No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/18/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final V3 Agenda PacketAGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, April 18, 2013 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, April 18, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the March 15, 2013 Special Hearing and the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan, #ODP120004 This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at the west side of Ziegler Road at the intersection of Saber Cat Drive and Country Fair Lane extended. The site is 4.03 acres in size and is zoned L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The ODP consists of two phases: Parcel A for multi-family residential or commercial uses and Parcel B for multi-family residential. Applicant: Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West, LLC, 4710 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff: Lindsay Ex E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 3. Max Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034 This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for property located at 203 W. Mulberry Street to demolish the existing King’s Auto and construction a new five-story, 63,900 square foot, multi-family building. The site is zoned Community Commercial (CC). Applicant: Dave Derbis, Brinkman Development, LLC, 3003 E. Harmony Rd, Suite 300, Fort Collins, CO 80528 Staff: Seth Lorson 4. Poudre Valley Health System – Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, # MA130001 This is a request to expand the existing Medical Office Building at the Poudre Valley Health System Harmony Medical Campus with a 30,000 square foot, two-story addition specializing in cancer treatment. The location of the addition is to the north and west of the existing building in the area of the existing parking lot. The site is located at the southeast corner of Harmony Road and Timberline Road. The parcel is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. Applicant: Poudre Valley Health System c/o BHA Design, 1603 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff: Ted Shepard 5. Banner HealthMedical Campus Project Development Plan, # PDP130003 This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to construct the Banner Health Medical Campus located at the southeast corner of E. Harmony Rd. and Lady Moon Drive on 27.867 gross acres. The first phase will include a 163,300 square feet hospital and central utility plant. The complete build-out includes an additional 157,900 square foot hospital area, a 22,800 square foot medical office health center and a two- story, 40,000 square foot medical office building at the southwest corner of the site for a total campus build-out of 384,000 square feet. The medical campus will provide inpatient and outpatient services to the community. A proposed heli-stop pad will be located to the north of the hospital building. Applicant: Jason Messaros, BHA Design, 1603 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, 80525 Staff: Jason Holland 6. Mountain Sage Community School, 2310 E. Prospect, Site Plan Advisory Review # SPA130001 This is a request by Mountain Sage Community School to occupy an existing office building located in the Seven Lakes PUD, 2310 E. Prospect Road. The existing building would be converted into a school and has room for future expansion within the building. The adjacent lot to the east may be used for a playground. The site is located in the Employment (E) Zone District. Applicant: Mountain Sage Community School c/o Liv Helmericks, PO Box 1253, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Staff: Jason Holland F. Other Business G. Adjourn Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes 281 N. College Conference Room A March 15, 2013 2:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hart, Heinz, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Staff Present: Kadrich, Hendee, Waido, and Sanchez-Sprague Chair Smith said hearing attendees and described the following processes: • Citizen participation is an opportunity to present comments on issues not on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discuss in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members. Public input follows. • At the time of public comment, Chair Smith asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the podium, state their name and address, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Discussion Agenda: 1. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 2 _______ Project: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to preserve existing affordable housing units with an emphasis on mobile home parks. Recommendation: Make recommendation to City Council Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior Planner Ken Waido introduced Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer and team members Don Elliott and Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates. He provided background on the project – develop a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities. He said the project was needed to define the City’s role, responsibilities, and obligations in dealing with mobile home park closures and the displacement of low-income families and cited recent efforts for Grape Street and Bender Mobile Home Park. Waido noted the Public Review Draft provided options for: affordable housing and mobile home park preservation and stabilization and displacement relocation assistance. He cited the main reasons why mobile homes parks close (market pressures increase property value and the property is sold for redevelopment or the park’s infrastructure ages needing maintenance or replacement and the cost to do so is not supported by lot rents). Waido said preservation and stabilization techniques include a Mobile Home Park Zoning District, infrastructure maintenance/replacement with grants or loans, and City financial assistance via Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Programs and Affordable Housing Fund, and park resident ownership Waido outlined recommendations for what the City should do if a mobile home park closes. He outlined the project’s public involvement process and the short-term and long-term actions steps. Public Input Rose Lew, 2014 Westover Road, said she supports staff’s recommendations. She said the establishment of a mobile home park zone is very critically important. She asked if there were no federal funds, is there no requirement for the property owner/developer to pay any relocation costs. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, said they worked closely with the individuals affected by the closure of the Grape Street and the Bender Mobile Home Park closures. She said groups with whom she’s affiliated worked with social, environmental, and economic sustainability. She said this plan really emphasizes that desire to look at economic, social, and environmental sustainability. She said this plan really represents a lot of creative thinking by staff and the community at large. She said as she worked with the displaced individuals, she came to respect them and to understand better the devastating consequences they experienced. She said the plan addresses that. She appreciates the zoning, the relocation expense and the one year notice. She appreciates that it looks at both preservation and relocation. Tawny Peyton, 22362 Schultz Lane, Berthoud, Co; said she’s the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Home Association. They represent the manufacturing and modular home industry in Colorado. She thanked staff for their efforts in the development of the plan. She asked what other businesses or private property owners are required to provide a notice period before they change their use. What other businesses have to provide a report for alternatives to their consumers? What other businesses are required to pay for their consumer’s expenses? She said they are an affordable housing industry. She Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 3 said a lot of these changes will impact how likely businesses will want to do business within the city and state. Some of the businesses are owned by ‘mom and pop’ owners who have worked their whole life to provide housing for people. If they should need to sell their property due to a medical emergency, have they lost the value of the property because of the relocation costs? Will they lose value because it’s been zoned for one use? Keith Cowan, 3240 Iris Ct., Wheat Ridge, said he owns Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. He said he’s one of the ‘mom and pop’ operations just described by Ms. Peyton. He said if you’re an investor coming into the city and you see the type of restrictions that are being proposed, you’ll say no because you’re not going to be able to do the business you want. He said over time they’ve purchased homes and tried to make them available for low income families by financing them. He said all this was good until last year when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted and financing was no longer an option. He thinks it’ll affect an owner’s ability to keep their property up. He said only in Fort Collins is there a sales tax on the transfer of a mobile home. He knows of some cases where people do not change the title into their name because of the sales tax expense. He said both at the city and the state level, they are considering legislation that will make it very difficult to keep mobile homes an affordable housing option. Zach Heath lives at 135 S. Sunset. He said he’s encouraged by the plan to keep mobile homes an affordable housing option in Fort Collins. Fort Collins is known as not being an affordable place to live. He said you’d need to make $15 per hour to be able to afford rent in Fort Collins. He does think it’s a vitally important and he appreciates staff’s efforts. He thinks the 6 month notice is not enough and a longer period is required to reduce stress on ‘vulnerable’ community members. He believes that takes priority over business interests. Mr. Heath asked about something he’d heard relative to new developments being required to provide 10% affordable housing units in their development. Is that part of this plan? Chris Parks, 7408 Triangle Drive, said he works for RHB Properties. They’re the largest private owner of mobile home communities in the country. They operate the Harmony Road Park. He said they’ve provided more assistance than the city when helping people relocate and cited the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park as an example. He said as the homes age it becomes more problematic from an investment standpoint. He said you cannot stereotypically assume all mobile home owners are low income. He said some have more savings than you or I. He said when you have a requirement of keeping mobile home parks as they are or requiring them to be responsible for relocation you are essentially reducing property values by 20%. Or, it’s adding 20% to the cost of redevelopment. He said it’s important when we look at how to solve this problem where there’s less focus put on the community owners who have done their best to maintain what’s in the market. He thinks the only reasonable option proposed is the transfer tax. He appreciates the work that has been done and he hopes we look at the true cost of this and what the city can do if they feel it’s very important. Barbara Trewarton, previous Cloverleaf Community Manager, and a manufactured home owner. She’s concerned that a manufactured home community is a business. She believes it is unfair to the owner to make them wait a year to sell their business. On the homeowner’s side, if we can’t find a place to move their manufactured home within 6 months; it’s not worth moving. End of Public Input Member Heinz left the meeting. Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 4 Staff Response Chair Smith asked staff to respond to the questions raised during public testimony. Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, said with regard to the question if there are no federal funds involved will there be no duty to pay relocation. Elliott said if there were no federal, redevelopment or city funds and the applicant is not applying for a discretionary rezoning or permit; there would be no duty to pay. If it’s a redevelopment by right under the zoning district and you are not asking for financial assistance; they you would not have a duty to pay redevelopment costs. Board members agreed a redevelopment plan would almost always require a discretionary decision. Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates said it would likely be a single family/allowed use per zone but it probably would not accommodate a full scale redevelopment. Elliott agreed it would be better to restate the language in the report. Elliott said with regard to the question what other industry requires notice of this type none that he can think of. He said there are no other housing products he knows where the resident owns the unit and not the land. That is why the State of Colorado has a notice requirement. With regard to any other industry that requires a report he said not that he knows of. He said this plan does not require a report rather the strategy says go to a one year notice but if you want to finish up in 6 months or less you may provide a report that will lets people know where they can move and how much it would cost, etc. He said with regard to what other industry requires relocation payments; he said it depends on the facts of the redevelopment. He said when parks have closed they’ve come before City Council to request relocation assistance. The question is “is there a system in place to pay” or does it come to City Council each time. Elliott asked if the owner is required to pay relocation costs who actually pay. It may well be the owner of the unit who pays due to increased rents. It might be rolled into the deal you make with the redeveloper. Elliott said with regard to the question does the adoption of regulations such as these prevent investment in this type of industry in Fort Collins he said no one knows. Every regulation has the potential to discourage investment. He said as a practical matter, we’ve not seen investment in new mobile home parks in Fort Collins for quite some time. He said a fair statement is in urban areas such as Fort Collins, there isn’t a lot of investment going on in mobile home parks. The investment is going on in rural areas where land is cheap, where development is simple, and where neighborhood opposition is lower. Member Campana said it’s important to distinguish the development of new parks versus the purchase of an older park. Elliott said it’s up to the board to determine in their judgment if this is a reasonable plan. Any time you try to deal with the externalities of any real estate investment, you’re going to affect the business climate. The question is--is this a fair balance. Elliott said the last question relative to an inclusionary housing requirement—for example, you redevelop a park in which you need to house 10% of low-income people on site. They did think of it. They did not find other models tied into mobile home park strategies. He said it’s a unique housing type. It’s not a mobile home for an apartment exchange—you still own a mobile home that needs to be disposed. He thinks in this case, it would be a mismatch. Board Questions Member Campana asked if staff looked at mitigation from the perspective of preventing the displacement or mitigating the impacts of displacement. Elliott said there were two parts to the study and they did both. He said that Council wanted both tools that discourage the redevelopment of mobile home parks so they stay in the housing pool or tools that say it’s a free business environment – redevelopment when you want but let’s figure out what should be done about relocation. He said on the west coast they’ve concluded it’s less expensive to preserve than to allow the housing to go away. Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 5 Member Kirkpatrick referred to the 6400 affordable housing units in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP). Waido said the AFSP’s goal is to increase affordable rental units because that’s where the greatest deficit is. He said mobile home units represent 50% of the affordable housing stock. Member Hart asked Waido to speak to the fact that Fort Collins charges sales tax. Waido said he called the Sales Tax Office to ask if Fort Collins is the only city that charges sales tax. They said no there are several other cities in Northern Colorado. Hart asked if that was addressed in their strategies. Waido said no. Member Kirkpatrick said maybe it would be a good idea to shift the proceeds to a relocation fund. Waido said they have investigated inclusionary zoning. A few years ago a consultant evaluated an impact fee (whether on residential or commercial) or inclusionary zoning. The State Supreme Court ruled that inclusionary zoning for rental purposes is unconstitutional. It seems the window is for home ownership. He said Boulder and Longmont had inclusionary zoning requirements for home ownership. Elliott said he’d like to thank the park owners. Throughout the process they have been extremely collaborative, helpful, and engaged in the process. It’s added to a better product. Member Kirkpatrick asked if there’s been interest in affordable house development. Waido said City Council really did not take anything off the plate at their last worksession on this topic. If council says yes to a zoning district, then how do you do that? He said the city has used zoning to preserve specific types of housing in the past. If it gets into the Land Use Code, there’s nothing to stop a property owner from coming to the city and requesting a rezoning. That may be one of the uses we can put our Land Bank properties. With a RFP (Request for Proposal), we could see if any developer (profit, non-profit, or combination) would be willing to get into that market. Elliott said the intent of the report was to provide the information comprehensively. Not all tools will apply to every park – there should be a system of which tools would apply in which situation. He said they’ve found several examples of cities in the past 15 years who adopted districts such as this. They didn’t get good answers on whether it was to preserver affordable housing or to rezone. Member Kirkpatrick said if we closed a mobile home park we are not allowing the same level of density (number of residents per unit) in another area. She asked what the project team had found at a national level. Waido said the data they were looking for was not available at a geographic level. Sommer said the number can vary even in Fort Collins depending on the population—there may be very ‘senior’ parks with lower numbers. Member Kirkpatrick asked about Strategy 7. Waido said given the two avenues – one is a new organization the other an established organization such as CARE Housing; its better, at this stage of the game, to go with the known established agency. He said there are organizations nationally that have been successful in other states. He said it takes a willing seller. Board Discussion Member Carpenter asked how the memo drafted by the Board would be used. Director Kadrich said it is still available should you choose to make that your recommendation. It is also available for modification. Member Hart said he understands they are being asked to approve the strategies presented by staff with or without certain modifications the Board may want to put forth. Member Campana said he understands and originally supported the intent of the plan having been involved with the Bender Mobile Home Park. His understanding was staff was directed to come up with a displacement mitigation strategy so citizens would have an expectation/know what’s going to take Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 6 place when relocation is required. He said solving affordable housing is gigantic in comparison. In his experience their concerns were affordability and availability. Predictability is helped by have 6 to 12 months to find a new location. He agrees with one of the citizens who spoke who said if you can’t find it in 6 months, it’s probably due to the condition of your home. He said there’s a sense of independence related to the ownership that offers another degree of complexity. Campana said with regard to mitigation strategies, he could support a lot of what’s been presented. When it comes to discouraging redevelopment, he doesn’t think we want to be in the business of discouraging redevelopment. We want to encourage the development of affordable housing. If the city wants the right to preserve something, he believes the city should be putting some money into it. It’s a community issue and we have to deal with it. Member Carpenter said she agrees. She said she thinks we’ve said this before. This grew into something that nobody really perceived it to be. She’s having a hard time deciding whether she can even recommend approval of the whole plan. The plan is a completely different thing than encouraging affordable housing (which she supports). She’s struggling on how to get that across to City Council. Member Kirkpatrick said she could support the plan moving forward to City Council and the board’s comments except for # 3. She said the plan feels very disjointed – not quite sure what problem it’s trying to solve. Parts of it make more sense for when we address our next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. She thinks mobile home parks are an important part of our housing stock. She thinks some of those decisions go beyond this board. Member Campana said the market should be allowed to exist where it exists with regard to mobile home parks. Member Hart said he does not support a specific zone because he doesn’t think that will help the community. Member Carpenter agreed. Chair Smith said that City Council has a very tough job and it’s a different job than this board’s. There are a lot of considerations which the Planning and Zoning Board simply shouldn’t address. It’s outside the board’s purview. Inherently there are very strong noble concepts and objectives in our Comprehensive Plan as expressed in our Land Use Code. We’re going to build a city built on a lot of uses. We’re going to encourage in-fill and redevelopment around transit. When we say we’re going to stop adhering to some of those principles in one certain area, it’s problematic for a lot of reasons. One is we’re going to create islands and stifle innovation. He said what he thinks is really problematic is it’s clear to him that perhaps at the highest levels, the city has not made the commitment to affordable housing as a general concept and mobile homes as a subset. He thinks the city is trying to use regulations without looking at incentives such as waiving sales tax and disincentives first. Smith said with regard to the creation of a Mobile/Manufactured Home Zoning District, he doesn’t think we should be doing that. He said he’s okay with the memo the board drafted as being their recommendation. The city, as a governmental entity, should look at what it’s doing as a much higher objective in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. It should also look at some of the other financial considerations such as sales tax. He said he’d be more in favor of an Affordable Housing District. Member Carpenter said to have an Affordable Housing District is so against our philosophy of mixed-use and making sure our neighborhoods have diversity. For her it would almost be a discriminatory thing. She understands mobile home owners seeking independence but she thinks it’s a false sense of independence. It doesn’t have the predictability and that’s what gives you independence. Member Carpenter wondered how the board should proceed. Director Kadrich said as a recommending board they could have: no recommendation, recommend in its entirety, or substitute something. Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 7 Chair Smith made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board forward the following comments The Planning and Zoning Board recognizes and supports the need for an adequate supply of safe and healthy affordable housing in Fort Collins. As such the board would prefer that recommendations brought forward to City Council apply to ALL affordable housing types rather than only limited to mobile home parks. As such the board would support Public Review Draft Recommendations #1, 2, and 5 and offer the following thought on the other three recommendations. Recommendation #3: This recommendation is clearly inconsistent with not only current zoning criteria in the Land Use Code (LUC), but also some of the primary objectives of our Comprehensive Plan. City Plan is largely based on a vision of compact, mixed-use, redevelopment. More specifically, City Plan calls for a variety of land uses and building types in every zone district, and as a result, encourages innovation that promotes enhanced sustainability, efficiency, and vitality. As such, the board believes that a Manufactured Home Park Zoning District would move away from the overall vision zoning for the Fort Collins Community and should not be considered as an option. Recommendation #4: The Board recommends substituting the following recommendation: Create a loan or grant program, or use the existing financial assistance competitive process that would be available to finance significant investments in new or existing affordable housing infrastructure that would be available to those willing to commit to continuing an affordable housing product for at least 10 years. Recommendation #6: The board is not in agreement that this is the most effective way to deal with the problem for a variety of reasons including the recommendation shifts too much of the “burden” to the property owner and that it does not effectively preserve affordable housing. If the ultimate goal is to provide affordable housing, the board feels this process may lead to subsidizing substandard housing. The board suggests implementing an impact fee and/or a TIF to help cover the costs of relocation or development of affordable housing stock. Recommendation #7: The board for the reasons listed previously offers a substitute recommendation as follows: Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-profit affordable housing providers, and support organizations to purchase affordable housing types, including mobile home parks offered for redevelopment and manage them as long- term sources of affordable housing. with the addition of: adding manufactured housing in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan as a primary goal and revisit sales tax on mobile home and perhaps either eliminate it or direct it to some type of mitigation/relocation fund. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2013 Page 8 Other Director Kadrich said they’re getting ready to advertise for the Planning Manager position. If there’s any interest in participating in the process, please let her know. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes March 21, 2013 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Hart, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Unexcused Absence: Hatfield Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Sowder, Porter, Levingston, Stanford, Siegmund, Vrata, Schleuter, and Sanchez-Sprague Chair Smith said in an effort to make the process a little more citizen friendly he would provide background on the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen participation – an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically listed on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members, staff comments and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said over time he’s noticed that many individuals who speak during public input do not restrict their comments to areas to which the board has purview – Land Use Code (LUC). He said many times the public’s remarks pertain to eminent domain, social, economic or environment components on which the board does not have purview. Additionally, he said there’s some sensitivity from himself and others in the community relative to prohibitions on speaking to their elected representatives (City Council) on issues that relate to the Land Use Code process because the decision Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 2 that the board or hearing office might make is appealable to the City Council. He sees no legal justification for that policy and thinks it goes against the intent of our entire democratic process. He thinks people should be well advised as to the purview of this board so they can specifically address the elements on which the board makes their decisions. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing 2. Addition to the Land Use Code – Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments 3. Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing, the Addition to the Land Use Code – Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments, and the Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code – Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture 5. Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 6. Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 _______ Project: 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code – Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture Project Description: This request is for a recommendation to City Council to update the Land Use Code so it: 1. Establishes an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses neighborhood compatibility concerns raised during the outreach process instead of requiring urban gardens to go through a full development review process; 2. Allows farmers markets in more zone districts in the City; Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said urban agriculture is the food production and distribution in the urban environment and includes community gardens, farms, farmers markets, and animals. This project addresses one (policy barriers) of many local issues - Land Use and Municipal Code Regulations Land Use Code (LUC) only allows urban agriculture practices in four of the twenty-five zone districts as a principal use: Agricultural activities – River Conservation and Public Open Lands and Farm animals – River Conservation, Residential Foothills, and Urban Estate. The project goal is to ensure the LUC supports the community’s desires in relation to urban agriculture practices both when and where appropriate. Ex described the public outreach process (focus groups, boards and commissions, Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 3 Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee, on-line survey (611 responses) and public open house (95 attendees). It is by those means they learned that the community supports (while addressing compatibility issues such as traffic, noise, odor, and parking):  Allowing urban gardens in more zones  Allowing farmers markets in more locations in the City  Allowing ducks, goats, and scale poultry based on lot size. Staff recommends creating a licensing system that allows urban agriculture in all zone districts. After conferring with the board at work session they suggest a one year grace period which would allow existing producers to be licensed at no additional cost. It encourages early dialogue and a commitment to best practices. It allows for tracking of licenses. A development review process would not be required. Ex said staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture, with the following condition: • The City Manager allows a twelve month grace period for all existing urban agriculture land uses to be permitted allowing existing urban agricultural land uses to be permitted at no cost. Ex also recommends draft ordinance reference LUC Section 3.8.31(C) (2) (b) Parking be revised to delete “all”. It would read “Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate all parking demands created by the use.” Public Input Dennis Stenson, 2820 W. Elizabeth, said he and his wife started Happy Heart Farm 30 years ago. He said they started Colorado’s first CSA (Community Supporting Agriculture) project. There are now 35 CSA and community gardens in Fort Collins so it indicates how the community has supported agriculture over the past 30 years. He said agriculture (with Colorado State University) is definitely a part of our heritage. He said moving forward we’re looking at a city government that would like to be included in that ‘hero’ story in Northern Colorado of going back to the future and getting people engaged in the process of growing and distributing food in a local area. He asked that the existing projects be given the ‘grandfathering’ they need to keep doing the good job they’ve been doing. Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, said she supports the proposal and wanted to say staff has done a fantastic job. She said when reading through the proposed ordinance she found in Section C.2 (b) that it said accommodate all parking. She said she doesn’t think we’ve ever required anything else to accommodate all parking and that would be unfair. She’s happy to see staff supports the idea of eliminating ‘all’ and asked the board to consider making that change. Elizabeth Joyce, 711 Laporte Avenue, said she’s generally supportive of the agriculture proposal as it pertains to the gardens and farmers market but she does have some concerns about expanding the livestock allowed in the city. She thinks there are too many conflicting issues about competing neighbor interests – sanitation, health, and animal welfare issues. She has concerns related to code enforcement; she wonders in some cases if it’ll have lower priority with demands/available resources. She supports scaling the number of chickens if consideration is given to smaller lots so there is minimal impact on the neighborhood. She asked how the increased numbers of goats that come from pregnancy are handled and if the anti-slaughter provision for chickens applies to goats. Chuck Cotherman, 516 Villanova Ct, said he runs the Mulberry Community Gardens. He said beyond food production they are educationally focused. He hopes the board adopts staff’s recommendation – get back to where our food comes from. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 4 Michael Baute, 2825 S. Taft Hill Road, said together with Megan Williams they manage Spring Kite Farm. Luckily they are in one of the 3 zones that allow them. He supports the grandfathering of existing operations as well as the removal of “all” as relates to parking. He said land values are incredibly high and there are few who want to do the work. There needs to be a reevaluation of the disparity between access to land and water (e.g. competition for water for sod). He’d like to support what’s happening here and congratulate everyone for being a part of it. Trevor Shores, 2201 Creekwood Drive, is an apprentice at Happy Heart Farms. As a prospective farmer, he does agree with many of the proposals. He’d encourage the city to try and find a way to make it more attractive to people who want to farm. If he has to buy a permit on top of the costs of seed, tractor, land, and water; capital he might have will run out. He believes Fort Collins wants to be more food secure and this is a very nice first step. End of Public Input Staff Response Staff member Lindsay Ex said most of the regulations are around synthetic chemicals in fertilizer. No urban agriculture land user would be able to use those types of synthetic chemicals in a natural habitat buffer zone. Ex said there are provisions in the Municipal Code ordinance that is not yet available for public review. She can speak to it in generalities. She said the regulations allow the kids to remain with the does for 12 weeks after they’re born so they can be nursed. At that point they would need to be sold or given away. Ex said the prohibition of slaughter of goats is the same as for the chickens. Bill Porter of Larimer Humane Society said they support the increase of the number of chickens based on the size of the land. He said since the adoptions of the ‘chicken ordinance’ there have been 76 complaints and 1 citation. He said it’s pretty much been a non-issue for the Humane Society. He said the chickens must be in an enclosure and allowed outside during daylight hours. At night they must be placed inside the enclosure to protect them from predators. The coop is defined as an indoor/outdoor coop 15 feet from the adjacent property line. Member Hart asked about setbacks for goats. Ex said it’s also 15 feet – similar to Denver and Steamboat Springs and that it seems to be working for them. Member Heinz asked about the urban agriculture license. Ex said the licenses are for the farms or the gardens that are the principle uses on a lot. It will be coordinated by Planning Services. Animal licenses are coordinated by Animal Control. Ex said concerns they heard through public outreach were related to traffic and odor (compost piles) – she outlined proposed provisions as relates to farms or gardens that are principal use for the Land Use Code and other provisions related to the Municipal Code (which are the purview of City Council). Member Campana asked if there is a requirement for a manure or compost management plan. Ex said with licensing they would provide an overall plan on how they would handle that. She said they did not hear concerns related to manure so they did not include a specific standard for that. If it’s going to be in an area with higher density, they could discuss that issue. He’d recommend the distribution of information related a manure management to raise awareness at the Development Review Center front counter. Member Heinz asked what was meant by ‘grandfathering’ as noted in public comment. Community member Stenson said his concerns related to the already established farms and how Planning Services (whose orientation may primarily have been other types of development) would address an application Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 5 for an existing or a new farm. He’s hoping existing operations would be granted a ‘pass’. Member Hart asked if Mr. Stenson was aware of Colorado’s Right to Farm provision. He was not. Staff member Ex said the licensing process is fairly benign. It’s more about having the dialogue about the regulations that apply to those types of uses. She thinks having the 12 month grace period with no cost will also help that. Member Carpenter said many of the Home Owners Associations have regulations against animals and she’s assuming this is not going to change any of that. Ex said correct. Member Campana said he likes the idea of no cost to get the farms licensed. He said he assumes the farms that exist today within the city are in zone districts that allow them. He thinks what’s proposed will clean things up -- requiring farms to come in for licenses and to have the dialogue with staff especially if there are any non-conforming uses. Member Heinz said she likes the implementation of transparency of growing practices. Member Heinz made a motion for the Planning and Zoning board to recommend to City Council the adoption of Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code – Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture including the condition of the 12 month grace period and the change related to deleting ‘all’ as relates to parking. Member Campana seconded the motion. Member Campana said great work. Member Heinz agreed. Member Smith said he’d like to see us continue this trend. He thinks this is a very important element of our community from an economic, social and ecological standpoint. The motion passed 6:0 _______ Project: Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 Project Description: This is a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi-family buildings, combining the two lots for a 1.48 acre site. