No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/24/1996n u • L Council Liaisorr. Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3416 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 226-2760 (IN) 679-3201 The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Davidson, Gavaldon, Strom, Byrne, Mickelsen, Colton. Chairperson Bell was absent. Staff Present: Ludwig, Shepard, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Stanford, Herzig, Bracke, Frank, Vosburg, Duvall, Mapes, Baker, Frazier, Blanchard, Dairies. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's, which consisted of the following: 1. Minutes of March 26, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing (Continued). 2. #5-94D Symbols Logic - Overall Development Plan 3. #5-94E Symbols Logic PUD, Phase I - Preliminary 4. #55-84G Ridgewood Hills, 2nd Filing - Final 5. #3-90C Villages at Harmony West PUD - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Amended Final 6. #13-96 1435 South College Avenue PUD - Preliminary and Final 7. #8-96 The Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary (Continued) 8. #50-95A Jefferson Commons PUD - Final 9. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 10. Resolution PZ96-7 Easement Vacation 11. Resolution PZ96-8 Easement Vacation 12 Resolution PZ96-9 Easement Vacation (Continued) 13. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amending Article VI of Chapter 29 of the City Code. Discussion Agenda: 14. #55-95A Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Preferred City Structure Plan Alternative/City Plan. 15. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Master Street Plan. 16. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed New Street Width Standards. 17. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Increase in Street oversizing Fees. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 2 Member Mickelsen moved for approval of Consent Agenda Items 2, 3 (with variance for height over 40 feet), 4, 5, 6 (with variance from the Business uses point chart), 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. RFcnMMFNnATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE STRUCTURE P Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning gave the staff report. Mr. Frank stated this was the next step in the City Plan process after the Visions and Goals 2015 document. He stated this plan would establish more precise and take some of the vision contained in the 2015 document adopted in April and put it onto a map. Mr. Frank stated there would be several spokes persons that would take the Board through the vision in the plan, activity centers, the corridors, districts and edges. Lou Stitzel, CPAC Member gave a presentation on the vision of the plan. She stated that all the parts of the plan were necessary to have a community in which there are positive choices, not only now, but in the future. Although the Structure Plan deals with land, the second point is in reality to what we are working toward in providing a place on the land for people. As such, with a vision it is that we are planning new ways to which people can live together more comfortably. Ms. Stitzel spoke on the things that we need in our community to make it a comfortable place to live. The Structure Plan is the foundation for moving toward that. In order to check on does this Structure Plan meet our realities, we have to first look at what is different here from what we have been working on, our regular classic planning and zoning, and the way we have been doing business. Ms. Stitzel stated the first thing to think about was that this has Activity Centers that have linkages, corridors, green spaces, and transportation; but, they also form hubs for transportation and the various activity centers. In the activity centers, there are more than just trade and commerce, grocery and convenience stores. There are parks, places for people to go and gather and that they fee; comfortable going to. This Structure Plan is an effort to balance different parts of the City to have a mix of housing, a mix of incomes that are satisfied by various types housing, so that it is suitable quality housing for people of all income levels. Ms. Stitzel spoke on the development and balancing of the growth of the community. She spoke on the function of the activity centers and the variety of services they would have. She felt that this was an opportunity for us, using the basic foundation, the structure of the Structure Plan to build something that people would be drawn to make • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 3 the activity centers the magnets that can bring people together. Instead of separate neighborhoods scattered around, and fighting for what each person wants to see in their neighborhood, we join together to see that everyone has a chance to rise above just the likes and dislikes and build something that is better than thought of before. Dan Gould, spokesperson for CPAC, spoke on two areas of the Structure Plan and provided a preview of the strong points of these areas. Mr. Gould talked about Districts and Corridors as featured in the Structure Plan. Mr. Gould stated that the Districts are larger areas that provide for groups of special activities. We have areas that would be soon developing as mixed -use or employment districts. We also have districts that have potential for redevelopment as well, in addition to whole new developed districts in the outer lying parts of the city within the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Gould stated that the development and redevelopment of the districts represents an opportunity for people to live in mixed activity areas where they can have a choice of a lifestyle that does not exist now. They can live in areas where they can work, have residences, and a full constellation of urban activities that would be available to them with a very low dependency level on automobile travel. That would represent a new • type of living choice. Mr. Gould spoke on the affordability issue with the districts and new design and uses for structures and architectural features within the districts. Mr. Gould spoke on the District Commercial Centers and what it meant in the Structure Plan. He stated that it was a commercial center that serves a series of neighborhoods that make up a larger neighborhood district. For the most part, the anchor of this center would be a conventional type of supermarket. In order to serve the goals of the Vision Statement in the Visions and Goals document, the design of the District Commercial Centers will have to be done with close attention to collaboration between the tenants of these district centers and the city in order to come up with designs that support the types of goals we are trying to achieve. Mr. Gould commented on the two types of corridors in the Structure Plan. He stated that there are transportation corridors and green corridors. Transportation corridors fall into three categories. There will be regional transportation corridors developing, and we need to understand and identify areas of how these will link up with the local corridors. We will have regional transportation corridors that will be coming into the city, we will have major transportation corridors within the city that will link the districts. The phenomenon we will have to deal with will involve the tendency for high activity zones where a lot of people are converging on the activities in the district to actually produce problems with automobile congestion. The degree of congestion will increase and the level of service will decrease — the Congestion Management Plan identifies that as a phenomenon that is happening now. In order to have the mobility and access that will be required for success business activity, and for the full vitality of the district to work, there will have to be full development of other modes to provide mobility and access. