40-hr drain times i = Percent Imperviousness V = Required WQCV (acre-ft) A = Tributary catchment area (acres) 1.2 = Additional 20% of Required Storage ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 104 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 7 U24018_Drainage Report Vi = CIA (60T) Vi = 0.94 x 1.84 inhr x 15.29 acres x 60(120min) Vi = 4.36 acre-ft Vo = Qout (60T) Vo = 2.91cfs x 60(120min) Vo = 0.48 acre-ft Vs = Vi – Vo Vs = 3.88 acre-ft To right is a summary of design elements related to existing Pond B. Emergency Spillway The existing Pond B was designed with a 68-ft long weir, 6-inches in depth, equipped to convey 76.47-cfs. Provided City of Fort Collins runoff coefficient calculations, initial runoff computations provided under this ODP Report indicate that the required 100-year release through the spillway may increase from what was originally calculated in the March 2018 Final Drainage Report. In the event that a higher total runoff value is conveyed to the existing Pond B, the emergency weir may require reconstruction. The reconstruction of the emergency spillway may also be necessary based on other design elements with an improved site. The sufficiency of the previously designed and constructed emergency spillway will be verified with future PDP and FDP submittals. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) In order for physical stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be effective, proper maintenance is essential. Maintenance includes both routinely scheduled activities, as well as non-routine repairs that may be required after large storms, or as a result of other unforeseen problems. Standard Operating Procedures should clearly identify BMP maintenance responsibility. BMP maintenance is typically the responsibility of the entity owning the BMP. Identifying who is responsible for maintenance of BMPs and ensuring that an adequate budget is allocated for maintenance is critical to the long-term success of BMPs. Maintenance responsibility may be assigned either publicly or privately. For this project, the privately owned BMPs including Pond B, grass swales, and any installed LID features, are to be maintained by the property owner. Storm Sewer Multiple storm sewers and roof drains will be designed with future site improvements. All storm sewers will be private and are typically sized to accommodate the flows from the 100-year storm event. Hydraulic computations of these systems will be provided in Appendix B with future PDP and FDP submittals. Inlets Multiple inlets will be designed with future site improvements. All proposed storm sewers will be private and are typically sized to accommodate the flows from the 100-year storm event. Hydraulic computations of these systems will be provided in Appendix B with future PDP & FDP submittals. TABLE 2 – POND B SUMMARY Pond B Existing WQCV (ac-ft) 0.25 Required WQCV (ac-ft) 0.44 Required V100 (ac-ft) 3.88 VMAX (ac-ft) 4.70 Bottom of Pond (Elev) 4928.0 WQCV (Elev) 4929.6 Required V100 (Elev) 4932.2 VMAX (Elev) 4932.7 Emergency Spillway (Elev) 4932.7 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 105 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 8 U24018_Drainage Report V. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control, both temporary and permanent, is a vital part of any development project. For this project, the site disturbance is greater than 1 acre; therefore, a CDPHE Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be required. Comprehensive erosion control measures are included with the site improvements. Refer to the Utility Plans for additional information. At a minimum, the following temporary BMP’s will be installed and maintained to control on-site erosion and prevent sediment from traveling off-site during construction:  Silt Fence – a woven synthetic fabric that filters runoff. The silt fence is a temporary barrier that is placed at the base of a disturbed area.  Vehicle Tracking Control – a stabilized stone pad located at points of ingress and egress on a construction site. The stone pad is designed to reduce the amount of mud transported onto public roads by construction traffic.  Inlet Protection – acts as a sediment filter. It is a temporary BMP and requires proper installation and maintenance to ensure their performance.  Straw Wattles – wattles act as a sediment filter in swales around inlets. They are a temporary BMP and require proper installation and maintenance to ensure their performance. The contractor shall store all construction materials and equipment and shall provide maintenance and fueling of equipment in confined areas on-site from which runoff will be contained and filtered. Temporary Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be inspected by the contractor at a minimum of once every two weeks and after each significant storm event. VI. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS Storm drainage calculations have followed the guidelines provided primarily by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Mile High Flood District Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2 and 3, and the March 2018 Final Drainage Report are also adhered to as necessary where the FCSCM does not cover. B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT To meet City of Fort Collins stormwater criteria, the existing drainage system may require modifications to Pond B. The overall size and capacity of Pond B was designed and constructed with additional capacity necessary to meet City of Fort Collins requirements; however, several design features related to both water quality and detention will require verification with future improvements. C. STORMWATER QUALITY Multiple long-term stormwater quality measures will be necessary on-site to provide treatment of stormwater prior to it being discharged from the site. For this site this includes extended detention and will ultimately include LID techniques throughout the site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 106 O VERALL D RAINAGE R EPORT H ERITAGE C HRISTIAN A CADEMY F ORT C OLLINS , CO 9 U24018_Drainage Report VII. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2018. 2. Mile High Flood District Criteria Manual Volume 1 and 2, Mile High Flood District, Denver, Colorado, January 2016. 3. Final Drainage Report, Lamp Rynearson & Associates, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 2018. 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey at: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app 5. Flood Insurance Rate Map, FEMA, Panel 08069C0983H, https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/ 6. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Stormwater Management Plan Preparation Guides, State of Colorado, www.colorado.com ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 107 A PPENDIX A H YDROLOGY C ALCULATIONS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 108 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND % IMPERVIOUS Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO Basin Design Pt.Composite Total Total Roof (1)Asphalt & Recycled Gravel & Lawns(1)Imperviousness C2 C100 Concrete Asphalt Pavers(1) %I = 90% %I = 100% %I = 80% %I =40% %I=2% (%I) C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.80 C=0.50 C=0.25 acres sf sf sf sf sf sf B1 B1 5.91 257,440 231,181 26,259 90.0%0.74 0.85 B2 B2 4.27 186,001 148,057 37,944 80.0%0.64 0.80 B3 B3 4.39 191,228 74,197 117,032 40.0%0.29 0.61 Total B1 14.57 634,669 - 453,434 -- 181,235 72.0% Notes: (1) Recommended % Imperviousness Values per Table 4.1-3 Surface Type - Percent Impervious in Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (2) Runoff C is based Table 3.2-2. Surface Type - Runoff Coefficients and Table 3.2-3. Frequency Adjustment Factors in Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (3) Value per March 2018 Final Drainage Report, Lamp Rynearson & Associates Planned Basins Composite Runoff Coefficients (3)Areas (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) Date: 1/21/2025 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 109 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (2-YR) Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO Basin Design Pt.Area CXCF(1)Length Slope Ti(2)Slope Length n R Velocity (3)Tt(4)Tc max (5) acres ft %min %ft fps min min min min B1 B1 5.91 13.0 B2 B2 4.27 13.9 B3 B3 4.39 28.1 Notes: (1) C=CX*CF is less than or equal to 1.0 (Cf = 1.0) (2) ti = [1.87(1.1-CXCF)L1/2]/S1/3, S= slope in %, L=length of overland flow (200' max urban, 500' max rural) (3) V=(1.49/n)R2/3S1/2, S = slope in ft/ft, FCSCM Equation 5-4 (4) tt=L/(V*60 sec/min) (5) Maximumtc = total length/180 + 10 (6) Minimum tc = 5 min (7) Value per March 2018 Final Drainage Report, Lamp Rynearson & Associates Travel/Channelized Time of Flow (Tt) Planned Basins Ti+Tt Final Tc(6) Overland Flow (Ti) (7) (7) (7) Date: 1/21/2025 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 110 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (100-YR) Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO Basin Design Pt.Area CXCF(1)Length Slope Ti(2)Slope Length n R Velocity (3)Tt(4)Tc max (5) acres ft %min %ft fps min min min min B1 B1 5.91 13.0 B2 B2 4.27 13.9 B3 B3 4.39 28.1 Notes: (1) C=CX*CF is less than or equal to 1.0 (Cf = 1.25) (2) ti = [1.87(1.1-CXCF)L1/2]/S1/3, S= slope in %, L=length of overland flow (200' max urban, 500' max rural) (3) V=(1.49/n)R2/3S1/2, S = slope in ft/ft, FCSCM Equation 5-4 (4) tt=L/(V*60 sec/min) (5) Maximumtc = total length/180 + 10 (6) Minimum tc = 5 min (7) Value per March 2018 Final Drainage Report, Lamp Rynearson & Associates Planned Basins Overland Flow (Ti)Travel/Channelized Time of Flow (Tt) Ti+Tt Final Tc(6) (7) (7) (7) Date: 1/21/2025 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 111 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO Basin Design Pt. Contributing Area 2-Year 100-Year Basins acre tc tc C2 C100 I2 I100 Q2 Q100 min min in/hr in/hr cfs cfs B1 B1 B1 5.91 13 13 0.74 0.85 1.98 6.92 8.66 34.76 B2 B2 B2 4.27 14 14 0.64 0.80 1.92 6.71 5.25 22.92 B3 B3 B3 4.39 28 28 0.29 0.61 1.34 4.69 1.71 12.56 Planned Basins Peak DischargeRainfall IntensityRunoff Coefficients Date: 1/21/2025 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 112 A PPENDIX B H YDRAULIC C ALCULATIONS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 113 WATER QUALITY Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO Required Water Quality Capture Volume Basin Area Area Imperviousness Watershed WQCV WQ Treatment (sf)(acres)(%)(inches)(cf)Method B 665,977 15.289 72%0.28 18,929 Extended Detention (1) Water quality by way of extended detetion provided based on 40-hour storage (2) Water Quality design to include LID methods per City of Fort Collins crtieria; Required Extended Detention WQCV to be reduced with PDP and FDP calculations. (3) Assumed Imperviousness per original 2018 report. Site Imperviousness to be analyzed with PDP and FDP calculations. Date: 1/21/2025 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 114 DETENTION POND VOLUME (FAA Method) Heritage Christian Academy, Fort Collins, CO POND ID: Pond B 100 Year Storm Into Detention Facility Area =665,977 square feet Area =15.29 acres C 2 = 0.75 C 100 = 0.94 Release Rate Out of Pond Q OUT = 2.91 cfs Notes: 1. Pond area includes all of Basin B. 2. C100 value shown is a weighted average of the C values per City of Fort Collins criteria. 3. Release rate per the march 2018 Final Drainage Report, Lamp Rynearson & Associates Detention Volume Calculations Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Rate Inflow Volume Adjustment Average Outflow Volume Required Duration (T) Intensity (I) Qin= ∑C100*Area*I Vi=(Qin*T*60) Factor Outflow Rate Vo=Qav*T *60 Storage Volume m= 0.5(1 + Tc/T) Qav = m*Qout Vs=Vi-Vo min in/hr cfs ft 3 cfs ft 3 ft 3 5 9.95 142.6 42,773 1.00 2.91 873 41,900 10 7.72 110.6 66,374 1.00 2.91 1,746 64,628 15 6.52 93.4 84,085 1.00 2.91 2,619 81,466 20 5.60 80.2 96,293 1.00 2.91 3,492 92,801 25 4.98 71.4 107,040 1.00 2.91 4,365 102,675 30 4.52 64.8 116,584 1.00 2.91 5,238 111,346 35 4.08 58.5 122,774 1.00 2.91 6,111 116,663 40 3.74 53.6 128,620 1.00 2.91 6,984 121,636 45 3.46 49.6 133,865 1.00 2.91 7,857 126,008 50 3.23 46.3 138,852 1.00 2.91 8,730 130,122 55 3.03 43.4 143,279 1.00 2.91 9,603 133,676 60 2.86 41.0 147,535 1.00 2.91 10,476 137,059 70 2.59 37.1 155,875 1.00 2.91 12,222 143,653 80 2.38 34.1 163,699 1.00 2.91 13,968 149,731 90 2.21 31.7 171,007 1.00 2.91 15,714 155,293 100 2.06 29.5 177,111 1.00 2.91 17,460 159,651 110 1.94 27.8 183,473 1.00 2.91 19,206 164,267 120 1.84 26.4 189,835 1.00 2.91 20,952 168,883 Required Detention Volume V 100 = 168,883 cubic feet V 100 = 3.88 acre-ft V MAX = 4.70 acre-ft Date: 11/7/2024 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U24018 - Heritage Christian Academy\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\Hydrology-Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 115 A PPENDIX C R EFERENCED M ATERIALS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 116 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/24/2024 at 11:03 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°2'27"W 40°35'35"N 105°1'50"W 40°35'8"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 120 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 121 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 122 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 123 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 124 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 125 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 126 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 127 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 128 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 129 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 130 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 131 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 132 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 133 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 134 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 136 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 137 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 138 BEGINNING OF REFERENCED TIMBERVINE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 139 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 140 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 141 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 142 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 143 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 144 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 145 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 146 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 147 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 148 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 151 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 152 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 153 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 154 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 155 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 156 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 157 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 158 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 159 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 160 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 161 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 162 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 163 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 164 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 165 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 166 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 167 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 168 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 169 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 170 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 171 END OF REFERENCED TIMBERVINE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 172 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 173 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 174 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 175 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 176 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 177 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 178 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 181 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 182 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 183 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 184 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 185 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 186 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 187 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 188 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 189 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 190 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 191 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 192 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 193 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 194 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 195 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 196 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 197 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 198 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 200 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 201 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 202 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 203 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 204 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 205 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 206 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 207 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 208 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 209 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 210 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 211 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 212 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 213 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 214 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 215 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 216 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 217 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 218 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 219 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 220 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 221 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 222 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 223 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 224 END OF MARCH 2018 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 225 A PPENDIX D D RAINAGE P LAN ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 226 HC HC NO PAR K I N G EXI T NO PARK I N G EXI T BIK E L A N E BI K E L A N E B 15.29 0.75 0.94 EXISTING POND B WQCV = 0.25 AC-FT V100 = 3.3 AC-FT (WQCV + 100-YR) VMAX = 4.7 AC-FT Q100 = 2.91 CFS INTERNATIONAL BLVD MU N I C H W A Y ME X I C O W A Y ZURICH DRIVE EXISTING SCHOOL EXISTING OUTLET STRUCTURE DPB REQUIRED POND B WQCV = 0.44 AC-FT V100 = 3.9 AC-FT (WQCV + 100-YR) Q100 = 2.91 CFS POND B ZURICH D R I V E POND B SUMMARY EXISTING 30" RCP (BUSINESS PARK INTERNATIONAL PUD OUTFALL) EXISTING OFF-SITE DRAINAGE SWALE EXISTING 18" RCP (POND B OUTFALL) EXISTING 24" RCP EXISTING EMERGENCY SPILLWAY LOCATION 1" = 60' 1" = N/A NO R T H 11 / 7 / 2 0 2 4 9: 4 5 : 4 4 A M C: \ U N I T E D C I V I L D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ U 2 4 0 1 8 - H E R I T A G E C H R I S T I A N A C A D E M Y \ C A D D \ C P \ D R A I N A G E P L A N . D W G DR A I N A G E P L A N -- - - -- - - C6.00 DR A I N A G E P L A N 0 60'120' SCALE: 1" = 60' 30' PR E P A R E D F O R : JOB NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SHEETSOF DA T E S U B M I T T E D : VERTICAL: HORIZONTAL: SCALE PRE L I M I N A R Y PLA N S NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR O J . M G R : DR A W I N G N A M E : PA T H : DE S I G N E R : DA T E : TI M E : Th e e n g i n e e r p r e p a r i n g t h e s e p l a n s w i l l n o t b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r , o r l i a b l e f o r , u n a u t h o r i z e d ch a n g e s t o o r u s e s o f t h e s e p l a n s . A l l c h a n g e s t o t h e p l a n s m u s t b e i n w r i t i n g a n d m u s t be a p p r o v e d b y t h e p r e p a r e r o f t h e s e p l a n s . NO . BY DA T E CAUTION RE V I S I O N S : CIVIL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING UNITED CIVIL Design Group 19 OLD TOWN SQUARE #238 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (970) 530-4044 www.unitedcivil.com HE R I T A G E C H R I S T I A N A C A D E M Y 11 / 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 U24018 HE R I T A G E C H R I S T I A N A C A D E M Y 11 PR E P A R E D F O R : JOB NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SHEETSOF DA T E S U B M I T T E D : VERTICAL: HORIZONTAL: SCALE PRE L I M I N A R Y PLA N S NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR O J . M G R : DR A W I N G N A M E : PA T H : DE S I G N E R : DA T E : TI M E : Th e e n g i n e e r p r e p a r i n g t h e s e p l a n s w i l l n o t b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r , o r l i a b l e f o r , u n a u t h o r i z e d ch a n g e s t o o r u s e s o f t h e s e p l a n s . A l l c h a n g e s t o t h e p l a n s m u s t b e i n w r i t i n g a n d m u s t be a p p r o v e d b y t h e p r e p a r e r o f t h e s e p l a n s . NO . BY DA T E CAUTION RE V I S I O N S : CIVIL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING UNITED CIVIL Design Group 19 OLD TOWN SQUARE #238 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (970) 530-4044 www.unitedcivil.com HE R I T A G E C H R I S T I A N A C A D E M Y 11 / 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 U24018 HE R I T A G E C H R I S T I A N A C A D E M Y 1 X.XX X.XXXX.X X BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRE) 2 - YR RUNOFF COEFF. 100 - YR RUNOFF COEFF. DESIGN POINT FLOW DIRECTION DPD1 LEGEND BASIN BOUNDARY ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 227 Technical Memo PO Box 272150 Fort Collins, CO 80527 To: City of Fort Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation, Environmental Department From: Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Date: September 3, 2024 Subject: Heritage Christian School - Ecological Characterization Study This Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Memo is submitted to address City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (Section 3.4.1) requirements to identify habitats and natural resource areas on or within close proximity of proposed developments. The Project Area is approximately 18.4 acres, comprised of 9 parcels, and is situated north of International Boulevard and west of Munich Way (Figure 1). Ecological characteristics were evaluated on May 31, 2024 by Cedar Creek’s Principal Ecologist, Mr. Jesse Dillon. A data review was conducted to gather information and assist in the evaluation of potential natural biological resources within the property. The data review entailed an evaluation of online resources and publications to determine the presence or potential occurrence of important natural and biological resources. This data review included: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Critical Habitat as identified by the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) Official Species List and Critical Habitat Mapper; Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) protected species as identified on the IPAC Trust Resources Report; Colorado's Conservation Data Explorer (CODEX); Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Threatened and Endangered Species List; City’s Natural Areas Species of Concern list (Restoration Plan 2016-2025, 2016); The City’s Land Use Code (Article 3, Section 3.4.1); The City’s Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map (2000); The Colorado Wetland Inventory (CWI); USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); and US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 228 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 229 ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & j – General Ecological Function and Wildlife Use) The majority of the property is disturbed as part of the surrounding development. However, there are native grass remnants and young volunteer trees within the stormwater channels and detention. The disturbed areas are dominated by nuisance and noxious weeds and general ruderal vegetation. Overall, the site offers limited ecological function outside of the volunteer trees in the channels and detention which could offer some isolated structure and cover for urban adapted wildlife and the native grasses scattered throughout the Project Area which offer some forage opportunities. Attached photos provide representative views of the Project Site. Overall, wildlife use of the Project Area likely focuses on the different naturalized features associated with Stormwater Control. The Stormwater Wetlands and Lake Canal (offsite features) provide the best benefit to urban adapted wildlife. The Stormwater Wetlands were dominated by cattails, willows, and cottonwoods. (b & f – Wetland and Water Delineation) The top of bank of the Lake Canal and Stormwater Wetlands were delineated and are presented on Figure 2. (c – Prominent Views) The project area does not provide any significant or unobstructed views of natural areas or other important visual features. (d – Native Vegetation Summary) As indicated under (a & j) the project area does not support a significant population of native vegetation, but some was present. The native grasses observed were western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), green needlegrass (Nassela viridula), and big bluestem (Andropgon gerardii). A single individual of showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) was found on the north border of the property, along Zurich Drive (see attached photo). (e – Non-native Vegetation Summary) Portions of the site (especially disturbed portions) exhibit significant composition from nuisance and noxious weeds. The nuisance weeds observed on site were primarily burning bush (Kochia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and Russian Thistle (Salsola tragus). The noxious weeds observed on site were Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [List B]), Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula [List B]), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvense [List C]), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum [List C]). Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia [List B]) and salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis [List B]) were observed in low lying stormwater channels and detention areas (Figure 2). Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyron intermedium) were also found throughout the site. (g – Sensitive Species Habitat) There are no sensitive species habitats located in the Project Area or Study Area. The attached CODEX report indicates that documented occurrences of protected species have occurred within 1 mile of the Project Area. It identifies a bald eagle nest within a mile of the Project Area, but it’s buffer is not displayed in close proximity to the site on the High Priority Habitat database. (h – Special Habitat Features) According to the High Priority Habitat dataset and field observations, there are no special habitat features, within close proximity to the Project Area. (i – Wildlife Movement Corridors) The Lake Canal provides a wildlife corridor for urban adapted wildlife to move between habitat features in this area of Fort Collins. (k – Timing Issues) Although the trees in the stormwater channels are small, it still offers an opportunity for songbird nesting. Therefore, prior to trees being removed from the site during nesting season (February 1 – July 31), a qualified wildlife biologist should conduct a survey to ensure there are no active nests. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 230 (l – Proposed Mitigation) In accordance with Section 3.4 of the land use code, the following buffer shall apply: Lake Canal: Lake Canal serves as a wildlife corridor, which warrants a 50-foot buffer to create a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Offsite Stormwater Wetlands: The offsite stormwater wetlands are greater than 1/3 without significant use by waterfowl and/or shorebirds, which warrants a 100-foot buffer to create a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. However, the privacy fence and roads limit the value of Natural Habitat Buffer Zone around these features, so alternative mitigation approaches should be considered, such as creating significant habitat uplift within designed stormwater control features for the site. Therefore, the buffer from these features should not be extended on to the Project Area. The existing stormwater channels on the project area are not considered natural features warranting Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. These channels have provided an opportunity for cottonwoods, willows, Russian olives, and salt cedar to establish but have not developed in a naturalized habitat feature. Noxious weed should be controlled with herbicide prior to implementing site grading. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 231 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 232 General Condition of the Project Area Material Stockpiles Within the Project Area ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 233 Stormwater Channel within the Project Area Lake Canal Adjacent to the Project Area ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 234 Single Milkweed Within the Project Area Landscaping Trees Adjacent to the Project Area ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 235 Stormwater Wetland Adjacent to the Project Area Privacy Fence of the Property Boundary ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 236 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Heritage Christian Academy Annexation and Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Notes September 5, 2024 These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript. Most neighborhood meetings are recorded and posted on the City;s YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7cZylpMlgCKqkcNsNCKAEevDf1P6r-Xk Attendees City Staff: Ryan Mounce, City Planner, rmounce@fcgov.com Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison, emyler@fcgov.com \ Sophie Buckingham, Civil Engineer Steve Gilchrist, Civil Engineer, Traffic Applicant Team: Angela Milewski, BHA Design Incorporated Public: In-person: 3 Virtual: 18 Agenda 1.Purpose of the Meeting and Development Review Process – NDL and Planner Neighborhood Development Liaison Em Myler introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the City Notes. The City of Fort Collins knows that development can have a meaningful impact on neighbors who live, work and play nearby. Because of this, when someone wants to build something new in the city, we often require a neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to give the public an opportunity to: •Learn about the project •Ask questions about the project •Share their feedback on the project Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether and how to formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review. The notes and recordings of neighborhood meetings are also provided to the decision maker at the end of the Development Review process. 2.Proposal Overview - Applicant The applicant presented their plans for the proposal. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 237 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 2 3. Questions (Q), Responses (R), and Comments (C) - Responses are by the applicant unless otherwise noted Q: What is the current student population, and the projected population after the new campus is built? A: We have around 242 students today. Our projections for this site several years from now is probably around 600 students. Q: Are you planning to keep this building as part of the campus as well? A: Yes, the vision is to turn this building into secondary uses. We’d use the gym as a practice gym. Q: Are there plans to construct another road outlet from these neighborhoods onto Timberline? A: (Mounce) The City’s Master Street Plan shows that International Drive could continue Northwest and around the air park, giving an access point to the West for these neighborhoods. That may be dependent on development in the area. In the East Mulberry Plan, there is the possibility of extending Air Park Drive up toward International as well. Q: Is adding a second egress a requirement for the school to be in this area? A: (Mounce) We often require multiple access points. We also know that in this area in particular with the railroad access can get choppy. In this case, as with all the development nearby here, International is the only access available. Q: Are there plans for traffic management at International and Timberline? A: (Mounce) We will look at that during the review of each phase of this project. Each one will need to submit a traffic impact study and depending on the results of those, we may look at something at that intersection. A: (Gilchrist) That is an arterial intersection and will likely have a signal once it has the number of cars going through it to warrant one. Our capital improvements group also has the area in mind to make some improvements. Q: The annexation doesn’t appear to include all of International Drive. How would maintenance for that road look? A: (Buckingham) A fair amount of International is already annexed, including the portion next to this property. There are also some gaps. We have an agreement with Larimer County about how to annex each piece of the street and bring it up to City standards. We’ll keep looking at that throughout the phases of this project and will have a plan for the long-term maintenance of those streets. Q: What about trails and bike lanes? A: (Mounce) There are a few trails nearby and the City likes to take any opportunity to connect to existing trails when development happens. If development is along a main road we can also ask them to do improvements to their frontage as well, such as adding bike lanes. Q: Can you speak to the specific connection point at International and Timberline? Is it already annexed and are there additional safety components that could be put in sooner than a light being installed, such as demarcations between eastbound and westbound traffic. I frequently see cars turning across the non-existent median and have almost been struck with my child. And that’s at our current level of use. A: (Gilchrist) The small area of the intersection was annexed when Ziggy’s Coffee was built. The area to the east and south of it will be annexed at some point. We don’t have a lot of improvements planned at this time, which is why it’s been a focus for our capital improvements group. We’re looking for opportunities to make improvements and the traffic study from this project will help us out a lot. We don’t know when that will happen, but we understand the existing concerns. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 238 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 3 A: (Mounce) This project only needs to annex their land into the city, but we will be looking at annexing other areas involuntarily. We will need to make sure we can adequately service the areas. Ultimately, City Council will make that decision but staff is considering all the details. Q: Will there be lights for the athletic fields installed and will there be regulations for hours of use. I am worried and wondering about night games and light spillage. A: We don’t know about lights yet, but there are regulations to limit light pollution if we do put them in. As we get into the project development plans, we’ll have more details. We appreciate hearing that concern. Q: I believe previous traffic studies were completed in the summer when Heritage was not in session, can we ask for a study while school is in session? A: (Gilchrist) The traffic study hasn’t been scoped yet, and I will be doing that. We will want to include the traffic from the school so we will ask for the study to be completed during school months and pick up and drop off times. C: 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. are the peaks for this area. Q: Will the primary entrance for the school me on Mexico way? A: We don’t know quite yet. Once we work start working on the PDP we’ll be able to determine where the entrances will be. Right now, we have multiple entrances shown on the map. They don’t necessarily indicate where the entrances will be since we won’t be separating our each of the current lots with their own access but designing something more cohesive across all the lots that need fewer accesses. Q: Is Zurich going to remain public? A: Yes, all the roads will remain in place and public. Q: If everything worked perfectly, what is your anticipated timeline for approval and construction? A: Definitely a few months to finish the annexation process. The Overall Development Plan is relatively simple so that could take a few months as well. After that is done, they will come back for Project Development Plans which take longer to review and end with a public hearing. So the timeline to construction would probably be more than a year. Q: Are the annexation and ODP able to happen simultaneously? A: (Mounce) We will probably review them concurrently, but the City can’t approve the ODP until the site is in our boundaries. Q: Will the project include additional egress from the area? At this point the only way in or out is via International Drive. During school the traffic can increase travel time significantly. A: (Mounce) On the City’s Master Street Plan there is a planned extension of International Drive to the air park in the west. That’s a long-term plan as land develops in the area. Q: Is there no requirement to have a second point of egress for a school in case of emergency? A: (Mounce) not that I am aware of. At this point, there is only one access point available and no suitable land to build another. Q: Is there a possibility the City considers annexing International aligned with this project? A: (Mounce) The portion of International just south of the project is already in city limits. The section to the east of the project is not. We know that it’s a weird area and we’ll be discussing the pros and cons of unifying the entire road in our limits. Ultimately, City Council will make that decision after this project’s annexation is completed. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 239 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 4 Q: You mentioned plans for Lincoln and Vine Drive somewhat soon? A: (Mounce) Yes, the goal is to signalize that intersection toward the end of this year or early next year. Q: My problem really relates to the traffic impacts. I know that the extension of International to the west is contingent on future development and long-term. But getting out of this neighborhood, especially during school pick up and drop off is a huge headache. I want to push on that issue a bit. At any point, could excess traffic prevent this project from moving forward? It would be a problem for any development in the area. That’s my big concern. It is not a sustainable approach to development without adding connections to the area. A: (Gilchrist) With any development we require a traffic impact study that will consider existing traffic and potential future traffic from the development. This development will be required to submit one, and we will be considering the potential of adding a signal to International and Timberline. Significant delays like that are typical for most schools, but before we say no to the development we will ask them to try and mitigate the impacts. We can’t signalize every intersection in town, but this one is already kind of planned for a signal. Q: Are there any plans to add any other access points in the neighborhood? A: (Gilchrist) Not at this point. The school doesn’t have right of way to build another access without acquiring land from someone else. We can’t require them to purchase property. Poudre Fire Authority will also weigh in on this. They are aware of the limitations in this area. Q: For International and Timberline, what is the likelihood of a light vs. a roundabout? And since it is in City limits, does the intersection meet our current code? A: (Gilchrist) We’ll look at that. We’re pushing for roundabouts, but we are cautious about multi-lane roundabouts. Knowing that there are some limitations on space, a traffic signal is more likely. Right now, the intersection is meeting Larimer County standards. We’ll be working on lane alignment issues when we add the signal. C: The entrance to International is city limits, right? That spot sets the tone for the level of safety, traffic flow and alternative modes that the City wants and it is very unsafe at this time. To have more kids and traffic going through there it needs urgent attention. A: We’ll take a look at it then. Q: Can you speak to how the City evaluates the visual impact of this project? A previous development project here blocked the views of people living in Timbervine and that must have been hard for them. A: (Mounce) We don’t have a Code standard related to preserving mountain views. There are requirements to protect natural features such as trees. Where views come in is in our compatibility standards where we require new buildings need to be similar in height, color, mass etc. with the existing neighborhood. We will review the project to these standards during the Project Development Plan process, using public comment to guide us on where there may be important natural features to preserve if possible. C: The point I want to make is that this makes me optimistic that this parcel is being annexed, as the City will apply their robust design standards. My main concern is traffic impacts and inconsistent services. Q: Can we get an update on the construction on Lincoln and Timberline? That construction could impact traffic in this area as well. A: (Buckingham) That project is about 30 percent designed, and there are some funding details yet to be worked out. We aren’t quite sure when construction will start. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 240 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 5 4. Next Steps and Adjourn - NDL ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 241 From:Johnney Hall To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Development question Date:Wednesday, August 7, 2024 10:08:25 AM Good morning, There is a development proposal for a lot in front of my neighborhood. I was unable to find any list for it on your website. The sign shows number 786. It is at the corner of International Blvd and Mexico Way. Can I get some more information about what is proposed there? Regards, Johnney Hall ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 242 From:Nicholas Heimann To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Sign 786 Date:Thursday, August 8, 2024 8:32:14 PM Hello, I recently saw a yellow development review sign with the number 786, located at the NE corner of Mexico Way and International Blvd. I live in the Timbervine neighborhood just north of the area. Within the last couple of days, though, the sign is now lying on the ground and not visible. I was looking into the information for Sign 786 earlier this week, however I couldn’t find anything that matched exactly the number or the parcel on which the sign was placed. I found some, what appear to be, older projects including an industrial development and a school development. I’m wondering if you can help me determine whether the sign is current and for what project it is related to. Thank you, Nicholas Heimann ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 243 From:Nicholas Heimann To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Sign 786 Date:Friday, August 9, 2024 1:14:32 PM Great, thank you. I actually do now see this information now, thanks for your help. Is it possible to have the sign replaced ASAP? I didn't notice this morning if it had gone back up or not, and perhaps that's already taken care of. Nicholas On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:26 AM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Nicholas, Thank you very much for your email. Sign 786 is connected to a proposal from the Heritage Christian Academy to annex a little over 13 acres of their property into the city and build a new athletic facility and additional classrooms. We have a neighborhood meeting scheduled for September 5th from 6-7:30 p.m. on this project. If you are interested in learning more, we would love to see you there! I am hoping to host the meeting at the school itself, as well as on zoom via this link: https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/92641077351. You can find information about development projects on this webpage: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals. I recommend scrolling to the "Development Proposals Under Review" table and using the search methods to find anything we currently have in review at the City. From: Nicholas Heimann <nicholas.heimann87@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 2:31 AM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sign 786 Hello, I recently saw a yellow development review sign with the number 786, located at the NE corner of Mexico Way and International Blvd. I live in the Timbervine neighborhood just north of the area. Within the last couple of days, though, the sign is now lying on the ground and not visible. I was looking into the information for Sign 786 earlier this week, however I couldn’t find anything that matched exactly the number or the parcel on which the sign was placed. I found some, what appear to be, older projects including an industrial development and a ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 244 school development. I’m wondering if you can help me determine whether the sign is current and for what project it is related to. Thank you, Nicholas Heimann ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 245 From:Nicholas Heimann To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Sign 786 Date:Friday, August 9, 2024 1:46:36 PM Wonderful, I will try to make the meeting for sure and understand that more information will yield better understanding of the project. Initially, I would offer that traffic flow and egress are major concerns for any development in this area. Personally, I think I like the idea of annexation as it will mean the project adheres to City design standards (the industrial building west, in unincorporated County land) is really not what I think of as beautiful design. It's impacted a lot of our view shed negatively, too, especially on the western end of the neighborhood (we used to have uninterrupted mountain views from a trail in our neighborhood, but views from the western half of the neighborhood are now obstructed and those homes look directly to the back of a warehouse which includes large ventilation outlets that generate noise at least). Moreover, traffic especially during the school year is very challenging. Even at present in the morning hours (during school times) traffic can be so backed up that it's taken me 5-10 minutes just to get onto Timberline--summertime doesn't present the same challenges. This is compounded by the fact that International Blvd. is our (Timbervine) and Dry Creek's only way in or out. Furthermore, I worry about school traffic and traffic flows on International, Mexico Way, and other streets, especially in the case of an emergency with egress in only one direction. I also worry about being able to get home during pick up or drop off if traffic accesses a new school development from Mexico Way. Additionally, the absence of a traffic signal at International and Timberline exacerbates traffic flow challenges. Making a northbound turn onto Timberline is very hard to do almost anytime of day, and I imagine traffic access in any direction could become worse if a development increased the number of people needing to access the area at a given time. In fact, I often choose to take Mulberry or Lincoln rather than Vine, even though Vine more directly serves destinations to the west, because of how much time is added, generally, trying to exit from International towards Vine. In summary, traffic flow and egress are two of my top concerns with any development in this area. I'm optimistic that design standards if annexed will be more substantial compared to Larimer County design standards, and I would advocate for a thorough review of the viewshed impacts to any development especially for the Timbervine neighborhood. Thank you and again appreciate your time, Nicholas On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 1:22 PM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Either one is going to work just as well. We'll get you some more details about the project at the meeting, so you might want to wait to make your comments until after then. But you can choose to speak them to us at the meeting, or write them and send them to me here! (Or both of course) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 246 Em From: Nicholas Heimann <nicholas.heimann87@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 7:19 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Sign 786 Great, thank you so much! Finally, the best time to offer thoughts (traffic, egress, etc.) will be at the meeting vs via email, is that accurate? Appreciate your time, Nick On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 1:15 PM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Yes. I will go out there this afternoon and get it back up! Em From: Nicholas Heimann <nicholas.heimann87@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 7:13 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sign 786 Great, thank you. I actually do now see this information now, thanks for your help. Is it possible to have the sign replaced ASAP? I didn't notice this morning if it had gone back up or not, and perhaps that's already taken care of. Nicholas On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:26 AM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Nicholas, Thank you very much for your email. Sign 786 is connected to a proposal from the Heritage Christian Academy to annex a little over 13 acres of their property into the city and build a new athletic facility and additional classrooms. We have a neighborhood meeting scheduled for September 5th from 6-7:30 p.m. on this project. If you are interested in learning more, we would love to see you there! I am hoping to host the meeting at the school itself, as well as on zoom via this link: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 247 https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/92641077351. You can find information about development projects on this webpage: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals. I recommend scrolling to the "Development Proposals Under Review" table and using the search methods to find anything we currently have in review at the City. From: Nicholas Heimann <nicholas.heimann87@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 2:31 AM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sign 786 Hello, I recently saw a yellow development review sign with the number 786, located at the NE corner of Mexico Way and International Blvd. I live in the Timbervine neighborhood just north of the area. Within the last couple of days, though, the sign is now lying on the ground and not visible. I was looking into the information for Sign 786 earlier this week, however I couldn’t find anything that matched exactly the number or the parcel on which the sign was placed. I found some, what appear to be, older projects including an industrial development and a school development. I’m wondering if you can help me determine whether the sign is current and for what project it is related to. Thank you, Nicholas Heimann ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 248 From:Ryan Mounce To:Nolan O"Keefe Cc:Development Review Comments Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Heritage Annexation & Overall Development Plan #786 Date:Monday, September 9, 2024 12:06:24 PM Hi Nolan, Thanks for reaching out. Most of the surrounding roadways are currently in Larimer County, with the exception of a portion of International Boulevard south of the project site and further to the west and the Dry Creek neighborhood. If the annexation is approved, all of the adjoining street rights-of- way would be annexed into the City, including Mexico Way, Munich Way and Zurich Drive from Mexico Way to the edge of the school’s current building/property. For the annexation itself, there’s no immediate impact to these roadways. If the streets were built or improved to the City’s street standards then the City would take over full maintenance of these roadways. If the streets do not meet the City’s standards then the City typically performs the same level of maintenance that Larimer County provides. For instance, if the County is only providing crack sealing or basic overlays, the City would perform a similar level of maintenance. After annexation, if the school moves forward with any physical construction and there are further development reviews, they may be required to improve the frontages along those streets, such as adding tree lawns, sidewalks, etc. There are also likely to be discussions around options for street maintenance and costs to bring some of these roadways up to City standards and what those options would look like. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Nolan O'Keefe <okeefenolan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:52 AM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Heritage Annexation & Overall Development Plan #786 Hello Ryan, My name is Nolan O'Keefe. I was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the plan noted in the subject line so I wanted to reach out with a couple questions. Will this annexation from the county into the city impact the jurisdiction of the roads in the area. Specifically, International Blvd, Mexico Way, Munich Way, and Zurich Dr? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 249 Currently, which of these are city roads and which are county roads? And assuming this plan is approved, what will the impact be? Thank you, please let me know if I can clarify my questions. -Nolan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 250 From:Laurel Branstrator To:John Branstrator; Laurel Branstrator; Development Review Comments; Julia Branstrator; Ryan S; Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Hybrid Neighborhood Meeting - International Blvd & Mexico Way Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:38:13 PM Dear Mr. Mounce My name is Laurel Branstrator. My husband, John, and I are new homeowners in the Timbervine Subdivision here on the northeast corner of Ft. Collins. We became enamored of the Ft. Collins area as our daughter, Julia Branstrator, began graduate school at CSU. In 2020, we purchased a house on Winnipeg Drive in the Dry Creek subdivision in order to be closer to her. Over time, Julia and her husband Ryan have purchased the Winnipeg house from us - we have now purchased a second house on Stout street in the Timbervine subdivision right around the corner. We are very pleased with these neighborhoods here off of International Blvd and both households look forward to living here for many years. It has recently come to our attention that a proposed annexation and overall development plan for a private school off of International Blvd is under consideration. We were unable to attend the September 5 'hybrid planning/development' meeting. Consequently, we would like to express our opinion about the proposal to you now. We strongly DISAPPROVE of any measure that would allow Heritage Christian School to annex the property and develop it for their purposes. Here are our concerns: Currently, there is only a single entrance/egress at the intersection of International Blvd and Timberline for the combined use of Timbervine residents, Dry Creek Residents, and the various nearby business establishments. With the additional large subdivisions that are currently under construction near the intersection of Vine and Timberline, it is already difficult to turn out of our development onto the main road. It is particularly difficult during morning rush hour when Heritage School parents are dropping their children off in the morning or picking them up in the afternoon. The additional traffic that will be generated by the school will be largely generated by families who do not not live in one of these subdivisions. This single traffic access point is already over utilized and has the potential to be a constraint for emergency access to Timbervine and Dry Creek. Additional traffic at that pinch point only serves to increase that risk. As the proposal has been explained: 'future phased development of a private school campus to include classroom, administrative, gymnasium space and an outdoor track/sports field'. Currently, the school has some outside play areas - in particular a soccer field. These spaces are currently fenced off and locked with 'no trespassing' signs so that local residents, who are not members of the church or attend the school, are unable to take advantage of the fields. Our assumption is that as the school takes over an additional 13.6 acres for their own use, local residents will be restricted from access to the proposed playgrounds or ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 251 sports fields. For the proposed track/sports field, we assume this means hosted sporting events drawing crowds, noise and additional lighting. We understand that this is an appealing location for growth. However, our suggestion is that the land is reserved for a purpose that can be more ubiquitously utilized by the nearby residents as this entire area continues to grow. Possibly a public school or an extension of the library? Even small restaurants or additional small businesses that can take advantage of the current zoning regulations would be preferable. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss it further. Kind Regards Laurel Branstrator 765-714-9094 lebranstrator@gmail.com ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 252 From:Bruce Wahlgren To:Development Review Comments Cc:Sherri Wahlgren; Dan West Subject:[EXTERNAL] Heritage Annexation hearing Date:Saturday, December 7, 2024 9:08:28 AM Thank you for sending the notice of public hearing for the Heritage Annexation. My wife (Sherri) and I had attended the initial informational meeting at the Heritage school several months ago, and recognize that this is the step that occurs before the actual development proposal review; we have no concerns, other than the traffic related ones we and others raised at the earlier meeting. We're contacting you to strongly recommend that notices also be sent to every resident of the Dry Creek neighborhood which is adjacent to our Timbervine neighborhood. International Blvd is the only means of egress from both neighborhoods, so they are impacted just as much as those of us in Timbervine, and deserve to be aware of both the annexation and development review processes so they can have a voice as well. We realize that Dry Creek may technically be beyond the distance required for notification, however, given the impact on those residents, we feel the spirit of the notification requirement, if not the legal aspect, should be observed. Thank you for your consideration. -- Bruce Wahlgren "The only thing a golfer needs is more daylight" - Ben Hogan ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 253 Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan Planning & Zoning Commission – March 26, 2025 2Project Overview Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan Establish Overall Development Plan on 19.76 acres in the Employment (E) Zone District Phased development of private school campus Future classroom, administrative, recreation/sports field facilities Anticipate future school enrollment of ~600 students (240 current) Flexibility for other primary/secondary uses Existing light-industrial businesses on-site Changes as school needs or fundraising evolve Overall Development Plan: Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the overall development plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an overall development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 254 3Aerial Vicinity SITE Dry Creek Timbervine Collins Aire Mosaic Air Park Bl o o m International Blvd Ti m b e r l i n e R d 4Zoning Vicinity SITE International Blvd Ti m b e r l i n e R d Vine Dr (E) (LMN) (MMN)(LMN) (LMN) (I) (IL) Larimer County (IL) Larimer County (O) Larimer County 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 255 5Site Photos Existing Structure (school + other light industrial businesses) NW Corner (View N towards Timbervine) Middle Section (View S towards International Blvd) 6Adjacent Context E/SE – Light Industrial & Office (Industrial Business Park International) N – Timbervine Neighborhood 5 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 256 7Adjacent Context Photos S / SW – Undeveloped Land; Airpark BeyondW – New Commercial / Industrial Flex Development (Dry Creek Neighborhood Beyond) E Light Industrial / Office 8ODP Map 7 8 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 257 9ODP – Review Standards Summary of ODP Standards (Division 6.5.2) 6.5.2(I)(1) – Consistent with Permitted Uses & Zone District Standards 6.5.2(I)(2) – Consistent with density requirements for residential uses 6.5.2(I)(3) & (4) – Consistent with Master Street Plan, Street Pattern & Connectivity Standards 6.5.2(I)(5) – Identify location / approximate size of natural features & habitat buffers 6.5.2(I)(6) – Consistent with Drainage Basin Master Plan 6.5.2(I)(7) – Consistent with Housing Density / Housing Mix standards applied across entire ODP 10ODP – Land Use All ODP Parcels: Primary intent is for a ‘Public/Private schools (elem., interm. & H.S.)’ Permitted Use in Employment (E) District as a ‘Primary Use’ Parcel C (Existing Development) – Limited to Primary Uses Parcels A & B – Flexibility to consider other Primary / Secondary Uses (subject to 75% primary / 25% secondary use ratio requirements) 9 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 258 11ODP – Density Requirements All ODP Parcels: No direct residential use proposed. Density requirements N/A Employment District: Requires minimum of 7 dwelling units per acre when residential is proposed. Further restrictions on the amount of residential as a secondary use. 12ODP – Access & Street Connectivity ODP utilizes existing, established street network Site is largely bound & served by local streets Intersection spacing along International Blvd. meets LUC standards Connectivity to adjacent development and/or blocked by natural features New internal pedestrian connections / network TIS: LCUASS Level of Service standards met TIS: Signal warrant at Timberline / International long-term (2045) due to growing background traffic 660’ 660’ 640’630’International Blvd Ti m b e r l i n e R d Zurich DrMe x i c o W a y Mu n i c h W a y Zu r i c h D r New Internal Pedestrian Network 11 12 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 259 13ODP – Natural Features Identifies natural features & approximate buffers Lake Canal Naturalized Drainage / Wetland Offsite Naturalized Drainage / Wetland 14ODP – Drainage Drainage Report reviewed and complies with Dry Creek Basin Master Plan ODP Drainage Report builds upon existing drainage / stormwater infrastructure already present 13 14 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 260 15ODP – Housing Mix No direct residential use proposed. Housing mix standards N/A Employment (E) District – No zone district specific housing mix standards 16Public Comments - Themes Interest & concern about drop-off / pick-up timing and function Concern about increased traffic, especially impact on Timberline / International intersection Desire and need for additional access points to the area beyond International Blvd 15 16 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 261 17Findings of Fact The Overall Development Plan complies with Section 1.2.2(A) of the Land Use Code and the City Plan Structure Plan, City Plan Principles and Policies, and associated policies and goals of the East Mulberry Plan. The Overall Development Plan complies with applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 6 of the Land Use Code. The Overall Development Plan complies with the applicable review standards for Overall Development Plans of Section 6.5.2(I)(1) through (7). 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 262 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 www.fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2025 TO: Chair Stackhouse and Planning & Zoning Commissioners FROM: Ryan Mounce, City Planner RE: Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan Work Session Follow-up The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information from staff and project applicants in response to questions at the March 14, 2025, Work Session regarding the Heritage Christian Academy Overall Development Plan #ODP240001. What future land uses may be impacted by the school expansion due to local or state buffering requirements? The presence of the school as well as the proposed westward expansion could impact the ability of several types of businesses to begin new operations based on either state and/or local buffering requirements for certain land uses, including: Alcohol Sales: 500-ft buffer requirement Marijuana Cultivation & Retail Sales: 1,000-ft buffer requirement Healing Centers*: 1,000-ft buffer requirement Oil & Gas Operations: 2,000-ft buffer requirement * Healing Centers are related to psychedelic mushrooms and psychedelic-assisted therapy The Heritage Christian Academy has been in operation at their current location for 17 years and these buffer requirements already impact the existing light industrial and employment businesses south of the current school building as well as approximately half of the vacant land west of the ODP project site using across Mexico Way using a 500-ft buffer from the edge of their building’s parcel. The expansion of the school would increase the size of these buffers, primarily to the west/southwest primarily into properties north of the old Airpark runways along the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. Approximately how many students currently walk or bike to school; how does this relate to the Traffic Impact Study analysis? The project applicants have provided the following response to this question: As neither the existing nor future school facilities will be a typical ‘neighborhood’ school, few students are likely to walk or bike to the school. As such, the traffic impact study is based on ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 263 this assumption and the parent drop-off lanes will ultimately be designed accordingly. The statement within the TIS (page 18) is referring to the future school development. However, in answering the question asked, no students currently walk/bike to the existing school facilities on Zurich Drive but in years past there have been some students that either walk or bike to the school. Would the school consider installing plantings or other buffering elements in advance of the school expansion to ‘pre-buffer’ with adjacent light industrial and employment uses? The project applicants have provided the following response to this question: The school has been in this location for many years without any significant issues with our Industrial use neighbors. However, as the school expands, we agree that appropriate buffering will be required, and we intend to meet these requirements. However, we would prefer to locate landscape buffers once we have developed more information on the locations of buildings, student areas, ballfields, etc. so they can be designed and located in the most effective manner. Since we are very early in the planning process (ODP), we would request that the addition of landscape buffers be reviewed at the time of PDP for our initial phase of development. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 264 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation TO: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk FROM: Julie Stackhouse, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission DATE: March 26, 2025 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission 2024 Summary & 2025 Work Plan Planning & Zoning Commission at a Glance •The Planning and Zoning Commission’s responsibilities include making recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning, annexations, land use code amendments, major public and private projects and any legislative or long-range planning activities (such as City Plan or subarea plans) that require Council approval. •The Commission is the final decision-making authority regarding land use proposals, including overall development plans, project development plans, major amendments and planned unit development master plans for projects under 640 acres in size. •The Commission is composed of seven volunteer members, with interest or expertise in land use planning, architecture, engineering, construction, historic preservation, real estate, and related fields. 2024 in Review The Planning & Zoning Commission held 11 regular hearings acting on an average of 2-3 items per meeting. The Commission also held 11 work sessions. The Commission continued to make adaptations to transition to a hybrid meeting format. With the adoption of Ordinance 143, 2022 in December of 2022, the Municipal Code was amended to allow remote participation by applicants and the public, and for Commissioners during non-quasi-judicial items. The Commission conducted all its meetings in a hybrid format in 2024. In addition to all regularly scheduled meetings, one additional special meeting was held in August 2024 to dedicate an entire hearing to one development project. The following projects were reviewed by the Commission in 2024: •Hub on Campus Vested Rights Extension Request •Brick Stone Apartments Vested Rights Extension Request •Prospect Sports Club •Mason Street Infrastructure Overall Development Plan •Union Park •Willox Farm Continuation •East Oak Townhomes •Fort Collins Rescue Mission •117 Mason St. – Seasonal Overflow Shelter ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 265 • Hub on Campus Vested Rights Extension • Tapestry Project Development Plan w/Addition of a Permitted Use • Liberty Common Junior High, SPA240002 • Carnegie Building Renovation Lighting Update, MA230137 • Schoolside Park, BDR240009 • Heritage Annexation, ANX240001 Under the authority granted to Boards and Commissions by City Council, P&Z adopted Public Rules of Procedure for Public Participation to ensure consistency in the way public comment is managed at hearings. The following decisions of the Commission were appealed to City Council in 2024: • Ziegler/Corbett PDP • Fort Collins Rescue Mission PDP In addition to project reviews within the Commission’s decision-making authority, the Commission also made recommendations to City Council on the following projects: Annexations, Plan Amendments, and Rezonings: • Mulberry & I-25 Annexation • Traffic Operations Xeriscape Plans, Policies, and Code Updates: • 2023 Three-Mile Plan Update • East Mulberry Plan Recommendation • Land Use Code Updates o Foundational Improvements o Amendments Related to Occupancy o Amendments Related to State Requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units and Parking Regulations o Soil & Xeriscape Landscape Standards • East Mulberry Structure Plan Map Change • Proposed Soil & Xeriscape Landscape Standard Updates • Water Supply Requirement Fee, Excess Water Use Surcharges and Non-Residential Allotments 2025 Initiatives and Ongoing Projects In addition to evaluating development proposals, the Commission anticipates committing time to a number of important policy issues in 2025, including: • The Future of Commercial Corridors and Centers: Land Use Code Updates – The Commission will discuss and provide input on Land Use Code amendments, with the goal of implementing policy direction from City Plan, the Active Modes Plan, Our Climate Future, and other plans and policies. Priorities include calibrating the mix of employment and industrial land uses, promoting transit-supportive development, evolving forestry and water conservation requirements, updating building and site design standards, refining standards for the protection of historic and natural features, and improving the efficiency of review processes. cc: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Liaison Kelly DiMartino, City Manager ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 266 Caryn Champine, Planning, Development and Transportation Director Lori Schwarz, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Clay Frickey, Planning Manager ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 267 Development Review Staff Report Planning & Development Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 www.fcgov.com March 26, 2025 – Planning & Zoning Commission Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond Basic Development Review (BDR240006) Request to Extend Appeal Hearing Deadline Summary of Request This is a request to extend the 60-day hearing deadline pursuant to Land Use Code, Sec. 6.3.12(C), for an appeal filed in January on the Planning Manager’s Decision approving a Basic Development Review to develop the residential core section of Montava Phase D and the irrigation pond of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. The basis of the appeal is related to the impact of proposed stormwater management and development plans on nearby irrigation ditches. An appeal hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission would be a new (de novo) hearing, effectively nullifying the current approval. The Appellants and the Developer are in on-going negotiations on a final settlement agreement that may render the appeal moot, and cause it to be withdrawn. Given this, both parties have agreed to extending the hearing deadline to allow time to finalize and execute that outstanding agreement. Next Steps Pending resolution of the agreement negotiations, staff would schedule the appeal hearing, or process a withdrawal of the appeal. If the appeal is not withdrawn, the hearing would be scheduled for a regular meeting in April or May, 2025. Site Location Located northwest of the intersection of Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive Parcel # 8833000002 Zoning Employment (E); within Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD), Phase D Property Owner Anheuser-Busch Foundation C/O Anheuser-Busch Companies 1 Busch Place Saint Louis, MO 63118 Applicant/Representative Forrest Hancock Montava Development & Construction, LLC 430 North College Avenue, #410 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Kim Meyer, Principal Planner Contents 1. Project Summary .......................................... 2 2. Land Use Code ............................................ 2 3. Recommendation ......................................... 2 4. Attachments ................................................. 2 Staff Recommendation Approve a motion to extend the hearing deadline by 60 days. Agenda Item 4 Packet Pg. 268 Planning & Zoning Commission Request to Extend Hearing Deadline March 26, 2025 | Page 2 of 2 Back to Top 1. Project Summary This BDR plan includes 329 alley-loaded single-unit attached and single-unit detached dwelling units, associated civic spaces, and infrastructure. No mixed-use or commercial uses are part of this phase. A tract will be designated for a future 150-210 multi-unit project. The request includes a non-potable irrigation pond that will serve a non-potable system designed as a part of Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond. Future access will be taken from Giddings Road to the east. The pond is proposed to be located adjacent to the City of Fort Collins planned community park, future elementary school site, and other planned Montava development areas. In January 2020, City Council approved the PUD Master Plan, making the proposed uses subject to Basic Development Review. 2. Land Use Code Division 6 Land Use Code Section 6.3.12(C) requires a hearing be scheduled no later than 60 days after filing of the appeal, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission adopts a motion granting an extension of such time period. 3. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a 60-day Extension to the Hearing Date of the Appeal of the Decision approving a Basic Development Review to develop the residential core section of Montava Phase D and the irrigation pond of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. 4. Attachments A. Notice Of Appeal B. Manager’s Decision C. BDR240006 Staff Report Packet Pg. 269 For City Staff Use Only: Date Filed: Initials: NOTICE OF APPEAL Action Being Appealed: Date of Action: Decision Maker (Board, Commission, or Other): Appellant/Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant):Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants. Name:Phone #: Address: Email: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 270 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 271 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6689 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview January 8, 2025 Max Moss Montava Development & Construction, LLC 430 N College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006 – Manager’s Decision Dear Max: On May 1st, 2024, the City of Fort Collins Development Review Division received and processed a request for the Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, being a request for development of 329 alley-loaded single-unit attached and single-unit detached dwellings. (parcel #8833000002) in Transects 5, 4, and 3.2 per the Montava PUD Master Plan. This request has been processed in accordance with Section 2.2 and 2.18 – Basic Development Review Procedures, of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code pursuant to the applicable standards in the Land Use Code. This request was evaluated under the 1997 Land Use Code and Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. The Planning Manager hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1.Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006, has been accepted and properly processed in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2 and 2.18 of the Land Use Code. 2.Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006, complies with the applicable sections of Article Three, General Development Standards, of the Land Use Code with the following conditions of approval. i.For the City to provide the Developer with approval of the Final Development Plan set, Development Agreement, and release the Development Construction Permit, the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.Developer agrees to permit and construct necessary stormwater infrastructure to provide an adequate stormwater outfall in accordance with the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual, an agreement with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), and City of Fort Collins revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan per the timeline outlined in these conditions. 2.Montava Development leadership and engineering staff will attend design charette and monthly recurring coordination meetings with City Stormwater Master Planning and Water Utilities Development Review to keep plans and construction on track. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 272 2 3.The Developer must have received all necessary variances from the City, as determined by the City, that are applicable to the necessary stormwater infrastructure and related plans including, but not limited to: a.Any necessary variances pursuant to the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual; and b.Any necessary variances from other City of Fort Collins departments. 4.All plans, supporting reports, and modeling, must be at 100% design detail and meet all City criteria and standards, including, but not limited to, all criteria and standards set forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (except to the extent the Developer has acquired variances for the same). 5.The Developer has acquired all necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned stormwater infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, including, but not limited to, the following: a.Executed "Settlement Agreement Regarding Ditch Crossings, Ditch Modifications, and Stormwater." between the Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC), the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), Montava Development & Construction LLC, Montava Partners LLC, and Montava Metropolitan District No. 1 detailing the requirements and timelines for permitting and constructing culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past LWIC’s Larimer and Weld Canal and associated easement. If settlement agreement is not finalized by all parties, the Developer will follow the standard City process timelines and requirements for permitting and constructing the stormwater outfall. As the City is not a party to the settlement agreement, the City is not in any way required or responsible for taking any actions, including construction and planning actions, or meeting any timelines, whether express or implied, that are included in the settlement agreement, except to the extent that the City is separately required or responsible for such actions and timelines. b.Fee ownership, an adequate easement (as determined by the City), or irrevocable license from any property owner(s) located downstream of the Larimer and Weld Canal for any work that will not be in an existing drainage easement authorizing such work. Note that such property owners may include, but may be limited to: the LWIC, the Trail Head Community Association, Waterglen Owners Association, and Front Range Water, LLC. c.Any other necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned drainage infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, as determined by the City. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 273 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6689 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview 6.The Developer must place the following note on the Final Plans concerning permitting with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of- way. a.Developer is proceeding at their own risk. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) permits are required for the Montava Phase D stormwater outfall. The design for the stormwater outfall will be reviewed by the City under a separate utility plan set. BNSF review and permitting will coincide with the following City process milestones: i.The Developer will obtain BNSF Engineering Review Approval for the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing any building permits for Montava Phase D. ii.The Developer will obtain a BNSF permit for construction of the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 25% of Montava Phase D building permits. iii.The Developer will construct and certify the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits). b.Developer acknowledges the design for the stormwater outfall infrastructure may need to change based on future revisions to the Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan resulting from any agreement the Developer may enter into with local ditch companies. The City will not pay or reimburse the Developer if designed and/or constructed drainage infrastructure does not meet the revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan. 7.Prior to construction within the regulatory FEMA floodplain, the Developer has acquired from the City, pursuant to the Fort Collins Municipal Code, a floodplain use permit with no-rise or CLOMR for any work within a FEMA regulated floodplain, as such terms are defined in Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ii.For the City to release any building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development, the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.The Developer must have obtained BNSF Engineering Review Approval for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of- way. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 274 4 iii.For the City to release up to 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.The Developer must have met all conditions listed in the previous section regarding building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D. 2.The Developer must have acquired BNSF permits for the Stormwater outfall. iv.For the City to release the remaining building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (anything above the previously-released 35% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.All offsite drainage infrastructure must be installed pursuant to the Final Development Plan approved by the City. 2.All offsite drainage infrastructure must be certified by the developer’s engineer and accepted by the City. 3.Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006, complies with all applicable requirements of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Based on these findings of fact, the Planning Manager of the City of Fort Collins makes the following decision: Approved with Conditions____________________ January 8, 2025___________________ Decision Date _________________________________________ Clay Frickey City of Fort Collins, Planning Manager This final decision of the Planning Manager may be appealed to the Planning & Zoning Commission, in accordance with Article 2, Division 2.18.3(L) of the Land Use Code, within 14 calendar days of the date of final action by the Planning Manager. Guidelines explaining the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found online at fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php, or may be obtained in the City Clerk’s Office at 300 Laporte Avenue. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 275 Development Review Staff Report Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Director CDNS: January 8, 2025 Montava Phase D BDR240006 Summary of Request This is a request for a Basic Development Review to develop the residential core section of Montava Phase D and the irrigation pond of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. This request includes 329 alley-loaded single-unit attached and single-unit detached dwelling units, associated civic spaces, and infrastructure. No mixed-use or commercial uses are part of this phase. A tract will be designated for a future 150-210 multi-unit project. The request includes a non-potable irrigation pond that will serve a non-potable system designed as a part of Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond. Future access will be taken from Giddings Road to the east. The pond is proposed to be located adjacent to the City of Fort Collins planned community park, future elementary school site and other planned Montava development areas. In January 2020, City Council approved the PUD Master Plan, making the proposed uses subject to Basic Development Review. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved, the applicant will be eligible to finalize engineering and other details and record all plan documents; the applicant could then apply for construction and building permits. Site Location Located northwest of the intersection of Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive., Parcels # 8833000002. Zoning Employment (E), and within the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD), Phase D. Property Owner Anheuser-Busch Foundation C/O Anheuser-Busch Companies 1 Busch Place Saint Louis, MO 63118 Applicant/Representative Forrest Hancock Montava Development & Construction, LLC 430 North College Avenue, #410 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Clay Frickey, Planning Manager Jill Baty, City Planner Contents 1.Project Introduction .................................... 2 2.Comprehensive Plan ................................. 3 3.Public Outreach ......................................... 8 4.Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 8 5.Land Use Code Article 3 ............................ 9 6.Montava PUD Master Plan Overlay ......... 16 7.Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 19 8. Recommendation ..................................... 21 9. Attachments ............................................. 21 Staff Recommendation Approval of the BDR with conditions. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 276 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 2 of 21 Back to Top 1.Project Introduction A.PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request for a Basic Development Review (BDR) to develop 329 single-unit attached and detached dwellings, civic spaces, irrigation pond and affiliated infrastructure improvements as part of Phase D of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) (parcel # 8833000002). The site is located directly west of Giddings Road, between Mountain Vista and Richards Lake Rd. Future access will be taken from Giddings Road. Phase D is located within Transects 4, 5 and 3.2 of the PUD Master Plan. The project is subject to a decision by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. •The plan is diagonally south-east of the existing Maple Hill subdivision. It is east of the proposed future Poudre School District site, and the existing Storybrook subdivision to the west. The Number 8 Ditch runs near Phase D, to the west, but importantly, Phase D drains to the east, away from the ditch. •The plan includes 197,400 square feet (4.5 acres) of civic space in the form of greenways, greens, pocket parks, commons, passages, and a square. •Phase D proposes a series of public streets that will connect with future phases of the Montava development. The applicant proposes a roundabout to connect Phase D with Giddings Road. Staff are currently reviewing an infrastructure only BDR that must gain approval prior to construction of Phase D. B.SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1.Development Status/Background The subject property is currently farmed and is 289-acres in size. It will be platted as part of this BDR project. The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins on May 8, 1984 as part of the Allen Lind and Moore Annexation. The project includes parts of two existing parcels (parcels # 8382000001, 8832000002). 2.Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Montava PUD Transect Districts: Suburban Neighborhood (T3.2), General Urban Neighborhood (T4), Poudre School Special District (PSD) Montava PUD Transect Districts: Urban Center/Mixed-Use (T5), General Urban Neighborhood (T4) Montava PUD Transect District: General Urban Neighborhood (T4) Montava PUD Transect Districts: General Urban Neighborhood (T4), Community Park Special District (P) Low Density-Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Land Use Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture, Single- family Detached (Maple Hill neighborhood) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 277 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 3 of 21 Back to Top C.OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF’S REVIEW The plans were developed, and issues clarified through four rounds of submittals with responses to comments and questions. The major considerations of staff’s review included: •Stormwater conveyance in compliance with the requirements of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company. Montava and the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company achieved alignment on a stormwater design through mediation though an agreement is not yet finalized. The proposed stormwater system reflects the expected outcomes of mediation. •Montava requested a series of variances from the City’s road standards to develop the proposed street network. Variances include modifications to standard street cross sections, standard utility easements on non-arterials, centerline tangent length, and centerline radius. These variance requests required collaboration between the City and applicant to develop a street network fitting of Montava’s New Urbanist vision while meeting safety standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). •Transportation improvements include a roundabout on Giddings Road, a connected network of streets internal to Phase D, and adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk to Giddings Road along Phase D’s frontage. •Environmental assessment of existing natural habitat and wetlands on and off-site, with appropriate mitigation provided on-site. •Ensuring all civic spaces met the criteria of the Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. 2.Comprehensive Plan A.CITY PLAN (2019) The City’s comprehensive plan (City Plan) was updated in 2019. City Plan is organized based on seven outcome areas that form the basis of the City’s Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Three core values guide the vision for City Plan: livability, community, and sustainability. Each outcome area has a series of statements indicating how the principles and policies of each outcome area align with the core values. Action plans accompany each outcome area to ensure implementation of City Plan. The Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond plan provides an opportunity to further implement the vision of City Plan representing new “greenfield development” to create a well-planned, mixed-use community from the ground up. Key policies in City Plan set the foundation for implementation and the PUD is consistent with this policy direction. Relevant Policies: Neighborhood Livability and Social Health Principle LIV 1: Maintain a compact pattern of growth that is well served by public facilities and encourages the efficient use of land. Principle LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows. Principle LIV 4: Enhance Neighborhood Livability Policy LIV 4.1 - NEW NEIGHBORHOODS Encourage 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. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 278 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 4 of 21 Back to Top •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. Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices. Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities. Policy LIV 5.2 - SUPPLY OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice. Principle LIV 9: Encourage development that reduces impacts on natural ecosystems and promotes sustainability and resilience. Policy LIV 9.1 – EFFICIENCY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION Reduce net energy and water use of new and existing buildings through energy-efficiency programs, incentives, building and energy code regulations, and electrification and integration of renewable energy technologies. Policy LIV 9.2 – OUTDOOR WATER USE Promote reductions in outdoor water use by selecting low-water- use plant materials, using efficient irrigation, improving the soil before planting and exploring opportunities to use non-potable water for irrigation. Policy LIV 9.4 – SOLAR ORIENTATION Orient buildings, streets and public spaces to take advantage of active and passive solar energy. Consider factors such as landscaping, window placement, overhangs and building location to heat homes, reduce snow and ice buildup on neighborhood streets and to enhance the comfort of public spaces. Culture and Recreation Policy CR 2.1 - RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Maintain and facilitate the development of a well balanced system of parks, trails, natural areas and recreation facilities that provide residents and visitors of all races/ethnicities, incomes, ages, abilities and backgrounds with a variety of recreational opportunities. Policy CR 2.2 - INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM Support an interconnected regional and local system of parks, trails and open lands that balances recreation needs with the need to protect wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas. Policy CR 3.2 – MULTIPURPOSE LANDS Maintain and develop partnerships among City departments and other organizations to provide multipurpose parks and natural areas to maximize and leverage available resources. Environmental Health Principle ENV 1: Conserve, create and enhance ecosystems and natural spaces within Fort Collins, the GMA and the region. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 279 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 5 of 21 Back to Top Policy ENV 1.3 - NATURE IN THE CITY Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the GMA by: …supporting the use of a broad range of native landscaping that enhances plant and animal diversity. Principle ENV 3: Transition from fossil to renewable-energy systems. Policy ENV 3.2. – EFFICIENT BUILDINGS Support continuous improvements in efficiency for existing and new buildings through incentives, reporting requirements and energy codes. Policy ENV 3.3 - ELECTRIFICATION Support a systems approach to transition from the use of natural gas to renewable electricity in buildings and for transportation. Policy ENV 4.6 – VEHICLES AND NON-ROAD ENGINES Promote efforts to reduce fuel consumption and associated pollutant emissions from vehicles and non-road engine sources, such as lawn and garden equipment. Principle ENV 6: Manage water resources in a manner that enhances and protects water quality, supply and reliability. Policy ENV 8.1 – HEALTH OF THE URBAN FOREST Practice sound arboriculture practices, including diversification of species; monitoring and managing insect and disease impacts, and preparing for unanticipated events such as drought, extreme weather and the long-term effects of climate change. Policy ENV 9.3 – OUTDOOR LIGHTING – Use development regulations to promote best practices; lighting only where needed, lighting only when needed, shielding lights and directing them downward, minimizing glare and light trespass, selecting lamps with warmer color temperatures, and selecting the most efficient lighting methods for both energy and lighting purposes. Safe Community Principle SC1: Create public spaces and rights-of-way that are safe and welcoming to all users. Policy SC 1.1- NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS Provide and expand opportunities for neighborhood safety and involvement by fostering good neighborhood relations, building a sense of community pride and involvement, promoting safe and attractive neighborhoods, and encouraging compliance with City codes and regulations. Policy SC 1.2 – PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH DESIGN Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings, parking areas, walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces and streets through creative placemaking and environmental design considerations, such as appropriate lighting, public art, visibility, maintained landscaping and location of facilities. Principle SC 4: Provide opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles and improve access to local food. Transportation Principle T 1: Coordinate transportation plans, management, and investments with land use plans and decisions. Policy T 1.2 - LAND USE CONTEXT Consider the land use context for transportation projects by incorporating design that is sensitive to existing and future land uses; considering environmental, scenic, aesthetic and historic values; and evaluating the potential equity impacts of projects. Policy T 1.5 - DISTRICTS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS Provide a wide array of transportation facilities and services to support development and functioning of activity centers and districts. Principle T 2: Build and maintain high-quality infrastructure that supports all modes of travel. The City Structure Plan map includes the following land use designations for Phase D of the Montava PUD: Mixed Neighborhood. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 280 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 6 of 21 Back to Top Mixed-Use Neighborhoods District Key Characteristics: Provide opportunities for a variety of attached and detached housing options and amenities in a compact neighborhood setting; some neighborhoods also include (or have direct access to) small-scale retail and other supporting services; Neighborhood Centers should serve as focal points within Mixed-Neighborhoods (see Neighborhood Mixed-Use District); Typically located within walking/biking distance of services and amenities, as well as high-frequency transit; and Mixed-Neighborhoods built in a greenfield context should include a mix of housing options (lot size, type, price range, etc.). Montava Phase D, which includes Montava PUD Transect Districts, Urban Center/ Mixed-Use (T5), General Urban Neighborhood (T4), and Sub-urban Neighborhood (T3.2), permits and encourages a wide variety of residential types and densities. The project proposes a gradation of densities from north to south. At the north end, the lower density T3.2 district borders the proposed elementary school site (not included in this phase). Moving south towards the Montava town center (not included in this phase), housing density increases. Phase D sets aside two future sites for multi-unit housing development, which will further contribute to the mix of housing and gradation of densities. The street network provides connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists in alignment with the vision for Mixed-Use Neighborhood Districts. B.MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN (2009) In 2009, City Council adopted the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The Plan Framework map included seven future land use designations: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN), Community Commercial (CC), Employment (E), Industrial (I), School (PSD), and Community Park (POL). The Plan offers the following relevant goals or policy guidance: Policy MV-LU-1.4 The Community Commercial District’s (CCD) “main street” will be aligned towards the mountain view of Longs Peak, parallel to the 4-lane arterial street (approximate angle 38 degrees). This main street orientation will provide a site line looking southwest towards the mountains. Policy MV-LU-1.6 Higher density mixed-use neighborhoods should be concentrated adjacent to the Community Commercial District and along the Enhanced Travel Corridors, including the extension of realigned Vine Drive and Timberline Road corridors. Policy MV-T-1.4 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, both on- and off-street, will be developed to link this subarea to downtown Fort Collins and the Poudre River Trail. These connections will link the comprehensive city- and region-wide bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. Policy MV-T-3.1 The CCD’s local street network will be designed to maximize a town-like pattern of blocks, building frontage, and on-street parking. For these streets, standards will emphasize the urban form and the pedestrian environment. Vehicle access and flow will be accommodated, but will not override the design of the pedestrian street fronts. Possible elements of the design may include slow speed limits, angled on-street parking, wider lanes (with maneuvering room for bicycles), medians with pedestrian refuges, and curb extensions at corners. Policy MV-CAD-1.1 Key subarea streets, where appropriate, should be oriented southwest to allow development to provide mountain views. Policy MV-CAD-1.2 Developers and architects will be encouraged to arrange buildings, outdoor spaces, and parking lots to protect important view corridors, including limiting building heights, where such arrangements are effective in emphasizing vistas of the mountains. Policy MV-NOL-1.2 An off-street multi-use trail network will be located within this subarea that establishes an important connection between neighborhoods, School, Community Park, Community Commercial District, and employment areas, and destinations outside of the subarea. This trail network will be designed and located in accordance with the City’s Parks & Recreation Policy Plan and the Natural Areas Policy Plan. Policy MV-NOL-1.3 A network of open lands including parks, trails and natural areas will be connected by existing ditch and canal facilities, and other existing and proposed rights-of-way. Buffer setbacks will be ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 281 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 7 of 21 Back to Top created for new development in accordance with existing City’s Natural Areas Program Standards & Guidelines. The Montava PUD implemented relevant policies from the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan that permits varying types and amounts of housing density, as well as an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the development and outside of it, and on a street framework designed to emphasize mountain views. C. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN (2021) As a city policy document, the Housing Strategic Plan is primarily focused on actions that can be taken by the City. However, in one way or another, the BDR directly addresses at least 2 of the 26 prioritized strategies in the Housing Strategic Plan, as noted below: • 2. Promote inclusivity, housing diversity, and affordability as community values. – The Phase D proposal includes a variety of housing options which will benefit residents of a variety of needs and backgrounds. • 15. Explore/address financing and other barriers to missing middle and innovative housing development – Any code-related barriers to missing middle and innovative housing developments will have been addressed with the Montava PUD creating the Montava Urban Densities and Development Standards. The Montava Metro District allows for an expanded set of financing options to allow the developer to create missing middle and innovative housing options. D. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN The Transportation Master Plan establishes a vision and suite of policies to achieve build out of the Master Street Plan. City Plan contains the Transportation Master Plan within the body of the document rather than it being a separate document. Pages 158-217 of City Plan discusses the Transportation Master Plan. In addition to the referenced transportation policies above, this BDR proposal is consistent with the Master Street Plan with no proposed amendments to the primary street network. E. PARKS AND RECREATION POLICY PLAN The Park Planning & Development Department uses the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan as their guiding document for the buildout of the Fort Collins parks and recreation system. The purpose of the adopted Parks and Recreation Policy Plan is to assess the park and recreation needs of the Fort Collins community, evaluate the City’s current services, and provide clear and implementable recommendations to deliver the level of service needed to meet the community’s changing needs. The vision of this plan states: Fort Collins’ parks, trails, and recreation facilities give quality of life and beauty to our city. These essential assets connect people to place, self, and others. Fort Collins’ residents’ treasure and care for this legacy and will build on the past to provide for future generations. The BDR proposal is consistent with the Plan with the integration of Civic Spaces and recreation facilities to serve the neighborhoods, a segment of the future regional trail and connecting paths throughout the development. A future public neighborhood park is planned adjacent to the Phase D irrigation pond, to the west. F. NATURE IN THE CITY ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 282 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 8 of 21 Back to Top The Nature in the City Strategic Plan was adopted unanimously by City Council in March 2015. The plan provides the vision, goals and policies ensuring that access to nature remains a defining community attribute as infill and redevelopment continues to urbanize Fort Collins. The plan vision is "a connected open space network accessible to the entire community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people, plants and wildlife." The three plan goals are: 1) Easy Access to Nature: Ensure every resident is within a 10-minute walk to nature from their home or workplace. 2) High Quality Natural Spaces: Conserve, create and enhance natural spaces to provide diverse social and ecological opportunities. 3) Land Stewardship: Shift the landscape aesthetic to more diverse forms that support healthy environments for people and wildlife. The proposed project directly supports the following plan policies: • Increase connectivity for plant and wildlife species (C1). • Increase connectivity for residents (C2). • Prioritize transportation infrastructure to increase access to nature (C3). • Create design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site restoration (LU3). • Develop training resources for the installation and ongoing maintenance of diverse landscapes (LU4). • Coordinate and incentivize natural space improvements at the neighborhood scale (LU5). • Align City mowing and weed control policies to support local species while balancing public safety and aesthetics (CP1). • Pollinator and bird-friendly habitat in City Streetscapes (CP4). • Provide quiet spaces in the city to escape from the urban environment (CP5). • Coordinate with all applicable City planning processes over time to ensure opportunities to implement Nature in the City efforts and initiatives are included (CP8). The BDR proposes master planning and site design elements that further Nature in the City goals and policies by incorporating pollinator master planning, providing bird and butterfly gardens, and nature play areas. In addition, the dedicated off-street pedestrian network moves through and to civic spaces planted with native plants. The irrigation pond is proposed to be planted with native grasses and will be surrounded by a pedestrian pathway. As a whole, these features help to ensure the residents of the proposed project would have nature within a 10-minute walk from their home. 3. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS A neighborhood meeting was not required for this Basic Development Review proposal. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: City staff has received comments on the project from five community members. Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the CDNS Director. 4. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR240017 A conceptual review meeting was held on March 21, 2024. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 283 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 9 of 21 Back to Top 2. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was not required for this Basic Development Review proposal. 3. First Submittal – BDR240006 The first submittal of this project was completed on May 1, 2024. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: May 24, 2024, Sign # 768 Written Public Notice: October 11, 2024, 484 addresses mailed. Written Decision Notice: Scheduled for January 10, 2025, to 484 addresses. Published Hearing Notice: Scheduled for January 10, 2025. 5. Land Use Code Article 1 A. PURPOSE (SECTION 1.2.2) Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 lists a wide range of over-arching, high-level objectives (e.g., “reducing energy consumption and demand”) that are further developed and implemented in other Articles of the Land Use Code to ensure that proposed development meets the overall purpose to “improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare” of the community. As they may apply to the subject property and proposed project, the following sections of this report describe design elements of the proposed development plan that provide evidence of and the degree to which compliance would be achieved relative to the pertinent specific standards within the Land Use Code. The requirements and standards and contained in Articles 1 through 4 of the Land Use Code have been crafted to fulfill and implement the stated purpose of this Code in § 1.2.2. By satisfying the purpose statements, and meeting the applicable specific requirements, standards, and definitions set forth in Articles 1 through 5, this project demonstrates consistency with Land Use Code § 1.2.2 (B) through (O) to the extent (B) through (O) are applicable to this project. 6. Land Use Code Article 3 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 The standards in this Section require a development plan to demonstrate a whole approach to landscaping that enhances the appearance and function of the neighborhood, streetscapes, walkways, other outdoor spaces, and buildings. The main plan components are: • Full tree stocking of site (581 trees). • Landscaped parkway strips. • Pollinator gardens consistent with the requirements of the Montava Public Benefits Agreement. • Seed mixes for rain gardens, wetland/riparian areas, and Complies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 284 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 10 of 21 Back to Top • and shrubs in mulch beds, including perennials and grasses. Irrigation plans for all landscaping will be included at Building Permit. 3.2.1 (D) (2) – Street Trees Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees must be planted at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing (averaged along the entire front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such parkway areas. Such street trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys. The plan provides parkway trees in compliance with the standard. Complies 3.2.1(D)(3) Minimum Species Diversity The intent of this standard is to avoid extensive monocultures and prevent uniform insect and disease susceptibility on a development site, based on the number of trees on the site. The plan provides 27 tree species, and none exceed the required 15%. Complies 3.2.2 (A)(B)(C) – Access, Circulation and Parking This Section requires that development projects accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians safely and conveniently, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently and contribute to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Sidewalk or bikeway extensions off-site may be required based on needs created by the proposed development. • The proposed street network accommodates the movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians safely and conveniently. • Phase D proposes street connections with Giddings Road, providing access to rest of Fort Collins. Complies B. DIVISION 3.3 – ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1(C) – Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications This standard requires the applicant dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed. In cases where any part of an existing street is abutting or within the property being developed, the applicant must dedicate such additional rights-of-way as may be necessary to increase such rights-of-way to the minimum width required by Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. • Phase D creates a network of streets required to serve the property. • The City Engineer approved a variance for utility easements on non- arterial roads in compliance with this standard. • The applicant will dedicate right-of-way for Giddings Road as part of the Phase D Infrastructure BDR. The Infrastructure BDR must gain approval prior to the issuance of any Building Permits for Phase D. Complies C. DIVISION 3.4 – NATURAL RESOURCES STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 285 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 11 of 21 Back to Top arranged on the site will protect any natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1 (C), (D), and (E) – Natural Habitats The General Standard requires, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community by: (1) directing development away from sensitive resources; (2) minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones; (3) enhancing existing conditions; or (4) restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community when a development will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features. b. Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i) Buffer Zone Performance Standards allow the decision maker [Planning and Zoning Commission] to determine buffer zones that may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance for each natural habitat or feature is established in the quantitative buffer zone table, but the Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance to ensure qualitative performance standards are achieved. The Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) and a separate wetland delineation report was completed in accordance with this standard. Complies 3.4.3 – Water Quality This standard requires that project be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Montava Phase D has been the topic of negotiation with the Larimer Weld Irrigation Company. At the moment, there is not a finalized agreement to convey stormwater through the #8 ditch. Both Montava and the Larimer Weld Irrigation Company have agreed in principal on an agreement for stormwater conveyance. As such, for the City to provide the Developer with approval of this BDR, Development Agreement, and release the Development Construction Permit, the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1. Developer agrees to permit and construct necessary stormwater infrastructure to provide an adequate stormwater outfall in accordance with the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual, an agreement with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), and City of Fort Collins revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan per the timeline outlined in these conditions. 2. Montava Development leadership and engineering staff will attend design charette and monthly recurring coordination meetings with City Stormwater Master Planning and Water Utilities Development Review to keep plans and construction on track. 3. The Developer must have received all necessary variances from the City, as determined by the City, that are applicable to the necessary stormwater infrastructure and related plans including, but not limited to: a. Any necessary variances pursuant to the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual; and b. Any necessary variances from other City of Fort Collins departments. Complies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 286 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 12 of 21 Back to Top detail and meet all City criteria and standards, including, but not limited to, all criteria and standards set forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (except to the extent the Developer has acquired variances for the same). 5. The Developer has acquired all necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned stormwater infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Executed "Settlement Agreement Regarding Ditch Crossings, Ditch Modifications, and Stormwater." between the Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC), the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), Montava Development & Construction LLC, Montava Partners LLC, and Montava Metropolitan District No. 1 detailing the requirements and timelines for permitting and constructing culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past LWIC’s Larimer and Weld Canal and associated easement. If settlement agreement is not finalized by all parties, the Developer will follow the standard City process timelines and requirements for permitting and constructing the stormwater outfall. As the City is not a party to the settlement agreement, the City is not in any way required or responsible for taking any actions, including construction and planning actions, or meeting any timelines, whether express or implied, that are included in the settlement agreement, except to the extent that the City is separately required or responsible for such actions and timelines. b. Fee ownership, an adequate easement (as determined by the City), or irrevocable license from any property owner(s) located downstream of the Larimer and Weld Canal for any work that will not be in an existing drainage easement authorizing such work. Note that such property owners may include, but may be limited to: the LWIC, the Trail Head Community Association, Waterglen Owners Association, and Front Range Water, LLC. c. Any other necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned drainage infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, as determined by the City. 6. The Developer must place the following note on the Final Plans concerning permitting with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of-way. a. Developer is proceeding at their own risk. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) permits are required for the Montava Phase D stormwater outfall. The design for the stormwater outfall will be reviewed by the City under a separate utility plan set. BNSF review and permitting will coincide with the following City process milestones: i. The Developer will obtain BNSF Engineering Review Approval for the stormwater outfall prior to the City ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 287 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 13 of 21 Back to Top ii. The Developer will obtain a BNSF permit for construction of the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 25% of Montava Phase D building permits. iii. The Developer will construct and certify the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits). b. Developer acknowledges the design for the stormwater outfall infrastructure may need to change based on future revisions to the Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan resulting from any agreement the Developer may enter into with local ditch companies. The City will not pay or reimburse the Developer if designed and/or constructed drainage infrastructure does not meet the revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan. 7. Prior to construction within the regulatory FEMA floodplain, the Developer has acquired from the City, pursuant to the Fort Collins Municipal Code, a floodplain use permit with no-rise or CLOMR for any work within a FEMA regulated floodplain, as such terms are defined in Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. For the City to release any building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development, the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1. The Developer must have obtained BNSF Engineering Review Approval for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of-way. For the City to release up to 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1. The Developer must have met all conditions listed in the previous section regarding building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D. 2. The Developer must have acquired BNSF permits for the Stormwater outfall. For the City to release the remaining building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (anything above the previously-released 35% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1. All offsite drainage infrastructure must be installed pursuant to the Final Development Plan approved by the City. 2. All offsite drainage infrastructure must be certified by the developer’s engineer and accepted by the City. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 288 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 14 of 21 Back to Top D. DIVISION 3.6 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation system is in conformance with adopted transportation plans and policies established by the City. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.1 – Master Street Plan This criterion requires the BDR to conform to the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan does not address streets below the collector classification. The following streets are included on the Master Street Plan: • Giddings Road - this street located at the edge of Phase D is a two-lane arterial. The Infrastructure BDR proposes improvements to Giddings Road to build this road to the two-lane arterial standard. • Timberline Road – the Master Street Plan shows Timberline as a two-lane collector. The City Engineer granted a variance to Montava to build Timberline Road to a custom street cross section consistent with the vision for Montava. Complies 3.6.2 – Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements This Section requires transportation network improvements for public health, safety and welfare, with requirements in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and requires necessary easements for utilities and access. It specifically requires plans to clearly identify construction and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed infrastructure. All responsibilities and costs for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of private streets, and private drives shall be borne by the property owners. The City shall have no obligation to operate, maintain or reconstruct such private streets, street-like private drives and private drives nor shall the City have any obligation to accept such private streets, street-like private drives and private drives. This BDR is accompanied by a Development Agreement that defines all responsibilities for the street network including owner responsibilities for the private street network in perpetuity. The plan includes a plat providing needed right-of-way dedications and easements. Complies 3.6.3(F) – Street Pattern and Connectivity This Section requires design of the local street system in development plans 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 must provide multiple direct connections to and between local destinations. Local streets must provide for 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 larger neighborhood. • The plan provides an internal street and block network to comply with this general standard as well as related standards pertaining to streets and blocks in other code Complies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 289 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 15 of 21 Back to Top Subsection 3.6.3(F) requires development plans to connect and extend streets that are stubbed to the boundary of the plan by previous development, spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or re-developable land. • All street connections proposed in Phase D meets the spacing requirements. 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This standard requires that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or includes appropriate mitigation of impacts, for all travel modes. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) dated September 2024 provides a detailed analysis of the traffic impacts from Phase D on 14 key intersections near the proposed development. The proposed development meets the Level of Service requirements in this Code section. The TIS acknowledges the development’s impact on the intersections of Country Club Road and Lemay Avenue as well as Vine Drive and Timberline Road. Country Club and Lemay does not operate at appropriate Levels of Service currently. The TIS assigns 32 trips to this intersection, or 2.2% of the current volume of traffic at this intersection. The Developer will pay for their proportional impact on this intersection. Timberline and Vine warrants left turn lanes on all approaches with current traffic volumes. The City is currently signalizing this intersection with an expected completion in December 2024. Complies 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This Section requires adequate access for emergency vehicles and persons rendering fire protection and emergency services. Poudre Fire Authority staff participated in plan review and finds that the proposed plan meets their requirements. Complies E. DIVISION 3.7 - COMPACT URBAN GROWTH Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 290 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 16 of 21 Back to Top 3.7.3 – Adequate Public Facilities The purpose of the adequate public facilities (APF) management system is to establish an ongoing mechanism that ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. This section requires that any approval of a development be conditioned on the provision of all services necessary to serve the new development. This includes transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, electrical power and any other public facilities and services as required. City staff have reviewed the project and finds that Phase D will provide all required utility infrastructure to serve the development. Complies 7. Montava PUD Master Plan Overlay A. MONTAVA USES, DENSITIES, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS On February 18, 2020 City Council adopted the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. The PUD Master Plan contains the Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards, which contains a set of design guidelines that replaces many sections of the Land Use Code. What follows is a summary of staff’s findings regarding Phase D’s compliance with all relevant sections of the Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Applicable PUD Standard Summary of PUD Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Chapter 2 - Use This chapter creates Transect Zones that apply to Montava. A Transect Zone is similar to a zone district. This chapter also states what land uses are permitted in each Transect and the level of review for each use within each Transect. • Table 2.2-1 indicates that single-family detached and single- family attached are permitted uses in Transects 3.2, 4, and 5. • Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5 indicate that single-family detached and single-family detached units are subject to Basic Development Review in Transect 3.2, 4, and 5, respectively. Complies Chapter 3 – Density Chapter 3 establishes the residential densities permitted in each phase of Montava. Table 3-1.1 indicates the minimum residential density of Phase D is 10 dwelling units per acre. The site plan indicates that the proposed density of Phase D is 12.75 dwelling units per acre. Complies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 291 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 17 of 21 Back to Top Applicable PUD Standard Summary of PUD Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings Section 5 provides standards for lots, setbacks, frontages, building height, and story heights for each Transect. All of the proposed lots in Phase D meet the lot size requirements for each Transect as outlined in Section 5.2. Phase D does not contain building envelopes or architectural elevations for any of the proposed buildings. Staff will evaluate compliance with setbacks, frontages, building height, and story height with a subsequent Minor Amendment application. A note on the Site Plan indicates that the City will not issue any Building Permits for Phase D until the City approves the Minor Amendment. Complies with Conditions Chapter 6 - Parking This chapter indicates where vehicular parking may be located on a site, the amount of parking required by use, and vehicular parking lot design requirements. • Section 6.3 provides standards for the location and access of parking in Transects 3.2 and 4. Phase D proposes parking in the rear of units, clustered in parking lots served by alleys, and on-street in accordance with this standard. • Section 6.4 provides standards for the location and access of parking in Transect 5. Phase D proposes parking off- street behind buildings and on-street in accordance with this section. • Table 6.5-1 establishes the parking requirements for residential uses. Sheet S5 of the Site Plan shows the location and count of on-street parking compliance along with the required parking by use. Based on the number and type of units, Phase D must provide 497 parking spaces. Phase D proposes 1,179 parking spaces, in compliance with this standard. Since Phase D does not contain architectural elevations or building envelopes, it is unclear where parking will be located on private lots. Staff will evaluate the location of off-street parking spaces with the required Minor Amendment to evaluate Phase D for compliance with the standards in Chapter 5. Staff will not issue any building permits until approval of the Minor Amendment. Complies with Conditions Chapter 7 – Private Lot Landscaping Private lot landscaping is dictated by the building frontage types found in Chapter 5.8. Staff will evaluate for compliance with Chapter 7 with the aforementioned Minor Amendment. The City will not issue any building permits until the approval of the Minor Amendment. Complies with Conditions Chapter 9 – Architectural Character Chapter 9 provides standards related to building materials, openings, foundations, solar orientation, mechanical equipment and refuse storage, and outbuildings. Phase D does not contain any architectural elevations. Staff will review a Minor Amendment containing architectural elevations for all single-family attached units. The City will not issue any building permits for Phase D until staff approves the Minor Amendment. Complies with Conditions ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 292 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 18 of 21 Back to Top Applicable PUD Standard Summary of PUD Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Chapter 10 – Civic Space This chapter establishes requirements for the public space included in each phase of Montava. Public spaces must meet the requirements of the relevant civic space requirements established in this chapter. Phase D proposes the following types of civic spaces: • Pocket park • Green • Compact Green • Square • Greenway Sheet S6 of the Site Plan shows the locations of each proposed civic space within Phase D. Sheet S6 also provides tables highlighting the requirements of Chapter 10 and how each civic space meets these criteria. Each of the proposed civic spaces meet the requirements of Chapter 10. Complies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 293 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 19 of 21 Back to Top 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond Basic Development Review BDR240006, staff makes the following findings of fact: • By demonstrating compliance with the specific standards, requirements, and definitions of Articles 1 through 5 of the Land Use Code through the submittal materials for the Basic Development Review, this project satisfies and aligns with the purpose of the Land Use Code stated in Section 1.2.2(A) through (O). Specifically, the project satisfies Section 1.2.2(A) because it is consistent with City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. • The Basic Development Review complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. • The Basic Development Review complies with pertinent standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards with the following conditions of approval: 1. Developer agrees to permit and construct necessary stormwater infrastructure to provide an adequate stormwater outfall in accordance with the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual, an agreement with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), and City of Fort Collins revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan per the timeline outlined in these conditions. 2. Montava Development leadership and engineering staff will attend design charette and monthly recurring coordination meetings with City Stormwater Master Planning and Water Utilities Development Review to keep plans and construction on track. 3. The Developer must have received all necessary variances from the City, as determined by the City, that are applicable to the necessary stormwater infrastructure and related plans including, but not limited to: a. Any necessary variances pursuant to the Fort Collins City Code and Stormwater Criteria Manual; and b. Any necessary variances from other City of Fort Collins departments. 4. All plans, supporting reports, and modeling, must be at 100% design detail and meet all City criteria and standards, including, but not limited to, all criteria and standards set forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (except to the extent the Developer has acquired variances for the same). 5. The Developer has acquired all necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned stormwater infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Executed "Settlement Agreement Regarding Ditch Crossings, Ditch Modifications, and Stormwater." between the Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC), the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), Montava Development & Construction LLC, Montava Partners LLC, and Montava Metropolitan District No. 1 detailing the requirements and timelines for permitting and constructing culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past LWIC’s Larimer and Weld Canal and associated easement. If settlement agreement is not finalized by all parties, the Developer will follow the standard City process timelines and requirements for permitting and constructing the stormwater outfall. As the City is not a party to the settlement agreement, the City is not in any way required or responsible for taking any actions, including construction and planning actions, or meeting any timelines, whether express or implied, that are included in the settlement agreement, except to the extent that the City is separately required or responsible for such actions and timelines. b. Fee ownership, an adequate easement (as determined by the City), or irrevocable license from any property owner(s) located downstream of the Larimer and Weld Canal for any work that will not be in an existing drainage easement authorizing such work. Note that such property owners may include, but ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 294 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 20 of 21 Back to Top may be limited to: the LWIC, the Trail Head Community Association, Waterglen Owners Association, and Front Range Water, LLC. c.Any other necessary permits, property rights, and other approvals for the planned drainage infrastructure described in the Final Development Plan, as determined by the City. 6.The Developer must place the following note on the Final Plans concerning permitting with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of-way. a.Developer is proceeding at their own risk. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) permits are required for the Montava Phase D stormwater outfall. The design for the stormwater outfall will be reviewed by the City under a separate utility plan set. BNSF review and permitting will coincide with the following City process milestones: i.The Developer will obtain BNSF Engineering Review Approval for the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing any building permits for Montava Phase D. ii.The Developer will obtain a BNSF permit for construction of the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 25% of Montava Phase D building permits. iii.The Developer will construct and certify the stormwater outfall prior to the City releasing more than 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits). b.Developer acknowledges the design for the stormwater outfall infrastructure may need to change based on future revisions to the Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan resulting from any agreement the Developer may enter into with local ditch companies. The City will not pay or reimburse the Developer if designed and/or constructed drainage infrastructure does not meet the revised Cooper Slough Stormwater Master Plan. 7.Prior to construction within the regulatory FEMA floodplain, the Developer has acquired from the City, pursuant to the Fort Collins Municipal Code, a floodplain use permit with no-rise or CLOMR for any work within a FEMA regulated floodplain, as such terms are defined in Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. For the City to release any building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development, the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.The Developer must have obtained BNSF Engineering Review Approval for a culvert/pipe and related infrastructure that will carry drainage flows from Phase D of the Montava Development under/through/past the BNSF right-of-way. For the City to release up to 35% of the total building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (the sum of the 25% previously-released building permits and an additional 10% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.The Developer must have met all conditions listed in the previous section regarding building permits up to 25% of the total building permits for Phase D. 2.The Developer must have acquired BNSF permits for the Stormwater outfall. For the City to release the remaining building permits for Phase D of the Montava Development (anything above the previously-released 35% of building permits), the Developer must meet the following conditions: 1.All offsite drainage infrastructure must be installed pursuant to the Final Development Plan approved by the City. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 295 Planning Director Decision BDR240006 | Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond January 8, 2025 | Page 21 of 21 Back to Top 2.All offsite drainage infrastructure must be certified by the developer’s engineer and accepted by the City. •The Basic Development Review complies with pertinent standards located in the Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards with the following conditions of approval: o The City must approve a Minor Amendment for building elevations for all two-family and single-family attached dwellings prior to issuing building permits for each such building in type in Montava Subdivision Phase D. Staff will review these uses for compliance with Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. 9.Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Montava Phase D – Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006 with conditions. 10.Attachments The submittal documents on which this staff report is based may be accessed here: https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/Browse.aspx?id=20252698&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 296 From:lwchalfant@comcast.net To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond BDR240006 Date:Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:00:27 PM As I look at these added homes, I can’t help but wonder about the roads in and out of the area. To make a peaceful trip into Ft. Collins is either North Lemay or Timberline – both 2 lane roads – Once everyone realizes the traffic issues with development, it will be decided to widen one of these 2 roads. THEN we will down to one road as they pretty much close the other to upgrade it. Wondering if is this development proposal if there are any references to upgrading the current infrastructure? Also, how long is this build out supposed to take – how many years ? Thanks for your time - Lee Chalfant ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 297 From:Jill Baty To:Em Myler Cc:Todd Sullivan; Clay Frickey Subject:FW: Message from DARLENE BENGFOR (9702171994) Date:Tuesday, January 7, 2025 10:59:04 AM Attachments:VoiceMessage.wav Darlene Bengford 2144 Sherwood Forest Ct. Would like to know when the Montava decision is made. She’s 87 so she’s not too concerned with what happens out there or any noise it may create, but some of her neighbors are. We talked a little about the geography of the project and the phases and water. She was particularly pleased to hear about the non-pot irrigation system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jill Baty Pronouns: she/her City Planner City of Fort Collins From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@netcomm-chw- cuc1.fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 9:23 AM To: Jill Baty <jbaty@netcomm-chw-cuc1.fcgov.com> Subject: Message from DARLENE BENGFOR (9702171994) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 298 From:Leslie Spencer To:Clay Frickey Subject:FW: Notice of Decision and Manager"s Decision for Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond BDR240006 Date:Friday, January 10, 2025 8:11:04 AM Attachments:image001.png From: Michelle Rawicz <hello@mrawiczconsult.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 10:52 AM To: Leslie Spencer <lspencer@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Notice of Decision and Manager's Decision for Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond BDR240006 Thank you, Leslie. Perhaps I didn’t see it, but does it say when it’s likely to begin construction? MR Get Outlook for iOS From: Leslie Spencer <lspencer@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 10:48 AM To: hello@mrawiczconsult.com <hello@mrawiczconsult.com> Subject: Notice of Decision and Manager's Decision for Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond BDR240006 Dear Michelle Rawicz, Please find attached the Notice of Decision and the Manager’s Decision for Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond BDR240006. Sincerely, Leslie Spencer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leslie A. Spencer Pronouns:she/her Business Support II Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Avenue 970-416-4288 office lspencer@fcgov.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 299 Get Outlook for iOS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 300 From:Michelle Rawicz To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Montava Phase @ Core and Irrigation - Large Trucks Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 7:29:53 AM I forgot to add this isn’t the first time a large truck drove through. Stop it now. Begin forwarded message: From: Michelle Rawicz <hello@mrawiczconsult.com> Subject: Re: Montava Phase @ Core and Irrigation - Large Trucks Date: October 4, 2024 at 7:28:28 AM MDT To: devreviewcomments@fcgov.com Good morning, This morning at 7am a huge truck, semi, drove through our neighborhood in Maple Hill, driving along maple hill drive. This is seriously not acceptable! School children are around, people walking their dogs and other pets roam the neighborhood. This is a quiet street and allowing trucks to go down it to not only present a danger but also wreck the road is not okay! If they need to access the ditch on country road then they need to find a a way to only use that road. You will be ruining our property values with this new construction. God knows how long it will take. The one up the street on morningstar has been building and limping along for 3.5 years now! I already don’t love it here, but now you will make it worse. But mostly STOP allowing trucks to go down maple hill drive!!! I will only make more fuss. I live on the corner of maple hill and clarion. Michelle Rawicz ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 301 From:Clay Frickey To:gregcgeorge8@gmail.com Cc:Jill Baty; Todd Sullivan Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006 Date:Friday, October 18, 2024 2:39:20 PM Attachments:image001.png Hey Greg, Todd sent me your e-mail below with questions related to Montava Phase D. I’ve CC’d Jill Baty and Todd Sullivan on this e-mail. Jill is the other planner working on this project with me. 1. This is the first phase of Montava that is ready for approval. 2. The future City park and school site are not a part of Phase D. 3. The school district and Montava will need to execute a land swap with PSD. That is in the works. You’re correct, the City will need to acquire the property for the NE community park. 4. ELCO will serve the first two phases of Montava. 5. Montava has enough water with ELCO for the first two phases. Montava is working on a long- term water solution for the remaining phases. 6. I don’t know, ELCO or Montava would be able to answer that question. 7. The Montava team would be able to answer your question about the cost of water to date. 8. The City is currently working on signalizing the intersection of Timberline and Vine. This project should be complete by the end of the year. Here’s a link to the project page for the Timberline and Vine improvements amongst other road projects in NE Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/streets/northeastroadwork. There is not a timeline or funding for the signalization of Country Club and Lemay at the moment. 9. Yes, per the recently adopted Country Club Road Study, the City will work with the County on improvements to Country Club Road. Page 20 of the study contains the recommendations for improvements to Country Club Road. Here’s a link to the study: https://www.larimer.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2023/final_country_club_road_corridor_ study-final_report_020222.pdf Let us know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clay Frickey Pronouns: he/him Planning Manager City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave. 970-416-2625 office ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 302 cfrickey@fcgov.com From: Gregory George <gregcgeorge8@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 12:31 PM To: Todd Sullivan <TSullivan@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Montava Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006 Todd - Thanks for letting me know about this phase of Montava. 1. Is this the first phase submitted for review? 2. If the plat is limited to approximately 50 acres of the total 290 acres, are the remaining 240 acres identified on the plat as an "outlot" or are there lots outside the 50 acres identified for the future City community park and elementary school? 3. Will the School District and City have to purchase the land from the developer to develop the community amenities? 4. What water district signed the commitment to serve this phase of Montava? 5. Has the developer provided water rights for this phase or for all phases of the Montava development? 6. How many acre feet of water are required for the total development? 7. How much has the developer spent so far on securing water rights? 8. Will the traffic signals at Country Club Road / Lamey Avenue ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 303 and Timberline Road / Vine Drive be installed before building permits are issued for Phase D? 9. Does the City's Transportation Plan propose to make any improvements to Country Club Road in the foreseeable future? Thanks, Greg George ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 304 From:Em Myler To:Jill Baty Cc:Todd Sullivan; Clay Frickey Subject:Re: Message from DARLENE BENGFOR (9702171994) Date:Tuesday, January 7, 2025 11:00:17 AM I can give her a call after the decision! Em From: Jill Baty <jbaty@fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 10:59 AM To: Em Myler <emyler@fcgov.com> Cc: Todd Sullivan <TSullivan@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: Message from DARLENE BENGFOR (9702171994) Darlene Bengford 2144 Sherwood Forest Ct. Would like to know when the Montava decision is made. She’s 87 so she’s not too concerned with what happens out there or any noise it may create, but some of her neighbors are. We talked a little about the geography of the project and the phases and water. She was particularly pleased to hear about the non-pot irrigation system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jill Baty Pronouns: she/her City Planner City of Fort Collins From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@netcomm-chw- cuc1.fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 9:23 AM To: Jill Baty <jbaty@netcomm-chw-cuc1.fcgov.com> Subject: Message from DARLENE BENGFOR (9702171994) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 305 From:Rachel Tand To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] BDR240006 comment Date:Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:59:41 PM Hi there! Regarding the Montava proposal, I believe this may already be in the works, but I strongly believe that an early part of the Montava project must be the extension of Turnberry Road south past Adriel Hills. The traffic on Country Club Road for people heading south & west to Old Town / midtown is already approaching unsustainable levels, and all of these new homes will only increase it, especially with the wonderful bridge we now have over Lemay (while Timberline still has RR tracks to cross). Thanks!! Rachel & Jeremy Tand ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 306 Planning and Zonning Commission Public Comment Montava Phase D Core Voicemail Summary: 10/11/2024, 8:09AM from Maritza Salgado Complaint submitted about children pulling rocks from the retaining wall and throwing them in the ditch. Maritza Salgado wanted to make the City and the developers aware of this occurrence. There was no mention of opposing or approving the project. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 307 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 5 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission – March 20,2025 Uplift Self Storage, PDP Summary of Request The Uplift Self Storage project at Rudolph Farm is a two-phase self-storage development on a 3.07-acre lot of the Rudolph Farm Subdivision. Phase 1 involves constructing a 3-story, 100,800-sf building with drive-up and climate-controlled units. Phase 2, to be built later based on market demand, will add 23,850-sf of single-story units, including 6,650-sf climate- controlled and 17,200-sf drive-up units. The site, Lot 11 along Carriage Parkway, requires no additional public infrastructure which will be provided as part of the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved, the applicant will be eligible to submit plans for Final Development Plan. If approved, the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval is valid for a period of three years. Site Location Located between the eastern edge of I-25 and western edge of the Timnath Middle- High School, just north of Prospect Road. Zoning Industrial (I) Property Owner PNE Prospect Road Holdings LLC 900 Castleton Road Ste 118 Castle Rock, CO 80109 Applicant/Representative Aaron Thompson Aperio Property Consultants, LLC 4302 Defoe Street Strasburg, CO 80136 Staff Kai Kleer, Senior City Planner Contents 1.Project Introduction .................................... 2 2.Comprehensive Plan Compliance ............. 3 3.Public Outreach ......................................... 4 4.Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4 5.Land Use Code Article 3 ............................ 5 6.Land Use Code Article 4 .......................... 14 7.Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 16 8. Recommendation ..................................... 16 9. Attachments ............................................. 16 10. Links ......................................................... 16 Staff Recommendation Approval SITE Timnath Middle-High School E Prospect Road Packet Pg. 308 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 2 of 16 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • This project was submitted prior to the adoption of the May, 2024 Land Use Code, therefore, is being evaluated under the amended 1997 Land Use Code. • The project was originally submitted as Blue Sky Self Storage and is now known as Uplift Self Storage. • This is a proposal for a two-phase self-storage project on a 3.07-acre lot (Lot 11) within the Rudolph Farm Subdivision and is situated along Carriage Parkway, north of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal ditch, adjacent to the western boundary of Prospect Middle/High School. • Phase 1 includes construction of a 3-story, 100,800 sq ft building with a mix of drive-up and interior climate- controlled units and accompanying landscaping, and hardscape improvements. • Phase 2 involves development of approximately 23,850 sq ft of single-story storage units (6,650 sq ft climate- controlled, 17,200 sq ft drive-up), to be submitted for building permits based on market demand. • The site is in the Industrial (I) zone district and conforms to the Prospect/I-25 Overall Development Plan (2023). • The property is vacant farm ground with no on-site natural features, offsite infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage) will be completed by the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Plan which is under construction at the time of this report. No additional major construction required for the storage project. Detention and water quality are managed in Pond 2 along with the establishment of the NHBZ will occur as part of approved Rudolph Farm Final Development Plan. • The site is largely flat with gradual slope running from northeast to southwest, • Two vehicular access points and pedestrian connectivity are planned from Carriage Parkway, with customer and employee parking near the southwest portion of the building. B. KEY CONSIDERATIONS • Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that phasing of the plan provided landscape screening that can be effective should the second phase not be constructed. • As proposed, all berms and landscaping will be installed with Phase 1 and will include a selection of evergreen and deciduous plantings to help screen prominent sightlines from Carriage Parkway and the school. • Staff did consider the swathes of continuous pavement around the perimeter of the main building and if additional plantings between bays was appropriate, however, due to larger trucks the customers may be operating, snow removal, and the buffer created by the proposed landscaping, staff found that additional landscaping may have a low survivability rate within the space and therefore is comfortable without providing additional landscaping within the vehicle circulation areas of the site. • Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that highly visible edges of the building incorporated a level of design that comports with I-25 Subarea standards with particular focus on building articulation, roof treatment, windows, neutral colors and materiality. • Staff worked with the applicant to ensure the smaller perimeter buildings feature a pitched roof design as required for buildings under 10,000 square feet, and in case of Building B, incorporated elements of a pitch roof design to help unify the perimeter buildings of Phase 2. C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Development Status/Background The property has historically been used for dry-land farming and remains undeveloped. The subject property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Galatia Annex in 1991. The original annexation and zoning of the property was part of Annexation Ordinance 131, 1990 and was approved by City Council on January 15, 1991. Packet Pg. 309 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 3 of 16 Back to Top In 1996 an Overall Development Plan (ODP) was approved and later amended in 2021 and 2023. The ODP is intended to provide a general framework of streets, paths, drainage facilities, and natural habitat features for developments that are anticipated to build out over multiple phases and can be found attached to this report. Most recently in 2025, the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project was recorded, and a Development Construction Permit (DCP) has been issued and construction has started to construct public and private infrastructure to serve the entire 13-lot subdivision. The site is part of the approved Rudolph Farm Metro District. More information can be found by visiting, https://www.fcgov.com/business/metro-districts. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Industrial (I) and Urban Estate (UE) zone districts General Commercial Town of Timanth Industrial (I) Land Use Unimproved land. Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) and unimproved land. Timnath Middle- High School Interstate-25 and vacant land part of the Rudolph Farm Subdivision 2. Comprehensive Plan Compliance A. COMPLIANCE WITH THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN (2003) & NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL COMMUNITIES 1-25 CORRIDOR PLAN (2001) The I-25 Subarea Plan and the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan were developed concurrently, with overlapping boundaries along the I-25 corridor in Northern Colorado. While the regional plan, adopted by Fort Collins on November 20, 2001, focused broadly on design standards, transportation, and open lands policies from County Road 52 to south of Berthoud, the subarea plan provided a more detailed analysis of land use from County Road 52 to County Road 32. The subarea plan builds on the regional plan, emphasizing specific zoning and development guidelines to maintain openness and prevent a commercial strip along I-25. Key features of the I-25 Subarea Plan include maintaining the existing Growth Management Area boundary, establishing two activity centers at the I-25/Mulberry Street and I-25/Prospect Road interchanges, and designating employment and industrial districts with strict design standards, such as setbacks and height limits. Residential development near I-25 is tightly regulated: low-density single-family homes are prohibited within a quarter-mile of the highway, while mixed-use neighborhoods and urban estate areas are planned with varying density limits. The plan also preserves open lands, such as the City’s Resource Recovery Farm, and promotes multi-modal transportation options, including a supplemental street system to reduce reliance on I-25 for local trips. Regarding Uplift Self Storage, staff finds that the proposed land use is not only permitted by current zoning standards but also explicitly named under the Industrial use definition found in Chapter 5.4. However, self-storage generates minimal jobs, offering limited contribution to the “long-term employment growth” goals of the plan. While not ideal for this goal, it is not prohibited, as the Industrial district prioritizes use type over employment density. The plan emphasizes transitions to residential areas; however, because the site is approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest residence, buffering is not necessary. Self-storage generates low traffic volumes (mostly personal vehicles for short visits), aligning with the goal of reduced I-25 reliance. Access is provided via Carriage Parkway, which conforms to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards per the plan’s intent and supports biking and walking with on-street bike lanes and detached sidewalks. Packet Pg. 310 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 4 of 16 Back to Top Perhaps the most important element of the subarea plan is the mandate for high-quality design to preserve views and avoid strip commercial patterns within a half-mile of I-25. The project provides an elevated level of design by proposing high-quality materials, such as brick, stucco, and metal panels. Different roofline standards apply to both phases based on building size. Staff has found that the project offers an enhanced level of design consistent with the corridor vision; a more detailed analysis can be found under the I-25 standards discussed later in this staff report. Overall, staff finds that the project aligns with all stated policy objectives of the subarea plan. 3. Public Outreach A. WRITTEN, E-MAIL, PHONE, OR IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Update 3/24/2025 Several community comments were inadvertently missed and were received in 2023 during the time the project was named ‘Blue Sky Self Storage.’ The following are a summarization of the comments that can be seen attached to this report: • There are already multiple storage facilities within a mile of the location, including some with climate control and drive-up access, making another facility unnecessary and unbeneficial to the community. • The storage facility would be an eyesore for residents and visitors, detracting from the area's otherwise lovely appearance. • The industrial/commercial zoning area should be developed to attract daily businesses and maintain an upscale character that grows with the community, benefiting high school students and homeowners who prefer not to travel into the city. The commenter suggests alternative developments such as city parks, education-related facilities, small businesses, childcare facilities, veterinarian offices, restaurants, retail, grocery stores, or breweries, which would enhance the area's beauty and value. • The public comment is from a resident of Clydesdale Park who wrote to express opposition to the potential development of a self-storage facility at the location. • The resident does not support the project, arguing that with the new middle and high school nearby, the land—zoned for industrial and general commercial use—could be developed in more beneficial ways for the community. As a Clydesdale Park resident, they note the scarcity of amenities east of I-25. After reviewing the Land Use Ordinances, they suggest alternatives such as a local park, community facility, supermarket, or local retail shops, which would better serve both the local community and students. They believe a self-storage facility would only increase traffic without enhancing the community or providing value to residents. • Questions whether the project characteristics listed in the traffic study remain accurate. • They express strong community support from the area north of the Overall Development Plan (ODP) for a residential designation for areas currently zoned as industrial. • Concerns over 3-story height when compared to the school. • Other opposition the self-storage land use and support for grocery store or other retail space within the area. 4. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. DIVISION 2.2 – PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Neighborhood Meeting – January 26, 2023 The neighborhood meeting was lightly attended and included the following community feedback: Packet Pg. 311 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 5 of 16 Back to Top A resident north of the proposal indicated that the area was promised as residential, but the buffer zone shrank, reducing separation from the commercial district and that views would be blocked. A Fox Grove resident expressed concerns about traffic increases from this and future projects, plus the loss of their quiet subdivision’s charm, noting poor walkability and no food access. 2. First Submittal – PDP The first submittal of this project was completed on August 30, 2023 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign # 721 Published Hearing Notice: March 10, 2025 5. Land Use Code Article 3 A. DIVISION 3.2 – SITE PLANNING & DESIGN STANDARDS Standard Landscaping & Tree Protection This section applies to all development within designated "limits of development" (LOD) and natural habitat buffer zones (per Section 3.4.1), with the purpose of requiring landscape and tree protection plans that create, diversify, and maintain significant canopy cover to maximize benefits like reduced erosion, improved stormwater and water management, better air quality, less glare and heat, enhanced aesthetics, and greater continuity between developments, while also using properly placed trees to provide screening, reduce conflicts between site elements, and strengthen the urban forest; accordingly, all developments must submit a landscape and tree protection plan (plus an irrigation plan if using City water) that extends existing outdoor space and vegetation patterns where feasible, serves practical functions (e.g., screening, privacy, microclimate control), improves the appearance of the development and area, protects significant trees and habitats, enhances pedestrian spaces, maps all landscape areas, details landscaping elements, and meets or exceeds this section’s standards. Landscaping along Carriage Parkway is designed to buffer the north, east and south elevations of drive-up storage units of Phase 1. - Buildings D-3 and D-4, both of which are one-story, as well as the east elevation of the 3-story building. These areas contain a combination of trees, shrubs, and berming, landscaping meets and, in some cases, exceeds all minimum requirements. Overall, the Landscape Plan demonstrates compliance with the minimum required sizes and maximum percentage of any one species. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) - Screening Standards require landscape and building elements to conceal unattractive or intrusive site features (e.g., trash areas, storage, service zones, loading docks, blank walls) from off-site views. Screening is required on all sides, except where access is needed. For access points visible from public streets, use removable or operable screens. Screens must limit visibility of the screened area to 20% or less. Screening Materials should employ new or existing plants, walls, fences, panels, terrain changes, buildings, spacing, or a mix of these methods. There are two areas of low visual interest from Carriage Parkway which consist of the ground-floor drive-up units. As mentioned, this area is screened by a combination of plantings along the perimeter of the site. Packet Pg. 312 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 6 of 16 Back to Top Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard The onsite parking and circulation system safely accommodates the movement of vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. A 5-foot Connecting Walkway ties the street sidewalk directly to the bike parking area located near the building entrance. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Bicycle Facilities Commercial, industrial, civic, employment, and multi-family residential developments must provide bicycle facilities, including: (a) both Enclosed Bicycle Parking and Fixed Bicycle Racks to meet minimum requirements; (b) minimum parking spaces as specified in a table, with unlisted uses matching the closest listed use. In the case of this development, the project provides the required minimum number of fixed spaces, with a 5 space ribbon rack. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways Walkways must be direct, continuous, and connect pedestrian origins to destinations like street sidewalks to building entries without obstruction from curbs, stairs, or parking layouts, with a minimum width of 6 feet and paved enhancements, flanking both sides of drive aisles to main entrances. Street crossings prioritize pedestrian safety and access where walkways cross driveways or roads, maintaining continuous pedestrian paving with distinct driveway breaks, clearly marked using treatments like striping, signs, lighting, and traffic calming measures. On-site pedestrian and bicycle systems connect directly to key destinations such as trails, parks, and transit stops within or adjacent to the development, linking to existing or planned off-site facilities for convenient travel, with additional walkways potentially required for safety and efficiency. Off- site pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be mandated to ensure safety, efficiency, and compliance with parking, transportation, and connectivity standards. A city-approved Transportation Impact Study following local guidelines is required to identify necessary facilities and ensure compliance with these standards. The project provides a single unobstructed connecting walkway that ties the entryway of the front office to Carriage Parkway sidewalk system. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) - Non-Residential Parking Requirements Self-storage is not a listed use within the parking table and staff contends that the most similar use to be ‘Industrial: Employee Parking’. This use requires a range between 0.5/employee and .75 / employee. According to industry estimates, a typical staffing level might be 2-5 employees during peak shifts, assuming a single manager’s office and limited on-site personnel (e.g., maintenance or customer service staff). For customers, the traffic study indicates 141 average weekday trips with a peak volume of 12 vehicles during AM timeframe, and 19 vehicles during PM timeframe. In the case of this development providing 5 spaces will provide sufficient spaces for both employees and customers visiting the front office. It is also anticipated that customers may park under the canopy area and perimeter of the vehicle use area should more parking be needed. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Lighting standards aims to ensure safe, functional, and enjoyable outdoor lighting for proposed land developments while conserving energy, reducing light pollution, and protecting local ecosystems through the submission and approval of comprehensive lighting plans. It applies to all developments except certain residential lots, requiring adherence to specific design standards such as lumen calculations, safety considerations, architectural harmony, and restrictions on light trespass and color temperature. The project models both phases of the development and features wall-mounted and 20-foot pole mounted fixtures. The overall lighting package is consistent with Packet Pg. 313 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 7 of 16 Back to Top standard. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures New commercial developments with common waste systems provide adequately sized, accessible, and screened areas for collecting, storing, and managing trash and recyclable materials. It requires detailed development plans with labeled enclosures, equal access for recycling (at least 50% of trash capacity), pedestrian and hauler accessibility, durable construction, protective measures, and specific accommodations like service pads, j-hooks, and durable swinging doors. All trash and recycling containers are fully enclosed and designed with the appropriate person doors. Section 3.4.1 - Environmental and Natural Area Standards This site is within 500 feet of a natural feature, Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal and Lake Canal which was evaluated and carved off as a Tract as part of the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. The infrastructure plan provided the following: Identified a red-tailed hawk nest, three prairie dog colonies, Boxelder Creek, Lake Canal, and Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal as natural resources within the site. The applicant met the LUC 3.4.1 (E) performance standards as part of the larger infrastructure project utilizing the following measures: • Development of a prairie dog mitigation plan that provides options for lethal and non-lethal removal. • Conducting a burrowing owl survey prior to construction of public infrastructure. • Provide an adaptive management plan, restoration plan, a weed management plan and a monitoring plan to accompany the mitigation summary exhibit attached to the landscaping plan. • Preservation of an existing tree that contains a red-tailed hawk. • Development and identification of enhanced areas of NHBZ over the overall development area. This site does not contain prairie dogs, nor is it near the existing tree containing a red-tailed hawk and does not require further action through this development plan. As seen in the landscape plan, the project proposes to enhance the previously approved NHBZ to the south by adding eight trees which aim to enhance habitat creation and screening of the site. Environmental planning has reviewed the proposed additions to the NHBZ and continue to find the space in compliance with all standards of the section. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility The purpose of this section is to ensure that new buildings and developments are physically and operationally compatible with their surrounding areas, in alignment with applicable building and zoning standards. New developments should complement the architectural character of existing areas through harmonious design elements, including rooflines, building proportions, street relationships, Packet Pg. 314 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 8 of 16 Back to Top B. 3.9 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE I-25 CORRIDOR The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to implement the model standards outlined in the "Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor" and the "Fort Collins I-25 Corridor Subarea Plan," in addition to the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Use Code. standard to guide future development, drawing compatibility cues from the neighboring context, such as building height. As the first project in this area, this development sets a high-quality standard consistent with the level of design mandated by the I-25 Subarea Standards, which are analyzed later in this report. Phase 1 features a three-story building constructed with premium materials, including stucco, brick, and stone. Along highly visible edges, the building incorporates appropriate levels of fenestration and articulation to enhance its aesthetic and functional appeal. Phase 2 proposes six perimeter buildings ranging from 1,500 to 10,000 square feet. Smaller perimeter buildings will feature pitched roofs with cross gables oriented toward the site’s perimeter, enhancing visual coherence. Materials include stucco, buff cultured stone veneer, and silver metal panels, the latter providing a faux fenestration pattern across the façade for added visual interest. The largest structure, Building B, adheres to standards that do not require a fully pitched roof. It features a base and middle design similar to the smaller Phase 2 buildings, topped with a flat cornice interrupted by a gable-end module for consistency. Except for Building G, all structures in Phase 2 propose pitched roofs and a material palette aligned with the I-25 Standards. These buildings alternate between dark brown and tan stucco finishes, with overhanging cornice features on several modules to enrich the design. Centrally located Building G, anticipated to have low visibility from surrounding viewpoints, will utilize similar colors but with fewer architectural details. Staff have deemed this approach appropriate given its internal site location Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Analysis was performed for this P.D.P. and reveals the following: The modest increase in peak-hour trips is not expected to alter the level of service at the site’s access points with Carriage Parkway. The additional access to Carriage Parkway should improve traffic distribution and roadway operation. The project aligns with the assumptions and recommendations of the May 2022 Traffic Impact Study, requiring no changes to prior conclusions. The self-storage project’s traffic impact is consistent with the broader Prospect and I-25 ODP analysis, and the proposed development is deemed compliant with existing traffic planning. Applicable Code Standard Findings Form Buildings under 10,000 sq ft must have pitched roofs with a minimum 5:12 slope, or if using a modified Mansard roof, create the appearance that the mansard roof covers the entire structure. Packet Pg. 315 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 9 of 16 Back to Top hips, breaks, or multiple roof planes) is required. Phase 2 contains five buildings under 10,000 square feet. As previously mentioned in the report, four of the five buildings, with the exception of Building G, provide the necessary roof pitch and design element of a gable end at intervals of less than 50 feet. Building G features similar color banding through the use of stucco; however, due to its inward-facing orientation and low visibility, it does not provide the same architectural detail as the perimeter buildings. Buildings over 10,000 sq ft must include at least two features: parapet walls with cornice treatment, overhanging eaves (min. 3 feet beyond supporting walls), sloping roofs (min. 1:1 slope, not exceeding average height of the supporting wall height), or three or more roof slope planes. Staff investigated the underlying intent of this standard and found that the standards aim to emphasize simple techniques like consistent roof forms, materials, and colors to create a unified development pattern. For smaller structures, pitched rooflines with varied design elements are recommended to add visual interest and character to typical blocky, highway-oriented buildings. The 10,000 square foot + standards were developed to address larger industrial or "big box" structures so that they incorporate features like parapet walls, towers, peaked forms, and mansards to enhance flat roofs and provide the following precedent image. Packet Pg. 316 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 10 of 16 Back to Top Staff finds that both the main building of Phase 1 complies with the intent of the standard by providing a dark brown tiered stucco cornice treatment that is broken up by a step down in roofline and transition to a 3-4 foot overhanging cornice treatment. Depicted below Packet Pg. 317 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 11 of 16 Back to Top Building B of Phase 2 provides compliance with the standard by utilizing a tiered cornice that is made more pronounced through the continuation of color banding toward the top of the building. The cornice is interrupted by small reliefs that break up the continuous massing of the wall and is further articulated through the use of extruded modules that feature a similar gable end design that is used in the smaller perimeter buildings. 3.9.5(B) – Building Form/Façade Treatment Facades facing streets, adjacent developments, or pedestrian areas must be articulated and human-scaled (e.g., with windows, entrances, or awnings) along at least 60% of their length. The street-facing façade is articulated to a human scale through the use of several elements, which include a dark bronze metal sunshade and a storefront window system on the primary entrance module. This then transitions to the use of silver metal panels that maintain similar proportions to the windows along the ground-floor façade. Each element, whether a panel or a window, includes a dark bronze awning or sunshade panel to provide a visual terminus as an element of human scale when experiencing the building design from the sidewalk. Packet Pg. 318 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 12 of 16 Back to Top like canopies, overhangs, recesses, arcades, distinctive roofs, arches, patios, display windows, or planters with seating. The project provides a customer entrance which is made prominent through the simple approach of a bracketed metal sunshade and storefront door and window system. 3.9.5(C) – Materials & Colors Buildings must use stucco, brick, stone, or tinted/textured masonry blocks for visual interest at pedestrian level. Prohibited materials include smooth gray concrete blocks, tilt-up concrete panels, and metal as a primary surface (metal limited to 10% trim or roofing). Facade colors must be low-reflectance earth tones; high-intensity primary colors are banned on visible roof areas. The project utilizes stucco and brick as primary materials while utilizing metal as to detail roof treatments and faux windows. In either phase, the utilization of the material does not exceed the 10% maximum as designated by the standard. Colors consist of low reflective earth tones such as tan, medium brown, dark brown, and red brick. Accents include silver and dark grey non reflective colors as depicted in the elevation snapshot below. Packet Pg. 319 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 13 of 16 Back to Top 3.9.8 – Fencing and Walls Fences and walls must use high-quality materials (e.g., brick, stone, ornamental metal) and complement the development. They must be set back 6 feet from sidewalks with landscaped buffers and limited to 40-foot unbroken lengths, using breaks like columns or landscaping. It is typical for self storage facilities to include fencing as part of a strategy to ensure site security, however, this PDP does not propose any fencing in either Phase 1 or Phase 2. Should the project require fencing at sometime in the future a Minor Amendment application can be submitted to make site plan adjustments. The planning and zoning commission may impose a condition or suggestion to the application of which type of fencing is appropriate should a future amendment materialize or decision during Final Development Plan to include perimeter fencing. 3.9.10 – Height Outside activity centers, nonresidential buildings within 225 feet of the I-25 centerline are limited to 20 feet in height, and buildings (residential or nonresidential) between 226 and 725 feet are capped at 40 feet. This site is located over 1,000 feet of the centerline of I-25, therefore no height limitations apply. Packet Pg. 320 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 14 of 16 Back to Top 6. Land Use Code Article 4 A. DIVISION 4.28 – INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I) The Industrial District is intended to provide a location for a variety of work processes and workplaces such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, childcare centers, and housing. While these Districts will be linked to the City's transportation system for multiple modes of travel, some may emphasize efficient commercial trucking and rail traffic as needed. Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. Applicable Standard Summary of Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.28(B) - Permitted Uses Enclosed mini-storage facilities is a permitted use subject to a Type 1 level of review, however, pursuant to 4.28(D)(1)(b), all new structures greater than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross leasable area shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. The project proposes over 100,000 sq ft of space, it is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Complies 4.28(E)(1) – Prospect Road Streetscape Program This project falls into the planning area for the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Key design requirements of the Interchange and Prospect Gateway styles include: • 50-foot setback zone w/ 10 foot minimum parkway and 8' sidewalk. • Double row of plantings along Prospect Road and ditch lines. Plantings should include two rows of trees or large shrubs. The row closest to Prospect should be a row of street trees planted in the parkway strip - just at tighter spacing (20 feet or less). The second row may be canopy trees, ornamentals, evergreens, or large shrubs. The project proposes a 10 foot parkway,10’ sidewalk, and street trees consistent with the standards of the streetscape program. A note has been added to the plan that landscaping within the 50’ area behind the sidewalk will be completed at time of future development for Lots 6&7 and will be reviewed as part of a future Project Development Plan. Complies 4.28(E)(2)(a)- (c) Building Design (a) Staff would like to note that this land use is exempt from compliance with Section 3.5.3, however, because the site is located within the I-25 Corridor Subarea, the more stringent standards of 3.9 – Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor apply. (b)Orientation. Along arterial streets and any other streets that directly connect to other districts, buildings shall be sited so that a building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped yard for at least thirty (30) percent of the building frontage. Such a building face shall not consist of a blank wall. The building face occupies 100% of the landscape yard for both phases of development. (c)Building character and color. New building color shades shall be neutral, with a medium or dark color range, and not white, bright or reflective. The building features neutral color shades with a medium or dark color range consisting of tan and brown stucco and red brick. Complies Packet Pg. 321 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 15 of 16 Back to Top 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2 ) – Screening A minimum thirty-foot deep landscaped yard shall be provided along all arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a residential land use. If a district boundary line abuts upon or is within a street right-of-way, then the required landscaped yard shall commence at the street right-of-way line on the district side of the street, rather than at the district boundary line. The project is located on the district boundary line of the General Commercial zone district located south of the site. The project provides it’s own 10-25 feet landscape buffer which is then further separated by the limits of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal, Lake Canal, and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone which combine to approximately 210 feet of site separation from the nearest developable lot within the General Commercial zone district. A portion of the space will feature a landscape bed adjoining the off-site 6’ walkway intended to connect into the Timnath Middle/High School. Complies 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2 ) – Storage and Operational Areas All storage, loading, and work operations must be hidden from view along district boundaries and public streets. Inside the district buildings can have paved areas around them for vehicles. The site was analyzed with regard to views from Carriage Parkway. Staff has evaluated the landscaping plan and determined that it includes a sufficient amount of plant material to screen the site year-round. Consistent with staff’s direction, plant selection is biased toward the use of evergreen material which is utilized on all four sides of the site. Complies Packet Pg. 322 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230013 | Uplift Self Storage Thursday, March 20, 2025 | Page 16 of 16 Back to Top 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the Uplift Self Storage Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. B. The PDP complies with pertinent standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards C. The PDP complies with pertinent standards located in Article 4; Division 4.28 - Industrial zone district. 8. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Uplift Self Storage Project Development Plan, PDP230013. 9. Attachments 1. Project Narrative 2. Plan Set (site, elevation, photometric, and landscape plans) 3. Utility Plan 4. Traffic Memo 5. Turning Exhibit 6. Prospect & I-25 ODP 7. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 8. Public Comments 10. Links 1. Soils Report https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=17981262&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins 2. Drainage Report https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=18727761&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Packet Pg. 323 AAppeeerriioo P r o p e r t y C o n s u l t a n t s , l l c August 25, 2023 City of Fort Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80522‐0580 Re: Blue Sky Self Storage at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Development Plan Narrative The proposed Blue Sky Self Storage project at Rudolph Farm is a two‐phase self‐storage / mini‐warehouse project on a 3.07‐acre lot as part of the proposed Rudolph Farm ODP, Plat, and Infrastructure FDP, specifically Lot 11, located along the frontage of Carriage Parkway just north of the TRIC ditch and adjacent to the western boundary of the Prospect Middle/High School property. The proposal is for the construction of a 3‐story, 100,800‐sf gfa building in the first phase, which will be a mix of drive‐up units and interior, climate‐ controlled units. The second phase of development will include approximately 23,850‐sf of single‐story storage units, of which 6,650‐sf will be climate controlled and the balance (17,200‐sf) of which will be drive‐up traditional units. Phase 2 will not be included in the initial building permit submittals, but rather will be submitted for building permit as market needs dictate construction of the second phase. Rudolph Farm is a proposed mixed‐use development, of which industrial land uses are a major component. This property is located within an Industrial (I) zoned area per the Rudolph Farm ODP. The proposed self‐storage use is an allowed use in the I zone district. There are no natural features affected by this proposal, as the property is vacant farm ground that will undergo mass grading as part of the overall development of Rudolph Farm. General site topography is from northeast to southwest. The proposed overlot grading as part of the FDP will maintain this drainage pattern, with the exception of the eastern property edge which will require am approximate 5:1 graded slope. All required offsite infrastructure, including streets, utilities and drainage facilities will be constructed by the overall Rudolph Farm developer as part of the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Final Development Plan prior to development of the Blue Sky Storage project. No additional utility main, street or major drainage facility construction is anticipated with the project. Detention storage and water quality treatment are both accommodated in Pond 2 as designed with the FDP package. 