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District and is within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said multi-family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. After additional information was presented by the applicant to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the existing single family home at 1305 South Shields Street, the property was re-reviewed and found not to be individually eligible for Local Landmark designation thereby allowing it to be demolished under the provisions of the Municipal Code and Land Use Code. The proposed three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context by its’ complementary architectural design Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 6 featuring Craftsman architectural detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south and west. Levingston provided information on the site location and layout, the number of proposed units/bedrooms, density, parking (vehicle and bicycle), its multi-modal connectivity to Transfort Routes 3 and 19 and nearby bike lanes. She reviewed elevations and the building type renderings. She said staff recommends the approval of Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 Applicant Presentation Chuck Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd., 7302 Rozena Street, Longmont, CO 80503 provided a history of Catamount Properties and described the plan overview. He described their neighborhood outreach efforts and a summary of what he thinks are their concerns. He said he believes its building massing, neighborhood parking concerns, location/visibility of trash enclosure and complex management. He provided a comparative analysis of parking provided by other multi-family projects in the TOD (Transit Oriented District) and compared it to other Fort Collins complexes (Miramount and Terra Vida Apartments) with regard to massing and their proximity to adjacent single family homes. Becky Stone of Oz Architecture, 3795 Jersey Street, Denver said she did not normally scale projects to pedestrian level and enjoyed doing so on this project. She described the ‘front porch’ community with four-sided craftsman type architecture. She described the setbacks and the green space/outdoor space on decks and patios. She said they kept the 14 crabapple trees on Springfield to maintain the farm orchard look. Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant, said she’ll review how this project meets LUC. She said the project meets criteria in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code (LUC). In particular she wanted to describe how the project meets compatibility standards as defined in LUC Section 3.5.1 reading that section from the code. She said multi-family is an allowed use in the NCB zone. It meets density (60% of the allowed square footage) and FAR (Floor Area Ratio project is .33 with .5 is allowed). The parcel is 1.45 acres and 57 units are proposed resulting in 39.3 dwelling units per acre. In the NCB, 3 story structures (less than 40 feet) are allowed. The height is less than 40 feet. No parking is required in the TOD Zone and they’ve provided 58 spaces for vehicles and 103 for bicycles. Bailey said he believes they meet the intent of the West Central Neighborhood Plan. He said the Carriage House Apartments is exactly what’s envisioned by City Plan/West Central Neighborhoods Area Plan. It complies with all requirements with no need for a variances, modifications or alternative compliance for this infill project. He requests approval of the Project Development Plan Public Input Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, said she opposes the project. She requested the board impose a mitigation plan that reducing the size of the project by 20%. Pamela Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, said she will live 40 feet from the proposed project. She has concerns about the position of the balconies overlooking her back yard and the proximity of the dumpsters next to the single family homes. She asked the board to take steps to reduce the size and density of the project by 20%, to increase setbacks and landscaping, to require the number of parking spots consistent with the number of students, and to impose a requirement that balconies are adjacent to the major streets and not overlooking single family homes back yards. Clair Emeldi, 1241 Constitution, said she lives in the Avery Park Neighborhood. She is against the construction of the Carriage House Apartments in her neighborhood which is already densely populated. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 7 Greg Douras, 1205 Springfield Drive, said he’d like to address parking. Although the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) reflects the goal of having tenants to walk or use public transportation; they are probably more aspirational goals. He said 80% of students who come to CSU bring their own cars. He said providing parking for only one-half of the anticipated tenants simply is not adequate. He asked the board to impose a mitigation plan which addresses neighbors’ concerns including adequate on-site parking. He said please don’t let the Bennett and Springfield neighborhoods become a cautionary tale in support of why the TOD should be changed in the future. He asked if the project is approved to require parking for 80% of the tenants. Karla Cummings, 1213 Springfield Drive, said she’s here to discuss the parking issue. She’s here fighting for the integrity, safety, and quality of life that she thought the city would protect. She wants to point out the failure of the TOD. CSU students have and will continue to have their cars and they will likely park them on her street. The project will add another 20-30 parked cars. She asked the board to require a reduction of one-fifth in the size of this project. Pam Treanor, 1332 Bennett Road, read a short letter from a neighbor who could not attend. The neighbor’s name is Jeanne Kelly, 13013 Springfield. The letter stated her concern regarding plans for the Carriage House Apartments. On-site management, parking, trash, noise/disturbance problems are concerns for her. She asked that the 3 story building not be constructed. Buelah Kennicutt, 1221 Springfield Drive, said she’s lived there 47 years. Before retirement, she used to teach at Bennett Elementary. She said most students have been very good neighbors although they don’t always take care of things like home owners. A few have been a real ‘bother’. If you but 97 of them in 1.5 acres; there are bound to be more problems. She asked the board to please consider protecting her neighborhood and making this project smaller. Melyssa Mead, 1244 Bennett Road, said her children attend Bennett Elementary. It’s already concerning about the traffic on Bennett but they’ve mitigated that with a speed bump. She asked if 97 students who don’t have adequate parking will start driving down the street full of elementary school children. She thinks that’s asking for disaster. She asked that we don’t overdevelop and that we don’t develop in a way that compromises their lifestyle. Ann Hunt, 1800 Wallenberg Drive, said her neighborhood is impacted by parking by CSU students. She’s here to speak about the real versus the theoretical parking problems ‘assumed by the TOD’. She said projects south of Prospect still have requirements for .75 spaces per person. Even with that they’re worried. She’s concerned about all the projects planned for that area and the probability there will not be sufficient parking. She’s sympathetic for the problems this neighborhood will face compounded by the fact that there’s an elementary school across the street. Debbie Cook lives at 5983 Star View Drive in Broomfield. She owns the two houses just south on Shields from the proposed development. She said the southeastern most building will be 15 feet from her property line, the three story building will tower over that ranch style home, and the third story balconies will take away privacy for the neighboring houses. She thinks the project parking far exceed their needs. She’s only a proponent of the development if it’s done in harmony with the neighborhood. Beth Kranske, 1208 Bennett Road, said the proposal is directly behind her house. She thinks she’ll be one of the most affected. She said one of the things that make their community so special is Bennett Elementary and with that it creates challenges for safety. She thinks there will not be enough parking for residents of the proposed project. If there is not enough parking on their site, she thinks they’ll park in the neighborhood and directly affect the safety of the Bennett Elementary School children. She thinks it is our responsibility to look out for and protect these kids. She thinks the project is the opposite of Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 8 compatible. She asked the board to please: reduce the size of the project by 20%, require parking for 80% of the residents, increase setbacks, and require evergreen landscaping to shield or buffer the project from the surrounding neighborhoods. She asked the board to please not approve a project that is so incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, is a former Planning and Zoning Board member and she was on the board the first time this project came before them. She has a lot of concerns about neighborhood compatibility in this situation. She said City Plan has policies to preserve our neighborhoods and it’s very important to think of lifestyle conflicts in the context of the board’s purview with regard to compatibility. She asked who notifies the management of nuisance violations. She is concerned about people crossing safely on Shields. She asked if there is a way to have parking agreements for long term parking with Cambridge House. She thinks this project is not ready yet and some creative thinking could make it a lot better. Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett Road, identified a number of copies he’s submitted (via exhibit) for the Board’s consideration. He referenced, compared and contrasted data used both in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and information made available to him as a member of the Student Housing Action Plan Team. He said in Fort Collins all housing is multi-family housing. This study defines this project as student housing and uses advantageous trip generation data and then reduces it by another 25%. The TIS used for this project is flawed because it fails to account for other traffic in the area and is based on an incorrect standard. He asked the board to deny approval of the project and to send it back to the staff for review. Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Ct., said she owns property at 1118 City Park. She said the homes in the surrounding area are one story homes so this 3 story apartment is really going to tower over them. She thinks providing 57 parking spots will not be enough. Where will the excess cars go? She said there is no place for parking for blocks on the west side of Shields. She would really like that to be addressed. Donna Fairbank said she lives at 1712 Clearview Ct near Avery Park. Her son and grandchildren also live in that area and they transport the children either by bike or car to Bennett Elementary. What she wants to ask the board to do is imagine that you live where they live and do what feels right in your heart to protect their quality of life. She’s worked to find balance in encouraging student housing. They want the students to also have a good quality of life but their neighborhood is under a tremendous amount of pressure and people are already selling because of the fear that we’re not going to be protected from these projects. The west side is defensible as a student area but it’s equally good for others. She asked the board to think about the issues of parking, behavior, and numbers as they make their decision tonight. Mike Smith, 2320 Chandler, said he use to rent a home on Bennett Road when he was a graduate student. He said on any given weekend you didn’t know how many cars would be parked on Bennett Road. It actually made it difficult to get into the driveway. He asked the board to think of the residents and how parking will affect how they live and how the residents will look into the back yards of their homes. Peter Kranske, 4131 Harbor Walk Drive, said he owns the property at 1208 Bennett where their daughter Beth lives. He’s a native who lived in California for 25 years but returned in 1990 for the quality of life and the Fort Collins schools. He knows the people in this city do what is right. He wanted his children to grow up in a place where people set an example of doing the right thing even when it is difficult. His understanding is the NCB zone creates a transition intended to serve as a buffer between high density and single family residential neighborhoods. This project places high density, high intensity housing adjacent to single family houses with no plan for reduction of heights and no plan to mitigate the impact of bringing all these people onto two quiet streets. They ask for four things: scale buildings down to two Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 9 stories when adjacent to single family homes, insure there’s adequate parking, increase the setbacks and landscaping to create more of a buffer. They’d also ask they eliminate the balconies in the units that face their property. Kranske said they’re not saying don’t build it or they don’t want students in their neighborhood. They ask they increase parking, setbacks, landscaping, and remove balconies that look down into their back yards. Bob Jones said he lives at 1699 Redwing Lane, Broomfield, CO. He’s involved in student housing management and had been for the past 10 years. He said students typically want to do the right thing but they don’t have the life experiences yet to know how. He said Mr. Bailey works with them and uses their product (a process of educating kids before they move in) for his complexes. They believe it aids the residents to become better residents in both the short and the long term. Valerie McIntyre, 1217 Springfield Drive, said she is a 24 year employee of CSU and works in the Student Legal Services Department. She hears a lot about students’ misbehavior. They’re there to help them learn to be good citizens. She said bringing a car to campus is not a wrong thing. The problem is this complex doesn’t have enough spaces for those cars. She said it’s not a problem to spend time on your balcony but if that balcony overlooks the neighbor’s and takes away their privacy that’s a concern for the people who live around that complex. While she admires their attempts to educate their tenants and help them to be good neighbors, she agrees with what’s been said previously stated as the concerns for the neighborhood. She asked the board to take those concerns into consideration. She asked them to help them maintain their lifestyle and take into account those things that have been mentioned. End of Public Input Applicant Response Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant, said they took all that they’d heard and broke it down into four major categories: balconies and privacy, on-site management, compatibility and parking. She said there was also one question about the traffic study. She’s not real clear on exactly what the issue is but if the board wants to hear more about that, their traffic engineer Matt Delich is available for questions. She said Mr. Baily will speak to balconies, privacy and management. Charles Bailey reviewed photos of the area in question including the easternmost home on Bennett Road. He said there’s really just one home having exposure with partial exposure for the home next to it. There is also one home on Springfield west of the site. He said he’s not counting the two boarding homes on S. Shields in that they’re not single family residents in makeup and use. He said the homes on Bennett are lifted about the street level – 28 to 32 feet to their ridge. They are 7 feet over their Building 1 finished floor elevation. He said if staff and board are agreeable, they could switch Building 1 and Building 2 and still conform to the LUC requirement of not having two identical buildings next to each other. That would then eliminate the balconies on the 2nd floor that overlook Bennett Road homes. He noted the 3rd level has a landing that is a part of the interior stair configuration. Bailey said with regard to parking in addition to 58 parking spaces on site there is 330 feet of frontage on Springfield. If you divide that by 20 feet it translates to 17 additional parking spaces. The total (75) divided by 97 residents is 77%. That translates to a recent survey that said 80% of students bring cars to campus. Bailey said with regard to the dumpster. It is similar to their dumpster at Pura Vida – it’s expensive/a ‘Cadillac’. It has a roof on it and an overhead garage door. It has a key pad. It’s clean because people aren’t ‘hook shooting’ bottles. They’re able to recycle and to sort trash. The net effect is it doesn’t have odor or filth. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 10 Bailey said with regard to on-site management he didn’t have a plan for one at Pura Vida but there’s an on-site manager there now. It’s conceivable they’ll have an on-site manager there. They have a very aggressive program of managing their properties and to his knowledge they’ve not had any noise complaints for Pura Vida. Neighbors will alert their manager and their manager will live in the immediate area. Carolyn White said she’ll speak to compatibility and parking which are inter-related in some ways. She said the definition of compatibility can be found in the staff report Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. She said she’d like to point out that Neighborhood Conservation Buffer concept and the idea that the multi-family up to 3 stories are intended to buffer the single family from the more intensive uses. In this case, that more intensive use is the university. She said by the defined terms in the code this is a very low density multi-family housing project. It is itself the buffer. She said the West Central Neighborhood Plan stated there ought to be a transition to more intensive and that is exactly what this project was designed to do. She said in every possible way it’s as compatible as it possibly could be. White said Mr. Bailey heard loud and clear feedback from the neighborhood early on that his original design (a 24 unit, relatively massive single structure) was of concern to them. At a much greater cost (both in terms of construction and architecture), he broke the project up into 5 separate buildings with four-sided wrap-around architecture and unique features. She said this project is designed with great sensitivity to the neighborhood and it is exceedingly compatible. White said parking is another element of compatibility. It was pointed out to her that in addition to the actual numerical standard of zero on-site parking contained in the TOD Overlay, there is also this general standard contained in Chapter 3 that says that location and number of off-site parking is one of the things you consider in determining whether something is compatible with the neighborhood. She referred to the table in their PowerPoint presentation that reviews the actual number of parking spaces that exist for other similarly situated multi-family developments in the TOD Overlay District. She said that one of the public stated this project has maximum density and minimum parking. That is not technically correct. The minimum amount of parking would be zero on-site spaces. This project has 58 on-site parking spaces. Similarly this is far from the amount of density that can fit on this project. This project could be 40% larger and still be well within the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) allowed for this zone district. She said if the board were to deny this project, which complies with the zoning, it wouldn’t make sense. She asked the board to take all those factors into consideration as well as the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. They believe they meet all the requirements for compatibility, for parking, and for all other requirements in all applicable chapters. With that they ask for their approval. Member Hart said they seem to be dealing with concerns related to privacy. One of the other concerns was the third floor structure. Would they consider making Building 1 a two-story structure and leave the rest of the buildings as three? Bailey said they are willing to find solutions that are amenable. If Building 1 would need to become a two story building to make the project a success with the board, they’d consider that. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 11 Member Heinz asked if it would be possible to move the trash container further east. Bailey said one of the issues is they have permeable pavers in the core south parking area so trash trucks would probably destroy them. He’s like to place the trash at the first location considered closer to Springfield. Member Smith asked staff why that original site would not work. Levingston there were concerns related to accessibility for all residents. Member Heinz asked about the neighbors requests for increased landscape buffering. Bailey said they meet the code as proposed. Member Heinz asked what is what appears to be a concrete island in the southwest corner – could that be two extra parking spots? Bailey said that’s a tree that Forestry asked them to protect. Staff Response Chair Smith asked staff to speak to what one citizen identified as a flawed Traffic Impact Study (TIS). He asked if staff tracked what was stated and clarifies what had been said. Traffic Systems Engineer Ward Stanford said what he heard was referenced to Attachment A which was his document. He said those changes are his changes. He realized that Bennett was already built and the traffic is already on the street. They captured actual counts versus an estimate from a traffic study. He said that’s the reason the TIS does not provide anything additional to doing a review of the traffic on the street. He said the second item (bottom of Attachment A) was the special study statement. After he concluded the review, he considered why anyone would go into that area from the project side. They’d be moving into a more congested situation and not gain anything. He said they’d more likely use Springfield and Shields. Member Kirkpatrick said her understanding wasn’t so much from traffic trying to exit onto Shields as it was to having Springfield ‘too parked out’ and going onto Bennett to find parking to walk to campus. It might be more appealing from a parking standpoint. She said that was her understanding of why the neighborhood might be concerned. Stanford said he’d probably have to pass that onto a planner as parking is not something he addresses. Member Kirkpatrick asked if Springfield was too constrained to do diagonal parking in front of the proposed site. Stanford said there are pros and cons to diagonal parking with one con relates to the safety of bicycle use in areas with diagonal parking exist. Member Kirkpatrick asked if Springfield will be paint striped. Stanford said they don’t typically stripe neighborhood streets. Member Kirkpatrick asked about any long term plan to do a median on Shields to reduce multiple turn movements onto Shields. Stanford said his manager has met with Transportation Planning and the biking community. There’re starting to look at pedestrian and bicyclist safety for that area. Chair Smith asked to go back for a moment to the issue of the dumpster location. He’d like to get into the rationale from staff for moving it. Levingston said at first she thought it was a sight/distance triangle. Member Carpenter said she doesn’t understand why it wouldn’t be better to incorporate it in the center of the project (further east). Member Campana said the applicant had a site plan that showed the surrounding homes and the detention pond. He thinks the answer given by the applicant was that in order to reduce the requirement for detention, an impervious paver is planned and there is a concern about the wear a heavy trash truck puts on them. Member Campana said the board doesn’t normally try to design someone’s project. He thinks the applicant has done a great job of meeting the code. This is a situation where our TOD policy, the need for housing and the fact that this is an in-fill site is causing conflict. When we have an in-fill site, meeting the code is not the full burden. Compatibility comes into play much more on an infill site such as this. He Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 12 said the 22 and the 14 dwelling units per acre (DUA) sites look drastically different and this is pushing 40 DUA. Member Campana said even in this neighborhood we’d prefer a transition of a two story next to a single family house to a three story. He said we’ve heard from 18 citizens tonight, 17 of which have issues with height next to single family, parking, privacy, and the size/number of residents. He said he’s already seen the developer’s willingness to make some compromises. Campana said if he would be willing to lower the heights of Building 1 and 5 to two story; they’d have the transition from single family to 3-story in the middle. It would give the reduction that’s been requested and maintain the same level of parking spaces. Campana would like to see everyone who leaves here tonight content. Member Carpenter said she basically agrees with Member Campana. She thinks there’s too much (mass and scale). She doesn’t think it meets code in every way because we have compatibility standards (building height, mass, and scale). What Member Campana has said about taking Building 1 and 5 and making those two-story is a great idea. She said we’re close but we’re really not there. It bothers her to be here tonight designing the project but she thinks the applicant is getting the board’s thoughts of what it would take to make this (for her at least) feel like it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Board Discussion Member Hart said he fundamentally agrees with Member Carpenter. He’s not totally convinced Building 5 (which fronts on Shields Avenue) needs to be 2 stories. The transition is to the parking lot and the houses to the boarding houses to the south. He thinks the developer (with the tentative agreements) has addressed most of the concerns. The biggest concern is parking. He thinks reducing a couple of units will help the situation somewhat. He said our goal is to get some intensive development in lots that are not very intensely developed so that we can reduce traffic. He thinks this development does that particularly well with the compromises they’ve agreed to. He said it’s not the fault of the developer that we have a TOD zone that doesn’t require him to provide any parking. They are providing 58 times more parking than is required by code. Chair Smith said when the board makes quasi-judicial decisions they’re guardians and enforcers of the code. It provides predictability for all the stakeholders. Smith said there was a lot of citizen engagement in the development of Plan Fort Collins and the West Central Neighborhood Plan in which more intense development is called for in this area. We’ve talked about the need to review implementation of the TOD as it being either an aspirational goal, functional, or both. This project is meeting the letter of what’s required so he does see some opportunity that the applicant has presented with modifying the project in a way that would be responsive to the citizens. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the board may want to speak to the applicant about the possible changes so they could have a chance to come before them again. He said we’ve talked about the TOD and no minimum parking requirement. The part we have not talked about much is the compatibility part of the operational physical compatibility standards. It’s says conditions may be imposed on the approval of development applicant to insure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include but need not be limited to restrictions about location and number of off-street parking spaces. The conflict standards of the code (1.7.2) say that if you have a conflict in the more specific standard will control. If you cannot determine the more specific standard than you use the more stringent standard. He thinks both are equally specific – one specific to the requirements of the occupants (TOD requirement) and the other specific to compatibility with the neighborhood. He said maybe the 58 parking spaces are perfectly fine – it certainly complies under the TOD standard. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 13 Member Kirkpatrick said she’s impressed with the neighborhood in they are so organized, articulate and thoughtful. They are by far the most engaged residents she’s observed who speak to the issues considered by the board. She said even if we make a decision that does not completely satisfy you, the city is very much hearing that your neighborhood feels threatened. She hopes they feel heartened by the fact the city is working on SHAP (Student Housing Action Plan), West Central Neighborhood Plan update, and the Parking Plan is looking into addressing parking in their neighborhood. Member Heinz said one of the citizens spoke about the safety of pedestrians crossing Shields. Is it possible to have an extra traffic light? Stanford said at the Springfield location a traffic light would be difficult due to the proximity to Lake Street – you’d have competing cars trying to be in same space where there is a high volume of traffic. Director Kadrich said she does know we’re working on the residential parking plan and she could certainly forward the request that this be one of the first neighborhoods to review. Member Kirkpatrick said she’s also like to see the city prioritize the need for safety of pedestrians and bicyclists along Shields. Member Kirkpatrick said she definitely agrees that she would think this project more compatible if Building 1 was two stories. She agrees with Member Hart that Building 5 is not as much of a concern. Member Campana said he’s thinks we can find a compromise here. He would support the project with the dumpster being relocated, the balconies being removed on Building 1, and he’d like to see Buildings 1 and 5 reduced to 2 stories. He thinks that it better accomplishes the transition to the single family houses and reduces the number of dwelling units. Chair Smith asked the applicant to step forward to hear their thoughts relative to Member Campana’s proposals being feasible for them. Carolyn White said she does disagree with the interpretation advanced by Mr. Eckman. She believes this project is well in compliance. She thinks the TOD is the less restrictive but the more specific standard but she doesn’t think it matters because even when you consider the compatibility standard, this project certainly meets that standard as well. She said if there is some prioritization the board would like to recommend, then that is definitely something the applicant would be willing to consider. Staff member Levingston asked the board to consider Section 3.5.1(i) regarding the dumpster. She said the reason why location 1 did not work was there is a provision that dumpsters cannot be closer than 20 feet from a public sidewalk. Bailey said in looking at the plan, the buildings are 30 feet from the street. It seems like we can move that dumpster and stay with a contextual setback of 30 feet. Levingston said that with the curvature of Springfield, it’s more like 18 or 19 feet. Bailey said they could trade parking with where the dumpster is located now to meet the code. Bailey said to the issue of whether the residents take their trash, they’ll take their trash there. From his experience at Pura Vida, people are coming back 3 stories and walking 150 feet. He doesn’t think that’s a reason to get hung up. Bailey said with respect to a change of Building 1 they would be agreeable to switching Building 1 to a ‘green building’ and limiting that building to two stories. He doesn’t see the sensitivity for Building 5 because of their proximity to boarding houses. He said moving the new Building 1 to two stories they lose 6 residences so they’ll go from 97 to 91 bedrooms. That would make a 7% reduction in residents. He’s agreeable to that but he thinks that’s going in the wrong direction for density around the campus. You could then look at the parking ratio over a smaller denominator – it will be in the low 80s if you include the spaces on Springfield immediately in front of this community. Chair Smith with everything the applicant is willing to do; in his opinion Building 5 could stay 3 stories. Member Kirkpatrick said it’s on an arterial and that’s where we’ve always concentrated our density in our Land Use Code. She’s okay with that. Member Hart said from his perspective, this gives us some Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 14 housing in close proximity to campus. He thinks we’ve done everything we can legitimately do to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood and he thinks the dumpster since it’s an enclosed area is not going to be that big an effect however, he’d like to see it moved as far as possible from the single family areas. Member Heinz said she’s impressed by both the neighborhood and the applicant and their willingness to work together. She also likes the switching of the building and the reduction in units. Member Hart moved to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, # PDP120035. In support of his motion, he adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained on page 13 of the staff report. There would be three conditions: the dumpster to be moved to the vicinity of the original location, Building 2 be moved to Building 1 as shown on the site plan and the new Building 1 would be limited to two stories. Member Heinz seconded the motion. There was some discussion as to the specificity of the dumpster location. Director Kadrich said the applicant proposed near Building with placement meeting code (20 foot setback requirement). Bailey said it probably needs to be moved slightly south of original location 1. They’ll lose a little parking there and gain some where they vacated (location 3). Member Hart agreed to amend the motion to the one reflected above. Member Campana thanked the applicant for being willing to compromise. He thinks the changes will make a project more compatible with the neighborhood. Member Hart agreed. The motion passed 6:0. _______ Project: Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 Project Description: This is a request for an eleven unit multi-family infill redevelopment project. As proposed, the two existing homes located at 705 and 715 Remington Street would be demolished and replaced with two multi-family buildings. The historic home at 711 Remington Street would remain and be rehabilitated, containing a two bedroom unit. The site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer Zone District. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said multi-family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The project, with its’ two new, three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context of the Laurel School National Register district by utilizing a complementary design featuring historically appropriate architectural detailing, roof pitches and overhanging eaves. This complementary design, in tandem with the reduced massing and scale, reinforces the compatibility with the overall neighborhood context. Levingston described the proposed project (11 units, 28 bedrooms, 5 2-bedroom units, 6 3-bedroom units, density = 24.07 dwelling units/acre, 21 vehicle parking spaces and 28 bike parking spaces). Using a graphic representation, she described the east elevation on Remington and compared the elevations of Building C (715 Remington) and Building A (705 Remington) in the context of the adjacent properties (719 and 701 Remington). Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 15 Levingston described the alternative compliance of the foundation plantings - 5 foot wide foundation plantings required, to meet historic setback, Buildings A and C were pushed east and only 1’7” of space between wheel stop and building. Staff finds that the proposal for alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.1(E) (2) equally well or better than would a landscape plan which complies with the standards of the section. It complies with review criteria, in that the landscape trellis demonstrates innovative design by adding an architectural element featuring plant material, adding visual interest to the west elevations of the buildings while introducing a natural element and softening the overall appearance. Levingston said the applicant is requesting a Modification of Standards to Section 4.0(D) (6) (d), regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards as it relates to the side setback requirements. Section 4.9 (D) (6) (d) reads as follows: Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Levingston said the north wall on the east portion of Building A (containing the two bedroom units) is 18 feet 4 inches tall and is set back 5 feet 11 inches from the north property line. The standard requires the wall to be set back 6 feet because the wall is over 18 feet in height. The north wall on the west portion of Building A (containing the three bedroom units) is 32 feet 6 inches in height and is set back 12 feet 3 inches from the north property line. The standard requires the setback to be 13 feet. The south wall on the west portion of Building C (containing the 3 bedroom units) is 36 feet 10 inches in height and is set back 14 feet 8 inches from the south property line. The standard requires the setback to be 15 feet. Levingston said the purpose and intent of this standard is one of impact mitigation. The step-back standard assists with regulating the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B district. This standard also recognizes that there are impacts to abutting, existing homes and that these impacts can sometimes be onerous, detracting from the quality of life for adjacent residents. When taken in context of the entire development plan, the small portions of wall that slightly deviate from the standard have very little, if any, impact on the adjacent properties. Staff finds that the small portions of the walls that are slightly under the required setback deviates from the standard in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, as it creates virtually no impact on adjacent properties and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Levingston said the Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code with the exception of the submitted Modification of Standard requests, which Staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation Jeff Hansen, Vaught Frye Larson Architects, provided photos of the neighborhood and described existing conditions. He reviewed the historical development of the project. He said the project was initially submitted in 2011 under the name Remington Annex. They proposed the demolition of all existing structures at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street and the construction of one large multi-family building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units with a bi-level parking garage with 65 spaces. In February 2012, they requested five stand-alone Modification of Standards requests in connection with the Remington Annex PDP. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the stand-alone modification Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 16 requests and they appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld the Board’s denial decision. In the summer of 2012, the applicant utilized the City’s Design Assistance Program. The program aims to help property owners with setting, massing, and overall design composition to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties and minimize the impacts of new construction on the historic area. Through this program, a local architect collaboratively redesigned the project, working towards envisioning a multi- family infill redevelopment project that both meets the needs of the owners and complies with the Land Use Code and historic preservation standards. The project being submitted tonight and has reduced units, massing, and scale as well as the preservation and rehabilitation of 711 Remington Street. Hansen requested the Board approve the PDP and the Modification of Standards (Section 4.0(D) (6) (d), side setback requirements) under the deviates from the required setback in a nominal and inconsequential way. Public Input None Board Discussion Member Heinz said she really likes how they made the plan fits into the neighborhood – well done. Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees. She thinks it fits contextually with the neighborhood and it will be a really nice addition compared to what is currently there. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification on Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 based on the findings of facts included in the staff report, page 14 E. This modification is not detrimental to the public good and it is nominal and inconsequential as it creates virtually no impact on the adjacent properties. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Chair Smith thanked Levingston for a good job. He thinks the applicant did a good job of getting something that’s a good example for other neighborhoods in that area. He said he thinks we’ll continue to face issues such as this close to campus and the applicant responded with high quality design. The motion passed 6:0. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 based on the findings of facts included on pages 13 and 14 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Member Campana said he knows the applicant was frustrated the first time they brought it through. He does appreciate the applicant’s ability to sit down and rethink and come forth with what he thinks is a great design. He looks forward to seeing it be built. Member Heinz agreed. The motion passed 6:0. Other The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2013 Page 17 Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair ITEM NO ____2____________ MEETING DATE ____4/18/13________ STAFF ____EX____________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan – ODP #120004 APPLICANT: Steve Steinbicker Architecture West, LLC 4710 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: DP Investment Group, LLC 4640 Withers Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at the west side of Ziegler Road, at the intersection of Saber Cat Drive and Country Fair Lane extended. The site is 4.03 acres in size and is zoned L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The ODP consists of two phases: Parcel A for multi-family residential or commercial uses and Parcel B for multi-family residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Overall Development Plan is 4.03 acres in size and is zoned L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. There are two phases for the ODP, with Parcel A proposed for future multi-family residential or commercial uses; and Parcel B, for 22 multi-family units. Parcel A is planned for up to 5,000 square feet of neighborhood center commercial uses or 14 multi-family units on 1.32 acres and Parcel B is planned for 22 multi-family units on 2.71 acres. An extension of County Fair Lane splits the property into the two parcels and will provide access to both parcels via private drives. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 2 The proposed ODP is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Zone District, as well as the requirements for ODPs regarding land uses, density, the Master Street Plan, transportation connectivity, natural features, drainage master plan, and compact urban growth standards. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: L-M-N; two existing residences and outbuildings E: L-M-N; Fossil Ridge High School, future Southeast Community Park S: L-M-N; Sage Creek open space, existing residential units W: L-M-N; Harvest Park detention pond The site was annexed into the city as part of the 7.3 acre Weiner Enclave Annexation in 2007, along with the property to the north, and was zoned L-M-N. The site was used as a concrete company office and equipment yard for a number of years by Express Concrete, Osborn Concrete and most recently by Pierson Concrete. A single-family house on the site was demolished in December 2012. The property is also known as 5305 Ziegler Road. 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential and commercial. Multi-family dwellings of up to 8 units per building are permitted in the L-M-N district subject to administrative review, as are commercial uses in a neighborhood center. A neighborhood center requires at least 2 uses from mixed-use dwellings, retail, convenience retail, personal and business service, offices, financial services and clinics, community facilities, neighborhood support/recreation facilities, schools, child care centers or places of worship or assembly. Other permitted uses require Planning and Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 3 Zoning Board approval and include standard or fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-thru), offices, financial services, clinics, or artisan and photography studios and galleries that are not part of a center. The applicant does not have specific uses in mind yet for the northern-most parcel, but wants the potential to include future land uses such as a restaurant or convenience store with fuel sales, or for a free-standing commercial use, which would require Board approval, or multi-family, which can be reviewed at a Type 1 hearing. B. Section 2.3.2 (H)(2) - Density This criterion requires that the ODP be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N or M- M-N zone district. The L-M-N district requires an overall minimum average density of 4 dwelling units (DU) per net acre of residential land included in an ODP. The proposed net density of the overall ODP is 11.7 DU/acre if both parcels are developed in residential uses. The L-M-N district also requires a maximum overall density of 9 DU/gross acre and a maximum density of any given parcel to be 12 DU/gross acre. The overall density of the ODP is 8.9 DU/gross acre if both parcels developed in residential uses. The individual gross densities for both parcels would still remain below the 12 DU/gross acre limit. The table on the next page summarizes the gross and net density information for the ODP and its two parcels of land. Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP Parcel, Use Gross Area Gross Density Net Area* Net Density A – 14 Units 1.32 acre 10.6 DU/acre 0.98 acre 14.3 DU/acre B – 22 units 2.71 acre 8.1 DU/acre 2.09 acre 10.5 DU/acre ODP – 36 units 4.03 8.9 DU/acre 3.07 acre 11.7 DU/acre Required minimum density 4 DU/acre Maximum ODP density 9 DU/acre *Net area excludes public right-of-way (County Fair Lane, Ziegler Road) C. Section 2.3.2 (H)(3) – Master Street Plan This criterion requires the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required by Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 4 addition, the ODP shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. The proposed ODP is in conformance with the City’s Master Street Plan. The site is bordered by Ziegler Road on the east and the developer will be required to construct County Fair Lane (a local street) from where it currently dead-ends at the western corner of this property, to intersect with Ziegler Road. Ziegler Road is a 4-lane arterial to Rock Creek Drive, and becomes a 2-lane arterial south of Rock Creek Drive. D. Section 2.3.2 (H)(4) – Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties This criterion requires an ODP to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the ODP from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). Access to the ODP will be from the extension of County Fair Lane, which will extend to Ziegler Road with this development. A future access into Parcel A from County Fair Lane is planned to line-up with the access into Parcel B. A future access connection is planned from the ODP to the property to the north to provide for connectivity between the properties. Bicycle and pedestrian access will be provided by tying into the existing walk and street system along County Fair Lane (local street) and Ziegler Road (arterial street). The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study that was submitted to the City for review and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this ODP are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. An estimated 570 additional trips are estimated to be generated from this development (see Attachment 3). The Traffic Study does recommend that with the City conduct an evaluation of the need for a northbound right-turn lane on Ziegler Road approaching Saber Cat Drive (Fossil Creek High School entrance) and consider designating this portion of Ziegler Road as a reduced speed limit school zone. E. 2.3.2 (H)(5) – Natural Features This criterion requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 5 The southern end of this ODP is adjacent to the McClelland’s Creek channel. The 100- year City floodplain for this creek is shown on the ODP, as are existing wetlands and an approximate 100’ wide natural habitat buffer for the area. This floodplain is not a FEMA mapped floodplain. The PDP for the southern portion of the property will address the buffer in greater detail. There are existing trees on the northern portion of the ODP and several on the southern portion. Mitigation required for trees that are proposed to be removed will be addressed by the City Forester at the PDP stage. F. Section 2.3.2 (H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The proposed ODP is consistent with the McClelland’s Creek Master Drainage Basin Plan. Drainage will be collected and conveyed to a proposed water quality pond on the southern portion of the site. After being treated, drainage will be released into the McClelland’s Channel. On-site detention will not be required since the peak flow from this site will occur before the peak flow in McClelland’s Channel. G. Section 2.3.2 (H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP The site is designated as Low Density Mixed-Use on the City Structure Plan Map. This designation is intended for low density housing combined with complementary neighborhood-serving uses that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to meet a wide range of everyday living needs for residents, providing a variety of housing choices, gathering places, services and conveniences, neighborhood parks, and other amenities in a compact setting that encourages walking, bicycling, and transit use. A neighborhood Commercial District or non-retail neighborhood center, such as a school, recreation facility, park, or other gathering place provides a focal point. Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 6 (1) Housing Density The L-M-N District requires a mix of housing unit types in developments that are larger than 20 acres. Since the ODP is less than 20 acres in size, this requirement is not applicable. As noted in Section B on Page 3, the density for the overall ODP is 8.9 DU/per gross acre if the entire site is developed in residential uses. If only the southern parcel is residential, the density would be 5.5 DU/gross acre. The proposed ODP is consistent with all required housing density provisions of the L-M-N District. The ODP proposes a housing unit type that is not currently in the immediate area. The proposal for commercial uses on Parcel A (northern parcel) would provide a variety of lower-intensity, neighborhood-serving commercial uses that are not available in the neighborhood and would be easily accessible to residents on foot or by bicycle. The nearest commercial area is the Harmony Corridor. Fossil Ridge High School, Preston Middle School, and the future Southeast Community Park serve as focal points for the neighborhood. (2) Mix of Uses – Neighborhood Center The L-M-N zone requires the following mix of land uses: Section 4.5(D)(3) – Access to Neighborhood Center At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects greater than forty (40) acres shall be located within three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarter [¾] mile) of either a neighborhood center contained within the project, or an existing neighborhood center located in an adjacent development, or an existing or planned Neighborhood Commercial District commercial project, which distance shall be measured along street frontage, and without crossing an arterial street. Since the ODP is smaller than 40 acres, this standard does not apply. The proposed ODP includes the potential for a neighborhood center on Parcel A, which is 1.32 acres in size. This center must comply with Section 4.5(D)(b – e), as follows: Section 4.5(D)(b) – Location A neighborhood center shall be planned as an integral part of surrounding residential development and located where the network of local streets provides Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 7 direct access to the center. Neighborhood centers that are located on arterial streets and that include retail uses or restaurants shall be spaced at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarters [¾] mile) apart. Access to Parcel A will be from a future driveway from County Fair Lane. Access for bicyclists and pedestrians will be from the network of sidewalks along County Fair Lane and walks and bike lanes along Ziegler Road. All of the proposed housing units in this ODP would be within three-quarters of a mile of Parcel A. Parcel A is adjacent to an arterial street (Ziegler Road), but no vehicular access is proposed from the arterial. Future sidewalk along Ziegler Road will provide pedestrian access to a crosswalk at the south side of County Fair Lane. There are no existing or planned neighborhood centers within ¾ mile of this site. Section 4.5(D)(c) – Land Use Requirements A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the following uses: mixed- use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly; convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics with less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of building footprint area; personal or business service shops; standard or fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities); small animal veterinary clinics; convenience retail stores with fuel sales that are at least three-quarters (¾) mile from any other such use and from any gasoline station; and artisan or photography studios or galleries. No drive-in facilities shall be permitted. A neighborhood center shall not exceed (5) acres in size, excluding such portion of the neighborhood center which is composed of a school, park, place of worship or assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in subparagraph E of this Section. The 1.32 acre site for the proposed neighborhood center is on the small side of a neighborhood center, but is large enough to provide for two or more uses. At this time, the applicant envisions 5,000 square feet of commercial uses in a neighborhood center. Section 4.5(D)(d) – Design and Access The design of neighborhood centers shall be integrated with surrounding residential areas by matching the scale of nearby residential buildings; providing direct access from surrounding residential areas; creating usable outdoor spaces; orienting building entrances to connecting walkways; and, to the extent reasonably feasible, maintaining/continuing the architectural themes or character of nearby neighborhoods. Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 8 The specific design of a neighborhood center will be addressed at the PDP stage. Vehicular access is proposed via a drive that would line-up with the proposed drive into the residential area of Parcel B. Bicycle and pedestrian access to this area would be from the sidewalk network along both County Fair Lane and Ziegler Road and bike lanes along Ziegler. Section 4.5(D)(e) – Outdoor Spaces A publicly accessible outdoor space such as a park, plaza, pavilion or courtyard shall be included within or adjacent to every neighborhood center to provide a focal point for such activities as outdoor gatherings, neighborhood events, picnicking, sitting and passive and active recreation. This standard must be addressed at the PDP stage. (3) Facing Uses To the extent reasonably feasible, land use boundaries in neighborhoods shall occur at mid-block locations rather than at streets, so that similar buildings face each other. The two parcels of the proposed ODP are split by the extension of County Fair Lane. Given the size and configuration of the ODP, there are few other options for the location of the land use boundary between the residential and commercial areas of the property, to allow similar buildings to face each other. (4) Small Neighborhood Parks Either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at least one (1) acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of one-third (1/3) mile of at least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in any development project of ten (10) acres or larger as measured along street frontage. The entire ODP acreage is less than 10 acres, so this standard is not applicable. 3. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H) (3): This criterion requires that the ODP conform to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. This site is an infill site and the ODP meets the requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards because least 1/6 of the proposed development’s boundaries are contiguous to existing development. Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing April 18, 2013 Page 9 4. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 25, 2012 for the ODP and related PDP (see attached meeting notes). Approximately 20 residents attended and commented on the proposed building architecture and height, the developer providing landscaping for the adjacent Harvest Park detention pond, future uses on the north portion of the site, and parking. The majority of these comments are applicable at the time of the PDP. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In reviewing the request for the Harvest Park/Ziegler ODP, staff makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: 1. The proposed ODP is consistent with the permitted uses and applicable district standards of the L-M-N Zone District, including housing density and mix of land uses. 2. The proposed ODP conforms to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required in Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F) and conforms to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements in Section 3.6.4. 3. The ODP identifies all natural areas, habitats and features. 4. The ODP conforms to the McClelland’s Creek Master Drainage Basin Plan. 5. The ODP conforms to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards of Section 3.7.2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan – ODP#120004. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Overall Development Plan (ODP) 2. ODP Conceptual Drainage Plan 3. ODP Traffic Study 4. Notes from October 25, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Roads.............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 4 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 4 Pedestrians Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................4 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................4 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................. 7 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 7 Trip Distribution ...............................................................................................................7 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 10 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 10 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 10 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 19 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 19 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 19 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 24 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 25 DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 6 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 7 3. Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 17 4. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 18 5. Phase 1 Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Operation ....................................... 20 6. Full Development Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation ........................ 21 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 5 3. Site Plan.................................................................................................................... 8 4. Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 9 5. Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 11 6. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 12 7. Phase 1 Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................. 13 8. Full Development Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic............................................... 14 9. Phase 1 Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Traffic............................................. 15 10. Full Development Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Traffic .............................. 16 11. Phae 1 Short Range (2015) Geometry.................................................................... 22 12. Full Development Short Range (2017) Geometry ................................................... 23 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form/Recent Peak Hour Traffic B. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards C. Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Operation D. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Phase 1 Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Full Development Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (ITIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use development. The proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site is located west of Ziegler Road and north of Kechter Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project architect (Architecture West) and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). A Base Assumptions Form and related information are provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the immediate area are primarily school or residential. There are industrial and commercial land uses to the northeast of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed- Use site (>0.25 miles). Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Roads The primary streets near the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site are Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Saber Cat Drive-County Fair Lane (extended). Ziegler Road is classified as a four-lane arterial street, north of Rock Creek Drive and a two-lane arterial street, south of Rock Creek Drive on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Ziegler Road has a four-lane cross section with auxiliary lanes north of Rock Creek Drive and has a two-lane cross section with auxiliary lanes south of Rock Creek Drive. At the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection, Ziegler Road has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, one through lane in each direction, and northbound and southbound right-turn lanes. There are two northbound through lanes on Ziegler Road, north of the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. The Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection has signal control. At the Ziegler/Saber Cat intersection, Ziegler Road has a southbound left-turn lane, one southbound through lane, and a combined northbound through/right-turn lane. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. Rock Creek Drive is an east-west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Rock Creek Drive has a two-lane cross section east of Ziegler Road. At the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection, Rock Creek Drive has a westbound left-turn lane, one westbound through-lane, a combined eastbound left-turn/through lane, and eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes. Saber Cat Drive and County Fair Lane (extended) are classified as a local streets. At the Ziegler/Saber Cat intersection, Saber Cat Drive has a westbound left- turn lane and a westbound right-turn lane. The Ziegler/Saber Cat intersection has stop sign control on Saber Cat Drive. County Fair Lane is built west of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. The development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site will connect County Fair Lane with Ziegler Road. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 2 Harmony Rock Creek Ziegler Lady Moon Kechter Timberline Interstate 25 Harvest Park/ Ziegler Mixed-Use Saber Cat Fossil Creek HS Preston MS Bacon ES Zach ES SCALE: 1"=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 3 Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic counts at the Ziegler/Rock Creek and Ziegler/Saber Cat intersections are shown in Figure 2. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix A. The traffic data at the key intersections was collected in December 2011. The traffic counts were performed when Fossil Ridge High School was in session. Existing Operation The key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the recent peak hour traffic shown in Figure 2, the current peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections operate acceptably during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. This site is in an area termed “Low Density Mixed-Use Residential.” In “Low Density Mixed-Use Residential” areas, acceptable operation at unsignalized arterial/collector or local intersections is level of service F and at collector/local intersections is level of service C. Acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours in “Low Density Mixed-Use Residential” areas is defined as level of service D or better, overall. Any leg or movement can operate at level of service D. Pedestrian Facilities There are pedestrian facilities adjacent to developed properties along Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Saber Cat Drive. There are no sidewalks adjacent to the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. As roads are built to arterial/collector standards, sidewalks will be included in the street cross sections. Sidewalks will be incorporated within and adjacent to this development. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets. Transit Facilities Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, and Rock Creek Drive. Route 16 runs adjacent to the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 4 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 5 102/35 516/294 7/3 14/74 256/476 30/94 66/13 26/17 55/36 107/83 28/10 7/13 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler 274/495 44/30 563/294 31/7 62/38 23/18 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT/T D D EB RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) OVERALL B B WB LT C C WB RT B B WB APPROACH C B Ziegler/Saber Cat (stop sign) SB LT A A DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 6 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use is proposed as four townhome buildings with 22 total dwelling units (south portion) and 15,000 square feet of medical/dental office in two buildings (north portion). Figure 3 shows a site plan of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed- Use site. The site plan shows an access to/from County Fair Lane. County Fair Lane will be extended to Ziegler Road with this development. The development will be built in two phases. The short range analysis (Year 2015) includes development of the south portion of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site and the short range analysis (Year 2017) includes full development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Phase 1 230 Townhome 22 DU EQ 172 EQ 3 EQ 12 EQ 11 EQ 6 Phase 2 720 Medical/Dental Office 15.0 KSF EQ 398 1.82 28 0.48 8 EQ 15 EQ 38 Total 570 31 20 26 44 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Future year data was obtained from the NFRRTP and other traffic studies. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed- Use site. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 7 SCALE: 1"=100' SITE PLAN Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 8 Ziegler Road 24' 9' WATER LINE 6 PLEX RESIDENCE 21 2 STORY BUILDING A 6005 S,F, FF = 10.60 138.25' 5 SPACES FOSSIL RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL LMN CITY OF FORT COLLINS OPEN SPACE LMN BUFFER ZONE 96' 58.5' 96' 14.5' 34' 68' 30.37' 16.5' LTD. SIGHT SIGN NEW 6' WALK NEW 4.5' WALK TURF TURF TURF TURF TURF WALK WALK WALK WALK CONC. PVMT. 5' 301.83' 50.92' 216'-7.60" 68' PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF WETLANDS LOT 2 LMN LMN LMN EX. STORM WATER LMN FUTURE WALK FUTURE WALK 10 SPACES 10 SPACES 8 SPACES Ziegler Saber Cat County Fair 60% 25% 50% 30% NOM 5% 15% 15% SCALE: 1"=200' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 9 Med./Den. Office Residential Legend: Background Traffic Projections Figures 5 and 6 show the Phase 1 short range (2015) and Full Development short range (2017) background traffic projections, respectively. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizons were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP, reviewing traffic studies for other developments, and reviewing historic count data for this area of Fort Collins. Other developments include: various parcels within the Harmony Tech Park. It is important to note that both the short range (2015) and short range (2017) background traffic projections assume that County Fair Lane has already been extended to Ziegler Road. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. The site generated trip assignment for Phase 1 and Full Development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site is shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted traffic at the key intersections. Figures 9 and 10 show the respective Phase 1 short range (2015) and Full Development short range (2017) total traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). None of the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the Phase 1 short range analysis, reflecting a year 2015 condition and for the Full Development short range analysis, reflecting a year 2017 condition. Using the short range (2015) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key intersections operate in the short range (2017) background condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 10 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2015) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 11 51/17 588/335 34/8 4/23 281/570 48/32 21/4 10/6 28/17 67/41 11/4 25/19 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler 60/21 591/348 25/11 11/57 286/569 93/148 51/10 27/14 32/22 156/152 21/15 15/34 County Fair AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 12 53/18 610/345 35/8 5/24 292/591 50/34 21/5 10/7 28/18 70/43 11/5 26/20 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler 62/21 614/361 25/11 11/60 298/591 95/152 53/10 28/14 34/23 160/155 22/16 15/35 County Fair AM/PM PHASE 1 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 13 1/3 2/6 6/3 0/0 4/2 0/0 Saber Cat Rock Creek 6/3 Ziegler 2/6 County Fair Site Access 3/9 0/2 2/1 10/5 AM/PM FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 14 8/7 19/15 11/26 0/0 6/11 0/0 Saber Cat Rock Creek 11/26 Ziegler 19/15 County Fair Site Access 2/1 NOM 10/5 1/6 NOM 7/32 4/2 0/2 24/13 3/9 AM/PM PHASE 1 SHORT RANGE (2015) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 15 52/20 588/335 34/8 6/29 281/570 48/32 27/7 10/6 32/19 67/41 11/4 25/19 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler 60/21 597/351 25/11 11/57 288/575 93/148 51/10 27/14 32/22 156/152 21/15 15/34 County Fair Site Access 66/44 3/9 59/27 0/2 2/1 10/5 AM/PM FULL DEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE (2017) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 16 61/25 610/345 35/8 24/39 292/591 50/34 32/31 10/7 34/29 70/43 11/5 26/20 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler 62/21 625/387 25/11 11/60 317/606 95/152 53/10 28/14 34/23 160/155 22/16 15/35 County Fair 2/1 NOM 10/5 1/6 NOM 7/32 4/2 59/30 0/2 24/13 69/47 3/9 Site Access TABLE 3 Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT/T D D EB RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) OVERALL B B EB LT/T/RT D C WB LT D D WB T/RT C B WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A Ziegler/Saber Cat-County Fair (stop sign) SB LT A A DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 17 TABLE 4 Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT/T D D EB RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) OVERALL B B EB LT/T/RT D C WB LT D D WB T/RT C B WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A Ziegler/Saber Cat-County Fair (stop sign) SB LT A A DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 18 Table 5 shows the Phase 1 short range (2015) peak hour operation at the key intersections with full development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours. Table 6 shows the Full Development short range (2017) peak hour operation at the key intersections with full development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours. Geometry The Phase 1 short range (2015) geometry is shown in Figure 11 and the Full Development short range (2017) geometry is shown in Figure 12. The geometry at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection is the same as the existing geometry. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet and one mile (school walking area) of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. The Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site is located within an area termed as “other,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured factors. However, since there are residential land uses within the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site, “School Walking Area” was used for Fossil Creek High School and Preston Middle/Traut Core School(s), which sets the level of service threshold at LOS B for all measured factors, except for “Visual Interest & Amenity,” which is LOS C. Residents of the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site will go to Bacon Elementary School, which is more than a mile from the site. There are five destination areas within 1320 feet/one mile of the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site: 1) Fossil Ridge High School; 2) the residential neighborhood to the north and northwest of the site; 3) the residential neighborhood to the south and southwest of the site; 4) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site; and 5) Preston Middle/Traut Core Knowledge School. In most cases, sidewalks exist within the pedestrian influence area, except along undeveloped properties. It is assumed that sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Sidewalks will be incorporated within and adjacent to this development. Appendix G contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. The pedestrian level of service will be acceptable for all measured categories. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, 1) Fossil Ridge High School is the only destination area within 1320 feet of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. Appendix G contains a Bicycle LOS Worksheet. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 19 TABLE 5 Phase 1 Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT/T D D EB RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) OVERALL B B EB LT/T/RT D C WB LT D D WB T/RT C B WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A Ziegler/Saber Cat-County Fair (stop sign) SB LT A A County Fair/Site Access NB LT/RT A A (stop sign) WB LT/T A A DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 20 TABLE 6 Full Development Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT/T D D EB RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) OVERALL B B EB LT/T/RT E D WB LT D D WB T/RT C B WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A Ziegler/Saber Cat-County Fair (stop sign) SB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A County Fair/Site Access (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT A A DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 21 PHASE 1 SHORT RANGE (2015) GEOMETRY Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 22 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler County Fair Site Access - Denotes Lane FULL DEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE (2017) GEOMETRY Figure 12 DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Page 23 Saber Cat Rock Creek Ziegler County Fair Site Access - Denotes Lane Transit Level of Service Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, and Rock Creek Drive. Route 16 runs adjacent to the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site. These routes are considered to be within walking distance of the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed- Use site. School Traffic Just prior to the morning peak hour (7:30-8:30am), vehicular traffic at the Ziegler/Saber Cat intersection was observed. This time period was prior to the beginning of classes at Fossil Creek High School. Traffic entering Saber Cat Drive, from both the north and south, was significant. There is a southbound left-turn lane on Ziegler Road, that removed the left-turns from the through lane. The northbound right- turns were significant during the observation period (approximately 20 minutes). There is no northbound right-turn lane. As such, the right-turning traffic caused delays to the northbound through traffic. The queue extended to/near Sage Creek Road, which is approximately 600 feet south of Saber Cat Drive. It is recommended that the City of Fort Collins evaluate this situation and consider installing a northbound right-turn lane approaching Saber Cat Drive. Safe Routes To School With the connection of County Fair Lane to Ziegler Road, it is expected that the number of pedestrians crossing Ziegler Road at this location will increase. This is especially true during school times. While the preferred location for pedestrians to cross Ziegler Road is at the signalized Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection to the north, there is little doubt that pedestrians will cross Ziegler Road at the Ziegler/Saber Cat- County Fair intersection. It is recommended that the City of Fort Collins conduct a “Crosswalk Location and Feasibility Analysis” as described in the Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan, February 15, 2011. It is recommended that this segment of Ziegler Road be designated as a reduced speed limit school zone. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 24 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the impacts of the proposed Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site development on the short range (2015) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Phase 1 of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site will generate approximately 172 daily trip ends, 15 morning peak hour trip ends, and 17 afternoon peak hour trip ends. At full development, the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site will generate approximately 570 daily trip ends, 51 morning peak hour trip ends, and 70 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable. • In the short range (2015) future, given Phase 1 development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours, with existing geometry and intended geometry at the key intersections. • In the short range (2017) future, given full development of the Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours, with existing geometry and intended geometry at the key intersections. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. • It is recommended that the City of Fort Collins conduct an evaluation of the need for a northbound right-turn lane on Ziegler Road approaching Saber Cat Drive and the need for a crosswalk on Ziegler Road with a school zone designation. DELICH Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 25 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Recent AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.77 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1583 1059 1863 1583 997 1863 1583 789 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 66 26 55 7 28 107 102 516 7 30 256 14 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 31 65 8 33 126 109 549 7 35 301 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 109 002005 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 109 9 8 33 17 109 549 5 35 301 11 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 93.5 86.4 86.4 86.9 83.1 83.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 95.5 88.4 88.4 88.9 85.1 85.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 188 208 139 245 208 839 1372 1166 616 1321 1123 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.01 c0.29 0.00 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.40 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 49.0 45.5 45.6 46.1 45.7 2.8 5.9 4.2 4.3 6.1 5.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 53.3 45.6 45.8 46.3 45.9 2.9 6.8 4.2 4.3 6.5 5.1 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.4 46.0 6.1 6.2 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 21 65 34 23 63 34 Maximum Split (%) 17.5% 54.2% 28.3% 19.2% 52.5% 28.3% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 17 38 103 17 40 103 End Time (s) 38 103 17 40 103 17 Yield/Force Off (s) 34 97 11 36 97 11 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 34 86 0 36 86 0 Local Start Time (s) 97 118 63 97 0 63 Local Yield (s) 114 57 91 116 57 91 Local Yield 170(s) 114 46 80 116 46 80 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Recent PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.86 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1607 1583 1368 1863 1583 792 1863 1583 996 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 13 17 36 13 10 83 35 294 3 74 476 94 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 20 42 15 12 98 40 338 3 87 560 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 39 0 0 90 0010024 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 35 3 15 12 8 40 338 2 87 560 87 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 94.6 90.9 90.9 97.8 92.5 92.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 96.6 92.9 92.9 99.8 94.5 94.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.83 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 131 129 112 152 129 668 1442 1226 863 1467 1247 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.18 c0.00 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.10 0.38 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 51.7 50.7 51.2 50.9 50.9 2.5 3.7 3.1 1.9 3.9 2.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) 52.8 50.8 51.7 51.2 51.1 2.5 4.1 3.1 1.9 4.6 3.0 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 51.7 51.1 3.9 4.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 22 64 34 21 65 34 Maximum Split (%) 18.3% 53.3% 28.3% 17.5% 54.2% 28.3% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 18 40 104 18 39 104 End Time (s) 40 104 18 39 104 18 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 98 12 35 98 12 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 87 1 35 87 1 Local Start Time (s) 98 0 64 98 119 64 Local Yield (s) 116 58 92 115 58 92 Local Yield 170(s) 116 47 81 115 47 81 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 6: Saber Cat & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Recent AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 23 62 563 31 44 274 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 73 612 34 52 322 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1055 629 646 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 629 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 426 vCu, unblocked vol 1055 629 646 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 85 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 274 482 940 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 27 73 646 52 322 Volume Left 27 0 0 52 0 Volume Right 0 73 34 0 0 cSH 274 482 1700 940 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.15 0.38 0.06 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 13 0 4 0 Control Delay (s) 19.5 13.8 0.0 9.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.3 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 6: Saber Cat & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Recent PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 18 38 294 7 30 495 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 45 346 8 35 582 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1003 350 354 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 350 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 653 vCu, unblocked vol 1003 350 354 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 94 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 284 693 1205 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 21 45 354 35 582 Volume Left 21 0 0 35 0 Volume Right 0 45 8 0 0 cSH 284 693 1700 1205 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.06 0.21 0.03 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 65020 Control Delay (s) 18.7 10.5 0.0 8.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 13.2 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 20 C > 20 and < 35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F > 80 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment APPENDIX C 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.79 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1468 1583 1144 1863 1583 1022 1863 1583 654 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 51 27 32 15 21 156 60 591 25 93 286 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 32 38 18 25 184 64 629 27 109 336 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 162 007003 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 92 4 18 25 22 64 629 20 109 336 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 90.1 84.8 84.8 93.5 86.5 86.5 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 92.1 86.8 86.8 95.5 88.5 88.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 187 135 220 187 817 1348 1145 586 1374 1167 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 c0.34 c0.01 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.02 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.47 0.02 0.19 0.24 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 49.8 46.8 47.4 47.3 47.3 3.4 6.9 4.7 3.8 5.0 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 52.6 46.8 47.8 47.5 47.6 3.4 8.1 4.7 4.0 5.5 4.2 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.9 47.6 7.6 5.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2015) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 22 67 31 18 71 31 Maximum Split (%) 18.3% 55.8% 25.8% 15.0% 59.2% 25.8% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 18 40 107 18 36 107 End Time (s) 40 107 18 36 107 18 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 101 12 32 101 12 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 90 1 32 90 1 Local Start Time (s) 98 0 67 98 116 67 Local Yield (s) 116 61 92 112 61 92 Local Yield 170(s) 116 50 81 112 50 81 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 1583 1377 1863 1583 700 1863 1583 889 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 10 14 22 34 15 152 21 348 11 148 569 57 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 16 26 40 18 179 24 400 13 174 669 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 0 163 0030015 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 2 40 18 16 24 400 10 174 669 52 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 91.0 87.4 87.4 99.1 91.5 91.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 93.0 89.4 89.4 101.1 93.5 93.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 144 125 169 144 575 1388 1179 806 1452 1233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.21 c0.01 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.17 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.29 0.01 0.22 0.46 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.7 51.1 50.1 50.1 3.3 5.0 3.9 2.0 4.6 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 51.1 49.7 52.6 50.4 50.5 3.4 5.5 3.9 2.2 5.6 3.1 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.4 50.8 5.3 4.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2015) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 23 66 31 17 72 31 Maximum Split (%) 19.2% 55.0% 25.8% 14.2% 60.0% 25.8% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 17 40 106 17 34 106 End Time (s) 40 106 17 34 106 17 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 100 11 30 100 11 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 89 0 30 89 0 Local Start Time (s) 97 0 66 97 114 66 Local Yield (s) 116 60 91 110 60 91 Local Yield 170(s) 116 49 80 110 49 80 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 21 10 28 25 11 67 51 588 34 48 281 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 12 33 29 13 79 55 639 37 56 331 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1281 1233 333 1251 1217 658 335 676 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 446 446 768 768 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 835 787 482 448 vCu, unblocked vol 1281 1233 333 1251 1217 658 335 676 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 94 95 84 94 83 95 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 134 188 709 180 201 464 1224 915 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 69 29 92 55 676 56 335 Volume Left 25 29 0 55 0 56 0 Volume Right 33 0 79 0 37 0 5 cSH 236 180 392 1224 1700 915 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.16 0.23 0.05 0.40 0.06 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 14 22 4050 Control Delay (s) 26.5 28.9 17.0 8.1 0.0 9.2 0.0 Lane LOS D D C A A Approach Delay (s) 26.5 19.9 0.6 1.3 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 4 6 17 19 4 41 17 335 8 32 570 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 7 20 22 5 48 20 394 9 38 671 27 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1244 1203 684 1208 1212 399 698 404 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 759 759 439 439 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 485 444 769 773 vCu, unblocked vol 1244 1203 684 1208 1212 399 698 404 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 97 96 88 98 93 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 188 212 449 189 208 651 899 1155 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 32 22 53 20 404 38 698 Volume Left 5 22 0 20 0 38 0 Volume Right 20 0 48 0 9 0 27 cSH 309 189 547 899 1700 1155 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.03 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 10 82030 Control Delay (s) 18.0 26.6 12.3 9.1 0.0 8.2 0.0 Lane LOS C D B A A Approach Delay (s) 18.0 16.5 0.4 0.4 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 APPENDIX D 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.79 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1466 1583 1129 1863 1583 1003 1863 1583 627 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 53 28 34 15 22 160 62 614 25 95 298 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 62 33 40 18 26 188 66 653 27 112 351 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 0 165 008003 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 95 5 18 26 23 66 653 19 112 351 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 89.6 84.3 84.3 93.2 86.1 86.1 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 91.6 86.3 86.3 95.2 88.1 88.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.79 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 193 137 227 193 799 1340 1138 565 1368 1162 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 c0.35 c0.01 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.15 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.49 0.02 0.20 0.26 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 46.4 47.0 46.9 47.0 3.5 7.3 4.8 4.1 5.2 4.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 52.6 46.5 47.5 47.2 47.2 3.6 8.6 4.8 4.3 5.7 4.3 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.8 47.3 8.0 5.3 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2017) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 21 69 30 17 73 30 Maximum Split (%) 17.5% 57.5% 25.0% 14.2% 60.8% 25.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 19 40 109 19 36 109 End Time (s) 40 109 19 36 109 19 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 103 13 32 103 13 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 92 2 32 92 2 Local Start Time (s) 99 0 69 99 116 69 Local Yield (s) 116 63 93 112 63 93 Local Yield 170(s) 116 52 82 112 52 82 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 1583 1377 1863 1583 675 1863 1583 872 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 10 14 23 35 16 155 21 361 11 152 591 60 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 16 27 41 19 182 24 415 13 179 695 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 165 0030016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 2 41 19 17 24 415 10 179 695 55 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 91.0 87.4 87.4 99.1 91.5 91.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 93.0 89.4 89.4 101.1 93.5 93.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 144 125 169 144 556 1388 1179 792 1452 1233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.22 c0.01 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.30 0.01 0.23 0.48 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.7 51.1 50.1 50.1 3.4 5.0 3.9 2.1 4.7 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 51.1 49.7 52.7 50.4 50.5 3.4 5.6 3.9 2.2 5.8 3.1 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.4 50.8 5.4 4.9 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2017) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 23 67 30 16 74 30 Maximum Split (%) 19.2% 55.8% 25.0% 13.3% 61.7% 25.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 17 40 107 17 33 107 End Time (s) 40 107 17 33 107 17 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 101 11 29 101 11 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 90 0 29 90 0 Local Start Time (s) 97 0 67 97 113 67 Local Yield (s) 116 61 91 109 61 91 Local Yield 170(s) 116 50 80 109 50 80 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Bkgrd AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 21 10 28 26 11 70 53 610 35 50 292 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 12 33 31 13 82 58 663 38 59 344 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1331 1280 346 1297 1264 682 349 701 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 464 464 797 797 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 867 816 500 467 vCu, unblocked vol 1331 1280 346 1297 1264 682 349 701 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 93 95 82 93 82 95 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 123 179 697 171 193 450 1209 896 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 69 31 95 58 701 59 349 Volume Left 25 31 0 58 0 59 0 Volume Right 33 0 82 0 38 0 6 cSH 221 171 381 1209 1700 896 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.18 0.25 0.05 0.41 0.07 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 16 24 4050 Control Delay (s) 28.6 30.5 17.6 8.1 0.0 9.3 0.0 Lane LOS D D C A A Approach Delay (s) 28.6 20.7 0.6 1.3 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Bkgrd PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 7 18 20 5 43 18 345 8 34 591 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 8 21 24 6 51 21 406 9 40 695 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1291 1247 709 1254 1256 411 724 415 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 789 789 453 453 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 502 458 801 804 vCu, unblocked vol 1291 1247 709 1254 1256 411 724 415 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 96 95 87 97 92 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 179 204 434 179 200 641 879 1144 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 35 24 56 21 415 40 724 Volume Left 6 24 0 21 0 40 0 Volume Right 21 0 51 0 9 0 28 cSH 289 179 521 879 1700 1144 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.02 0.24 0.03 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 11 92030 Control Delay (s) 19.2 28.2 12.7 9.2 0.0 8.3 0.0 Lane LOS C D B A A Approach Delay (s) 19.2 17.3 0.4 0.4 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 APPENDIX E 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.79 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1468 1583 1144 1863 1583 1018 1863 1583 648 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 51 27 32 15 21 156 60 597 25 93 288 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 32 38 18 25 184 64 635 27 109 339 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 162 007003 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 92 4 18 25 22 64 635 20 109 339 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 90.1 84.8 84.8 93.5 86.5 86.5 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 92.1 86.8 86.8 95.5 88.5 88.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 187 135 220 187 815 1348 1145 581 1374 1167 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 c0.34 c0.01 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.02 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.47 0.02 0.19 0.25 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 49.8 46.8 47.4 47.3 47.3 3.4 7.0 4.7 3.9 5.1 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 52.6 46.8 47.8 47.5 47.6 3.4 8.1 4.7 4.0 5.5 4.2 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.9 47.6 7.6 5.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2015) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 22 67 31 18 71 31 Maximum Split (%) 18.3% 55.8% 25.8% 15.0% 59.2% 25.8% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 18 40 107 18 36 107 End Time (s) 40 107 18 36 107 18 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 101 12 32 101 12 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 90 1 32 90 1 Local Start Time (s) 98 0 67 98 116 67 Local Yield (s) 116 61 92 112 61 92 Local Yield 170(s) 116 50 81 112 50 81 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 1583 1377 1863 1583 693 1863 1583 886 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 10 14 22 34 15 152 21 351 11 148 575 57 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 16 26 40 18 179 24 403 13 174 676 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 0 163 0030015 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 2 40 18 16 24 403 10 174 676 52 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 91.0 87.4 87.4 99.1 91.5 91.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 93.0 89.4 89.4 101.1 93.5 93.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 144 125 169 144 569 1388 1179 803 1452 1233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.22 c0.01 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.17 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.29 0.01 0.22 0.47 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.7 51.1 50.1 50.1 3.3 5.0 3.9 2.0 4.6 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 51.1 49.7 52.6 50.4 50.5 3.4 5.5 3.9 2.2 5.7 3.1 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.4 50.8 5.3 4.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2015) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 23 66 31 17 72 31 Maximum Split (%) 19.2% 55.0% 25.8% 14.2% 60.0% 25.8% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 17 40 106 17 34 106 End Time (s) 40 106 17 34 106 17 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 100 11 30 100 11 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 89 0 30 89 0 Local Start Time (s) 97 0 66 97 114 66 Local Yield (s) 116 60 91 110 60 91 Local Yield 170(s) 116 49 80 110 49 80 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 27 10 32 25 11 67 52 588 34 48 281 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 12 38 29 13 79 57 639 37 56 331 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1285 1236 334 1258 1221 658 338 676 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 447 447 771 771 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 837 789 487 451 vCu, unblocked vol 1285 1236 334 1258 1221 658 338 676 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 76 94 95 83 94 83 95 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 133 187 708 178 200 464 1222 915 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 81 29 92 57 676 56 338 Volume Left 32 29 0 57 0 56 0 Volume Right 38 0 79 0 37 0 7 cSH 229 178 392 1222 1700 915 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.17 0.23 0.05 0.40 0.06 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 14 22 4050 Control Delay (s) 29.1 29.2 17.0 8.1 0.0 9.2 0.0 Lane LOS D D C A A Approach Delay (s) 29.1 20.0 0.6 1.3 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 7 6 19 19 4 41 20 335 8 32 570 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 7 22 22 5 48 24 394 9 38 671 34 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1255 1214 688 1218 1226 399 705 404 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 763 763 446 446 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 492 451 772 780 vCu, unblocked vol 1255 1214 688 1218 1226 399 705 404 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 97 95 88 98 93 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 186 210 446 185 205 651 893 1155 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 38 22 53 24 404 38 705 Volume Left 8 22 0 24 0 38 0 Volume Right 22 0 48 0 9 0 34 cSH 294 185 545 893 1700 1155 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.24 0.03 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 10 82030 Control Delay (s) 19.0 27.1 12.3 9.1 0.0 8.2 0.0 Lane LOS C D B A A Approach Delay (s) 19.0 16.7 0.5 0.4 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 9: County Fair & Site Access HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 59 0 3 66 2 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 69 0 4 78 2 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 69 154 69 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 69 154 69 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1531 835 993 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 69 81 14 Volume Left 0 4 2 Volume Right 0 0 12 cSH 1700 1531 963 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 8.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 8.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 9: County Fair & Site Access HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2015) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 27 2 9 44 1 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 2 11 52 1 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 34 106 33 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 34 106 33 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1577 886 1041 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 34 62 7 Volume Left 0 11 1 Volume Right 2 0 6 cSH 1700 1577 1011 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 8.6 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 8.6 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 APPENDIX F 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.79 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1466 1583 1129 1863 1583 976 1863 1583 615 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 53 28 34 15 22 160 62 625 25 95 317 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 62 33 40 18 26 188 66 665 27 112 373 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 0 165 008003 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 95 5 18 26 23 66 665 19 112 373 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 89.6 84.3 84.3 93.2 86.1 86.1 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 91.6 86.3 86.3 95.2 88.1 88.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.79 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 193 137 227 193 780 1340 1138 556 1368 1162 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 c0.36 c0.01 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.15 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.50 0.02 0.20 0.27 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 46.4 47.0 46.9 47.0 3.5 7.4 4.8 4.2 5.3 4.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 52.6 46.5 47.5 47.2 47.2 3.6 8.7 4.8 4.4 5.8 4.3 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.8 47.3 8.1 5.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2017) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 21 69 30 17 73 30 Maximum Split (%) 17.5% 57.5% 25.0% 14.2% 60.8% 25.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 19 40 109 19 36 109 End Time (s) 40 109 19 36 109 19 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 103 13 32 103 13 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 92 2 32 92 2 Local Start Time (s) 99 0 69 99 116 69 Local Yield (s) 116 63 93 112 63 93 Local Yield 170(s) 116 52 82 112 52 82 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 1583 1377 1863 1583 658 1863 1583 840 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 10 14 23 35 16 155 21 387 11 152 606 60 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 16 27 41 19 182 24 445 13 179 713 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 165 0030016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 2 41 19 17 24 445 10 179 713 55 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 91.0 87.4 87.4 99.1 91.5 91.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 93.0 89.4 89.4 101.1 93.5 93.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 144 125 169 144 543 1388 1179 767 1452 1233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.24 c0.01 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.23 0.49 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.7 51.1 50.1 50.1 3.5 5.1 3.9 2.2 4.7 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 Delay (s) 51.1 49.7 52.7 50.4 50.5 3.5 5.7 3.9 2.3 5.9 3.1 Level of Service DDDDDAAAAAA Approach Delay (s) 50.4 50.8 5.6 5.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Range (2017) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 23 67 30 16 74 30 Maximum Split (%) 19.2% 55.8% 25.0% 13.3% 61.7% 25.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 22 8 22 22 Yellow Time (s) 344344 All-Red Time (s) 122122 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 17 40 107 17 33 107 End Time (s) 40 107 17 33 107 17 Yield/Force Off (s) 36 101 11 29 101 11 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 36 90 0 29 90 0 Local Start Time (s) 97 0 67 97 113 67 Local Yield (s) 116 61 91 109 61 91 Local Yield 170(s) 116 50 80 109 50 80 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 40 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases: 3: Rock Creek & Ziegler 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 32 10 34 26 11 70 61 610 35 50 292 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 12 40 31 13 82 66 663 38 59 344 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1360 1309 358 1322 1304 682 372 701 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 475 475 815 815 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 884 834 507 489 vCu, unblocked vol 1360 1309 358 1322 1304 682 372 701 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 68 93 94 81 93 82 94 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 173 687 164 185 450 1187 896 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 89 31 95 66 701 59 372 Volume Left 38 31 0 66 0 59 0 Volume Right 40 0 82 0 38 0 28 cSH 201 164 377 1187 1700 896 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.19 0.25 0.06 0.41 0.07 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 16 25 4050 Control Delay (s) 36.5 31.8 17.8 8.2 0.0 9.3 0.0 Lane LOS E D C A A Approach Delay (s) 36.5 21.2 0.7 1.3 Approach LOS E C Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 6: County Fair & Ziegler HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 31 7 29 20 5 43 25 345 8 34 591 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 8 34 24 6 51 29 406 9 40 695 46 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1316 1272 718 1283 1291 411 741 415 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 798 798 469 469 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 518 474 814 821 vCu, unblocked vol 1316 1272 718 1283 1291 411 741 415 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 79 96 92 86 97 92 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 174 199 429 166 191 641 866 1144 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 79 24 56 29 415 40 741 Volume Left 36 24 0 29 0 40 0 Volume Right 34 0 51 0 9 0 46 cSH 238 166 515 866 1700 1144 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.24 0.03 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 12 93030 Control Delay (s) 27.4 30.2 12.8 9.3 0.0 8.3 0.0 Lane LOS D D B A A Approach Delay (s) 27.4 18.0 0.6 0.4 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 9: County Fair & HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total AM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 4 59 0 3 69 24 2 0 10 7 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 69 0 4 81 28 2 0 12 8 0 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 109 69 182 195 69 193 181 95 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 109 69 182 195 69 193 181 95 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 99 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1481 1531 775 696 993 754 709 961 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 74 113 14 9 Volume Left 5428 Volume Right 0 28 12 1 cSH 1481 1531 949 775 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0011 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 8.9 9.7 Lane LOS AAAA Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 8.9 9.7 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 9: County Fair & HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range (2017) Total PM 11/27/2012 Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/27/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 30 2 9 47 13 1 0 5 32 0 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 35 2 11 55 15 1 0 6 38 0 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 71 38 132 133 36 131 126 63 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 71 38 132 133 36 131 126 63 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 100 99 95 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1530 1573 828 752 1036 831 758 1002 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 40 81 7 45 Volume Left 2 11 1 38 Volume Right 2 15 6 7 cSH 1530 1573 994 854 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0114 Control Delay (s) 0.4 1.0 8.6 9.4 Lane LOS AAAA Approach Delay (s) 0.4 1.0 8.6 9.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 APPENDIX G Harmony Rock Creek Ziegler Lady Moon Kechter Timberline 2 3 1 4 Fossil Creek HS Bacon ES Saber Cat Preston MS 5 Traut Core 5 SCALE: 1"=2000' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Other Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum B B B C B 1 Actual A D B B A Fossil Creek High School School Proposed A B B B A Minimum C C C C C 2 Actual A D B B A Residential neighborhood to the north and northwest Residential Proposed A B B B A Minimum C C C C C 3 Actual A D B B A Residential neighborhood to the south and southwest Residential Proposed A B B B A Minimum C C C C C 4 Actual A D B B A Residential neighborhood to the south Residential Proposed A B B B A Minimum B B B C B 5 Actual A D B B A Preston Middle School/Traut Core School School Proposed A B B B A Minimum 6 Actual Proposed Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Harmony Rock Creek Lady Moon Kechter Fossil Creek HS Saber Cat SCALE: 1"=1000' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Harvest Park/Ziegler Mixed-Use TIS, November 2012 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service – Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C B B Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification 1 Fossil Creek High School School A A A 2 3 4 ITEM NO ______3___________ MEETING DATE __April 18, 2013____ STAFF __LORSON _____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: MAX Flats (203 W. Mulberry St.), #PDP120034 APPLICANT/OWNER: Brinkman Development, LLC/203 W. Mulberry, LLC 3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to demolish the existing King’s Auto building and construct a 63,900 square foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line, in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and zoned Community Commercial (CC) in which multi- family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting 4 modifications of standards, they are as follows: A) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; B) ability to provide off-site bike parking; C) a reduction for parking lot setback from 5’ to 4’2”; and D) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed PDP has been reviewed by staff and is in compliance with all applicable Land Use Code (LUC) standards with the exception of the proposed modifications of standards for which staff is recommending approval based on the finding that they are nominal and inconsequential (Sec. 2.8.2.). The applicant has worked to enhance visual interest along the pedestrian frontage (Sec. 3.10.4) and provide adequate variation in massing and building materials (Sec. 3.5.3). The proposed development is in line with the principles of infill and redevelopment as outlined for this area in City Plan (LIV 5). Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Downtown (D) Commercial South Community Commercial (CC) Single- and multi-family residential and commercial East Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential and commercial West Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential The property is part of the Fort Collins Original Town Site platted in 1873. 2. Compliance with Applicable Community Commercial (CC) District Standards [Division 4.18] A. Purpose: The purpose of the Community Commercial District is as follows: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district as the project proposes to provide a mix of uses with higher-density residential in a multi-story building above ground-floor retail. B. Permitted Land Uses: [Section 4.18 (B)] The proposed use of Mixed-use dwellings is permitted in this zone district in coordination with Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain more Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 3 than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms the project is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). D. Development Standards: [Section 4.18 (E)] (1) Site Planning. (a) Building Orientation. The configuration of shops in the Community Commercial District shall orient primary ground-floor commercial building entrances to pedestrian-oriented streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary entrances from off-street parking lots; however, on-street entrances are strongly encouraged. The lot size and layout pattern for individual blocks within the Community Commercial District shall support this requirement. The commercial element of the proposed development has its primary entrance facing onto the plaza that is on the corner of Mulberry Street and Mason Street, both have detached public sidewalks. The primary entrance for the residential element faces onto the Mason Street sidewalk. (b) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1) prominent or central location within each geographically distinct Community Commercial District shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities may be placed on blocks with community facilities. A plaza is provided at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Mason Street. The plaza is bounded by masonry seat walls and has sandstone seat blocks and will provide tables and chairs. (c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Community Commercial Districts shall be considered primary stops on the regional transit network. Transit stops, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core commercial area. Commercial uses must be directly visible and accessible from the transit stop. Transfers to feeder buses shall be provided for in the design and location of these stops. (See also Section 3.6.5, Transit Facilities Standards.) The forthcoming bus rapid transit line, the Max, has the Mulberry Station stop directly abutting this site. The building design has the station between the Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 4 commercial element and the residential entrance. The station shelter will be almost directly against the face of the building and pedestrian traffic will travel in front of the station shelter. (2)(d) Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof with different co-dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All buildings shall be limited to five (5) stories. The building is proposed to be 5 stories in height. The site is in the City Floodplain (not F.E.M.A.) so the project has provided parking for the majority of the base level to lift the residential component out of the floodplain. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards – Article 3 A. Site Planning and Design Standards [Division 3.2] 3.2.1(D)(2) Street Trees: The proposed development is providing street trees at 30 to 40 foot intervals with the exception of the area with the Max station and on Mulberry Street near the corner to maintain the required sight distance. 3.2.2(K)(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements: (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 5 Four and above 2.5 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking requirements. The project proposes 64 parking spaces to serve 64 dwelling units with 100 bedrooms. The proposed development is in the TOD Overlay Zone and therefore is not required to provide the minimum amount of parking spaces as noted in the table above. If the project were outside of the TOD Overlay Zone, it would be required to provide 105 parking spaces. B. Building Standards [Division 3.5] 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility Architectural Character, Building Size, Mass and Scale, Building Materials, Building Color, and Building Height Review [Section 3.5.1 (B), (C), (E), and (F)] The area in which this project is proposed has an eclectic mix of building styles – in form, scale, character, and material – and uses. For example, the adjacent corners of the Mulberry and Mason intersection have the following buildings: gas station (Schrader, gas canopy and convenience store, NW corner), sporting goods retail (Sports Authority, former grocery store, NE corner), church (First Presbyterian, large scale with large parking lot, SE corner). There is not a common character established in the area and is recognized in City Plan as a targeted infill and redevelopment area. The proposed building is attempting to set an enhanced standard of quality by creating a gathering plaza, providing masonry materials on the base level, and articulating the massing with balconies to further engage the residents with the public realm. The building is sited directly on the east property line to frame the street and to move its building mass away from the two-story multi-family buildings to the west. Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 6 Shadowing [3.2.3 & 3.5.1(G)] The five-story building shadow analysis has shown that the majority of the shading of neighbors will be in the morning hours for the property to the west. According to the shadow analysis, the proposed building does not cast a shadow over the rooftops of the property to the west and therefore would not “preclude the functional use of solar energy technology” (assuming the solar panels were placed on the roof). 3.5.2 Mixed-Use, Institutional, and Commercial Buildings Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways, and Parking. [Section 3.5.2 (B)] The main entrances of the building face onto the public sidewalk on Mason Street, directly adjoining to the Max Station, and the retail space opens onto a public plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building is sited well within the required 15 foot build-to line leaving just enough space for bike racks and green screen landscaping elements between the building and the sidewalk. Variation in Massing. [Section 3.5.2 (C)] The proposed building provides both vertical and horizontal variation throughout the building. Additional building articulation is provided with the protruding balconies on the east side. Character and Image. [Section 3.5.2 (D)] The proposed building creates a recognizable base with masonry material – a mix between brick at entrances and ground-face CMU – windows that open to the parking at the base level are covered with wood slats and green screen landscaping. The base includes a 1,466 s.f. commercial element, a Max Station (Mulberry Station), a public plaza, and many bike parking spaces. The top element is treated with a color change in the stucco and a cornice. 4 Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone [Division 3.10] A. Parking Structure Design [Section 3.10.4(D) The only applicable section of the Development Standards for TOD Overlay Zone for properties north of Prospect Road is the section regarding parking structure design. Specifically it requires that “where parking structures face streets, retail and other uses shall be required along at least fifty (50) percent of the ground level frontage to minimize interruption in the pedestrian interest and activity.” The applicant is proposing to meet this standard by providing a commercial element, residential entrances, and bicycle parking totaling 52% of the ground level frontage. Additionally, the Max Station (Mulberry Station) will be Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 7 integrated into the ground level frontage, effectively precluding any other use in the area and enhancing pedestrian interest and activity. 5. Modification of Standards [Division 2.8] A. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring six percent landscaping of interior spaces in parking lots and no greater than a 15 space parking bay without a landscape island. The project proposes 2.7% (224 s.f.) landscaping of interior parking spaces instead of the required 6% (505 s.f.). The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The development site is particularly constrained being only 100’ wide and thus has hardly enough room for drive aisles. The project is proposing 64 parking spaces (one per unit) in the TOD Overlay Zone, which there is not a minimum parking requirement. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Additionally, the parking lot is well screened by the building and the 6’ privacy fence along the south and west property lines. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. B. Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring bike parking spaces be provided on site in the amount of one space per bedroom (60% enclosed; 40% fixed) and 4 spaces for the retail element (20% enclosed; 80 % fixed). The project proposes 65 enclosed spaces (61 required) and 31 fixed spaces (43 required) on site. The project proposes to partially compensate for the 12 spaces by providing 10 spaces in the Mason Street ROW (requiring a revocable ROW permit). Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 8 The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. If the spaces proposed in the ROW were counted toward the total required spaces, then the project would be two fixed spaces short but are providing four additional enclosed spaces, therefore the project would have an overall net of +2 spaces beyond the requirement: 65 enclosed + 31 fixed + 10 ROW = 106 spaces (104 required). Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. C. Parking Lot Setback [3.2.2(J)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring a 5 foot setback for vehicular use areas along lot lines. The project proposes an average of 4.15 foot setback along the west property line. The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and that the project will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project site is particularly constrained by its narrow width of 100 feet and is requesting 3 modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. The project is providing a 6 foot high privacy fence along the west property line and also providing 3 trees and many shrubs to soften the transition between the parking lot and the property to the west. Additional trees were not provided due to a sizeable utility easement. The project is consistent with community needs described in City Plan such as Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas (EH 4.1), Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment (EH 4.2) and Maximize Land for Residential Development (LIV 7.4). Without the granting of this modification the project would be practically infeasible because there would not be enough space for the parking lot drive aisles. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 9 D. Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)] The applicant is requesting a modification of standard to the requirement that compact parking stalls make up a maximum of 40% of the parking spaces provided. The project proposes 58% compact parking stalls. The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The applicant is attempting to provide one parking space per dwelling unit with the existing site constraints. By reducing the size of an additional 12 parking spaces to the permitted compact vehicle size, the project is able to achieve this objective. This proposed reduction in parking stall size will not negatively affect the public because they are private parking spaces to be managed by the developer. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. 6. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has granted the Max Flats project a grant to assist in public improvements in the ROW. The DDA has reviewed the project in entirety and has decided that the project meets their standard for desirable development in the Downtown area. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in interior parking lot landscaping (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)&(5)(e) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because the parking is already screened from public view by the building and the fence. B. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the required number of on- site fixed bicycle parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(C)(4) is not detrimental to the public Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 10 good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. This is because the proposal is still providing adequate bicycle parking when including the public ROW. C. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the parking lot setback (Sec. 3.2.2(J) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and that the project will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. This is because the lot is of a peculiar shape, exceptionally narrow, and requires the reduction to allow for drive aisles. The project is 10 inches short of the standard and is providing screening in the form of a 6’ fence and landscaping where feasible. Also, it allows for additional parking to be provided on a targeted infill and redevelopment site as identified in City Plan. D. The request for a modification of standard to permit an increased percentage of compact parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(L)(2) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because the modification will not burden the public. This is because the parking is internal to the site, will be controlled by the owners and will not be open to the public. E. The PDP contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Community Commercial District in accordance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code. F. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of standards. G. The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034 Max Flats, PDP #130034 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 11 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – PDP Plan Set 2 – Modification Requests 3 – Applicant Narrative 4 – Public Comments PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 3/15/2013 9:04:35 AM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET PDP 1 MAX FLATS EI VICINITY MAP TRUE NORTH PROJECT SITE Sheet Number Sheet Name PDP 1 COVER SHEET PDP 2 SITE SURVEY/EXISTING CONDITIONS PDP 3 SITE PLAN PDP 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS PDP 5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS PDP 6 LANDSCAPE PLAN PDP 7 SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 7 & DECEMBER 22 PDP 8 SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - FEBRUARY 7 PDP 9 VIEW ANALYSIS PDP 10 VIEWS FROM OFF-SITE PDP 11 PHOTOMETRICS PLAN PDP 12 PHOTOMETRIC DETAILS SHEET INDEX OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS_______DAY OF _________________________, 20______. ______________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. ______________________________________________________ _________________________ UP UP W/D REF DW WH W/D WH REF DW MASON STREET W. MULBERRY STREET CENTERLINE R.O.W. 1,439 SF RETAIL MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT ( BRT ) MULBERRY STATION 6'-0" HIGH FENCE 6'-0" HIGH FENCE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE VAN LOBBY PLAZA STAIR 2 STAIR 1 ELEV BIKE PARKING (10) MAIL ONE-WAY 141 SF WATER ENTRY & FIRE PUMP RM STOR TYP 8' - 0" 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" NOTE: 1 BIKE RACK TO BE PROVIDED IN EACH DWELLING UNIT (64 TOTAL) 310' SIGHT LINES (FOR 30 MPH) 10'-0" BUILDING FACE ON PROPERTY LINE 19' - 0" LOW WALLS ELECT METERS TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED R.O.W. LINE TO BLDG ABOVE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" 7.3 4.1 STUCCO COLOR #1 8.2 7.1 5.9 8.1 4.3 5.8 5.7 6.6 4.2 8.1 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 7.2 7.1 5.1 CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 15.1 15.2 7.4 5 PDP 5 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 7.4 7.1 4.1 8.2 10.2 7.2 4.3 7.1 7.3 5.8 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" 8.2 7.1 STUCCO COLOR #1 7.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 (BEYOND) STUCCO COLOR #2 (BEYOND) 7.3 8.2 5.8 7.4 4.3 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 15.1 15.2 16.1 7.3 5 PDP 5 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" 8.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 3.5 4.3 15.2 8.2 7.3 STUCCO COLOR #1 5.8 7.1 7.3 4.1 7.1 MASON STREET W. MULBERRY STREET 550' - 0" 550' - 0" 550' - 0" 550' - 0" VIEW #2 VIEW #4 VIEW #3 VIEW #1 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 3/15/2013 9:11:14 AM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt 1" = 200'-0" MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 Author Checker 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL VIEWS FROM OFF-SITE PDP 10 MAX FLATS Approver 1 PDP 1" = 200'-0" VIEW KEYPLAN 3 PDP VIEW 2 2 PDP VIEW 1 4 PDP VIEW 3 5 PDP VIEW 4 FND #4 REBAR NO CAP FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP (ILLEGIBLE) MULBERRY STREET (100' ROW) (PER PLAT OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS) MASON STREET (100' ROW) (PER HARRISON'S ADDITION AND PLAT OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS) 20' ALLEY LOT 4, BLOCK 105 HARRISON'S ADDITION FND NAIL & SHINER LS 14823 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE FND #4 REBAR w/1" PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 FND #4 REBAR w/1" PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 FND #4 REBAR w/1" PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 FND #4 REBAR w/1" PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 EAST 100' (R) S89�38'39"E 100.00' (M) S00�15'02"W 189.82' (M) SOUTH 190' (R) S00�15'02"W 20.00' (M) SOUTH 20' (R) S00�18'49"W 95.04' (M) SOUTH 95' (R) NORTH 95' (R) N00�17'34"E 95.09' (M) N00�02'05"E 20.00' (M) NORTH 20' (R) NORTH 190' (R) N00�17'50"E 189.66' (M) LOT 2, BLOCK 105 HARRISON'S ADDITION 7.5' ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 750 sq. ft. 0.017 ac. S00�16'43"W 176.68' S89�41'38"E 29.14' S00�16'43"W 74.83' PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 4/2/2013 4:37:52 PM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt 1" = 30'-0" MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 7 & DECEMBER 22 PDP 7 MAX FLATS EI 1 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 7 10AM 2 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 7 12PM 3 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 7 2PM 4 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - DECEMBER 22 10AM 5 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - DECEMBER 22 12PM 6 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - DECEMBER 22 2PM 2/19/2013 4/2/2013 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 4/2/2013 4:38:39 PM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt 1" = 30'-0" MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - FEBRUARY 7 PDP 8 MAX FLATS EI 1 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - FEBRUARY 7 10AM 2 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - FEBRUARY 7 12PM 3 SITE 1" = 30'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS - FEBRUARY 7 2PM 2/19/2013 4/2/2013 April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Landscaping and Tree Protection, Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5) states the following: “(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2(M)(1) Access, Circulation and Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas.” Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the project does not meet the 6% parking lot interior landscaping requirement. MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 224 sq. ft. of landscape instead of 505 sq. ft. feet. Parking lot area: 8,415 sq. ft. 6% required landscape: 505 sq. ft. Provided landscape: 224 sq. ft. Amount deficient: 281 sq. ft. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) states the following: “(e) Parking bays shall extend no more than fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula.”. Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. The project has 16 parking spaces located along the west edge of the parking lot. As stated above, the Code requires a landscape island every 15 spaces. The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 parking stalls per bedroom and we feel it is important to keep the parking ratios as is. Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 16 parking spaces in a row without a landscape island. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to provide trees that maximize areas of shade. We believe this requirement is intended for large parking areas and this parking lot is fairly small. The landscape plan shows oak trees spaced every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that these trees will provide sufficient shade for the parking area. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations 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 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 7 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) Bicycle Facilities states the following: “(b) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed.” Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Multi-Family Residential 1 per bedroom 60%/40% Requested Modification: MAX Flats PDP will have 100 bedrooms, therefore 100 bike parking spaces are required. Of the 100, 60 spaces are required to be enclosed and 40 spaces are to be in fixed racks. The project provides 64 enclosed spaces located within the units. 21 spaces are located in fixed racks along Mason Street and 7 spaces on the west side of the building. In addition, there will be 10 spaces in racks located within the right-of-way on Mason Street, totaling 38 fixed spaces. 4 bike parking spaces for the retail area are located on the west side of the building. 1 is enclosed in a bike locker and 3 are in fixed racks. Retail Bike Parking Required: 4 spaces Retail Bike Parking Provided: 1 enclosed (80%) 3 fixed racks (20%) Total 4 Residential Bike Parking Required: 100 bedrooms = 100 spaces (60% enclosed/40% fixed) Residential Bike Parking Provided: 64 enclosed (64%) 38 fixed racks (38%) Total 102 Since 10 of the fixed rack spaces are in the Mason Street right-of-way, we are requesting a Modification to allow the project to be able to count the spaces towards the total requirement. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking and bicycling as alternative means of transportation • The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on the east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right- of-way that will be used adjacent to he transit stop. Further, the Mason Street right-of-way is in its ultimate location, thus the risk of removing the bike racks in the future is minimal. MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations 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 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to section 3.2.2(J) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the following table: Minimum average of entire landscaped setback area (feet) Minimum width of setback at any point (feet) Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a nonarterial street 10 5 Along a lot line 5 5 MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the landscape area along the west property line ranges from 3.6’ to 4.7’ wide, with an everage of 4.15 feet. Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have an average setback of 4.15 feet instead of 5 feet along the west property line. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for visual screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The width of the landscape area in the proposed alternative plan is short, on average, by 8/10ths of a foot. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations 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 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(L)(2) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.2(L)(2) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(L)(2) Parking Stall Dimensions statess the following: “(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Off-street parking areas for automobiles shall meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles: (2) Compact Vehicle Spaces in Long-term Parking Lots. Those areas of a parking lot that are approved as long-term parking have the option to include compact parking stalls. Such approved long-term parking areas may have up to forty (40) percent compact car stalls using the compact vehicle dimensions set forth in Table B.” MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. The following parking spaces are provided: Standard Parking Stalls = 27 (42.2%) Compact Parking Stalls = 37 (57.8%) Total 64 (100.0%) The Code requires 64 spaces x 40% = 25 compact spaces maximum Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to exceed the maximum number of compact spaces by 12 spaces. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which provides consistency with the Land Use Code in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • While not required in the TOD, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 spaces per bedroom. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations 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 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM ® ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN 12.12.2012 Page 1 of 2 g:\development\projects\203 w. mulberry\3. entitlement\pdp\planning objectives docx Statement of Planning Objectives MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry PDP Submittal (i) The proposed project supports Plan Fort Collins’ principles and policies in the following ways: - Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of the community. - Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy- efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing for students on bus routes close to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus, Old Town, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use. - Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and redevelopment. - High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory way. - Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC. (ii) Usable open space consists primarily of the community plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. Use of seating provided for customers, transit users, and residents will be encouraged by its proximity to the proposed Retail/Flex space and Max BRT stop. There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of the site. There are two existing Honeylocust trees on the site that will have to be removed and mitigated. The team has met with the City Forester to assess the existing trees and landscaping. All of the existing street trees will remain undisturbed. New landscaping will consist of low-water shrubs, ornamental grasses and groundcover as required by code. (iii) The proposed project site is currently owned by Jerry King and is in the process of transferring ownership to 203W. Mulberry, LLC. The site is set to close on December 18, 2012. Once ownership has transferred to 203 W. Mulberry, LLC, they will assume maintenance of the site. (iv) A retail space of about 1,500 s.f. is proposed at first floor along Mulberry. This is envisioned to be a coffee shop or similar business, which would have 1-3 employees at any given time and could employ between 3 and 5 FTEs (full- time equivalents). (v) The L-shaped building is oriented to provide a strong urban edge along Mason and Mulberry Streets and to provide the maximum buffer to the existing apartments to the west. The ground level facade will intertwine residential entries, bicycle parking, outdoor plazas and commercial uses to create a dynamic urban street. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street-level experience. The building facades are scaled to be compatible with the surrounding context. This also allows the parking to be tucked under the building and mostly hidden from the street. Pedestrians will circulate primarily along the perimeter street edges. Bicycle parking is conveniently located adjacent to the building along both streets helping create street activity. Secure bicycle parking is provided within the individual residential units. An outdoor plaza at the prominent northeast corner takes advantage of proximity to the future Max BRT station and the retail/flex spacing and provides numerous seating options (table and chairs, seatwall, and seating boulders) for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors. BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM ® ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN 12.12.2012 Page 2 of 2 (vi) Please see the attached Variance Request letter for information relating to variances that are being requested on this project. (vii) There are no natural features or wildlife conflicts. Impacts and conflicts with adjacent properties are mitigating by providing a fence along the south and west boundaries. The building has been configured and sited to provide the maximum separation to the apartments to the west. (viii) A Neighborhood Meeting has not occurred for this project. (ix) The current project name is MAX Flats. It went by “203 W. Mulberry” at the time of Preliminary Design Review. Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan City Plan / Plan Fort Collins o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor. o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas. o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and infill in targeted redevelopment areas.  “Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity.” o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments. o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit stops. o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system.  35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however limit maximum building height to five to six stories.” o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns  “Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.” Land Use Code o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District  Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi- story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings  Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority while also accommodating vehicular movement. o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone  Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. Refill Fort Collins o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights Incentive. o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north(Schrader’s) and northeast(Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height. The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing. Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor. The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are proposing. The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at station areas. Map Showing Zone District Overlay: Map Showing TOD Overlay: March 23, 2013 Mr. Seth Lorson City Planner City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado VIA-Email Dr. Mr. Lorson: I’m writing to express my full support of the new mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and ground level retail at 203 West Mulberry Street. The corner is well- suited for the proposed project, and it’s my hope the condemned house immediately to the south of King’s Auto is included in this project. Shame on City officials for allowing that eyesore to exist. Respectfully, Mike Flesher 210 W. Magnolia Street, Unit 250 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.222.3320 March 23, 2013 Dear Kelly, We are not sure anyone really knows about a large scale, five-story high-density, student-oriented housing project being proposed in your district on the old Kings Auto site on the corner of Mason and Mulberry Streets. We learned about the project because we own the property directly to the west and saw the posted development proposal sign. We reviewed the preliminary drawings for the project with city planner Seth Lorson initially around the first part of January. The scale of the project is massive and we believe poorly designed and conceived. To give some background, we met with the developer and owner upon their invitation on January 22nd. At that meeting we expressed concern about the various aspects of the proposal not meeting the minimum planning standards set forth by the City of Fort Collins. We kept in contact with Seth and he said that the next phase of the project would be ready to review sometime in mid-March. Thursday of this week we just received a letter stating that the public administrative hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2013, exactly two weeks and one day, (minimum notice required), to affected property owners. We met with Seth yesterday, Friday, hoping to see some new improved plans but it actually looked worse, not better. Seth mentioned that only one woman had called and asked about parking issues other than our continued interest. We do not believe that this is a type I review, not required to have a neighborhood meeting or to go before the Planning and Zoning Board. We suspect that people are just now learning of the project at all. This is an extremely important precedent setting project. It is the first large scale, 5-full story, block- form, high density student-oriented complex proposed along the new Mason Street Corridor north of Laurel Street. The major portion of the site at grade level is dedicated to a parking lot with large flat walls or screens fronting the primary 240-plus long axis fronting Mason Street. The proposed 1,200 square foot coffee shop, representing a little over 2% of the total 63,900 finished square footage allows it to be called “Mixed Use”. The total units number 64 with 100 bedrooms. The neighbors and the community will have little time to review this project until it is presented for approval by the hearing officer. The project is one of extreme precedent setting nature within the community, the new Mason Street Corridor and District 5. So much so, as the developer has chosen to take the name of the most significant major urban project the City of Fort Collins has likely taken on, “MAX Flats”. We believe that this project is required go to the Planning and Zoning Board for review based upon the number of units and bedrooms. The full twelve step review process is clearly required based upon the published regulations set forth in the Land Use Code under Community Commercial Zoning in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you, Kelly, for your interest. We know you were very involved in the Mason Street Corridor and this is something we doubt you envisioned. We feel it would be detrimental to allow such a project with unquestionable impact to simply slip through with little review or concern. Sincerely, Bruce Froseth Susan Kreul-Froseth cell (970-689-9322) 1 Seth Lorson From: Mark Littau <mlittau1@cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:43 PM To: Seth Lorson Subject: Max Flats, 203 W. Mulberry St. Dear Mr. Lorson: I am a part year resident of Park Lane Towers. I am unable to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the subject property, but I would like to comment if possible by email. I have the following comments or questions: 1. What is the benefit to the neighborhood to allow less landscaping and offsite bicycle parking? It seems to me that only the project benefits in allowing a higher project density. Is the project name a co-incidence? 2. It seems to me that such a dense project immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks is an invitation for a student ghetto unless extraordinary sound isolation measures are taken with the project construction to insure a livable environment for it's residents. thanks for the opportunity to voice my comments, Mark Littau 421 S. Howes #1008 Ft. Collins, Co. 1 Seth Lorson From: Don Genson <dgenson@firstpresfc.org> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:12 AM To: Seth Lorson Subject: Comments on Mixed Use Building Project Seth: Thank you for the opportunity for providing these comments via email. A representative of the church was planning to attend the April 3rd meeting but found the building locked. I trust these comments are still able to be added to the record. First, let me say thank you for the opportunity as an affected party to make comments about the new mixed‐use building project at 203 West Mulberry. As business administrator at First Presbyterian Church at 531 S. College Avenue I am aware of the additional burden this new construction is likely to place on our operation and how the request for modification of standards will increase that burden. Part of our physical plant is a parking lot for more than 200 vehicles running along Mason Street between Myrtle and Mulberry. Residents in existing apartment buildings, including 3 in the 100 block of the south side of West Mulberry, and buildings at 109 and 113 West Myrtle, already illegally use our parking lot on a regular basis because of too few parking spots provided for their use. It is obvious if the new building were built to current standards adding only 64 parking spots for 64 dwelling units parking is already inadequate and will increase the illegal parking at our facility. However, then to allow 4 modifications to reduce the effectiveness of existing parking spot standards would be unconscionable. Please take these comments as from a neighbor who would like to be supportive but not trampled upon. Sincerely, Donald W. Genson Business Administrator FPC, Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80521 APPLICANT: Brinkman Partners, LLC on behalf of 203 W. Mulberry, LLC 3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Presented To: MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry Table of Contents Project Narrative ……………………………………………………………………………..……………….. Page 1-3 Existing Site Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 4 Adjacent Properties …………………………………………………….……………………………………. Page 5-6 Nearby Properties …………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 7 Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 8-14 Mason Corridor ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 15-16 Refill Fort Collins ………………………………………..…………………………………………………….. Page 17-19 Project Compatibility & Streetscape ………………………………..……………………………….. Page 20-28 Infill Development/Site Constraints …………….……………………………………………………. Page 29-33 Neighbor Concerns …………………………………………….…………………………………………….. Page 34-35 1 MAX FLATS Brinkman Partners, LLC is proud to introduce MAX Flats. MAX Flats is an exciting mixed-use project located along the new and improved Mason Street Corridor and will feature the MAX Transit Mulberry Station at its Mason frontage. The site is within walking distance of CSU as well as Old Town Fort Collins and all that it offers including restaurants, theaters, museums, parks, bike trails and retail shopping. Existing Conditions The MAX Flats project is located at the southwest corner of Mason and Mulberry. The site is approximately 30,500 SF and is bounded to the north by Mulberry Street and to the east by Mason Street. Adjacent properties are comprised of multi-family rental, single family rental, commercial rental and a blighted property to the south that is currently condemned. The attached images provide further context to the overall density and make-up of the entire block. As you will see, the predominant use of this block is rental housing in a variety of products types. The site is located at the heart of the Transit Overlay District and is directly on the Mason Corridor. This area has been identified in both City Plan and Refill Fort Collins as a priority target area for infill and redevelopment. The project will ultimately share ROW with the newly constructed southbound Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT. Significant time and energy has been invested in designing a fully integrated TOD project that embraces the ideals of providing a high density, pedestrian oriented mixed- use project. Those same goals are shared in the vision as it is set forth in City Plan. A compilation of excerpts from City Plan is also attached for reference. The existing building on the site is currently vacant. It was constructed in 1969 as an automotive service facility and was occupied by University Motors from 1969 through the late 1980’s, and then by King’s Auto from the early 1990’s through 2010. The project has been through the new DDA review process and was unanimously approved for funding associated with infrastructure improvements in the city right of way. Project Description The proposed project is located at 203 W. Mulberry which is nicely situated between Old Town Fort Collins and the CSU campus. This project will integrate with the new MAX Transit Mulberry Station, which is on the northeast corner of the site. The proposed project consists of a single 5-story, 63,530 square foot, L shaped building that is positioned in a way to maximize the utilization of the site, enhance the urban fabric of the Mason Corridor. The upper 4 floors will be comprised of for-rent multi-family units geared to both professionals and students. They will consist of 32 one bedroom, 28 two bedroom and 4 three bedroom units for a total of 64 units or 100 bedrooms. The ground floor is designed to accommodate a 1,500 SF retail use that will serve as an amenity for both the tenants and the surrounding community. It will boast an attractive plaza and seating area at the corner of Mason and Mulberry that will promote both tenant and pedestrian interaction and promises to be a focal point of the neighborhood. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street- 2 level experience. The site will also boast an enhanced streetscape with new trees and landscaping, hardscape pavers and seating. 64 private parking spaces will be provided on site, mostly concealed from the street by the building, to serve the tenants and retail patrons along with ample bicycle parking. The building façade and streetscape has been designed in a way that focuses on the pedestrian experience and minimizes the impacts of the tuck under parking structure. An outdoor plaza is located at the prominent northeast corner adjacent to the MAX Transit Station and ground floor retail space so it can provide an interactive gathering area for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors. Significant care has been taken to integrate the MAX Transit Station and the plaza so that it is enhances the overall experience. We feel that the MAX Mulberry Station will become a destination stop along the Mason Corridor which will ultimately help to fuel the redevelopment of adjacent sites. The site plan evolved from numerous conversations with the design team, city staff, and the DDA staff. The consensus that came from those meetings was that this project needed to serve as a connection, not only geographically between Old Town and CSU, but also a connection with the MAX Transit Station and the local community. In order to achieve this goal, the design team focused a significant amount of effort in creating a streetscape, façade and plaza that will be inviting to the inhabitants of the building and the overall community. Desirability in Market / Benefit to Economy, Downtown, Public MAX Flats target market is the Old Town employee that wants to be within walking distance to their employer, but would rather rent than buy or a CSU student that wants to be within walking distance to both campus and the amenities Old Town has to offer. With the local economic landscape continually increasing the business traffic downtown, there is a growing population of professionals and students seeking this type of housing. Employers like OtterBox, who have located their headquarters in Old Town and expect to continue to add employees, will need and prefer urban, quality housing that is nearby. Students that want to be both close to campus and the urban lifestyle Old Town has to offer will desire the modern appeal of this property. Community Commercial Districts encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Vertical mixed- use is encouraged up to 6 stories. More broadly, higher residential density in the Old Town area will continue to drive demand for existing recreational amenities and retail services; this, in turn, will facilitate the further growth of the commercial components that make up the heart of the Old Town area. Residential occupancy in the downtown area will also promote the walkability of the City, as these residents are able to access the downtown amenities via foot or bicycle, rather than require the use of an automobile. With the new addition of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system, this will also open up the opportunity for residents in this location to easily travel the Mason Corridor without the use of an automobile. 