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 4 The bicycle, pedestrian, transit will have to be carefully balanced and might call for streets to be redesigned to bring higher levels of transit to the area. It might even call for whole new transit priority corridors that would provide high efficiency transit service within a corridor where bicycle and pedestrian mobility would also be at a high level. Mr. Gould felt this represented some areas of real opportunity and some areas where we can generate some new excitement in developing viable urban districts that won't be penalized by excessive traffic and will have higher levels of activity by service of other transportation modes. Mr. Gould talked about the green corridors. These would be linkages between river and creek drainages, open spaces, parks, natural spaces, and trail systems. These corridors provide a critical level of habitat for urban wildlife species, they provide for the citizenry for recreational and educational opportunities in the green corridors. These are highly valued by citizens and represent a good example of the types of future objectives that could be achieved that citizens could value equally. Alex Chapman, CPAC Spokesperson spoke on neighborhoods, city edges, and summarized some of the key components that we see in the Structure Plan that they feel can help maintain the quality of living here. Mr. Chapman reviewed the three examples of the vision of the Structure Plan about the future of neighborhoods. He spoke about low -density, mixed use neighborhoods that are both walkable and livable. The mixed -use concept is that there will be a mix of housing types as well as shopping, parks, services, and things people do every day. The neighborhoods will be connected throughout by roads, bikeways, and walkways so people can easily get to the center. There will be open areas, if there are any natural features in the area they would be maintained, and there would be the neighborhood central park. Mr. Chapman spoke on the mixed housing examples for the neighborhoods. He stated that the hope and intent is that there is flexibility in this, but yet the direction in it would encourage developers and builders to come up with innovative ways to achieve the 5 dwelling units per acre; but, at the same time do it in a way that it is very attractive for people to want live there. These neighborhoods would cluster around District Commercial Centers, and there could be 4 to 6 neighborhoods around it, and would still maintain the walkability concept. Mr. Chapman reviewed the city structure map. He stated that if this all goes well, he believes that neighborhoods will become a place that people would actually live, not just sleep there. Mr. Chapman spoke on city edges. City edges are not just lines on a map or sand. Edges are about natural areas, about this City being separate from other cities. They are about urban sprawl, what you do with and for that, and about when your in town you • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 5 know your in town, and when you leave town you know you've left town. Edges have firm hard edges like along the foothills and between Fort Collins and Loveland. They also have soft edges that are adjacent to developable land — in the long term we might want to think of those as softer edges. Another aspect of edges is that they can either be abrupt or transitional. By abrupt, in some places it might be entirely appropriate to have 5 dwelling units per acre right up to the Urban Growth Area. In other areas, it might be appropriate to have some transition. This structure assumes that 50,000 people will move to the City of Fort Collins in the next 20 years, and that 50,000 people with the densities shown on the map will be accommodated within the Urban Growth area. Beyond 2015 or beyond 50,000 people moving here, the city, sometime in the future, may have to look at expanding the edges of the city. Mr. Chapman summarized that City Plan and the Structure Plan are not about encouraging or discouraging population growth. Its about doing what we can to maintain the standard of living that we have and the quality of fife we have. Citizens have expressed a lot of concern about suburban sprawl eating up all the open space and the natural areas in and around Fort Collins. They have expressed even higher concern about the increased automobile traffic, congestion, and air pollution. This • Structure Plan is an effort to address several questions. If growth comes where should we plan to put it, how should the new growth area of the city be structured, and can these things be done in ways that deal with the citizens concerns. Design walkable, livable neighborhoods, locate those neighborhoods near neighborhood or commercial centers, connect the neighborhoods and centers and special use districts with the corridors and this would upgrade the quality of life and can mitigate traffic congestion and air pollution and not eat up all the open space. Member Byrne asked for comment on the practicality of becoming more auto dependent. Ms. Stitzel replied that was the excitement of the activity centers. If we truly make them magnets and if we work with what we already have for resources; and, ways in which we have activities close to home, not just a few here and there, that this will become the magnet for change. One thing that has been found is that there has not been any steady implementation in the past of what was suggested. True the goals are similar of 1977, except they did not have the activity centers. They did not have the transportation corridors, and they did not move from smaller walkable neighborhood, to districts to the corridors to the bigger activity centers. Mr. Chapman added that the issue of structure that is "how the city is designed", how the streets are layed out, how the sidewalks are layed out, is at the core of why we have not made more progress than we have in the past 20 years. He thought a problem he sees is that when you build neighborhoods that are cul-de-saced streets and then joined in to collector streets and then finally joined into arterial streets some Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 6 place — in the last 20 years there has not been a lot of effort put into trying to make that type of neighborhood a walkable neighbohood. When we get into walkable neighborhoods, a quarter of a mile is not a lot and if you make it pleasant, make it possible and make it safe for people, and hopefully they will. Director Frank also added that assumed in this plan and other upcoming plans is a committment to investment in aftemative modes. He feels that is a shift that is different today than it was in 1977. Member Byrne asked when it comes to the kinds of ideals presented here this evening, are the mechanisims by where they determine if development is efficient going to change. Are they going to see some more rigourous guidelines in terms of how that happens. Ben Hermann, Ballofet and Associates responded that the phase of work they are dealing with now are Principles and Policies which is really the "how do we get there from here". The Board heard the vision 3 months ago, and now they are kind of seeing it, but it is still the big picture. Principles and Policies will create those criteria. The difference between what your seeing and what you would like to see are a few simple terms, connectedness of neighborhoods. That could be a grid, it does not have to be a grid. There are other ways to have neighborhoods that follow some of the types of patterns we have seen historically, but are better connected, both internally and to other neighborhoods. The second will be carrying through the implementation process of City Plan. You will see those Principles and Policies used as standards by the Planning Staff in reviewing projects that come before the Board. Member Davidson commented that with regards to bicycling and walking — he thought we were doing a pretty good job planning the physical networks, but his concern is that he is not so sure by just doing that, that we would overcome the creature habit we have been socialized into over generations of traveling by car. His feeling is that if your going to change society, you need to start with the young. He would like to see something in City Plan to the effect that we introduce education into the schools as part of the cirriculum. Member Davidson also commented that we need to establish some standards for both location of areas to lock up bikes and in full view areas. He also thought that we need locking stations that are stout versus thin metal bike racks. He felt there should be some guidelines or criteria that developers and builders have to abide by for this type of feature if we are going to promote bicycle transportation. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 7 CITIZEN INPUT Bridgett Schmidt commented on the comments she has heard tonight. She did not know there was choices. All she has heard is that she has a choice of living in a duplex, bungalo, or a single family house on 8,000 s.f. Those were the three choices described and she believed that the citizens of Fort Collins would like additional choices besides those. Another issue is bicycle riding and that we needed to look in more detail to street design. She felt it was very idealistic to assume that people are going to give up their cars. Ms. Schmidt also believes that it is very important to have guidelines for whatever is developed here. She does not believe the citizens of this town have ever said that they want 5 units an acre, that they think that is a good idea. She thinks that this plan has been presented as a way to reduce air pollution, to reduce urban sprawl, it has never been presented as "your going to have 6 homes an acre, and isn't that a wonderful idea"? She does not think the citizens would agree with that. She wonders when push comes to shove is there really going to be a policy that says every place in town has to be 6 units per acre and that is how it is going to be applied. She feels the plan should be written to be more flexible than that because that will not be appropriate everywhere. Betty Maloney commented that she has some concerns that it is hard to jump from vision to something that is going to happen. She is concerned with housing choices and she cannot see anything in the plan that would guarantee that we are not going to have the same choices that we have now. Our community at the present time is faced with some dislocations and there does not seem to be places for these people to go and stay together. There are several other mobile home parks that will be closing and she does not see any provision in this plan where these people can be absorbed into the community except in a house here or there. It would seem to here that we need to specifically say that we want to set aside land for manufactured housing. She is concerned about getting from the vision and the structure to solving actual problems. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Vice Chair Colton asked staff to respond to citizen comments. He asked about housing types and lot sizes, would there be more choices. Also, regarding bicycles and what can we really do to get people to use alternative modes more effectively. There were also concerns regarding density and are people really going to want 6 units per acre. Mr. Chapman addressed the question of this plan causing there to be no choice for • larger lots or larger houses. Mr. Chapman responded that over the next 20 years what is projected in this plan happens, the population growth would go from 100,000 to 150,000 and that means that at that time 2/3 of the city that would exist in the year 2015 is exactly the city you see now. That the choices that you have now will be there Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 8 then. This development plan speaks only to the areas that are shown in yellow. Those areas would be an average density of 5 units per acre. That means there will be some parts that will be denser than 5 and some parts that will be less dense than 5. There would be choices in that. Mr. Gould commented on the issues of automobiles. He stated that the key here is the opportunities for changes. That people would ultralistically change their behavior by making sure that the land use pattern is linked with transportation planning and that there are specific criteria established for service levels for the different transportation modes. That when development occurs, those can be in appropriate balances. So what is new in City Plan is that land use and transportation needs are looked at in a more synergistic way and that the intent is to provide proformance criteria for the different modes. Ms. Stitzel spoke on the affordable housing and displacement issue. It was very difficult in a brief space of time to mention all the details that have been looked at. Even though it might seem as if we are not truly planning mobile home parks within this plan, a sounder plan for the future is a mix of housing. Because the life of existing or older mobile homes is somewhat limited and is not very cost effective for the more limited income people that live in them. We are looking at assistance for them in better manufactured housing that would be affordable to them in their income levels that would be included within the all quadrants of the city, and would be in the higher density areas around the activity centers. Member Strom asked about the residential land ratio table and would like explanation of what it means. Director Frank replied that this was some work done through the consultants in working with the city in trying to determine — when you take a raw piece of property — for the purposes of determining total dwelling units on it. It is a formula that excludes from the calculation roads, parks, schools, a certain layout efficiency that goes along with land development, and assumed vacancy. They came up with a reduction factor for each one of raw acreages for each kind of land uses. That reduction then left what they say is developable land and that ratio then is used to apply against raw land to get to gross acreage which is developable land, and from there we can get to the number of units or capacity of that land. Member Strom asked about the structure map showing South Overland Trail headed straight down the foothills. He questioned if that was really intended to happen. Director Frank responded that was a property line, not a road alignment. He stated that absolutly not did it continue south into the foothills. • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 9 Member Strom asked about the green corridor not extending through Paragon Point. He thought that since there was substantial open space area in Paragon Point, it would be worth while showing that. Director Frank agreed that was a good point. Member Strom asked what kind of information do we have on where people do walk. Mr. Hermann replied that there is another parallel effort going on at the same time as City Plan that is the Pedestrian Plan. It has not been before this Board yet. The consultants working on that plan have 8 or 10 case studies of what effects pedestrian behavior. He thought that would be a question better addressed by the Pedestrian Plan. They are looking at a fine level of detail in terms of level of service for different types of pedestrian facilities. Member Strom encouraged them as part of the technical team in CPAC and the Board to look to some of that information when we are talking about developing standards and implementation tools for trying to translate our vision into something on the ground. • Member Gaveldon asked about the railroad track layout and was there any opportunity here, or was there any discussion, for this being part of the transportation plan, to look at railroad in terms of connecting to Denver and Greeley. Anywhere where there is commuting going on. Director Frank replied that one of the opportunities that they have identified in both the Structure Plan and the Master Street Plan was the possible opportunity for some sort of passenger rail service along the Burlington Northern Tracks that run parrallel to College Avenue. He stated that it was a long time off making it happen, but the Regional Transportation Plan identified some opportunities for rail connections between some of the communities in Northern Colorado and the Denver area. On the Plan that corridor is identified. Member Davidson commented on walking and felt that there should be a standard criteria that builders not have only 3 to 5 floorplans for houses in their developments. That there has to be a more diversity of styles in every development, not just floor layout, but architectural design in a sense of period style. Otherwise you walk by the same house every third or fourth house, and that did not make for a very interesting walk. • Member Byrne asked Mr. Hermann to comment about the inevitability on sprawl. Mr. Hermann responded that when you look at the Structure Map, it represents growth. The city is going to grow, 50,000 people represents a considerable expansion of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 10 developed area of the city. He thought that was an inevitibility that underlies this plan and that is what we are planning for. If we accept that growth is not necessarily a bad thing and leads to some positives for the community and lead many of us to come here because of opportunities. The question is, is there a way to have that development occur in a pattern that does not have a negative connatation of sprawl. In some sense if you consider growth to be sprawl, then yes, it is inevitable. He thought that good growth can improve the community and can lead to many positive things. Member Gaveldon thanked the CPAC for the excellent work on this and the balancing of all interests and activities to this. He stated that this was a lot of good work and a well done job. Member Gaveldon asked about the edges on the northeast toward Wellington, and the hard and soft edges, the rate of Wellington's growth, and was there any latitude for this plan to buffer between the two areas. Director Frank responded that Wellington is now working on their comprehensive plan and we have been cooperating with them on that. Also Larimer County is working on their update of their comprehensive plan, creating separations between cities was going to be one of their goals. Wellington is still a long way from Fort Collins, and right not it not a burning issue to create that separation. It will be addressed in those two planning processes. Member Strom stated for the record that we need to make sure that there is a caveat on this map that indicates to anyone who picks it up that this is not a zoning map. Member Strom asked why the activity center at Horsetooth and Timberline was recommended by the CPAC group north to Drake. Director Frank responded that there is an existing center started at the comer of Horsetooth and Timberline next to the High School and planned in that center is a potential for a grocery store and some retail uses. He stated that the feeling was to shift it further away from that center. They felt that the comer of Drake and Timberline is a very developable piece of property. Member Strom felt that the development at the comer of Horsetooth and Timberline was a major public facility combined with commercial development, with some fairly major employment opportunities. All that is in pretty close proximity to some residential that is continuing to develop. He suggested that this was an opportunity to look at some of the concepts that we are trying to present in the Structure Plan and see if there aren't ways to retro-fit some of these concepts and make what is already going to be an activity center work better and function as one, as one of our significant activity centers. 