4032 De foe St., Strasburg, CO 8013 6  Phone 303.317.3 000  aaron@aperiopc.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 324 Blue Sky Self Storage at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Develpoment Plan Narrative August 25, 2023 2 Two vehicular site access points are proposed, both from Carriage Parkway. Pedestrian connectivity will also be from Carriage Parkway. Customer parking will be adjacent to the office portion of the building. Site design is such that the main building (Building A) will be central to the property, with access drives adjacent to three sides of the Phase 1 structure. The building has been placed as close to the western property line as possible to maintain community 15’ build‐to bulk standards. Phase 2 will include access drives to serve the drive‐up door locations. Building Architecture will be in keeping with city standards and requirements, including the I‐25 Subarea Plan requirements. Materials will be a mix of stucco, brick, metal panel and stone veneer with parapet caps. Building elevations, corresponding material selections, and perspectives depicting architectural styles and colors is included with the Preliminary Development Plan application materials. If you should have any questions, or need any additional information, please don’t hesitate to call me at 303‐317‐300 or email me at Aaron@aperiopc.com . Sincerely, Aaron Thompson Aperio Property Consultants, LLC Cc: Tony Ollila, Uplift Development Group, LLC Innes Henderson, VFLA Architecture Greg Kelly, Kelly Development Services, LLC ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 325 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 326 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 327 N O R T H - MATERIALS ¾-¼ SIGHT TRIANGLES BASED ON LCUASS FIGURE 7-16 PLANT SCHEDULE Code Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Height Width installed size AC SE 5 Sensation Box Elder Maple AC AB 2 Autumn Blaze Maple CE OC 3 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry GL SH 1 Shademaster Locust QU SH 3 Quercus shummardi Shummard Red Oak UL MG 4 Triumph Elm PI ED 4 Pinus edulis Pinyon Pine PI HE 3 Pinus heldreichii var. leucodermis Bosnian Pine PI PO 7 Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine 20- PI SY 7 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine AC FL 3 Flame Amur Maple CR AM 5 Crataegus ambigua Russian Hawthorn MA TH 4 Thunderchild Crab AM AB 15 Amelanchier x grandiflora (clump) Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 15-15 gal./clump BE AD 12 Admiration Barberry 5 gal. BE AU 9 Golden Barberry 5 gal. CO AF 18 Arctic Fire Dogwood 5 gal. AC CO 17 Physocarpus opulifolius Center Glow Ninebark 5 gal. PR PB 36 Pawnee Buttes Sand Cherry 15-5 gal. PR PL 18 Prunus x cistena Purple Leaf Sand Cherry 7 gal. RH AA 15 Autumn Amber Sumac 6-5 gal. SP NF 5 Frobel Spirea 5 gal. SY BL 11 Dark Purple Bloomerang Lilac 5 gal. VI MO 16 Viburnum x burkwoodi Burkwood Viburnum 7-6-7 gal. JU BC 22 Blue Chip Juniper 5 gal. AR PA 17 Panchito Manzanita 5 gal. BO BA 17 Blonde Ambition Blue Grama 30-30-1 gal. HE BA 11 Helictotrichon sempevirens Blue Oat Grass 2-2-1 gal. PA SH 12 Red Switch Grass 3-24-1 gal. PE HA 10 Dwarf Hardy Fountain Grass 2-1 gal. Evergreen Trees Deciduous Shade Trees Deciduous Shrubs Ornamental Grasses Broadleaf Evergreen Evergreen Shrub Deciduous Ornamental Trees LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: TOTAL SITE AREA = 133,572SF (100% OF SITE) TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREAS = 33,102 SF (24.8% OF SITE) 6 BE AD 6 BE AU 3 CO AF 6 BO BA 7 HE BA 3 PA SH 3 PE HA 3 AC CO 2 AC CO 3 AC CO 2 PR PB 5 VI MO 3 VI MO 4 AM AB 3 AM AB 6 BE AD 4 BE AU 5 CO AF 3 CO AF 3 PR PB 5 PR PB 3 RH AA 5 RH AA 4 RH AA 3 RH AA 5 SP NF 5 JU BC 3 JU BC 3 JU BC 5 JU BC 3 JU BC 5 AR PA 3 AR PA 5 AR PA 8 BO BA 4 HE BA 3 PA SH 3 PE HA 5 BO BA 3 PA SH 7 PR PB 3 PR PB 3 SY BL 3 SY BL 6 SY BL 5 PR PB 8 PR PB 3 CO AF 1 PR PB 3 PR PB STREET TREES AND LAWN ARE SHOWN BASED ON OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RUDOLPH FARM PLANT IMAGES (SHOWN IN SAME ORDER AS ABOVE PLANT SCHEDULE) Sensation Box Elder Maple Common Hackberry Shademaster Locust Shummard Red Oak Triumph Elm Pinyon Pine Bosnian Pine Ponderosa Pine Flame Amur Maple Russian Hawthorn Thunderchild Crab Dwarf Ginnala Maple Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry Admiration Barberry Golden Barberry Arctic Fire Dogwood Pawnee Buttes Sand Cherry Purple Leaf Sand Cherry Autumn Amber Sumac Frobel Spirea Bloomerang Lilac Burkwood Viburnum Blue Chip Juniper Panchito Manzanita Blonde Ambition Blue Grama Blue Oat Grass Red Switch Grass Dwarf Hardy Fountain Grass Scotch Pine STREET TREES AND LAWN ARE SHOWN BASED ON OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RUDOLPH FARM NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE (NHBZ) GRAPHIC LEGEND ¾-¼ - ADD SOIL BERMS TO RAISE PLANTINGS TO SCREEN BUILDING SEEN FROM I-25 SIGHT TRIANGLES BASED ON LCUASS FIGURE 7-16 - NHBZ TREES ARE SHOWN BASED ON OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RUDOLPH FARM 2 PR PB3 JU BC 4 AR PA STREET TREES AND LAWN ARE SHOWN BASED ON OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RUDOLPH FARM Autumn Blaze Maple 1 AM AB 1 AC CO 1 PR PL 2 AM AB 3 AM AB 1 AM AB 3 VI MO 2 VI MO 3 VI MO 2 AC CO 3 AC CO 3 AC CO 2 PR PL 2 PR PL 3 PR PL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 328 -- ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 329 -- Utilize any existing pipe sleeves under driveway if possible Set controllers to meet Mandatory Watering Schedule N O R T H - Utilize any existing pipe sleeves under driveway if possible STREET TREES AND LAWN IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DONE BY OTHERS - ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 330 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 331 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 332 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 333 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 334 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 335 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 336 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 337 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 338 PRELMINARY UTILITY PLANS FOR UPLIFT SELF STORAGE AT RUDOLPH FARM LOT 11, RUDOLPH FARM LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT CONTACTS: APPLICANT UFUFT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, U.C P.O. BOX 153607 LUFKIN, TX 75915 OWNER EB VICINITY MAP NORTH 1"a1000' SHEET INDEX 1 C1.1 COVER SHEET 2 C1.2 GENERAL AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3 C1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C1.4 OVERALL GRADING PLAN C1.5 OVERALL UTILITY PL.AN PACIFIC NOUH ENTERPRISES U.C 900CASTLETON RD., SUITE 118 CASTLE ROCK, CO 80109 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT11, RlOOLPHFARM SUBa'IISION BASIS OF BEARINGS BEARINGS SHO'M'I HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST¾ OF SECTION 15, TO'M'ISHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P,M., ASSUMED TO BEAR $89'"3&'•3"E. SIT E BENCHMARK CITYOFFORTCOUINS8ENCHNARIIN0,27-01 NQIITIIEA STCORNER OFc.R.OANDE.PROSPECTRO...O,ON THE ENOBLOCROFA1�DIAMETER STE EL PIPE. ELEV,..ail.13 CITYOFFORTCOLUNSB ENCHNARKN0,47-01 SOUTH SIOE OFP!IOSPECTR.O,+.Ov.1EIIE IT .. TERSECTS�2$,0NTHEIM:$T ENOOFT!<E P/IAAPE'T ��/RIDGE{B10,.,.)0VERl-2'!,0N A DEP'TOFHIO H-YSBRASSCAP. PLEME J<IO TE: Tl<IS Pl.HI SET IS \JSJ'lG W,.VO& FOIi: A VEfmCAL DAlU,I. S\JAAOUNOf<IG DEYELOPNENTSHAVE USEDNGV028l.tlADJJSTEOMT\.N(PRIOR TOCfTYOf'FORTCOLL.r!S Gott,m)FOII T!IEl'II/ERTICf.1.0,.,,TVN$. IFNOV029UNADAISTEDDAT\JM(PRIORTO CfTYOFFORTCOLL.r!SDAT\JM)ISREQUIREDFORNIY P VRP O SE ,Tl<EFOLLOY.ll'l,;IEQU ... TION$t!OI.ILD8E USEO: N=tUNADNSTEDDATVN(PRIOR TOCITYOFFORTCOLUISDAT\IM)•NAVDM•l.11' CityofFortCollin$,Coklrado UTILITY PLAN PPPROVAL F'HOOE: (970) 4�1521 tony@upliltdg.com COOT ACT: BRYAN BYLER F'HOOE:(303)9�291 bryan@pacfficnorthen.com _,_WI-•�--ApproyedSheets � i ?!��.RTY COOSULTANTSU.C ;��t;��c:M��SERVICES LLC �=��R�S �� i STRASBURG, CO 80138 LONE TREE, 0080124 FORT CCUINS, CO 80521 LITTLETOO, CO 80180 f �r�Et��•esc,, �!i::.:[=:; y =��:E!t""'' :E1:.r:��:� APPRO>SD�--�,-==---=· = --= = --= =::: : !�=�:;;;�==�,H�E�C�O�N�TR�A;CT�O�R�I S�S P�E�Cl�F,rC�AL�L Y:r=---=---------��Jo;A��=�======�RE�<�Sl�ON�D�E�SC�Rl[PTifilo�N::::::5]•tYF;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;��=�==��===��=�=------7-----...L------===-7r;sHH1ESEE�T�NWU�M�BEEIRrl l i¼��iE�E�W��nit�:;�t; p::�FRTE::v::�PMENT,LLcfin---t-------------+---i UPLIFT SELF STORAGE • �-c::::R ,::P:::0,,:::,:::"=,_::MEAS:::::ce:::,::•,"'m�si��:NR�:ii:'i'.bl�J,;F��:��t�T TONY OLLILA Faa---+-------------+---< AT RUDOLPH FAR M !TO BE REUEDOO AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUCH CALL 811 791 COPPER CENTER PARKWAY,=---+---------�---+---< 'ii AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOR.ADO SPRINGS COLORADO 80921 f-"='-=f-'-'2109�.01'=------+-'"""'-�"'-'b',y ---l -�f OCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PH; 970-420-1521 dote 2/12/2025 -2:-4-J pm designed b)' � CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATED ALL EXISTING UTILITIES 'MICH CONFLICT WITH THE FAX: R O P O S E D I M P R O V E M E N T S S H O W N ON T H E S E P L A N S , dw,a. Ol-cu-c.,,,,-... approved b)' COVER SHEET KELLY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 1311 ICRUI OAK DR LOIE TREE, CO 80124 101-118-&311 gl'lt@ktlpn.coa C1.1 SHEET 1 of5 PROJECT NUMBER 2207.01 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 339 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 340 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 341 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 342 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 343 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 344 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 345 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 346 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 347 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 348 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 349 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 350 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 351 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 352 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 353 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 354 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 355 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 356 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 357 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 358 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 359 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 360 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 361 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Blue Sky Self-Storage Neighborhood Meeting Notes January 26, 2023 281 N. College Ave, Conference Room A These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript. Please contact staff at any time with any comments or questions: City Staff: Clark Mapes, City Planner, cmapes@fcgov.com Sophie Buckingham, Civil Engineer, sbuckingham@fcgov.com Steve Gilchrist, Civil Engineer, Traffic, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Em Myler, Development Review Liaison , emyler@fcgov.com Applicant Staff: Aaron Thompson, Aperio Property Consultants David Carron, VFLA Architecture Royce Moriarty, Uplift Development Group Andy Reese, Northern Engineering Attendees: In-person - 1 Virtual - 2 Purpose of the Meeting and City Process Neighborhood Development Liaison Em Myler introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the City. The meeting purpose is to share information between the prospective developer and interested community members, with City staff supporting as is helpful. Notes from the neighborhood meeting will eventually be provided to P&Z as the decision maker on a development plan. Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether and how to formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review. Proposal Overview Questions, Responses, and Comments Responses are by the prospective applicant unless otherwise indicated C: I live directly north of this facility. We were told that this area would be residential. Last year there was a portion of the Urban Estates buffer zone on the north side of this property that has been shrunk significantly, reducing the buffer ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 362 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 2 between us and the commercial district this will be built in. There are a lot of homes to the east which will have views obstructed by this facility. This area is the introduction for people entering Fort Collins. I appreciate Fort Collins’ unique architecture and think this building has very little of that character. I ask that you consider height and character of the building. A: (Mapes) This property has been designated as commercial and industrial for a long time. Regarding views, the Land Use Code doesn’t protect views, but does regulate the height of the building and the way it assimilates with the area including the articulation of the building and landscaping. A: These self-storage buildings are fairly compact, so they are shorter than the typical three-story building. We will work with the City to address the massing and landscaping. I think there is well over 1000 feet between us and the nearest house. Q: I live in Foxgrove West. I have the same concerns. I enjoy the quiet environment in Fort Collins. It looks like this is the first of many developments in this area and there are concerns about increasing traffic in our neighborhoods. What is the overall site plan for the area. There’s no walkability on this side of the highway and no food access. I’d love to see something like a café or supermarket. I think my overall concerns are traffic impacts and losing the character of our small subdivision. A: (Myler) We don’t have anyone in the room who can speak to the overall development of this area, but I can send you more information if you reach out to me. A: (Gilchrist) There are some regional trails planned to connect the neighborhood with the amenities provided by this development. We are also working on more connectivity across the interstate. Adjourn ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 363 From:Brianna Wilkson To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farms Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:51:55 AM Hello, As a homeowner very near to this site and the new Timnath Middle High School, I cannot tell you how much we oppose this Blue Sky Storage development. Certainly we could find a better solution to utilizing this industrial/commercial zoning area that would benefit the homeowners and students who live here. To start, there are multiple storage areas including some with climate control and drive up capability within one mile of this location. Another facility is NOT NEEDED and won’t benefit our community here. Second, it would most definitely be an eyesore for not only homeowners and people living here, but for people passing through the area thinking how lovely it otherwise might be. Third, we should be focusing on developing this area to attract people for daily businesses and keeping it upscale, in growing with our community and keeping it nice. With high school students and plenty of homeowners who don’t want to travel into the city we could consider a huge variety of businesses (for example city parks, education related facilities, small business, childcare facilities, veterinarian offices, restaurant, retail, grocery, brewery, etc). There are so many options that would bring beauty and value to the residents and businesses of this area, and a three story storage facility is NOT one of those options. Please please consider homeowners and residential input before approving this project. It is not good for our neighborhood or our community to allow this storage facility to go in next to this beautiful new school and area. Thank you for reading. Sincerely, Brianna Wilkson ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 364 From:Ariel Friese To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Regarding Proposal to Build Blue Sky Self-Storage at Rudolph Farm Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:20:14 PM Hi Em, I am a resident of Clydesdale Park and received a notice regarding the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project Proposal FDP220010. While I realize the meeting on May 4, 2023 is simply regarding the road infrastructure, I would like to write to share my thoughts and feelings about the potential building of a self-storage facility at this location. I do not support this project proposal. With the completion of the new, beautiful middle and high school, there are a number of other more beneficial ways this land could be developed for the community. I understand the property is zoned for Industrial and General Commercial projects. As a resident of Clydesdale Park, I can confidently say there are few amenities east of I-25 for us to access. After reviewing the Land Use Ordinances, there are so many ways this land could better serve our local community, as well as the students at the nearby school, including a local park, community facility, supermarket, local retail shops, and many others. A self-storage facility would simply increase traffic to this area without improving the community and offering more to its residents. I am in strong opposition to building a self-storage facility here. I would love to be kept in the loop on future hearings so I may participate and express my feelings on the matter. Thank you for your time! Best, Ariel Friese ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 365 From:Kira Schmitt To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] FDP220010 - questions for the meeting on Thursday, May 4th Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:41:31 PM I do plan to attend, but wanted to submit a couple of items in advance, as they are fairly specific. Regarding document RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY Page 18 identifies Project Characteristics. Are these still accurate for the project? In particular, bullet 2, PA-2 references a grocery store; and bullet 3, PA-3, references a coffee shop. Is there another document that has the current project characteristics? Page 18 of the same traffic study identifies that PA-8 has the potential to be changed from Industrial to Residential. Is there an update to that potential? The community north of the ODP would strongly support residential. Pages 3, 18 and 35 of the same traffic study identifies that the trails will connect to a future underpass at I-25. Where and when would this underpass be developed? Is there additional detail on this plan somewhere? Document RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 11, Park Planning item 12B, identifies that the ODP was amended to accommodate a future neighborhood park. Can additional detail be provided about that park? Is this the NW corner of the site or somewhere else? Thanks very much, Kira Schmitt 4432 Huntsman Drive Fort Collins CO 80524 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 366 From:Carol Ross To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comment on Blue Sky Self‐Storage at Rudolph Farm PDR220014 Date:Wednesday, May 3, 2023 8:16:01 AM HI, just wanted to comment on this prior to you approving. I see where this is three stories and will it be higher than other buildings in the area? Just hopeful that our city is taking a look at these kind of things. Hopefully it won't be any higher than the Middle/High School nearby Thank you George Ross Withers Dr Fort Collins ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 367 From:Nicky Druyor To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Self-storage Facility Date:Wednesday, May 3, 2023 12:24:40 PM Hi …. I would also like to go on record as being opposed to the self storage unit being considered next to the new Timnath middle/high school. I would be in favor of a grocery store or other retail space. As a resident of Clydesdale Park I would love to see a grocery store or other retail space. I realize the meeting is tomorrow, and is simply a meeting regarding the road infrastructure. I just wanted to give my input on this matter. Thank you. Nicky Druyor 4812 Brenton Drive Ft. Collins 80524 Sent from my iPhone ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 368 From:Development Review Coordinators To:Development Review Comments Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Wellington storage facility development Date:Monday, March 24, 2025 2:31:33 PM Hey Em! Would it make sense for you to reply to this Wellington resident? Looks like they have the wrong contact info. Development Review Coordination City of Fort Collins Planning & Development Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.221.6689 DRCoord@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Marlene Gilmore <gilm768@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:47 AM To: Development Review Coordinators <DRCoord@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wellington storage facility development Hello, I am writing to address the proposed Wellington storage facility. This project will devalue our town. There are already several storage facilities nearby and a storage space for RVs, boats and other recreational vehicles. Why would we need yet another storage facility in the middle of our town? It’s an eyesore. We are a small town hopefully on the verge of expanding and increasing revenue. This project is off putting. People who move here want a small town feel and a more conservative place to live along the I25 corridor. They don’t want a N Fort Collins Mulberry area. It’s ugly and run down, full of random store, storage, gas stations, hotels and warehouse-esque businesses. We don’t need that here. If you want to attract revenue, you need to attract people. I know I wouldn’t have bothered moving here if it was ghetto looking. We have the potential to look closer to a small version of Timnath. We have been considering relocating there to access better schools as well and the appeal. House values have shot up there and it is a highly desired town to live in. We have stayed because we’d like to continue living in a more conservative, rural small town feel and values, not be a Hickville. If you’re going to build something that adds to our already sky high water bills, increasing taxes and miscellaneous fees, make it worth it. Thank you for your time, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 369 -Marlene Gilmore, Wellington resident, homeowner with children who attend our neighborhood schools despite lacking ratings. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 370 A proposal to construct a two-phase self-storage facility in the Rudolph Farm master planned development. Rudolph Farm Fort Collins, CO UPLIFT SELF STORAGE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 371 Project Team Property Consultants, llc KELLY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 372 Project Summary •Proposal to construct a 102,225-sf, 3-story climate controlled self- storage building (Phase 1), and 23,850-sf of single-story self- storage (Phase 2) •Part of the Rudolph Farm ODP, a 115-acre master planned development •Class A building •Self-storage generates the lowest vehicle trips/week of any commercial use •NOT a 24-hour operation •Outdoor Storage not being requested as a part of this application ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 373 Project Location ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 374 Aerial Site View SITESITE ~1/4 mile~1/4 mile ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 375 SITESITE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 376 SITE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 377 LOT AREA: 3.07 AC TWO-PHASES: PHASE 1 102,225 SF – 3 STORY CLIMATE CONTROLLED BUILDING PHASE 2 23,850 SF MIX OF DRIVE-UP UNITS AND CLIMATE CONTROLLED ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 378 Concept Building Rendering ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 379 Representative Projects ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 380 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 381 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 382 Public Comments Received During Preliminary Design Review Public Comment: Other uses would be better for this property and serve the community. Response: The Rudolph Farm Overall Development Planmaster development has been subject to severalyears of review, including public comment. Thisland use has been scrutinized along with all ofthe other planning areas and corresponding landuses of the master plan. The self storage use is asuitable, allowed, and approved use on thisportion of the project identified for Industrialdevelopment. Self-storage does serve the community.Businesses and residents alike utilize storage fortheir various needs and the day-to-day businessoperations of the community will be served. PROJECT SITE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 383 Public Comments Received During Preliminary Design Review Public Comment: This project will increase traffic. Response: Self-storge is by a large marginone of the lowest trafficgenerators of any commercial use.There are generally less than 10vehicles per day that visit our selfstorage facilities. Any increase in traffic in this areawill not be caused by this project. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 384 Public Comments Received During Preliminary Design Review Public Comment: Another self-storage facility is not needed and won’t benefit the community Response: As real-estate developers, we spend alot of resources determining where anew project should get built. We havegood metrics indicating that a self-storage facility will be successful here. I also live here. I was born at PVH,attended Poudre High School and CSUand still drive by this location everyweek to take my kids to school. As aresident of this area, I see no negativeeffect on the community with thisproject. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 385 Public Comments Received During Preliminary Design Review Public Comment: This project will be an eyesore. Response: We have hired VFLA Architecture todesign the building. Being a local andwell known architecture firm in FortCollins, we have worked closely withCity staff and the local building codes toensure an exceptional design. This is also not a stereotypical self-storage facility. This is a Class A,Commercial Building. This building willin-fact enhance the desired upscalearea as demonstrated by the includedBuilding Rendering. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 386 •20+ years of Development and Operational Experience •Class A commercial buildings •High quality architecture and professional landscaping •State of the art security in and around the building •Full time, onsite managers •Owner/Operator facilities. It is in the best interest for Uplift to develop and operate “Best In Class” facilities •Investments in the businesses and employment opportunities of the community •Joining the local Chamber of Commerce and other community groups to ensure we’re engrained in thecommunity ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 387