3 Redevelopment and infill is encouraged in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas such as this location. It is encouraged to concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. This site is also located in the Growth Management Area which encourages a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-serviced by public transportation. MAX Flats supports City Plan principles and policies in the following ways: • Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of the community. • Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy-efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing for students on bus routes close to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus, Old Town, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use. • Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and redevelopment. • High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory way. • Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC. 4 Existing Site Conditions The existing site is located at the southwest corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building has sat vacant since the previous tenant, King’s Auto, closed in 2010 and has fallen into disrepair. The site is directly behind the new MAX Transit Mulberry Station and as such, it will be a focal point along the Mason Street Corridor. Adjacent Properties 209 W. Mulberry Street – Multi-family for-rent units directly west of existing site. 5 Adjacent Properties 212 W. Myrtle – West of existing site. 202 W. Myrtle – Condemned property directly south of existing site 206 W. Myrtle – Directly south of existing site. 208 W. Myrtle – Directly southwest of existing site. 6 3 415 S. Howes St. 224 Canyon Ave. Nearby Properties 212 W. Mulberry St. 625 S. Mason St. 203 W. Myrtle St. 531 S. College Ave. 429 S. Mason St. 425 S. College Ave. 415 S. Mason St. 7 8 Executive Summary Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan • City Plan / Plan Fort Collins o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor. o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas. o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and infill in targeted redevelopment areas.  “Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity.” o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments. o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit stops. o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system.  35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however limit maximum building height to five to six stories.” o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns  “Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.” • Land Use Code o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District  Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi- story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings 9  Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority while also accommodating vehicular movement. o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone  Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. • Refill Fort Collins o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights Incentive. o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north (Schrader’s) and northeast (Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height. 10 The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing. Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor. 11 The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are proposing. The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at station areas. 12 13 14 Map Showing Zone District Overlay: Map Showing TOD Overlay: 15 Mason Corridor The Mason Corridor is a five-mile, north-south byway within the City of Fort Collins which extends from Cherry Street on the north to south of Harmony Road. The corridor is centered along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway property, located a few hundred feet west of College Avenue (US 287). The Mason Corridor and MAX Bus Rapid Transit provide the framework for future economic development and serve as the foundation to encourage community partnerships, private investment, active living, and attractive, urban lifestyles. The Mason Corridor is a fundamental connection between the City, Colorado State University, and local business and neighborhoods. Nearly 60 percent of all Fort Collins jobs are located within one-mile of the Corridor. In addition, public investment in the Mason Corridor will encourage private economic development along its length. New zoning changes will promote high density, mixed-use development around the stations. The transportation corridor also has the potential to generate transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities through the redevelopment of underutilized land along the corridor. TOD concentrates jobs, housing, and daily conveniences around transit stations. The theory behind TOD is that by locating walkable, higher-density, mixed-use areas around transit connections, this reduces the need to drive for daily convenience errands and commuting, which reduces the number of automobile trips on area roadways. TOD can also create attractive vibrant urban spaces and activity centers. Summary of Findings from Mason Corridor Economic Analysis: 1. The Mason Corridor will capture an estimated 18 percent of the forecasted higher density housing demand between 2006 and 2031, subject to land availability. 2. The Mason Street project provides additional accessibility to the downtown area and enhances the appeal of the area for residential development. 3. The Downtown residential market is expected to grow modestly over the next 15 years building on the success of early higher density developments. 4. The Colorado State University segment of the Mason Corridor is expected to provide TOD opportunities on both university and private land holdings and act as a catalyst for future redevelopment along the corridor. 5. Development in the southern segment of the corridor is expected to concentrate on key redevelopment parcels at the Drake Road Station and South Transit Center. 6. The City’s potential investment of $4 to $5 million as local match funds could leverage $58 million in Federal transit funding, as well as generate an estimated $6.1 million in property tax revenue and $14.4 million in sales tax revenue over the next 25 years. Additionally, the project construction is estimated to generate $108.3 million in one-time benefit. 7. The Mason Corridor is expected to provide a positive climate for TOD, which creates a clear nexus between the transit improvements and enhanced development opportunities and higher land values on surrounding sales. This nexus provides a basis to implement a corridor specific financing mechanism, such as a GID, to fund a portion of the transit improvements. However, the City as a whole also benefits from the new improvements and, therefore, should share in a portion of the cost. THE Connections The Mason Corridor and MAX will provide both community and regional connections. MAX will link Downtown Fort Collins, Colorado State University (Main Campus, Veterinary Teaching Hospital and Natural Resources Research Center), South College Retail, Foothills Mall, Park & Rides, as well as connect to east/west transit options and trail systems. MAX will also provide much needed regional connections to the North Front Range and the Denver Metro Area. The Mason Corridor connects to the existing Foxtrot transit service from Fort Collins to Loveland as well as coincides with the North I-25 Environmental Study, which examines long term potential regional connections using Bus Rapid Transit along the busy I-25 corridor, or Commuter Rail on the Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad corridor. 17 Refill Fort Collins CITY REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES Redevelopment is change, and change raises unique issues. Redevelopment involves extraordinary costs and difficulties which the private market alone cannot always reasonably be expected to absorb. Seventy- five percent (75%) of the citizens responding to a survey conducted during the recent update of City Plan in 2004 agreed the City should provide incentives that encourage redevelopment of under-utilized areas within the existing city limits. Ultimately, any City participation must be tailored to specific public purposes and unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The City Plan support for redevelopment is best summarized in the following Principle: Principle GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in targeted areas where general agreement exists that these activities are beneficial within the Community Growth Management Area boundary. The key to this principle is the promotion of well-planned redevelopment in targeted areas ideas. The intent is to avoid whole scale disruption of viable neighborhood and non-residential districts, and to focus public efforts on strategic locations where change can have greater impact. Policies GM-8.1, GM-8.2, CCD-1.3, ED-1.7, and TC-4.5 in City Plan describe the kinds of areas in which redevelopment should occur: • Community Commercial Districts, specifically Campus West, North College, Foothills Mall area, and Downtown. • Areas where it is generally agreed that redevelopment would be beneficial, i.e. areas targeted for redevelopment according to adopted subarea plans. • Areas where there is potential for efficient transportation access between jobs, housing, and services, for example, along enhanced travel corridors (e.g., College Avenue and Mason Street). • Areas of outdated development originally built at the fringe of the City that has become more central as the city has grown around them. Mixed-Use Redevelopment Site MULBERRY BUS RAPID TRANSIT STATION AREA NWC OF MULBERRY ST AND COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Josh Birks Economic Advisor 970-221-6324 jbirks@fcgov.com fcgov.com/refill The information in this brochure was obtained from public sources. The purpose of the brochure is to encourage reinvestment into targeted redevelopment areas. The properties contained within this site are not owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City’s sole intent is promote redevelopment by providing information, assistance and financial and infrastructure incentives in areas that have the greatest potential for new commercial and residential development. # OF PARCELS 14 # OF OWNERS 8 BUILDINGS 125,957 sf LAND 11.24 acres DESCRIPTION Prime redevelopment location for high density uses at a major gateway into historic downtown. LOCATION This site is on the northwest and northeast corners of the College/Mulberry intersection. Current uses consist of a bank, sporting goods store, supermarket, offices, 2-3 residences, a gas station, a parking lot, and several vacant buildings. N ZONING D – Downtown, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict MAX HEIGHT 7-9 stories, 115 feet INCENTIVES Downtown Development Authority (Tax Increment Financing) 20 Project Compatibility & Design This new development will set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in a neighborhood that has no clearly defined architectural character. The building is 5 stories as allowed in the C-C district. While larger and taller than the immediate neighboring buildings, the building is articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional in massing to its neighbors. The articulation includes balcony recesses, projections at the ground floor, as well as overall massing resulting in forms with a height to width proportion of less that 1:3. The building features a clear base, middle, and top. The base is formed by the predominate use of masonry on the ground floor. This base element is further articulated by a “wainscot” and use of brick to highlight the focal elements of the retail and residents’ entry. Differing colors and materials colors help to further articulate the building. The proposed colors and materials of brick, ground-face block, stucco, panel siding, and metal panel are all found on buildings in the highly eclectic surrounding neighborhood. Project Streetscape The focal point of the site is the plaza at the intersection of Mason and Mulberry. This plaza will provide seating for patrons of the retail (envisioned as a coffee shop) and residents of the building. It is also conveniently located for use by MAX BRT riders. Uses along the Mulberry Avenue frontage are almost exclusively retail and the plaza. Uses along the Mason Street frontage include the plaza, residents’ entries, MAX BRT stop, bike racks, and stairs. These uses at both façades exceed 50% of the total length and will increase activity on the street, enhance the pedestrian experience. Both facades provide pedestrian visual interest by being subdivided and proportioned by windows, entrances, columns, pilasters, recesses, awnings, and trellises. These elements comprise more than 50% of the façade length and serve to break the façade into modules of less than 30’. Green Wall Trellis System Green wall trellis system is a modular framework grid typically wall-mounted to exterior structures creating aesthetic living green facades. Grids are commonly used for partitions, canopies, arbors, and around columns for interior and outdoor spaces. These high quality eco-units are constructed to accommodate a growing space for various plants and vines. The building block of this modular system is a rigid, light weight, three-dimensional panel made from a powder coated galvanized and welded steel wire that supports plants with both a face grid and a panel depth. This system is designed to hold a green facade off the wall surface so that plant materials do not attach to the building, provides a “captive” growing environment for the plant with multiple supports for the tendrils, and helps to maintain the integrity of a building membrane. Panels can be stacked and joined to cover large areas, or formed to create shapes and curves, are can be made from recycled content steel and are recyclable. Because the panels are rigid, they can span between structures and can also be used for freestanding green walls There are significant benefits to both the public and private sectors resulting from the successful use of green walls. Green walls have a great potential for positive environmental change in dense urban areas, particularly given the large surface areas on buildings that are available for retrofitting to these technologies. For example, the emissions that can concentrate in multi-level parking areas in downtown cores can be reduced by the presence of large leafy areas. A green wall with a mass of plant leaf material can absorb carbon oxides and heavy metal particles while shading and screening these large structures. Acknowledgements: We thank the following for the information provided. Randy Sharp, Sharp & Diamond Landscape Architecture Inc.,James Sable, greenscreen®, Flavia Bertram and Eva Mohan, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Steven Peck, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities 21 Glacier English Ivy will be used on the north facing trellis system. Coral Honeysuckle will be used on the east facing trellis systems. Both of these plant species are a broadleaf evergreen vine that will provide cover during the winter months. Acknowledgements: Photos and plant specifications provided by ONLINEPLANTGUIDE.com 22 23 MAX Transit Mulberry Station LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" 7.3 4.1 STUCCO COLOR #1 8.2 7.1 5.9 8.1 4.3 5.8 5.7 6.6 4.2 8.1 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 7.1 5.1 CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 15.2 7.4 3 NM 1.4 5 NM 1.4 7.2 24' - 0" PLAZA 48' - 0" RETAIL LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 7.4 7.1 4.1 8.2 10.2 7.3 4.3 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" 8.2 7.1 STUCCO COLOR #1 7.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 (BEYOND) STUCCO COLOR #2 (BEYOND) 7.3 8.2 5.8 7.4 4.3 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 15.1 15.2 16.1 7.3 3 NM 1.4 5 NM 1.4 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" 8.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 3.5 4.3 15.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 5.8 7.1 7.3 7.3 STUCCO COLOR #2 MAX FLATS STAHL DEVELOPMENT / BRINKMAN PARTNERS 3D SUN SHADE ANALYSIS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING 04/18/2013 1 AXON - SUN SHADE NOVEMBER 7 - 10AM 3 AXON - SUN SHADE DECEMBER 22 - 10AM 4 SITE 1" = 40'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS PLAN - DECEMBER 22 10AM 2 SITE 1" = 40'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS PLAN - NOVEMBER 7 10AM 6 SITE 1" = 40'-0" SUN SHADE ANALYSIS PLAN - FEBRUARY 7 10AM 5 AXON - SUN SHADE FEBRUARY 7 - 10AM BUILDING HEIGHT REVIEW SUBMITTAL PER LUC 3.5.1(G) LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 STUCCO STUCCO COLOR #2 COLOR #1 STUCCO COLOR #1 9' - 0" STAIR 6' - 0" ENTRY 23' - 0" BIKE PARKING 38' - 0" RESIDENTS' ENTRY 16' - 0" BIKE PARKING 12' - 0" BIKE PARKING 11' - 0" STAIR 30' - 0" RETAIL / PLAZA LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" STUCCO COLOR #1 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 24' - 0" PLAZA 48' - 0" RETAIL MAX FLATS STAHL DEVELOPMENT / BRINKMAN PARTNERS STREET FRONTAGE USE EXHIBIT FT. COLLINS, CO PHONE: 303.861.5704 FAX: 303.861.9230 WWW.OZARCH.COM ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN MAX FLATS FORT COLLINS, C0 BRINKMAN PARTNERS & STAHL DEVELOPMENT | 111074.00 • PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING • 04.18.2013 BRICK GROUND FACE MASONRY STUCCO COLOR #1 STUCCO COLOR #2 CEMENT SIDING #2 GREEN WALL WOOD SLATS CEMENT SIDING #1 METAL PANEL Infill Development/Site Constraints Additional ROW Provided An additional 7.5-ft (750 sq.ft.) of right-of-way (ROW) is being dedicated along Mulberry Street. This results in a half-ROW width of 57.5-ft, which affords an ultimate full ROW of 115-ft. Mulberry Street is classified as a 4-lane arterial on the City’s Master Street Plan, which specifies the 115-ft ROW width. Floodplain Applicability & Site Design Impacts The entire site falls within the 100-year floodplain for the Old Town Basin, as regulated by the City of Fort Collins. Mulberry Street is a high risk floodway, subject to No Rise criteria. The site itself is high risk flood fringe with a 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) roughly 1.5-ft above the existing sidewalk. All residential dwelling units and HVAC equipment need to be elevated another 1.5-ft above the BFE (i.e., approximately 3-ft higher than the existing sidewalk). This causes the dwelling units to start on the second floor, and condenser units to be placed on the roof. The main floor commercial space and stair tower entrances need to be floodproofed 1.5-ft above the BFE. Floodproofing is not allowed for the residential units. Summary of Modification Requests The Max Flats project is requesting Four Modifications of Standards. • Parking lot Interior Landscaping/Intervening Landscape Island • Bike Parking Spaces • Parking Lot Setback • Compact Parking Stalls 1. 6% Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Intervening Landscape Island Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural columns for the building and parking structure. • Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking structure be compressed in a north-south direction • The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to provide trees that maximize areas of shade. The landscape plan shows oak trees spaced every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that these trees will provide sufficient shade for the parking area. • Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit, while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street. 2. Bike Parking Spaces Modification Request • The project ultimately provides excess bike parking spaces if the spaces located in the r.o.w. are counted towards the total required spaces. • The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking and bicycling as alternative means of transportation 29 • The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on the east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right-of-way that will be used adjacent to the transit stop. 3. Parking Lot Setback Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural columns for the building and parking structure. • The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for visual screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Compact Parking Stall Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural colums for the building and parking structure. • Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking structure be compressed in a north-south direction • The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. • Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit, while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street. Nominal and Inconsequential because of the following: • The project embodies many of the principles and policies of City Plan for infill, redevelopment, transit-oriented, mixed-use development • The project is consistent with the vision set forth in the Community Commercial District by providing high density residential over ground floor retail. • The building placement and site layout orient the primary commercial building entrances to the street intersection, provides an outdoor gathering space, and contains an integrated transit stop. • Building is orientated to the build-to right of way line on Mason Street. • The parking structure meets the design intent of the TOD Overlay District and the project reduces the visual impact of the parking lot by locating the lot behind the building, with a perimeter landscape buffer. • The project, being constrained by the narrow site, is requesting three Modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. Because of the construction of the Mason Street BRT transit stop, the parking spaces that were available on Mason Street will go away, which means that those who are currently parking in these spaces will have to find parking on the neighboring streets. • By granting the parking-related Modifications, this project is able to achieve its goal of providing off- street parking for its residents to use. 30 UP UP MASON STREET W. MULBERRY STREET CENTERLINE R.O.W. 1,439 SF RETAIL MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT ( BRT ) MULBERRY STATION 6'-0" HIGH FENCE 6'-0" HIGH FENCE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE VAN PLAZA LOBBY STAIR 2 STAIR 1 ELEV BIKE PARKING (10) MAIL ONE-WAY 141 SF WATER ENTRY & FIRE PUMP RM STOR BUILDING FACE ON PROPERTY LINE LOW WALLS TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED R.O.W. LINE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS BIKE PARKING (5) EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS 4'-0" GAS METER 8' - 0" 34'-0" BIKE PARKING (5) STOR JAN CL 4'-9" "PERMIT PARKING ONLY" SIGN 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" BIKE PARKING (6) ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE TRELLIS & BALCONY ABOVE BALCONY ABOVE UP UP MASON STREET W. MULBERRY STREET CENTERLINE R.O.W. 1,439 SF RETAIL MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT ( BRT ) MULBERRY STATION 6'-0" HIGH FENCE 6'-0" HIGH FENCE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE VAN PLAZA LOBBY STAIR 2 STAIR 1 ELEV BIKE PARKING (10) MAIL ONE-WAY 141 SF WATER ENTRY & FIRE PUMP RM STOR BUILDING FACE ON PROPERTY LINE LOW WALLS TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED R.O.W. LINE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS BIKE PARKING (5) EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS 4'-0" GAS METER 8' - 0" 34'-0" BIKE PARKING (5) STOR JAN CL 4'-9" "PERMIT PARKING ONLY" SIGN 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" BIKE PARKING (6) ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE TRELLIS & BALCONY ABOVE BALCONY ABOVE UP UP MASON STREET W. MULBERRY STREET CENTERLINE R.O.W. 1,439 SF RETAIL MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT ( BRT ) MULBERRY STATION 6'-0" HIGH FENCE 6'-0" HIGH FENCE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE VAN PLAZA LOBBY STAIR 2 STAIR 1 ELEV BIKE PARKING (10) MAIL ONE-WAY 141 SF WATER ENTRY & FIRE PUMP RM STOR BUILDING FACE ON PROPERTY LINE LOW WALLS TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED R.O.W. LINE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS BIKE PARKING (5) EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS 4'-0" GAS METER 8' - 0" 34'-0" BIKE PARKING (5) STOR JAN CL 4'-9" "PERMIT PARKING ONLY" SIGN 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" BIKE PARKING (6) ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE TRELLIS & BALCONY ABOVE BALCONY ABOVE Neighbor Concerns: 1) The neighbors mentioned concern relating to the compatibility of our project to the existing 2 story multi-family property directly to the west based on the following items: a. Our project being 5 stories with no step back at the upper floor. b. The stark nature of the west elevation c. Our project being 5 stories lacks human scale Response: a. The 5-story building is allowed by code and meets the stated goals of increased density and height along the Mason Street corridor. The building is positioned so as to meet the “build-to” requirements with as much relief to properties to the west and south as feasible. b. The west elevation admittedly is not as visually interesting as the street frontages. This is largely due to there being no ground floor façade, which is necessary to allow parking. Balconies are cost-prohibitive throughout the project, so we have elected to provide them only along the street frontage where they will have the most visual impact. Outside those two differences, the west elevation has the same materials, colors, and changes in plane as the street side facades. c. Human scale is introduced by a substantial amount of articulation, especially at the street level where interaction with the building will occur. 2) The neighbors challenged the identification of this project as mixed use based on the limited percentage of commercial use as compared to residential use. Response: Section 5.1.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code defines Mixed Use as follows: Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot, tract or parcel of land, building or structure with two (2) or more different uses including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, public uses, personal service or entertainment uses, designed, planned and constructed as a unit. 3) The neighbors identified concerns with how the pedestrian walkway passes through the transit station. Response: Numerous meetings were held with the planning staff and with the various entities involved with the construction and design of the Max Transit project. We were directed to integrate the sidewalk with the transit station as it is indicated on the drawings. 34 4) The neighbors were not satisfied with the overall material selections for the exterior finishes and felt that our project needed to incorporate more masonry in order to better reflect the existing character of Mason Street. Response: While masonry is commonly used throughout the neighborhood, there is no single overridingly predominant material. Furthermore when masonry is used, it is frequently used as a base or accent element rather than on an entire building. The judicious use of masonry as proposed is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood. 5) The neighbors challenged our projects ability to meet the TOD standard for parking structures requiring ground level facades to be comprised of at least 50% retail and other uses. Response: Our calculations show that the project has 83.7% retail and other uses along Mulberry and 66.1% along Mason. Other non-parking uses include the plaza, residents’ entries, bike racks, the BRT station, and stairs. See the Street Frontage Exhibit. 6) The neighbors were concerned with the parking lot serving as the primary ground floor use. Response: The overall site plan and ground floor uses evolved from a balancing of infill site constraints and competing needs presented in the land use code. We feel the result is a ground floor that provides an activated mixed-use pedestrian environment and incorporates screened surface parking, bike parking, community space, retail amenity, landscaping and the transit station. 7) The neighbors feel that ground floor façade does not provide adequate relief to pedestrians as it is intended in the code. Response: The ground floor has a number of active uses and will provide a considerable amount of visual interest and relief by changes in plane, changes in material and color, awnings, canopies, roof overhangs, and balconies. As such, the building meets all applicable section of the code. 35 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Max Flats at 203 W. Mulberry Street DATE: April 10, 2013 APPLICANT: Dave Derbes, Brinkman Partners PROJECT PLANNER: Seth Lorson NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Sarah Burnett City Process Overview: Type 1 projects do not require a neighborhood meeting and a public administrative hearing is heard before a hearing officer. Type 2 projects require neighborhood meetings and are subject to a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Board. This project is considered mixed-use, typically a Type 1 hearing, however, there is also a new provision in the Land Use Code requiring multifamily projects with more than 50 units or 75 bedrooms to be classified as a Type 2. The new Land Use Code language now requires a Type 2 review for this project. Neighborhood meetings for Type 2 projects are usually performed before project submittal. The neighborhood meeting for this project is being held tonight, but it is also scheduled for the next Planning & Zoning Board Hearing next week. All are encouraged to go to the Planning & Zoning Board or email comments to Seth to have comments included as part of the official record. Q: When are these comments sent to the P&Z Board? A: Comments can be received up to the meeting. If you want a thorough reading of your comments, try to get them in immediately before the meeting. This project began in September with a Preliminary Design Review. The project is located in the Community Commercial Zone District, near the Downtown District, along the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Line at a prominent intersection. Applicant Presentation: This neighborhood meeting is out of sequence but we are still looking for your input and willing to work together to address concerns. This project has been in the works since September of last year, and we have been involved with the site since 2011. We do a lot of multifamily and student-housing projects and feel the location between campus and downtown, along MAX will make it a successful project. The project is on a prominent corner, a block away from College Avenue. It is an area seeing redevelopment and improvements. Being located along Mason, it is very near campus and downtown; bridging the connection between campus and downtown. The site allows us to be on the urban corridor, along the transit system. The building comes up to the property line to address the pedestrian needs in the urban core and those navigating the city. At the corner (Mason & Mulberry) there will be a MAX Transit Stop. There will be sidewalk improvements along Mason, and the building is creating a square a few steps from the transit stop for community space, serving the bus stop but also those traversing the site. We are planning to have a retail base at the corner. The main entry to the building itself is located along Mason Street; in the middle of the block for sun access in the morning and near the bus stop. There are bookends to each side of the building and the shape and mass of the building has been articulated and modified as comments were received from the city. The base of the building has potential for future retail development. Behind the front building wall there is parking, although it is not required because of the TOD overlay, but we feel it is needed. The wall hides the parking, but it is porous, but also allows for the potential of more retail space in the future. The wall allows for vines to grow and to become a green wall. The building has a very distinct base. The building has a defined base, midsection and an articulated top. It is articulated horizontally and layered vertically, seen through the different cuts through the building. There are a series of balconies that project in and out with different finishes -- the facade of the building coming out and then back in. The building at the ends is different, such that on the south side the building is hovering over the parking. On the north side it is creating an iconic element and defining the plaza space. There are several materials from masonry, to stucco, to solid panels creating different looks. We discussed with the neighbors the relationship to the new building, from a 5 story building to a 2 story building. The retail base is projected out away from the building. When you look at the building from the west, there is a layer of parking and the building sits away from the existing buildings in the neighborhood. We have removed balconies on the westside to minimize activity on this side of the building affecting neighbors. The facade defines the building as having no back. The building provides enclosed bicycle parking, some incorporated at the ins-and-outs of the building; the little alcoves. Similar to street furniture. We have asked the City to see if we can move some parking away from the property line, based on the fact there is no parking on Mason. Along the north side of the building, the building is set back slightly to deal with setbacks and the potential increase in width to Mulberry Street as we dedicated right-of-way to the city. This currently allows a lot of green space between the building and the street. Between the parking and the building above there is a concrete fire separation, projecting outside the building to allow for the layering. We received some comments about the mass and materials of the building and reacted to the comments from the city. We also received some neighbor comments from a previous meeting. Realizing there are some decisions regarding the feasibility of the project. Q: There were 4 requests for variances? A: (City) 4 Modifications of Standards requested. A: The modifications requested are site related. Each on its own falls into the category of nominal and inconsequential. 1. One for bike parking (requirement of 1 per bedroom, thus a requirement of 100 or 104 bike stalls total with the retail space). We're providing excess but request a modification to allow spaces in the right of way to count towards the aggregate number. 2. There is a request to exceed the standard ratio of normal parking stalls to compact parking stalls; there is no parking requirement in the TOD Overlay Zone. There are a higher proportion of compact spaces than currently allowed in the plan. 3. On the west property line there is a 5' landscape buffer requirement, we have a buffer a little over 4'. 4. The last relates to a landscaping requirement of minimum square footage landscaped in a parking area / landscape island requirement. We have 16 continuous stalls versus the requirement of 15. Thought was to keep as much parking on site as possible. Looking at the site constraints; the site falls in the City floodplain. The site evolution and why the residential is above, the floodplain doesn't allow residential in the floodplain. The transit stop and parking going away along Mason Street factored into the need to maximize parking on site. There is right-of-way- on Mulberry being dedicated to the City (approx. 