9 0 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 11 Member Strom echoed the comments by other Board members regarding the time and effort, and the work done by the CPAC members. He thought that there was good stuff in the Structure Plan and also in the Vision statement. He thought where it gets dicy is where we go from here. It will take a lot of political will and committment on the part of the community, both from the standpoint of supporting political will, but also from the standpoint of paying for it. Everything we want to happen will not happen by itself. Particularily some of the things we want to do with alternative transportation modes, those just are not going to happen without some substantial support from the community. Member Strom also commented that we need to make these things attractive to the people who will be investing and spending their money to develop, and try to do it within this framework. It has to be done in such a way that we don't price the lower half of the community out of the market. Those are serious concerns he has, and he will be keeping track of the process as it goes forward. He thinks we should go forward with the Structure Plan and go forward to the next stage. Vice Chair Colton asked about the Southside Community Centers that have not been • built yet and was their opportunities for on of these activity centers on the south to become a "downtown south" with the same mix and enjoyment as in the Old Town District? Director Frank replied that that was along the same line of thinking as they have spoke of for these centers. The vision is that they have many of the same elements that Old Town and Downtown have. Member Davidson asked about pedestrian plaza's in the activity centers and would they be required. Director Frank replied that was the direction that they would take and having some sort of public space that people can come and meet will be part of the design of those centers. Member Strom moved to recommend to City Council to adopt the City Structure Plan Section of the Fort Collins City Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Along with that the comments that various Board Members have made tonight be forward to City Council for their consideration. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Is Member Mickelsen commented that she concured with comments that other Board Members have made. She commented that looking forward to the future as far as the policies and what this Board was going to have to use as a tool in order to implement Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 12 these ideas. To pay close atttention to how those tools are designed so that citizens have an understanding when you say "5 units an acre is appropriate in this location". She thought that had to do with educating the public, and we need to find a way to reach as many people as possible in this process. Member Byrne commented that simplicity is the key and it should apply to out street system also. He added that we want to live in a community, we want to have a sense of one another and be able to enjoy one anthers presence as human beings. Member Davidson thanked all the CPAC Members for woking so hand on this. Vice Chair Colton also thanked all the people who have done all the work to this point. He was somewhat encouraged by seeing the Structure Plan because there are a lot of things in it that will allow the community to maintain its liveability. He still has concerns, but feels better than he did in the early stages. He likes the compact development form, and he had fears that we would loose the edges, but now feels that we will have some separation. He likes the emphasis on the neighborhoods and districts. We should all work hard to make sure this plan is implemented. His one concern with the proposed density is that unless we do these alternative modes and activity centers, he does feel we will reach traffic grid lock. He does see a lot of potential in this plan and feels excited about what it- can bring, but does have concerns about our ability to implement this in the future. Director Frank summarized the comments regarding the map: 1. The Paragon Point Open Space needed to be shown. 2. That Overland Trail is mislabeled and misleading. 3. The need for some kind of caveat on the map to indicate what this map is all about, that it is not a zoning map. He stated that these would be specific changes on the map and the rest would be the Board's concerns, most of which seem to be about implementation steps. The Motion was approved 6-0. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department gave the staff report. He stated that the Master Street Plan is what the City uses to primarily get right-of-way during the development review process. It is also used to give people an expectation of what the transportation system is going to look like in the future. We do have a Master Street Plan that was adopted in 1981, and has been amended 4 or 5 times. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Bracke stated there were several assumptions that went into the Master Street Plan Process. One, that there is a Regional Transportation Demand Management Program in place with a regional goal of reducing single occupancy vehicles by 10%. Also, that Fort Collins will pursue its own local Demand Management Program and that we will continue to improve transit service and facilities for walking and bicycling. The basis for this plan was the Structure Plan and that we will also have a monitoring process in place to see how we are doing. This is an aggressive Master Street Plan effort. Mr. Bracke passed out a table of the results of the modeling of what we have on our system today, 1995, and what the projected system would look like in the year 2015. Currently in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, we estimate that there is approximately 2.2 million miles of travel per day. Assuming nothing changes and we still continue to grow, by the year 2015 we would have VMT of about 3.6 to 3.8 million miles of travel per day. With this plan, assuming the extensive investment of the City for alternative modes, we will estimate that the VMT would only be about 3 million miles per day. To make this plan work, the investment in atemative modes, is absolutely critical. Mr. Bracke reviewed the modeling results with the Board. • Mr. Bracke stated that there have been changes in the existing Master Street Plan that are being proposed tonight. Some of the major changes they are looking at include: • Overland Trail down to where it would connect with Harmony. • North College Avenue • Vine Drive • Timberline Road • County Road 32 • Trilby Road Mr. Bracke reported that there will be shaded areas added on the Master Street Plan, and in those new areas there will be a different street plan than we have had in the past. It will be more of a grid pattern than what we see today. We are also showing a multi -model corridor that goes along the Burlington Northern Tracks. Mr. Bracke stated that this is an element of the Master Transportation Plan. Mr. Bracke stated that this plan has been approved by the Transportation Board and the Air Quality Board. It is on the same schedule as the City Structure Plan, which goes to Council on July 2. Member Strom asked when staff would know if we are making progress on the • assumptions made, and what kind of contingencies are being built in in case we don't. Mr. Bracke replied that as of this year, staff has implemented a monitoring system. During 1995 and 1996 an extensive amount of data was collected to figure out what is Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 14 the travel behavior in this region. Staff will be doing that on a bi-annual basis, and it is expected that this document in the next several years will undergo changes. Staff is still trying to work through the process of what happens if a development is proposed in a certain area and brings a certain level of service that is not expected in that area. Member Strom asked if we, with this plan, backing away from right-of-way that we would need if people won't get out of their cars. Mr. Bracke replied that not at this point in time. Member Stom was concerned that we have a standard of a level of service "D", and his suspicion is that most of the streets in town seldom get close to a level of service "D". Mr. Bracke replied that was true, and most of the arterial intersections are at level of service "D" during peak hours. Member Strom's concern was whether or not people who react strongly to what they see today, are really going to accept levels of service "E" on a daily basis, even in activity centers. Mr. Bracke stated that was true, and some of their concerns are that people have a very difficult time understanding levels of service and what exactly it means. He stated that would be part of the educational program and also is going to be what gets people into alternative modes. Ron Phillips, Director of Transportion added that we just don't think it will be possible to continue to build our way out of this problem. He also thought there was a much higher of a percentage of people in Fort Collins that seem interested in alternatives. Member Strom asked what kind of service — what kind of investment are we talking about. Mr. Phillips replied that on transit, for instance, by the year 2015, we would have to increase the ridership 10 time what it is now. The modle shift would go from a present percentage of about 1 % transit to 5%. The present 14% walking and biking would have to increase to 22%. That is what the Transportation Demand Management Program is all about. There is a wide range of things that we are going to do better that will assist us in meeting goals. Member Strom asked if they have put dollars on what it would take to get a ten -fold increase in transit within the city? Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Phillips repllied they have put dollars on the Transit Development Plan which was adopted early this year for the next six years, to get us started on that, and those dollars would be 4.5 to 6 million dollars a year in addition to what we are spending now. He thought that the Congestion Management Plan projected 20 years expenditure of about 88 million dollars, and by the last few years of that 20 year window, all of that money would be going for alternative transportation and very little going for road improvements. Member Strom asked if a feasibility study has been done for the inner -urban rail system. Mr. Philips replied that they were ready to start that process last year — the Colorado Department of Transportation asked that we hold off while they did a state-wide corridor anaylsis for passenger rail. We helped to fund that for this region, and that work is going on right now. Member Strom asked if there was any preliminary sense of whether the numbers appear to come close to supporting that sort of thing. • Mr. Philips responded that the last meeting was last Friday and there were cost projections that were being bounced off the steering committee, and it was being conceptually projected to be 2 to 4 million dollars a mile to upgard existing track etc. Mr. Bracke added that this is being presented without a price tag to it, and this is tied to the City Structure Plan. The capital improvements element that is to follow this will work on the exact price tags. Member Byrne asked if there are noise standards in terms of automobile noise. Mr. Bracke replied not to his knowledge. Member Gaveldon asked about the future intersection at East Vine Drive and 1-25. Was there a consideration for an overpass at Lemay and Timberline or was it just Lemay? Mr. Bracke replied both. The switching yard goes through the whole mile and effects both. In the original Master Street Plan, Lemay is shown as being moved about 1,000 feet to the east. At that point there was an overpass orginally planned for there, but with an activity center going directly from Summitview deadcenter and crossing the • tracks, staffs perspective was that you still would need to get over them. Member Gaveldon asked if the 1,000 feet shift still existed. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Bracke replied yes, at Buckingham and Alta Vista. Member Davidson asked if there was a point of no return, when we say we will have to look at a different route, or a different way to go about things. Is there cut off point in years after doing a bi-annual monitoring of traffic that we have to face reality if it does notsucceed. Mr. Bracke replied that there would be a point somewhere between the year 1996 and the year 2015 where there would be a maximum point where you say this is it. However, we did not model between years, so he can't even guess what that would be. Modeling is a tool that shows trends that are going to happen. What the City has gone through in the las couple of years is trying to get a handle on the relationship between land use transportation and air quality. This is an example of one of those products that, if for example, with the new policies and the new densities and the land to develop; and, if the city were to develop in this manner without the variances and the different things that go on, and if this is the way it does happen, then this roadway system has a good possibility of working. No plan remains static, there will always be new iterations. Member Davidson commented that commuting should be encouraged, and that the cars at the park and ride should get better assurance of their cars not being vandalized like they get now. He thought that would help. Mr. Bracke responded that CDOT would be exanding and rebuilding the interchange at Harmony Road. As part of that project a multi -model transportation facility would be built. It will be lit and secure, will have bike path connections, transit connections, phones, and security. That will definetly make it more attractive. Member Colton asked if we kept the current density level of 3 units per acre, would that help the level of service from going into D and E categories. Mr. Bracke replied it depends on how the problem is defined. There is a definite relationship between land use and transportation. Member Bryme asked about implementation, and could Mr. Bracke discuss that. Mr. Bracke replied that we do not have the exact mechanisims of how it is going to get implemented. Assuming that we implement roadway improvements in the same manner, development is going to build most of these arterials. The City needs to change how it funds transportation. The investment in alternative modes to make this work is going to require choices. Under existing financing structure, we could not make this work because of the investment that will be required in alternative modes will be exceptionally high. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • June 24, 1996 Page 17 Tom Frazier, Transportation Planning Department stated that the key to this would be later down the road with the Captial Improvement element and the implementation piece. How this will be financed will be a significant issue, not only for transportation, but also all the other infrastructure needs within the community. PUBLIC INPUT Bridgette Schmitt asked how much pollution ideling at traffic lights causes. She also wondered if we were creating a truck bypass by creating the intersection at Vine and 1-25, and was that intentional. She thought there was a concern about having the overpasses at Lemay and Summitview and that we are designing all our density because those are going to be there; and, what if there is no money to build those but already have all the people living there. Has there been any thought to doing something at the Mulberry interchange at 1-25, which is extremely hazardous. Ms. Schmitt also commented that if level of service is going to be at E in the Activity Centers, then it should be noted when development plans are being reviewed that people riding bikes and walking might not want to do so if there is a lot of fumes from • cars. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Mr. Bracke responded to the ideling pollution question. He stated that the modeling does include emmissions and is the same model that the Colorado Department of Health uses. Mr. Bracke addressed the truck bypass question. It could be used as a truck bypass and get the trucks off of the Jefferson/Riverside part of North College. Currently there is not much development out there, and if it is planned as a bypass now, or an additional truck route, it can be planned and built into the design of that roadway facility. Mr. Bracke addressed the overpass question. Lemay Avenue currently carries over 25,000 cars per day south of Vine. Every night at 5 p.m., that traffic backs up past Lincoln Avenue. There are a lot of people who think that the interchange is needed now. Member Byrne moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the Street Plan as outlined. • Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. Member Mickelsen commented on alternative modes of transportation and that she has hope that it will work. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 18 Member Strom emphasized the importance of this plan, as well as others of contingency planning and especially monitoring. He would be supporting the motion. Member Byrne commented that congestion is not a new problem, and he felt strongly that when we build streets, we do it in a balanced fashion and that we provide not only the facilities for all different modes, but also in a way that is tasteful. He felt that at best, we could provide attractive places for people to be stuck in traffic. Vice Chair Colton felt that implementation of the mixed -use Activity Centers was important. It was going to be incumbant on staff to come up with an implementation plan and for the Board to make it work. The motion was approved 6-0. Recommendation to City Council rearding a proposal to adopt proposed new street width standards: including all street classifications. alleys, and new pedestrian/bicycle path connections in residential neighborhoods. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department gave the staff report. He stated that this was an appropriate follow-up to the Master Street Plan. What we are talking about here is the proposed cross sections of streets that go along with the Master Street Plan. Mr. Herzig stated that back in January they came to this Board and presented some proposed changes for residential streets. Staff received the Board's recommendations for approval for the changes for narrower streets. At City Council in February, there had been a lot of support, but also concerns that citizen input had not been received; and, should combine the residential streets with all the streets in the Master Plan. That is what staff has done over the last five months. In combination with the activities with City Plan, Master Transportation Plan and Master Street Plan, staff is proposing changes in the street cross sections for all streets that will include all of the transportation modes, emphasizing bicycles and bringing pedestrian facilities up to an equivilant level. Mr. Herzig reviewed the goals for this project from the Visions and Goals 2015 document. Further goals were added by the Growth Management Committee of the City Council. These were in combination with the residential streets asking them to look at reduced widths of streets, to help reduce costs of residential streets for affordable housing, reduce the widths of the streets to reduce speeds and provide traffic calming in residential areas. In addition, staff is trying to add flexibility by having more street cross sections, and also provide standards for residential alleys at the rear yard accesses. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing i June 24, 1996 Page 19 Mr. Herzig reviewed the main features that have been incorporated into all the standards: • Wider Sidewalks • Detached Sidewalks on all street cross -sections. • Landscaped parkways between the curb and sidewalks • Narrower residential streets • Added Bike Lanes to the Major Arterial • Added Width to certain bike lanes where we have traffic operating at higher speeds • Added another street standard for a collector street • An additional street cross-section added for minor arterial streets • Separated out the commercial street cross-section from the industrial which used to be combined • Added medians to the arterial street • Added a pedestrian/bicycle path for neighborhood connections and links between neighborhoods in lieu of requiring streets in all locations. is Mr. Herzig reviewed slides and described each of the arterial streets that were proposed. Mr. Herzig stated that the major arterial is a six -lane highway. It operates at higher speeds 40 -45 mph. What has been added is a bike lane at the side, proposed to be 8 feet wide, and operate with the higher speed traffic adjacent to them in the travel lane. We still have detached sidewalks in the existing standard, and nothing has changed in the proposed standards to the side. The new standard in the middle — the median in the existing standard is 16 feet wide, the new one is 19 feet wide, to be able to landscape the median in a satisfactory way. The sidewalks would be 7 feet and it is still assumed that bicycles would use that sidewalk. Extra width was added so that the bicycles could exist with the pedestrians. Mr. Herzig stated that the arterial is one-step down from the arterial. The main difference is 4 lanes, 2 in each direction. The other features are the same, with the exception of the sidewalk. The sidewalk on the arterial and minor arterial, the sidewalk has been reduced to 6 feet. On parkways and sidewalks a minimum width has been indicated. Mr. Herzig stated that the minor arterial was that it is two travel lanes, one in each direction, plus a continuious left turn lane. The feature on this is that there is no . median. Medians may be used to control certain types of access. Parkways, sidewalks, and bike lanes are the same. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 20 Mr. Herzig stated that there is one collector currently, they are proposing two. The first one is a collector street without parking. It is 40 feet wide with two travel lanes and two bike lanes, 8 feet wide. The parkway widths have been reduced from 10 feet on the arterials to 8 feet on collectors. The sidewalk width will be proposed as a 5 foot minimum. There will be more planning that will have to go into this type of street. When a left turn lane is needed, the street width will increase to 50 feet. Mr. Herzig reviewed the collector street with parking. It is 50 feet wide, and matches the current collector street standard. It is assumed that this design would be used where development fronts on the street and the parking helps keep traffic speeds down. The bicycle lanes are separated and striped separately from the parking lanes. Unlike the other collector street, when you have to include a left turn lane at busier intersections, it will remain at 50 feet and provides the same cross section as the other collector street. Mr. Herzig reviewed residential streets. He stated that there were four classifications going from higher to lower. He stated that the standard residential street would be 30 foot wide on a 51 foot right-of-way. The street has been narrowed from a two-lane street with two ten foot lanes in each direction to one lane, 16 feet wide that would function for traffic going both directions. It takes more cooperation and slower operation. Bicyclists on all residential streets will be sharing the travel and parking lanes in order to travel on those streets. This will replace the 36 foot wide residential street. The walks have been detached. Mr. Herzig stated that a new section is the Narrow Residential Local Street which is 24 feet wide from curb to curb, with one parking lane on one side of the street and one travel lane that is 17 feet wide. The parkways are on either side and include detached sidewalks. In residential areas they have propsed to go to 4.5 feet wide on the sidewalks. He stated that this street standard would have no driveways on it, no access to off-street parking, and would be used in combination with alleys. The alley would serve for a garage and off-street parking access at the rear. Mr. Herzig stated that there has been no recommended change to the rural residential street standard. Mr. Herzig stated that the commercial local street standard is 44 feet wide and the proposed standard is 44 feet wide. The proposed changes are that the bike lanes will be combined with the parking lanes in one 11 foot lane. Mr. Herzig stated that on the industrial local street they are proposing minimum 12 foot lanes for larger operating vehicles. They are showing 10 foot parking lanes on that type of street, for larger vehichles. Bicycles would use the travel and parking lanes. The diffence for this one as well is detaching the sidewalk. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing is June 24, 1996 Page 21 Mr. Herzig stated that the variable width proposed on Alleys is 12 feet wide up to 20 feet wide depending on the use. The residential can use anything in that range depending on what it needs to serve. In commercial and industrial areas, the standard be 20 feet wide only. Mr. Herzig reviewed the proposed Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Connections. He stated it would be through neighborhoods, it would connect cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac or one development to another. These locations they are proposing would be worked out with the traffic engineer and the Planning Department on where the best locations would be to put these. Member Strom asked for a 30 second summary of the public participation process used here. Mr. Herzig replied that they had done extensive internal review with different City Departments. They have also gone out to the design professionals, they held a meeting with design professionals and developers to receive their comments. They held an open house, a booth at the Congress of Neighborhoods, and they had a • transportation booth at the Foothills Fashion Mall. Mr. Herzig stated that they were proposing that the narrower streets become the basic standard in Fort Collins. Member Davidson had concerns that the 4.5 foot wide sidewalk would not allow two people to walk side by side. Mr. Herzig replied that they did a display board where they took pictures of a 5 foot and a 4 foot walk with pedestrians walking side by side. The 4 foot walk did look a little narrow. The 5 foot wide walk looked very wide. That is how they came to 4.5. Member Davidson was also concerned with the commercial streets and bike lanes. Mr. Herzig responded that they have done their own unofficial survey, looking at different locations and they did look at parked vehicles. They used to be more concerned with the size of the vehicles and how much space it took to park them. What they have found is that typically the majority of the vehicles take up less than 6 feet. There will .be some locations where that could be a problem, but what they have found in just looking at the operation of what we have out here painted on the street, is that the 11 feet did look plenty wide to handle those types of situations. They have added • the standard that bicycles shall share an 11 foot lane with parked vehicles. They have indicated on others that they may need additional width to provide striped bike lanes and if that were the case, then there should be a separate striped bike lane. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 22 Member Davidson asked what it would take to do that? Mr. Herzig replied what has been looked at is what they can anticipate. These standards are based on anticipations. Another thing that can happen, is that with 11 foot travel lanes, those can still be reduced another foot if necessary to incorporate an extra foot into the striped bike lane. Member Davidson asked about diagnol parking streets and how 11 foot would not work. Mr. Herzig replied that they have purposley not addressed, any of the diagnol parking would have to be of special design. That would be a special design variance to the standards in order to do that. The difficultly is putting bicycle lanes behind diagnol parking. Member Davidson commented about the bike lanes Taft between Elizabeth and Mulberry and how dangerous they are. Mr. Herzig replied that was what they were trying to change with these standards. Member Byrne asked about costs, and what would be the cost of maintenance of the arterial center parkway. Mr. Herzig replied they have done some estimates, and the medians in the arterials were estimated at $115,000 extra per mile. That is above what the cost is now for the width of the street. It does at add at the rate of $5,500 per year for mile of street to maintain that median. Those are costs that will have to be programed in. Vice Chair Colton asked about the 8 foot wide bike lanes and how did that compare to what we generally see around town now. Mr. Herzig replied the most recent example on an arterial street is on Shields Street around the University. Those are 5 foot wide bike lanes. Vice Chair Colton asked if a bike lane of that width been found to be safe. Mr. Herzig replied that currently in Fort Collins you can ride your bicycle on the sidewalk. There are going to be people with less experience who don't feel comfortable riding on the street. We have look at up to 10 feet wide on the bike lane, but that would give you enough room for a motor vehicle to start using it. Vice Chair Colton asked about bike lanes and side walks being completely off the streets. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing is June 24, 1996 Page 23 Mr. Herzig replied that there are different levels of bicyclists that we are dealing with, and the bicycle plan of the City has really been focused to bike lanes being on the streets. PUBLIC INPUT Jeff Bridges commented that he lives in a neighborhood that has detached parkways, and that it was one of the best things we can do is to put these into standards. He also has concerns about large trees in the parkways, and that the parkways should have trees that fit the parkway area. He also thought that there should be a height restriction, large things that block visibility from the street to the open area or cut-off the site lines. He felt that there should be something written into the standard that is restrictive to this. Mr. Bridges stated that he had concerns with the 16 foot travel lanes with parking on both sides being too constrictive. Smaller streets would have to address recreational vehicles on the narrow streets. He also had concerns with the 3 foot setback from the pavement surface for the fences and a maximun of 6 foot high fencesb in the alleys; and, that there should be a fence setback flare also specified in the standard because the interface of the backing out into the driveways. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Mr. Herzig addressed tree size. Staff has been working with the City Forestry Department extensively, as well as the maintence people. Staff has come up with the recommendations that they wanted in terms of the minimum parkway widths. Granted there are many trees that grow to large sizes, but he is not familiar with all of them. He knows that there is an approved list of canopy trees that can be used in those parkways. These are all factors that went into how wide the parkways are recommended to be. He also stated that there would be nothing in the landscaped areas greater than 18 inches high so we can keep a balance. The type of landscaping has been the recommendation of our Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Herzig addressed the concern with the 16 foot travel lanes with parking on both sides. He stated that had been one of their biggest concerns because of the types of parked vehicles, and areas that are more congested, you get people who will park their boat or trailer. Staff has looked at the operation of the streets and have video taped how a street functions with cars and other vehicles like RV's parked as well as a fire truck operation, and, compare that to the 36 foot wide street. There is a difference in how they operate. He thinks the point in all of this is that it works, but differently than what we are used to. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 24 Mr. Herzig addressed the fence setbacks. He stated that they have shown fence setbacks on all of these, wanting to make sure that any fences that are placed near a sidewalk are setback far enough so it does not impeed the use of the sidewalk. In the alleys they have recommended a 3 foot minimum setback on fences, so there is enough room for visibility and being able to see. Staff has recommended the flare intersecctions with the driveways intersecting the alley. The narrower the alley the bigger the flare has to be so cars can manouver into a driveway. Member Gaveldon moved for the adoption of the new Street Standards as presented by staff. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Byme commented that he felt that this was a fundamental shift in terms of creating a greater sense of neighborhood, a greater sense of community. He commended the depth of anaylsis that went into this. Member Strom expressed a serious concern about costs. One of the goals of City Council on this program was to try and save some costs. It was troubling for him to see that in most cases costs were increasing at a time that we are struggling with the affordable housing issue. He encouraged Council to watch the overall costs of what is going on. Vice Chair Colton thanked staff for all the hours put in. He liked the changes for the most part, especially what was being done with bike lanes and detached sidewalks. The medians and arterials, although costly, add a lot, and will do a lot for the aesthetics and safety of the city. The motion was approved 6-0. OVERSIZING FEES, Matt Baker, Engineering Department gave the staff presentation. He stated he was asking the Board for a recommendation to increase streetoversizing fees. Street oversizing is a street impact fee that the City charges with new development and uses that impact fee to provide the infrastructure for collector and arterial street networks for new development. He stated that staff annually reviews the streetoversizing fund. This last year it was apparent that we would have to make some modifications. There also have been some major policy shifts in how we build streets and those brought up a lot of issues for streetoversizing. 41 0 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing w June 24, 1996 Page 25 Staff is recommending a two phase approach to the streetoversizing fee. Staff would like to do the minor modifications now. Those would be an increase to the fee for inflation adjustment, some operational improvements and to change the fee catagories from a residential fee per dwelling unit to a single family residential fee and a multi- family residential fee. Staff would like to wait on the more complex issues and anaylize and study those and let the public input. There are some other issues coming up that will fundamentally affect the way the streetoversizing fund is calculated. Some of those are the Master Street Plan and also the Street Standards adopted tonight that do have some increased costs. Mr. Baker stated that the inflation adjustment is about 10.19%. It is based on actual expenditures, the model and not any theoretical cost index. The increase to streetoversizing fee would be from $584 per dwelling fee to a $895 per dwelling unit for single family and $554 per dwelling unit for mufti -family. The light industrial would go from $5252 to $7292 per acre of lot. Heavy industrial, office, retail and commercial would all go up significantly. The City still does have an industrial incentive program for industrial developments where they can apply for street oversizing fee waiver. • Mr. Baker reviewed the fees for other Northern Colorado cities and Fort Collins was significantly less than all of them. Mr. Baker stated that there were issues that needed to be looked at, and will be in the nexted 6 month. Staff has been meeting with some focus groups that have been meeting with with the cost of services and have contacted them to get together to see what their ideas are. To clarify the issues and then take this out to some open houses in the fall and develop those aitematives for the street oversizing fund and bring them back for the Board's consideration. Member Byrne asked if these costs were updated annually. Mr. Baker replied yes they are. Member Byrne questioned the inflation figure and that the staff reports states that the inflation figure was last calculated in 1988. Mr. Baker stated that was correct. Member Byrne questioned updating the costs annually, but the figure has not been updated since 1988. Mr. Baker displayed a graph of the Engineering News Record Inflation Factor Index, which is an index of construction costs along the Colorado Front Range. He explained • the level the fee was calculated back in 1988 and that the inflation level dropped after that for several years and then came back up. Over the last 18 months is when staff has seen an actual inflation in construction costs that we have not been recovering. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing June 24, 1996 Page 26 Vice Chairman Colton asked to have the changes clarified. Mr. Baker replied increased signalization, the traffic signal standard has increased based on current warrants. We were funding two traffic signals per year out of the street oversizing fund, that has doubled to four signals per year. We need those signals based on the current land uses we are developing and the current traffic impacts. Double and additional left turn lanes in intersections, which also includes the costs of purchasing additonal right-of-way. Also bike lanes through intersections, we have different sidewalk standards, bike ramp standards, and ADA requirements that are all thrown into the mix of the model. Mr. Baker stated these are new policies that the City has implemented over the last year that we have not been recovering fees for. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Mickelsen moved to recommend to City Council the increase in street oversizing fees as written. Member Gavelson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:16 p.m. RECEIVED JUN 2 1 1SSS . 1008 Measwbrook Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 June 19, 1996 Michael Ludwig City Planner Dear Mr. Ludwig: I appreciate your holding a public hearing on a proposed project in my neighborhood. My main objection to Jefferson Commons PUD-Final, #50-95A is that it will increase the traffic on Elizabeth Street and it is already too dense. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely. �vzr�nc� Laurence W. Cor L 0 June 24, 1996 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board c/o Steve Olt Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Board Members; C�a@@o urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort Collins, colorado 80525 (970)226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 The visual impact of homes to be constructed along the westerly property line of Ridgewood Hills Second Filing will be substantially softened in several ways, including: 1. The actual setback from the brow of the steep slope to the homes has been increased. - In the First Filing, the typical distance from the brow of the slope to the homes was 50't. This has been increased to between 130' and 200'through the use of deeper tots, and because the physical location of the brow of the steep slope is well west of the property line. 2. As trees on the subject lots (on both the First and Second Flings) mature, the tree canopy rather than the roof lines will define the skyline as seen from South Shields. - This difference can easily be seen by comparing the earlier, unrestricted construction in the Skyway neighborhood to the north with the current construction in Ridgewood Hills First Filing. The applicant is adding a note to the Second Filing Site Plan requiring a minimum of two large shade trees on each of the lots along the west property line; in order to help assure this softening of the view will occur. 3. Three story elevations and building sites that encroach into the steep slope will continue to be prohibited on lots adjacent to the west property line. - The goal of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Natural Resources Departments in restricting the building height in the First Filing was not to attempt to make the neighborhood "invisible," but to avoid the visual impact of other hillside developments in south Fort Collins that are dominated by three story (two story homes with walk -out basements) structures terraced into the hillsides. We hope this information answers the concerns raised at Friday's work session. We look forward to your favorable review of this item at tonight's meeting. Sincerely, �Wa Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Dan Jensen, d. Jensen Enterprises (o - T2,`t' 7(o • � � l t�= 309` TRILBY ROAD I G t I' i t APPX• '6Row�i OF STEMP t SLOPE t t ♦ o t n r t t r r r 0 !!| k2#K Vie'■ +� i ■■■r ■■ ,■■■ ■ ■§■a ■ MMU ! |■K■K |■ 3�444 !!!!! ! Em©&k B }I£I !! ;R;= go ■■,a ,■ |!!| §| , ,,,,, !, ■ 2£©|K m■ 0 0 0 }/ 0 - ` k })) 2 , \{, � k § �g■a , k c \k j 2a !,5 ! §� ffƒfƒ0 4 k ZkZZ±6 K Om 0 //oQOf 2 ci KJJ . i m ( / 0Om ) f{7l1222 a f ! E;.-a k 2 )°■_!,■a { a-m-a£, ; g \�JlfE 7 $ ¢ - W 2 ■ a ■ 0 FORT COLLINS CITY PLAN - STRUCTURE PLAN Preferred Alternative: New growth Estimates Definitions/Explanations of Terms/Data Average Density The average number of dwelling units expected to be constructed on areas devoted to residential uses. Actual densities within projects may vary due to different housing types and lot sizes, however, the overall average for designations on the Structure Plan will as follows: Low -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods 5.0 du/ac Medium -Density Neighborhoods 12.0 du/ac Mixed -Use District 15.0 du/ac Urban Estate 0.4 du/ac (2.5 acre lots) Committed Low -Density Residential 3.5 du/ac Employment District 8.0 du/ac Committed Low -Density Residential Areas already approved for development (i.e., properties which have received preliminary or final approval of a PUD, subdivision plat or site plan, are "vested" under City and/or State Law making them immune to new development policies and regulations). The estimated average density of development within these areas is 3.5 du/ac. Existing Areas (Infill) Gross Acreage Jobs per Acre Predominantly developed areas which were identified in the "Cost of Services Study" as basically having the full range of urban services and facilities. (See attached map.) The amount of land available for the development of a specific use. For residential developments, the Gross Acreage amount of land includes land for streets but excludes land for parks, schools, churches, and similar uses typically found in residential neighborhoods. The number of employees estimated to be generated by non-residential development. The ratios are based on a review of existing conditions in the community and experiences of"new urbanism" development in other communities. 0 • The estimates for designations on the Structure Plan are as follows: Mixed -Use Commercial 25 j/ac Mixed -Use Employment 20 j/ac Neighborhood Centers 25 j/ac Employment Districts 20 j/ac Industrial Districts 9 j/ac Land Use Ratio The factor used to convert the Raw Acreage calculation (see below) to the Gross Acreage figure (see above) for development. (See attached sheet.) Projected Increases 1995 to 2015 (Residential Units and New Jobs) Increases in residential units and new jobs for the UGA for 1995 to 2015, were calculated by subtracting the estimated new growth from 1990 to 1995, from the "control totals" for units and jobs from the North Front Range Regional Transportation and Air Quality Plan. Raw Acreage • The amount of land devoted to the various land use categories shown on the Structure Plan as calculated by the Geographic Information System (GIS). Redevelopment New development occurring on already developed property. Some existing developed property can be considered underdeveloped or inappropriately developed. Redevelopment on these properties would include demolition/clearing of existing structures and the construction of new structures. In other cases, redevelopment may be the intensification of uses within an existing structure (e.g., converting a single-family home into a duplex), or construction of a second unit on a lot ("granny flat" or "alley houses"). Vacant/Approved Lots Parcels which are part of existing subdivisions which have not had building permits issued for them and are thus available for future development. w w � U O 9 a U s Ll u etc �I 0 '0999 m r � �2 � �qs o e a o e 9 9 9 � � 60'd TT:VT 96, TZ fieW 8V89-8VS-OTG:x?J S31dIDOSSF1 3&OHOtO No Text