7.5') for future expansion of Mulberry. The width of the site is approximately 100' and it is difficult to accommodate drive isles. Q: My property is adjacent to the back end of your parking area. The King's Auto lot is approximately a foot higher - is anything going to be done about drainage? A: All of the drainage will be directed to the northeast; there will be no runoff to the adjacent properties. Q: Will that difference in grade still be there? Will the water be moving away from my property? A: Yes (water moving away). A: The general flow right now is coming towards the northeast. The roof all drains near the backside of the building and runs to a main inlet and then is hard piped. A: There is very limited parking area exposed to runoff from above due to the roof overhang. A: (City) By City standards they are not allowed to drain on to another site. Q: I was wondering if the grade would be equalized. When they paved over the area they raised the grade to drain towards Mason. A: Will follow-up with you after meeting. Q: I have a 6' privacy fence and a garage along the alley. I noticed in your proposals you are putting in a fence - how does that relate to the existing fence? A: We would try and get together with the neighbors to see what makes the most sense. A back-to-back fence would not be ideal. Work with you guys for the best solution, whether it is replacing it or sections. Q: What are the materials on the exterior? A: The base of the building is masonry, with a ground floor face. Some of the same base materials are brought up to the top of the building on the book-ends. Other portions of the building are stucco. Q: Block or brick on the base? A: Both A: Creating a base to the building and on top there is brick as the two main elements on the ground floor. Also the infill of the green wall. On top of the building is stucco in 3 different colors and metal panels defining the corner of Mason & Mulberry. The balconies have metal railings. There are awning projections within the property line, defining the articulation of the base. It also articulates the MAX station. A: The plaza uses the same materials. Q: I have some concerns over the massing; it feels somewhat forced in the neighborhood. I thinkthere should be some stepping down on the ends, like the Palace Lofts in LoDo -- they did a good job stepping the heights, being sensitive to the area. It seems you could do some stepping on the top of the building, and I think that would go a long ways towards bringing the project into scale with the neighborhood. The grey area seems to intensify the scale of the building rather than mitigating it. It seems a less intensive treatment could help. They (stairwells) are a dominating architectural feature. I own property in the area, across the street and the neighborhood has an eclectic, high-quality feeling about it that needs to be respected. Be careful with the metallic elements, they can become intense and offensive to a smaller scale neighborhood. A: We have heard the massing comment a few times and something we are trying to work through and see what opportunities we do have. The stair elements are a functional element of the building. We have really focused on the base of the building. Regarding the metal comments, there seems to be a love it or hate it element. There is masonry on there that can feel pretty heavy and some structural concerns when you get above 30' when it integrates with a wood structure. C: When you look at the project, you look at the stairways. You don't want it to be known as the building with the stairways. Q: We met with the developer and you Seth, and our concerns. How this massive building relates to the neighborhood. What are the relating factors, visually? We talked about stepping down, or adding more masonry. If you look along the Mason Street corridor, the concept has been the use of masonry and stone. Here we see materials that seem to be of a lesser quality. At what point do we attempt to step down the areas we discussed? Is that on or off the table? We talked about the repetition of the west elevation; it's a mirror image, it's monotonous. Something to give it a relationship to the neighborhood - this is a major concern. I've known about Oz for years - they do fabulous work. I was looking at mixed- use projects that Oz has advertised, and residential/multifamily that are fabulous work. Then I looked at the affordable housing images, and that's the relationship I saw here. The quality of the building relates to those affordable housing images rather than what Brinkman has been doing near here. We'd like to see something that relates to the Mason Street Corridor and neighborhood better. Q: What has changed since when we started meeting and having discussions? A: The items we talked about were not just brushed aside. Stepping the building down has financial implications to the project and something we're still discussing if we can do. There are a number of things talking about materials. There was some discussion that Mason was an eclectic mix; a lot of variety along there as anywhere can be found in the city. They have gone to lengths to incorporate and establishing a high quality product. This isn't typical multifamiy with lap siding. We have spent 6-8 months to come up with a great project that does incorporate some of these things. Looking beyond this block into the CC district, Downtown district, the Mason Corridor: The D District is directly to the north and the potential for redevelopment to the north is pretty strong and will likely develop and have the potential to go 7-9 stories. In the immediately area there are numerous structures larger than this and integrated through this area of town. All are valid concerns and something we are still looking at and looking for the balance. Q: What types of mitigation do you have regarding noise, security, partying? Who is in charge besides the police? A: We have internally within Brinkman Partners our own property management division; we do that in- house. We have strict policies when it comes to these properties with how we handle towing, etc. We have found the more stringent you are handling these policies, the fewer issues there will be. Units will be on corridor access and have limited access into the building. It is an open parking area; site lighting, etc. are dictated by code. Problems are typically addressed through management policies. Q: If there is a big party in the parking lot who do we call? A: The property management company (us). A: The alley is going to be closed off and fenced and may help the area. C: If I look at that project, it's something I envision as a medical office in the urban markets of Denver. It really doesn't look like it has any relationship to any of the newer buildings and fabric created for Mason Street in Downtown. This completely differentiates from it. I think you have a responsibility to look at this through your material selection. Q: What is the overall height? Is it constant? A: 56' to the top of the parapets and it is fairly constant. There are condensing units on the top of the building, will not be seen at the street level. Q: What are the sizes of the units? A: There is a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. On average, about 600 square feet for 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms are around 900 square feet and 3 bedrooms around 1,150 square feet. The mix is predominately 1 and 2 bedrooms. There are four 3 bedroom units. Q: I'm not sure where the station is and how traffic flows along with the station and the sidewalk areas? The physical station built there now is in the middle of the sidewalk? A: The closest point is between the station roof canopy gets within 2' of the building. Q: Will pedestrians go behind the station, or up around the front of the station? A: They can do both. The majority of the traffic will flow through the front of the station. Q: Your insets in your building on the first floor for bicycle parking, what is the depth? A: It is approximately 4 to 5 feet. Q: How are the bikes parking? A: The bikes park with the wheel projecting beyond the face of the building. There is an 8' walk along the building, but necks down to 6' near the green walls. The bikes would be tucked in behind that 6' zone. C: I guess I just don't see a space where the bicycle isn't hanging out in the sidewalk area. A: Scaling off the drawing, it seems the recess area is closer to 6' Q: Is that something you would like to see go away? (bicycles) A: I just see it as tight and not very flowing for pedestrians to walk across the face of the building with bicycle tires and the station and this-and-that. I know how students park bikes in bike racks. It seems a little cluttered. A: While I don't necessarily disagree. Part of that was the visual interest. I know saying looking at bike racks isn't visually interesting, but it's part of that urban feel, similar to Old Town. The spacing and location of bike racks was looking to give it that dynamic interaction and not just a plane-jane walkway along the front of the building. Q: Do you have someone interested in the retail? A: It is designed to be limited service, like a coffee shop is something we're intending. Not a full service kitchen. Something that will spill out and utilize the plaza. The transit stations also have bike racks in the right-of-way. Hope it becomes a destination spot and utilizing the racks and plaza. Q: I was looking at staff comments from the first of March. How were comments addressed about design regarding the concrete? Was this addressed at some point? Also, the base element should be more prominent (City comments). Some elements such as stairwells can provide a strong vertical element but should be used sparingly. A: The design is evolving as you go through the process. As far as the starkness of the concrete sidewalk to building (concrete to concrete) -- we had numerous discussions with Staff about the build-to scenario. The nature is to have a build-to (to the property line) and no opportunity for providing landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. This is consistent throughout downtown. We have green walls, added elements such as benches and bike parking. C: Can you point out where you are talking about that. A: Benches have been added (3 along Mason) to break up the transition from the building to the sidewalk. Additionally, a base element running along the building introduced consisting of ground face block. Bringing out some of the detail to the plans. A: The elevations have changed over time. What you are seeing is the definition of materials as you go from the ground up. We have the brick all the way to floor. Using wainscoting that almost looks like limestone base, seen around town. Articulating more how the materials are used, this is partly due to the technology of the rendering. I believe the base is elegant that it is articulating with many materials and many ins and outs, it is not a solid wall. As you turn the corner onto Mulberry there is a lot more landscaping. There are also trees you're not seeing on the rendering. A: The comments about stepping the building -- we are showing today what was presented to staff. Q: Do you anticipate these comments might be considered/addressed before the Planning & Zoning meeting? A: It is an economic decision, and one the ownership group has to address. A: It would be a goal to address the comments before the planning meeting. C: It would be respectful if you can address some of these stepping issues. I think it would make your success more probable. C: I hear that you're concerned about it and want comments, and like the neighbors to feel this is a good project, but I haven't seen any changes yet based on conversations and that leads me to wonder where we are. Q: How many units would you lose if you stepped down 1 level on the ends? A: Don't know. A: At least 4 units total. A: We have discussed dropping the north end as you go along Mulberry, but not anything on the south side of the building. There is a different element on the south side of the building, more flowing. A: In regards to Mulberry it sits way back and when you look at the building from the west it steps back twice, and talking about stepping the building back. On the south end of the building best to stay at its current level over the parking. A: This is something we're looking at. Going from 2 stories with pitched roof to 5 adjacent, I don't necessarily see that as incompatible. There are examples from around town where that has been done successfully. We're trying to see what we can do to accommodate it, but no decision has been made. C: I think it would help with the shading also. A: In terms of shading of neighboring property -- December 21st is the worst condition. Within an hour the shadow changes so much from being on the building to being pretty much gone. A: It also shows the shading produced by the adjacent properties as well. Q: Has there been any commitment made to the fence system along the alleyway and the south side of the parking lot? I think if it's just asphalt to cedar fence -- if you really commit to do something there like a masonry fence it could change how it relates to the neighborhood and give it a sense of place. Architecturally on the south end, since it's away from the building it will give you another opportunity for layering and stepping. A: (City) The fence is committed but we haven't seen it yet Q: Is there a height stipulation? A: (City) 6' A: Envisioned as a wood privacy fence. There may be other alternatives. Masonry fencing with foundations and cost can become significant. There may be a balance rather than a wood fence. A: May be something like masonry columns or caps. We can all get together and brainstorm this. C: I have two dogs that will be going nuts as people are walking to the parking spaces, a masonry fence would help as its more substantial than a wood privacy fence A: What do the dogs do now? A: It's an empty lot currently, they bark at some of the construction at the railroad tracks. I know where you have the parking people will be walking. I'm not as concerned about the dogs barking, but the kids getting upset at the dogs barking and throwing something at them. Q: Where is the garbage located? You're putting 3 dumpsters 10' out my back window and kitchen door? I also have an overhanging oak tree -- what will happen to that? I also have overhanging lilac bushes? A: I wouldn't see an impact with those two necessarily. They will hand deliver the dumpsters out to the truck so they don't need the overhead clearance Q: How often will they dump? A: Typically do it in a way that is less impactful, for both site residents and neighborhood. Set up on a more frequent basis so you utilize more frequently and not utilizing as much space. Some sites they are dumped several times a week. Q: They won't be able to drive in with the trucks? A: They can drive in, but can't pick it up from the enclosure -- bring the dumpsters out of the enclosure by hand. ITEM NO ______3____________ MEETING DATE _____4/18/13_________ STAFF ___SHEPARD________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Poudre Valley Health System – Harmony Campus – Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, MA130001 APPLICANT: Poudre Valley Health System c/o BHA Design 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Poudre Valley Health System 2315 E. Harmony Road, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80528 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to expand the existing Medical Office Building at the Poudre Valley Health System Harmony Medical Campus by adding a new wing dedicated to the medical treatment of cancer. The proposed addition would contain 30,000 square feet and be two stories in height. The location of the addition is to the north and west of the existing building in the area of the existing parking lot. The campus is defined as a 95- acre Overall Development Plan and the Final Plans are defined by 26 acres. The campus includes three buildings containing 294,000 square feet. The proposed 30,000 square foot addition would raise the total building floor area to 324,000 square feet. The campus is located at the southeast corner of Harmony Road and Timberline Road. The parcel is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request qualifies as a Minor Amendment given the context of the larger campus. A Minor Amendment may be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The request complies with the existing Overall Development Plan. The request complies with the applicable standards of the Harmony Corridor zone and the general development Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 2 standards of Article Three. The location of the proposed 30,000 square foot addition is to the northwest of the existing Medical Office Building within the existing parking lot resulting in the loss of 67 spaces. As mitigation, 105 new spaces will be constructed south of the Ambulatory Care Center resulting in 38 net new spaces. Other mitigation measures are offered that address the functionality of the parking on a campus-wide basis. These measures have been evaluated and are made conditions of approval. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-C; Community/Regional Shopping Center S: R-L; Multi-Family and Single Family E: H-C; Medical Office Buildings and Vacant Land W: H-C; Community/Regional Shopping Center The area was annexed in 1986 as part of the South Harmony Annexation. The Overall Development Plan, covering 95 acres, was approved in 1999. The First Filing Project Development Plan and Final Plan, covering 23 acres, were approved in 1999. There are two buildings, connected by a corridor system, contained within the First Filing: 1. Medical Office Building – three stories – 139,000 square feet 2. Ambulatory Care Center – two stories – 85,000 square feet The First Filing was amended in 2000 to add the Radiation Oncology Addition, one story in height, containing 11,793 square feet located on the north side of the Medical Office Building. (This addition is included in the 139,000 square foot total for the M.O.B.). The Second Filing Final Plan, covering 72 acres, was approved in 2004. This was an infrastructure improvement plan only and contains no buildings. The Third Filing Final Plan, covering 2.73 acres, was approved in 2004 and consists of the free-standing medical office building containing 26,896 square feet at 4674 Snow Mesa Drive. Since this building is separated from the campus by a collector roadway and contains its own parking lot, it is not considered to be part of the campus. The Fourth Filing Final Plan, covering 3.83 acres, was approved in 2006 and consists of the Redstone Building containing 70,000 square feet and associated parking lot. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 3 The Minor Amendment would affect the Final Plans for the First and Fourth Filings and result in a new total 324,000 square feet of building floor area and the demolition of 67 parking spaces. The proposed 105 space parking lot south of the Ambulatory Care Center is considered off-site and would require a new P.D.P./Final Plan. 2. Section 2.2.10(A)(2) – Minor Amendment: The request for a new 30,000 square foot, two-story medical facility qualifies as a Minor Amendment because such an addition does not change the character of the Final Plans that make up the campus. The Final Plans include three buildings containing a total of 294,000 square feet on a site that is 26 acres in size. The Minor Amendment is contained within the boundaries of the Final Plan and would increase the total floor area to 324,000 square feet. The proposed land use is comparable to the existing medical facilities and the addition represents only a 10% increase in building floor area. These factors allow staff to find that the proposed Minor Amendment is within the established character of the Final Plan and qualifies as a Minor Amendment. 3. Section 2.2.10(A)(3) – Referral of a Minor Amendment: Section 2.2.10(A)(3) allows the Director the option of referring a Minor Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Board. If so referred, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans per the standard appeal procedures. 4. Overall Development Plan: The approved Final Plan that is the subject of the Minor Amendment is a component of the Poudre Valley Health System Harmony Campus Overall Development Plan. The purpose of the O.D.P. 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. The governing O.D.P. lacks specificity with regard to building and parking lot placement. Rather, the plan provides for a basic framework characterized by a perimeter loop road and a north-south bisecting road. This framework creates large areas where buildings and parking lots would be expected to develop. Staff finds that the proposed Cancer Center Addition, by virtue of its location, size and character complies with the general planning and development control parameters of the approved Overall Development Plan. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 4 5. Article Four – Harmony Corridor Zone: A. Section 4.17(B)(2)(c)1. – Permitted Use The proposed land use, medical office building, continues to comply with the list of permitted uses in the H-C zone. B. Section 4.26(D)(3)(c) – Dimensional Standard The proposed building addition does not exceed 80,000 square feet and does not exceed 25% of the existing building. If both of these dimensional standards were exceeded, then the request would be considered a Major Amendment. C. Section 4.26(E)(3)(b) – Campus Exception The proposed addition is considered to be part of an established campus and, therefore, is allowed to be oriented internally to the campus framework versus fronting on a public street. 6. Article Three – Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping and Tree Planting Standards New trees will be planted along the north, west and southwest sides of the addition. Outdoor areas will be enhanced with a new healing garden and patio. The combination of new plant material and hardscape elements help soften the new two-story building and helps buffer the building from the parking lot. The row of seven new trees along the north sidewalk contributes to an attractive pedestrian environment. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The parking areas associated with the entire 26 acre Final Plan will continue to be screened from both Harmony Road and Timberline Road without change. In fact, the area between Harmony Road and the parking lot loop road will be the receiving area for transplanted trees from the demolition of the parking lot. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The new parking spaces would include landscape islands in excess of the minimum standard. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 5 D. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) - Screening The only areas of low visual interest that are being created are new parking spaces which are mitigated with new landscaping. There are no loading docks, trash enclosures or outdoor mechanical equipment that need specific screening. E. Section 3.2.1(F) – Tree Protection and Replacement The new addition involves partial demolition of the existing parking lot and landscape islands resulting in the loss of 21 trees. The Tree Mitigation Plan has been reviewed by the City Forester and the mitigation value has been determined to be 25 new trees. The new mitigation trees will be planted both in front of the proposed addition and immediately north of the perimeter loop road along Harmony Road. F. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard A portion of the existing parking lot will be demolished to make way for the new building. This will result in the loss of parking spaces that are considered convenient for patients visiting other medical practices than that associated with the Cancer Center Addition. The purpose of this particular standard is not to evaluate the relationship of available parking spaces to various individual medical practices within the existing building. The standard is designed to address the parking and circulation elements as a system within the entire development. There will be four new sidewalks constructed. On the north side of the building, there will be a six foot wide walk. On the southwest side of the building, there will be a 7.5 foot wide walk. An internal walk connects these two perimeter walkways. A new eight foot wide walk will connect the existing perimeter loop road to the public sidewalk on Harmony Road. A patient drop-off zone is provided at the building entry that is separated from the parking lot drive aisle so cars do not stack up. The private parking, access and circulation system is well-integrated into the surrounding public street system including sidewalks, bike lanes and Transfort bus service. This integration provides for safe travel by the public using all modes. Parking is adequately distributed among the various buildings and their multiple entrances. (Unlike the requirements for big box retail, there are no parking lot distribution standards that are specifically related to individual building entrances.) As proposed, the new parking lot and sidewalk circulation system will function equally well as the existing improvements. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 6 G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities A 30,000 square foot medical office building is required to have eight bicycle spaces with two spaces within an enclosure. The plan provides for four racks capable of parking eight bikes. As required, 20% (two spaces) will be enclosed within the employee break room. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(6) – Walkways and Pedestrian / Bicycle Destinations As mentioned, the demolition of a portion of the parking lot and a portion of an existing sidewalk will be replaced by a new system of four new walkways. These walkways are logically located based on pedestrian points for origin and destination. A crosswalk will be provided across the loop road to provide safe access to the walk connecting to the public sidewalk on Harmony Road. The sidewalk along Harmony Road is continuous and provides for an alternative for bicyclists that are uncomfortable using the on-street bike lanes on a high-speed, arterial street. I. Section 3.2.2(D) – Access and Parking Lot Design This standard requires that all vehicular use areas be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system (cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles.) There is proper pedestrian and vehicle separation by the use of sidewalks. As mentioned, there is a crosswalk across the loop road and the patient drop-off zone contributes to safety. There is sufficient illumination on the parking lot, sidewalks, and building entry. For the campus, there is a network of private drives that offer well- defined and unobstructed access to and from the public street system. J. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks The demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the parking lot is within the boundary of the perimeter loop road and would be no closer to Harmony Road than existing improvements. K. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking This standard requires that for a parking lot that exceeds 1,000 spaces, a minimum of 20 spaces plus one for every 100 spaces, or fraction thereof, over 1,000 are required. The minimum requirement under this standard, based on a campus-wide total of 1,145 spaces, would be 22 spaces. In the northwest parking area alone, which would consist of 325 spaces, there would be 43 handicap parking spaces thus exceeding the standard. For the balance of the campus, the number of handicap spaces serving the Ambulatory Care Center, Radiation and Oncology Facility and the Redstone Building are not impacted and the minimum requirements continue to be exceeded. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 7 L. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The new parking lot light fixtures will match the existing fixtures and remain in compliance of being fully-shielded down-directional. Because the parking lot serves a campus framework, and is separated from the public roadways by a significant landscaped area, there is no spillage of illumination off the property. M. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The proposed addition will include three colors of brick to match the existing building. The base will be a dark tone up to a height of eight feet. The lighter tone brick will be featured on upper 20 feet of the exterior. Two horizontal bands featuring the third brick will accent wall and provide vertical relief. A metal trellis and balconies will also be used as accent features. The most prominent building component will be a projecting glass wall on the west elevation creating a dramatic presentation at the entrance. The design of the building is found to be compatible with the existing building in terms of scale, height, materials and color. Accent features will provide sufficient differentiation and allow individual identity. N. Section 3.5.3(D) – Character and Image The proposed building is designed with sufficient detail and provides a distinct base, middle and top as to comply with the standard. O. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Impact Study This standard requires that all development plans adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The Transportation Impact Study for this Minor Amendment was waived. This is because the scope of the addition, and its expected increase in trip generation, is considered to have minimal impact in relationship to the medical campus as a whole. There are no anticipated public improvements to the surrounding roadways, sidewalks and bike lanes that would need to be constructed or modified as a result of an additional 30,000 square feet of medical office at this location. The site will continue to be served by Transfort Route #16. As mentioned, private improvements include the construction of new walkways, including a new connection to the public sidewalk and bus stop on Harmony Road. The applicant is aware that there is concern among a variety of tenants and owners as to the quantity and qualitative aspects of parking spaces that serve the campus. Consequently, a Parking Study Report by Bill Fox, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, dated December 21, 2012 (attached) and supplemented on February 14, 2013, (attached) was submitted as part of the Minor Amendment as well as to the various Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 8 owners within the Medical Office Building. This study describes the existing parking condition and the impacts associated with the proposed addition. 7. Opposition to the Minor Amendment: Staff is aware that there is opposition from various private parties regarding this proposed project. Letters in opposition are attached. In addition, a parking study by Matt Delich, Delich Associates, dated January 31, 2013 (attached) has been submitted on behalf of those opposed. This study critiques the Fox study and offers analysis on parking demand and supply. Specifically, there is concern that the proposed location of the building will remove 67 parking spaces that presently serve a variety of medical practices that own condominiums within the Medical Office Building. These affected spaces are convenient for patients seeking to gain access at the main entrance and provide a valuable service for medical groups other than the Cancer Center. The proposed Minor Amendment will negatively impact the quantity, location and relationship of parking spaces to the existing building entrance. Those opposed to the Minor Amendment state that the amount of parking is inadequate and would prefer that the Cancer Center Addition be placed east of the Redstone Building as indicated on past documents provided Poudre Valley Hospital. Finally, there is concern that the number of handicap- accessible parking spaces is insufficient. 8. Summary of the Two Studies: The following table summarizes the findings of the two studies and includes the maximum number of spaces that would be allowed per the Land Use Code: # of Spaces # of Spaces per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Building Size (Sq. Ft.) Mitigation Existing (Fox) 1,107 3.77 294,000 None Proposed (Fox) 1,145 3.53 324,000  38 New Spaces  Staff Designated Areas  Snow Removal  Valet Parking  Handicap Spaces Exceed Existing & Minimum Required L.U.C. Max Allowed 1,458 4.5 324,000 None Delich Study 1,529 5.2 324,000 None Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 9 • In terms of quantity, the proposed Minor Amendment removes 67 spaces and adds 105 new spaces for a net increase the number of 38 spaces. • With the increase of 30,000 square feet, the ratio of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area decreases from 3.77 to 3.53 spaces per 1,000 square feet. • As proposed, the ratio of 3.53 spaces per 1,000 square feet is below the maximum allowed by the Land Use Code of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. • In terms of the number of handicap-accessible parking spaces, the Minor Amendment would result in an increase of 17 additional handicap parking spaces from 26 to 43. (See attached exhibit.) • As mitigation, the applicant has offered the following: o A new parking lot containing 105 spaces would be constructed south of the Ambulatory Care Center and these spaces would be designated staff only. o The remaining parking in front of the Medical Office Building and Cancer Center would be designated as patient only. o Snow would be removed from parking areas unlike the current practice. o Valet parking service would be provided. o The number of handicap-accessible parking spaces in front of both buildings would be increased. 9. Staff Evaluation of the Two Studies: Both studies have merit. At the risk of oversimplification, the Fox studies rely more on a campus-wide approach while the Delich study focuses more on the impacts on the northwest parking lot. Staff is keenly aware of the contentiousness surrounding the issue of how the proposed Cancer Center Addition displaces existing parking spaces that conveniently serve medical practices in the Medical Office Building. Staff acknowledges that these practices are condominium owners within the building and have relied upon the affected 67 spaces to serve their patients. In an effort to resolve these issues, staff elected to refer the Minor Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Board and delay the project by one month to allow the parties to resolve their differences. Staff finds that the primary public interest is based on an analysis of the campus and parking lot as a whole. This is consistent with large-scale, multi-tenant projects such as the retail centers Front Range Village and Foothills Mall. While there is an obvious Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 10 difference in land use between regional shopping centers and a medical campus, the scope of the parking analysis is comparable in that the fundamental public interest is in the performance of the overall project and how it relates to the public street system. For example, there are a variety of tenants of various sizes that are contained with shopping centers that are accommodated within the single shopping center parking ratio of 5.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Staff does not differentiate among the various uses within the shopping center and apply individual ratios. This allows for standard restaurants, big box retail, junior anchors, fast food restaurants, personal services, offices, and the like, to function under the umbrella of shared and distributed parking based on one single ratio. Such shopping centers are primarily evaluated in their entirety for impacts on the surrounding public improvements. Another similar condition would be how a shopping center, office park or industrial park chooses to allocate total signage allowance. The public interest is established with a total signage allowance and by signage location. It is not in the public interest, however, as how multiple, internal tenants divide their total allowance. Similarly, for a large-scale medical campus, there are a variety of functions such as individual specialty medical practices, surgery center, urgent care, diagnostic procedures, administrative support functions, and the like, that take place within the campus. Such individual functions are not broken out for different parking ratios. Rather, the campus system as a whole is evaluated under a single ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet floor area for how the entire site integrates the into public system. If impacts are identified, then these impacts must be mitigated per adopted regulations. Staff finds that from a quantitative standpoint, the campus does not exceed the allowable maximum ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building floor area. From a qualitative standpoint, the Minor Amendment, supplemented by the proposed conditions of approval, will result in a private access, circulation and parking system that continues to be safe, efficient and convenient for all modes in relationship to the surrounding community. 10. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the Poudre Valley Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The request does not change the character of the existing Final Plans and qualifies as a Minor Amendment. B. Minor Amendments may be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board and if so referred, the Board’s decision is considered final unless appealed to City Council. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 11 C. The Minor Amendment continues to comply with the approved Final Plans. D. The Minor Amendment continues to comply with the approved Overall Development Plan. E. The Minor Amendment complies with the applicable land use and development standards of the H-C, Harmony Corridor zone district. F. The Minor Amendment, as a medical campus containing medical office buildings, complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(2) in that the number of parking spaces in relationship to the total building square footage does not exceed the maximum allowable ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. G. The Minor Amendment, with the demolition of 67 parking spaces and the new development of 105 parking spaces, continues to comply with Section 3.2.2(A) and (B). This is because the private parking, access and circulation system is well-integrated into the surrounding public street system including sidewalks, bike lanes and Transfort bus service. This integration provides for safe travel by the public using all modes. The overall campus continues to be served by multiple building entrances and distributed parking which relieves congestion and allows for operational efficiency. H. The Minor Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Poudre Valley Harmony Campus, Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, #MA130001, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall designate patient/visitor and staff parking areas as depicted on the attached diagram entitled “Harmony Campus- Proposed Parking Revisions, February 28, 2013” and will install “Staff Only Parking” and “Patient Only Parking” signs to delineate such locations. Harmony Campus staff will be required to park in designated staff parking areas. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall provide an appropriate method of enforcement to discourage staff use of patient/visitor parking areas, which method will be devised in consultation with the Boards of the Harmony Valley Condominium Association and the Redstone Professional Office Building Condominium Association. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 12 2. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall complete construction of a new 105-space staff-only parking lot in generally the location depicted on the attached diagram entitled “Harmony Campus-Proposed Parking Revisions, February 28, 2013” and shall install “Staff Only Parking” signs in such new lot. 3. Within 120 days after final approval of the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall convert 17 of the designated patient/visitor parking spaces in the West parking lot for the Medical Office Building to handicapped parking spaces, thus increasing the total number of handicapped parking spaces in this lot from 26 to 43. The patient/visitor parking spaces to be converted shall be those that are located closest to the main entrance of the Medical Office Building as shown on the attached depiction entitled “Potential ADA Space Locations” dated April 2, 2013. 4. Final Plans shall indicate that no parking spaces will be reserved for patients/visitors of any particular building. 5. Within 60 days after final approval of the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall , in consultation with the Harmony Campus Master Association, provide a snow removal plan that requires (i) timely removal of snow from all patient/visitor and staff parking areas at the Harmony Campus; (ii) removed snow shall be deposited in designated snow removal zone(s) that do not conflict with access to or circulation within parking areas; (iii) all parking spaces within such lots continue to be useable during winter months; and (iv) the storage of removed snow anywhere within the patient/visitor and staff parking lots will be prohibited. 6. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall commit to provide an appropriate level of valet parking services for patients and visitors of the Medical Office Building entrances, subject to the approval of the Board of the Harmony Valley Condominium Association, including working out the details of this service including, but not limited to, days of the week, hours and staffing. 6. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. will provide valet parking services for patients and visitors of the Medical Office Building as approved by the Board of the Harmony Valley Condominium Association, including details of the services, i.e. days of the week, hours, staffing, etc. 7. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. shall commit to expanding a service currently offered whereby patients, visitors and staff members are transported from parked vehicles to building entrances via golf carts driven by volunteers. Project Name, Project #MA130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/18/2013 Page 13 7. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. currently provides a service whereby patients, visitors and staff members are offered transportation from parked vehicles to building entrances via a golf cart driven by volunteers. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. will expand this service by providing an additional golf cart. UCH Cancer Center Addition & Renovation Northwest View December 10, 2012 UCH Cancer Center Addition & Renovation Southwest View December 10, 2012 West Elevation North Elevation UCH Cancer Center Addition & Renovation Exterior Elevations December 10, 2012 East Elevation Partial South Elevation Unrolled Southwest Elevation at Main Entrance UCH Cancer Center Addition & Renovation Exterior Elevations December 10, 2012 UCH Cancer Center Addition & Renovation Rendered Site Plan December 10, 2012 ITEM NO ______5____________ MEETING DATE ____4/18/13_________ STAFF ____HOLLAND______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, PDP #130003 APPLICANT: Jason Messaros, BHA Design 1603 Oakridge Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNERS: Imago Enterprises, Inc. c/o Les Kaplan 140 Palmer Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the Banner Health Medical Campus. The project is located at the southeast corner of E. Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive on 27.867 total acres. The medical campus will provide inpatient and outpatient services to the community. The project proposes at least two phases, with the first phase to include a 163,300 square foot hospital, medical office health center and central utility plant. The complete build-out proposed with future phases includes an additional 157,900 square foot hospital area, a 22,800 square foot medical office health center and a two-story, 40,000 square foot medical office building at the southwest corner of the site for a total campus build-out of 384,000 square feet. Building areas on the campus are served by three parking areas including one parking structure located west of the proposed bed towers. The hospital building will contain a clinic, inpatient beds, diagnostics and treatment, as well as an emergency department. The hospital varies in height from the one-story clinic on the west to the 3-story bed tower on the east side. A proposed heli-stop pad will be located to the north of the hospital building. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, PDP #130003. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor District (H-C) of Article 4 – Districts. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property was annexed from 1993 to 2004 through four separate ordinances: • Rickets 1 st and 2 nd Annexations (June, 1993) • Johnson Harmony Annexation (May, 1999) • Harmony Farm 2 nd Annexation (March 2004) The property is mostly vacant at this time, with one existing single family rental home in the southwest corner of the site. The site is covered predominantly with non-native grasses with areas of residential and remnant farmstead tree stands. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Harmony Corridor (H-C): Commercial; Hewlett Packard and Avago S: Harmony Corridor (H-C): Vacant parcels; Brookfield Multi-family S: Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N): Observatory Village E: Harmony Corridor (H-C): Vacant parcels; several single-family rentals W: Harmony Corridor (H-C): Vacant parcels; Intel; Custom Blending Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 3 The P.D.P. is a part of the 274 acre Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.). The O.D.P. is bounded by Ziegler Road to the west, Strauss Cabin Road to the east, Harmony Road to the north, and Rock Creek Drive to the south. A Fifth Amendment to the O.D.P. has been reviewed and approved by staff as a Minor Amendment in conjunction with the Banner Health project. The Minor Amendment eliminates a portion of Timberwood Drive which was previously proposed to bisect the Banner Health site. Additionally, portions of the O.D.P. were changed from secondary to primary uses so that the Banner Health project, which is considered a primary use, is permitted on the site. The proposed project is in compliance with the O.D.P. Examples of Primary Uses in the H-C District are research and testing facilities, hospitals, industrial, regional and international headquarters, private schools and universities, and professional offices. Examples of Secondary Uses in the H-C District are child care centers, lodging, convenience shopping centers, standard restaurants, and residential uses. 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Harmony Corridor (H-C): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.26(A) and (B) – Permitted Uses The proposed land uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the Harmony Corridor District. The development uses specifically proposed in the P.D.P. are hospital, offices and heli-stop. The hospital and office uses are Type One uses, and the heli-stop use is a Type Two use. All of the uses proposed are Primary Uses and no Secondary Uses are proposed. The proposed uses are also in compliance with the Harmony Corridor Land Use Plan. B. Section 4.26(D) – Land Use Standards 1) Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) designates a maximum building height of 6 stories. A maximum building height of 3 stories is proposed in conformance with this standard. 2) The project is in compliance with Section 4.26(D)(3)(b) which requires that all new structures greater than 80,000 square feet in gross leasable area shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. C. Section 4.26(E) – Development Standards 1) Section 4.26(E)(1) requires that all development in the H-C Harmony Corridor District shall also comply with the applicable Harmony Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 4 Corridor design standards. The project is in compliance with all applicable design standards as follows: • The required 80’ landscaped setback is provided along the Harmony Road frontage as measured from the future edge of pavement. • The landscape pattern, berming, plant section, and sidewalk alignment are consistent with the Harmony standards. • Buildings are designed to ensure that all elevations are attractive and with an overall high quality architectural design consistent with the standard. Rooftop mechanical equipment is fully screened from view. • All parking is fully screened from public streets by plant material and berming. • The hospital loading and service area is designed as an integral part of the building architecture and is fully screened with fencing and extensive plant material. 2) With regards to the position of the main hospital building on the site, the project is in compliance with Section 4.26(E)(3)(b), which permits a “campus exception” to the “build-to” lines requirement contained in Section 3.5.3(B). In accordance with the campus exception requirement, the development provides a campus-like development block meaning development with a unifying, formative internal framework of pedestrian-oriented, nonvehicular outdoor spaces and walkways that function as an alternative to street sidewalks by organizing and connecting buildings. The internal campus pedestrian circulation system is designed to provide direct connections to street sidewalks and transit stops in conformance with the campus standard. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards; with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 5 • A detailed tree mitigation plan is provided with this P.D.P. in coordination and with the approval of the City Forester. In order to provide maximum benefit, street trees provided with the project will be upsized to meet the mitigation requirements; • “Full Tree Stocking” is provided along all high use and high visibility areas of the development, with generous quantities of trees located along building faces; • Trees are planted in the parking lot interior and perimeter in excess of the minimum requirements and in conformance with the high standards recommended with the Harmony Corridor design guidelines; • Ground cover areas in parking lots and at building foundations are also planted in excess of the minimum requirements, with deciduous and evergreen shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses used extensively. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • Sidewalk connections are planned for the campus between buildings and through parking areas. Bicycle parking is planned in accordance with the minimum quantity and is placed appropriately near building entrances. • Two transit stops are proposed with the project on Lady Moon Drive and Harmony Road. Sidewalks 8’ in width are provided from the transit stops to the main hospital entrance plaza. • The parking and circulation of the developments is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk connections are direct and continuous. • Parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking stalls are provided in accordance with the standards. • As required, the sidewalk system provided contributes to the attractiveness of the development. 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting: • A photometric plan was submitted for the project. As proposed, the project complies with the lighting design standards in Section 3.2.4. Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 6 Parking lot and drive lighting is provided by down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. B. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1) 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features: • The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the proposed site was historically converted from native grassland to non- native grass hayfield and a small area of residential and remnant farmstead tree stands. As a result the project area has minimal ecological value and supports no natural habitat features. The majority of the property’s surface has been planted in non-native grass, primarily smooth brome for hay production. • Aside from potentially significant trees, the property does not support any native vegetation, wetlands, or other unique habitat features, and no features of ecological value exist within 500 feet of the development site. • Wildlife use of the Banner Health Medical Campus site is minimal to nonexistent because of past conversion of native habitats to mowed hayfield. • No raptor or songbird nests were located in the trees on the project area during the December 18th survey. • No wetlands are located on the Banner Health Medical Campus site or adjacent properties. C. Division 3.5 – Building Standards • All building elevations provide a recognizable base and top treatment in accordance with Section 3.5.3(D)(6). • The overall design satisfies the institutional building requirements of Section 3.5.3. “Variation in massing” requirements are satisfied by breaking up the building mass into a series of intersecting wall planes in a module format. Variations in massing, juxtaposed materials and forms, and repeated patterns of recesses and projections provide vertical and horizontal interest, breaking down the overall scale of the buildings. Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 7 • Areas of wall plane where stories are expressed over large expanses receive a substantial base plane treatment to provide vertical relief and human scale. Entrance canopies, window shades, and variations in materials are used to further emphasize the base of the buildings and provide vertical relief. • Significant attention is given to the variation in patterns and textures used in the masonry materials. In addition to masonry, stone is used to define and enhance entry points and gathering spaces. The use of materials and patterns is balanced, with colors and textures helping to emphasize and articulate overall building forms. • In accordance with Section 3.5.1(G), a view analysis was provided. This Section requires that buildings or structures that exceed 40 feet in height provide a view analysis. The view analysis must satisfy the following review criteria: 1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Staff analysis: Opportunities for views by the community from public places are not substantially altered by the proposed project. The main building mass on the site is set back from Harmony Road allowing western views through the Harmony Corridor to be preserved. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Staff analysis: The shadow analysis provided demonstrates that the proposed buildings do not cast substantial shadows onto adjacent public or private property. There is some slight shadow on perimeter street sidewalks, particularly Lady Moon Drive, however this shadow impact is minor and the same as what would normally be expected by buildings that are less than 40’ in height. Shadows shown in the southwest corner of the site are cast by the two-story medical office building which is less than 40’ in height. 3. Privacy. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be designed to avoid infringing on the privacy of adjacent public and Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 8 private property, particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. Staff analysis: No residential areas or public parks exist adjacent to the project that could be impacted. 4. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale. Staff analysis: The project is situated on a portion of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan in which vacant land exists to the south and east that provides opportunities for transition to existing residential neighborhoods. D. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: • The project continues to comply with the general framework established with the Overall Development Plan. The project provides for access points to Lady Moon Drive, Harmony Road, Cinquefoil Lane and Le Fever Drive that meet the purpose, general standard and spacing requirements of Section 3.6.3 with regard to safety, efficiency, and convenience for automobile, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel. • The City Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed proposed intersection locations and found the proposed intersections to be in compliance with the standards in Section 3.6.3. 2) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: • The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study that was submitted to the City for review and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this P.D.P are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Street improvements to be constructed meet the Level of Service and other requirements and are summarized as follows: Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 9 Phase One: • Construction of Le Fever Drive from Lady Moon Drive to Cinquefoil Lane as a commercial local street, 72’ ROW. • Construction of Cinquefoil Lane from Le Fever to Harmony Road as a minor collector, 82’ ROW. • 245’ extension of the center median on Lady Moon Drive. The median ranges in width from 7 to 15 feet and will be landscaped in accordance with recently adopted City streetscape standards. • Two A right turn lanes will be constructed on east-bound Harmony Road, turning right onto Lady Moon Drive and Cinquefoil Lane. Final Phase: • In addition to the Phase One improvements, the project will provide dual left turn lanes at Lady Moon Drive turning left onto Harmony Road. Currently one left turn lane exists at this location and;. • A right turn lane on east-bound Harmony Road, turning right onto Cinquefoil Lane. 4. Neighborhood Meeting Two neighborhood meetings were held for the proposed project, and a staff summary of the neighbor’s concerns and applicant’s responses is included below. Detailed meeting minutes and letters from the neighbors are attached with this staff report. In addition to the concerns summarized in the table below, residents of Observatory Village expressed concerns that the proposed Banner Medical Campus would increase traffic on Cinquefoil Lane through the Observatory Village neighborhood. Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 10 Banner Health Medical Campus Neighborhood Meeting Concerns & Response Summary Concern Response Ambulance Impacts (neighborhood traffic, speed, noise) Ambulances typically avoid neighborhood streets as much as possible unless there is an emergency within the neighborhood itself. Neighborhood streets feature slower speed limits, school zones, speed bumps, etc. that decrease ambulance response times. In southeast Fort Collins, ambulances will primarily utilize I-25, Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, HWY 287, and Frontage Roads. It is estimated approximately 2-4 patients would be transported by ambulance to the Harmony Road medical center per day and 2-4 would be transported to other medical centers from the Harmony Road facility per day. Transports to other facilities will utilize Harmony Road & I-25. At other Banner medical facilities, such as North Colorado Medical Center in Greeley, ambulances turn off their lights and sirens approximately ½ mile from the hospital to be good stewards to the surrounding neighborhood. Hazardous Material Removal The proposed hospital, as a generator of Regulated Medical Waste (RMW) and Hazardous Waste (HW) is held accountable for the proper destruction/disposal of the waste and will follow State of Colorado regulations, including internal facility collection, storage, and external disposal through the use of licensed disposal vendors. The facility will follow City of Fort Collins regulations for the transport of RMW and HW which require the most direct and safest route possible between origin and destination. At the proposed medical campus, this will require licensed transporters to exit the loading dock, go north directly to Harmony Road and then east to I-25. Transport through residential neighborhoods is not necessary and unlikely to be permitted as Harmony Road is easily accessible from the loading dock via the north end of Cinquefoil Lane. Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 11 Concern Response Helicopters A permanent “helistop” will be built along the Harmony Road frontage. Helicopter medical transports are permitted only to land for limited periods of time to pick up or drop off patients. It is anticipated helicopters will be used exclusively to transfer patients to higher level trauma centers. In general, helicopters will fly over Harmony Road after takeoff or on final approach to the hospital. In populated areas, flight patterns typically involve flights over industrial corridors. In this area, helicopters will fly over I-25, Harmony Road and HWY 287. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. B. The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan 5 th Amendment. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor (H-C) of Article 4 – Districts. D. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, PDP #130003. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of Planning Objectives 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plans 4. Building Elevations Banner Health Medical Campus PDP #130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 12 5. View and Shadow Analysis 6. Banner Health 2 nd Neighborhood Meeting Presentation 7. Overall Development Plan 8. Ecological Characterization Study 9. Transportation Impact Study 10. Hazardous Material Impact Analysis 11. Neighborhood Meeting Staff Summary 12. Neighborhood Meetings 1 and 2 Minutes, comments and responses 13. Letters from Neighbors Banner Health Medical Campus HC T LMN POL UE RL Fossil Ridge High School Future Southeast Community Park Beaver Pond Precision Dr Galileo Dr Northern Lights Dr S a b e r Cat Dr Brookfield Dr Le Fever Dr Big Dipp e r D r Cornerstone Dr Southern Cross Ln L i t tl e Dippe r D r Steelhead St Indigo Cir S Observatory Dr Indigo Cir N Cassiopeia Ln Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Copernicus Dr Exploration Ln Daylight Ct Observatory Dr Rock Creek Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Big Dipper Dr E Harmony Rd Ziegler Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E Harmony Rd 1 inch = 700 feet © Fossil Ridge High School Future Southeast Community Park Banner Health Medical Campus HC T LMN POL UE RL Fossil Ridge High School Future Southeast Community Park Beaver Pond Precision Dr Galileo Dr Northern Lights Dr S a b e r Cat Dr Brookfield Dr Le Fever Dr Big Dipp e r D r Cornerstone Dr Southern Cross Ln L i t tl e Dippe r D r Steelhead St Indigo Cir S Observatory Dr Indigo Cir N Cassiopeia Ln Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Copernicus Dr Exploration Ln Daylight Ct Observatory Dr Rock Creek Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Big Dipper Dr E Harmony Rd Ziegler Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E Harmony Rd 1 inch = 700 feet © Site Statement of Planning Objectives Page 1 of 3 Statement of Planning Objectives Banner Health Medical Campus April 04, 2013 This project is unique for Banner Health and integrates the inpatient and outpatient environment like no other facility in the system. The project proposes at least two phases, with the first phase to include a 163,300 square foot hospital, health center and central utility plant. The complete build-out proposed with future phases includes an additional 157,900 square feet of hospital area and 22,800 of community health center and a two-story, 40,000sf medical office building situated at the southwest corner of the site. This brings the total campus build-out to 384,000 square feet. Building areas on the campus are served by three parking areas including one parking structure located west the proposed bed towers. The hospital building will contain a clinic, inpatient beds, diagnostics and treatment, as well as an emergency department. The hospital varies in height from the one-story clinic on the west, to the 3-story bed tower on the east side. A proposed heli-stop pad will be located to the north of the hospital building. With incremental growth that is flexible, this facility will be able to adapt to emerging healthcare trends and remain a state-of-the-art facility for years to come. Architecture The Banner Harmony Medical Center is a small campus hospital that will provide inpatient and outpatient services to the community. There are two buildings on the campus served by three parking areas. The larger of the two buildings is a 344,000 sf hospital comprised of a clinic, inpatient beds, diagnostics and treatment, as well as an emergency department. The hospital varies in height from the one-story clinic on the west, to the 3-story bed tower on the east side. Each floor level is 18’-0” (finished floor to finished floor), with parapets ranging in height from 1’-0” to 6’-0” to help conceal rooftop equipment. A two-story medical office building sits at the south west corner of the site, which constitutes 40,000 sf. The campus buildings use specific materials and shapes to form a unique design language inspired by the views from the site. Masonry walls are stacked and layered in a planar form to mimic the panorama of the Rocky Mountains. These walls are built with various sizes, finishes and colors of masonry block to give the surface a distinct textural quality, yet make it feel homogenous similar to a piece of stone. These walls are sometimes interrupted by cascading curtain wall windows, slipping between the masonry much like snowmelt through the mountains. The public entrances to the building are marked by heavy Loveland buff sandstone masses which are scaled appropriately to the pedestrian. These entrances to the hospital and to the emergency department face north towards Harmony Road allowing a clear sightline to the front doors. Metal panel is also used throughout the buildings as a supporting material, as well as EIFS and various glazing conditions. (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as per the following  The Banner Health Medical Campus is being developed as part of the Harmony Technology Park ODP. The project will comply with the city code and the requirements set forth in the ODP. The land use is a primary use in the Harmony Statement of Planning Objectives Page 2 of 3 Corridor zone district. Bicycle and pedestrian access as well as connectivity to the rest of the Harmony Technology Park sites are integral to the proposed design.  The Harmony Corridor District is intended to implement the design concepts and land use vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan -- that of creating an attractive and complete mixed-use area with a major employment base. The Banner Health Medical Campus will be a major employer in for the Fort Collins community.  The Harmony Corridor zone allows for Institutional/Civic/Public Uses including Hospitals and Commercial/Retail Uses including Clinics subject to administrative review  The Harmony Corridor zone allow for Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses including helistops subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. Open Space:  The site includes a substantial landscaped buffer area along the north boundary of the property which ties into a large detention basin. Another large detention basin is located at the south east corner of the site providing a substantial landscape buffer and open space. Buffering:  Buffering is indicated to screen parking and service areas from adjacent properties. These properties are also anticipated to develop as similar manufacturing/office/manufacturing uses as well as some secondary uses. Landscaping:  Appropriate landscaping will be installed at the building entrances, adjacent to parking areas and at building perimeters. Circulation:  A key feature of the site design is an interior loop road that provides necessary circulation around the site for users and security. The site will be primarily accessed from Lady Moon Drive with additional access to the south from Le Fever Drive and to the east from Cinquefoil Lane. The west access point central to the site will serve as primary access. The south access point along Le Fever Drive and the northern most access along Lady Moon Drive will provide secondary access. A separate service drive along Cinquefoil Lane will accommodate truck access to the service docks on the east side of the building. The east access points along Cinquefoil Lane serve as secondary access and emergency vehicle access. Accessible parking spaces are shown distributed between primary building access points. Pedestrian access is provided from parking areas to building entrances, and transit stops as well as circulation around the site. Wetlands and Natural Areas:  There are no wetlands or natural areas on the site. Statement of Planning Objectives Page 3 of 3 (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan.  Banner Health will own and maintain 27.88 acres bounded by Harmony Road to the north, Cinquefoil Lane to the east, Le Fever Drive to the south and Lady Moon Drive to the west. Maintenance will be completed by contracted services for landscape maintenance and roadway maintenance. Snow removal will be completed by Banner Health employees.  Banner Health will own and develop the entire 27.867 acre site and does not intend to sell off portions of the site. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses.  Phase 1 of the development incorporates approximately 163,300 square feet in three connected building masses. Approximately 130 Banner Health staff members will be employed at the hospital during Phase 1.  At the completion of the final build out, approximately 714 Banner Health staff will be employed on this campus. (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant.  This project will comply with applicable city standards. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described.  There are no variances being requested at this time. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated.  There are no wetlands or natural areas on the site. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held.  A neighborhood meeting was held on Nov. 26, 2012.  An additional neighborhood meeting was held on Feb. 20, 2012.  See Exhibit A for responses to neighborhood meeting comments and questions. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review.  Current: Banner Health Medical Campus  Conceptual Review: Medical Office Building  Previously: Presidio BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERSPECTIVES A1 APRIL 3, 2013 THESE RENDERINGS ARE FOR BUILDING MASSING REFERENCE ONLY. SEE BUILDING MATERIALS SHEET AND ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL TYPES AND LOCATIONS. BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUILDING MATERIALS A2 APRIL 3, 2013 STONE WILL BE USED TO DEFINE ENTRY POINTS AND GATHERING SPACES FOR PATIENTS AND VISITORS COMING TO THE CAMPUS. IT IS STRATEGICALLY PLACED AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE, ED ENTRANCE AND AT THE DINING HALL TO MARK THESE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SPACES. IT IS EXPRESSED AS A MASS IN EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS, WHICH DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE MASONRY BLOCK WALLS WHICH ARE USED AS PLANES. THE STONE MASSES ARE ALSO USED AT A PEDESTRIAN SCALE, SMALLER BY COMPARISION TO THE MASONRY WALLS, WHICH FURTHER REINFORCES THE LOCATIONS WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE EXPERIENCING THE BUILDING UP CLOSE. THIS MATERIAL IS USED IN A VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MANNER AT VARIOUS INTERSTITIAL SPACES AROUND THE BUILDING. THE MODULAR PANELS HELP TO BRING A DIFFERENT SCALE AND PATTERN TO THE FACADE. ALSO, THE COOL, CRISP NATURE OF THE METAL HELPS TO BALANCE THE WARM AND TEXTURED QUALITIES OF THE STONE AND MASONRY WALLS. USED SELECTIVELY, THIS MATERIAL BRINGS ANOTHER LEVEL OF WARMTH AND SCALE TO THE CAMPUS THROUGH THE COLOR AND REVEAL PATTERNING. THE REVEALS WILL BE SIZED AND LOCATED TO CREATE A PLAYFUL COMPOSITION INTEGRATED WITH THE WINDOW OPENINGS. THERE WILL BE A LIGHTER SHADE ON TOP AND A DARKER SHADE AT THE BASE AS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS. MASONRY STONE METAL PANEL SUNSHADES EIFS LOVELAND STONE SHOWN WITH MASONRY TYPE 1 LOVELAND STONE WHILE VISUAL ACCESS AND DAYLIGHT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING, CONTROLING THE GLARE AND INTENSITY OF THE SUN IS ALSO CRITICAL FOR BUILDINGS IN FT. COLLINS. ALL EAST AND WEST FACING PUNCHED OPENINGS IN THE BED TOIWER HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH VERTICAL SUNSHADES. ALL SOUTH FACING WINDOWS WILL HAVE A HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE. THERE IS ALSO A THIRD SUNSHADE PROVIDED AT THE CLINIC WHICH IS AN EXTENSION OF THE WINDOW MULLION AND ACTS AS A FIN, SHIELDING THE INTENSE WESTERN EXPOSURE. METAL PANEL IMAGE 1: MASONRY, TYPE 1 IMAGE 2: MASONRY, TYPE 2 IMAGE 3: MASONRY, TYPE 2A SHOWN ON BASE, TYPE 2 SHOWN ABOVE THERE ARE 4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MASONRY WALLS: TYPE 1: 4 DIFFERENT COLORS, IN 2 FINISHES (GROUNDFACE AND SANDBLASTED) & 3 SIZES (4",8" & 12"). SEE IMAGE 1 TYPE 1A: 2 COLORS (THE DARKER TWO COLORS FROM TYPE 1), IN SPLITFACE FINISH, IN 3 SIZES (4", 8" & 12") SEE IMAGE 3 FOR A TEXTURAL REFERENCE ONLY TYPE 2: 4 DIFFERENT COLORS (LIGHTER THAN TYPE 1), IN 2 FINISHES (GROUNDFACE AND SANDBLASTED) & 3 SIZES (4", 8" & 12"). SEE IMAGE 2 TYPE 2A: 2 COLORS (THE DARKER TWO COLORS FROM TYPE 2), IN SPLITFACE FINISH, IN 3 SIZES (4", 8" & 12") SEE IMAGE 3 COURSING ELEVATION - EXAMPLE FOR TYPE 1 AND 2 MATERIAL EXAMPLE - TYPE 1 THE MASONRY BLOCK WASLL IS ASSEMBLED IN A UNIQUE WAY, USING VARIOUS TONES, FINISHES AND SIZES, TO CREATE A WALL WITH DYNAMIC VISUAL INTEREST. THE MASONRY IS USED IN A PLANAR FORM AROUND THE BUILDING, SHIFTING AND OVERLAPPING OTHER MATERIAL VOLUMES. THIS EXPRESSION OF FORM, ALONG WITH ITS DYNAMIC TEXTURE, ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE MOUNTAINS AND STRIATIONS FOUND IN NATURAL STONE ITSELF. HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE VERTICAL SUNSHADE EIFS, JOINT PATTERNING AND VERTICAL SUNSHADES ALL MASONRY WALLS WILL HAVE A MASONRY PARAPET CAP LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" LEVEL 3 36'-0" 48'-0" 59'-8" T.O. PARAPET B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. ROOF LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" LEVEL 3 34'-0" 48'-0" 59'-8" T.O. PARAPET B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. ROOF BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" FULL BUILD ELEVATIONS A3 APRIL 3, 2013 METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1 EIFS, COLOR 1 CURTAIN WALL MASONRY, TYPE 2A METAL PANEL CANOPY CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL STOREFRONT AMBULANCE DROP-OFF CANOPY MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY , TYPE 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAIN WALL CURTAIN WALL EIFS, COLOR 1 MECHANICAL SCREEN METAL PANEL STONE METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL STONE METAL PANEL METAL PANEL CANOPY METAL PANEL STOREFRONT STOREFRONT WINDOW CURTAIN WALL LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" LEVEL 3 36'-0" 48'-0" 59'-8" T.O. PARAPET B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. ROOF LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" LEVEL 3 34'-0" 48'-0" 59'-8" T.O. PARAPET B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. ROOF BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" FULL BUILD ELEVATIONS A4 APRIL 3, 2013 MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN STONE MASONRY, TYPE 2 CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAINWALL METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE, TYP. AT ALL SOUTH FACING PATIENT ROOMS METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE, TYP. AT ALL SOUTH FACING PATIENT ROOMS METAL PANEL HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 14'-0" T.O. ROOF 28'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 14'-0" T.O. ROOF 28'-0" BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" FULL BUILD ELEVATIONS A5 APRIL 3, 2013 EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW WITH HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1 SUNSHADE, TYP. STOREFRONT WINDOW EIFS, COLOR 1 METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN MASONRY, TYPE 1 SUNSHADE EIFS, COLOR 1 HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE, TYP. STOREFRONT WINDOW MECHANICAL SCREEN MASONRY, TYPE 1 EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW SUNSHADE, TYP. CURTAIN WALL HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN MECHANICAL SCREEN STOREFRONT WINDOW EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A CURTAIN WALL MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL TRASH ENCLOSURE LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" T.O. ROOF 36'-0" B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. PARAPET 42'-0" T.O. PARAPET 50'-4" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" T.O. ROOF 36'-0" B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. PARAPET 42'-0" T.O. PARAPET 50'-4" BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" PHASE 1 ELEVATIONS A6 APRIL 3, 2013 MASONRY, TYPE 2A METAL PANEL CANOPY CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL STOREFRONT AMBULANCE DROP-OFF CANOPY MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY , TYPE 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAIN WALL EIFS, COLOR 1 CURTAIN WALL STOREFRONT WINDOW MASONRY, TYPE 2 STONE CURTAIN WALL STONE METAL PANEL DROP-OFF CANOPY METAL CANOPY CURTAIN WALL STOREFRONT WINDOW METAL PANEL STOREFRONT WINDOW BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE CANOPY MOUNTED SIGNAGE METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" T.O. ROOF 36'-0" B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. PARAPET 42'-0" T.O. PARAPET 50'-4" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 18'-0" T.O. ROOF 36'-0" B.O. CANOPY 14'-0" T.O. PARAPET 42'-0" T.O. PARAPET 50'-4" BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" PHASE 1 ELEVATIONS A7 APRIL 3, 2013 STOREFRONT WINDOW METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN STONE MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE EIFS, COLOR 1 CURTAINWALL METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 1 STOREFRONT WINDOW HORIZONTAL SUNSHADE, TYP. AT ALL SOUTH FACING PATIENT ROOMS METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 1 VERTICAL SUNSHADE, TYPICAL AT ALL EAST FACING PATIENT ROOMS STOREFRONT WINDOW ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SCREEN METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL STOREFRONT WINDOW EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL AMBULANCE DROP- LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 10'-0" T. O. PARAPET 16'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 10'-0" T. O. PARAPET 16'-0" BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1" = 20'-0" GARAGE ELEVATIONS A8 APRIL 3, 2013 MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A PRECAST CONCRETE, COLOR TO MATCH EIFS MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1A PRECAST CONCRETE, COLOR TO MATCH EIFS MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL CANOPY PRECAST CONCRETE, COLOR TO MATCH EIFS METAL PANEL PRECAST CONCRETE, COLOR TO MATCH EIFS METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1A PRECAST CONCRETE, COLOR TO MATCH EIFS METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHADOW ANALYSIS A9 APRIL 3, 2013 BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS HARMONY RD. & LADY MOON DR. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHADOW ANALYSIS A10 APRIL 3, 2013 Ft Collins ‐ Harmony Road Banner Health Medical Center Site Development Overview 2/20/2013 Medical Campus Access Routes Patient/Visitor Arrival/Departure Staff Emergency Vehicles/Ambulance Service Vehicles Banner Health Medical Center Issues Discussion • Ambulance Traffic: – All emergency response calls for service in Larimer County are routed through the 911 system in Fort Collins. – Typically ambulance service providers have GPS guided map routing to provide the fastest, least obstructed route to the emergency and to the designated medical facility (which requires using freeways, highways and major arterials). – Emergency ambulance service providers would only use neighborhood streets if there was an emergency in the neighborhood or if major arterial streets were block off due to an emergency event. – Colorado Model Traffic Code, Section 108 regulations apply to all emergency response. – It is estimated that 6 –8 patients would be transported to/from the Harmony Road Medical Center per day at full build out (2‐4 for Phase 1). – Banner Health requires ambulance service providers to observe a designated safe and quiet environment zone within a one (1) mile area from the medical center campus. Banner Health Medical Center Issues Discussion • Medical Campus Regulated Medical Waste (“RMW”) & Hospital Waste (“HW”) Disposal Transport : – RMW is “bio‐hazardous” waste that is regulated by the State of Colorado and the hospital is accountable for the control of the RMW within the facility and for the proper destruction/disposal of the RMW. – Banner Health uses a licensed RMW disposal company to pick up and autoclave the RMW at their facility in Dancono, Colorado. – HW are EPA regulated materials and enforcement of control within the hospital facility and disposal of HW is under the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado. Banner Health uses an approved EPA disposal and transport firm from Kimball, Nebraska for HW. – Transport of RMW and HW is regulated by the City of Fort Collins on city streets and the State of Colorado on state highways and interstates. Regulations require transport of these materials in the most direct and safe route possible between the origin and destination of the RMW and HW. – City and State regulations prohibit transport through residential neighborhoods unless absolutely necessary. – All medical center RMW and HW routing for transport will be directly from the hospital central services facility to Harmony Road east to I‐25. Helistop Aircraft Final Approach & Takeoff Primary Flight Path PRIMARY FATO SECONDARY FATO Banner Health Medical Center Issues Discussion • Medical Campus Helistop and Aircraft Flight Path: – The medical center helistop is located along the Harmony Road frontage and only used to aircraft arrival and departures with no permitted aircraft long term parking, maintenance, refueling or hanger storage facilities. – The helistop is anticipated to be used primarily to transfer patients to other higher level trauma centers or other regional facilities as required. – The State of Colorado designates Level 1 to 4 for trauma center, with Level 1 providing the highest level of emergency care and Level 4 the lowest level of emergency care. The Harmony Road medical facility is anticipating to operate as a Level 3 or 4 trauma center. – The helicopter flight path above 500 feet from ground level is regulated by FAA which prescribes that flight paths be limited to industrial highway/freeway/major arterial corridors and restricted from flying over residential neighborhoods, schools, churches and sensitive ecological areas, unless unusual weather conditions force deviation from normal flight paths for operational safety. – It is anticipated that the Harmony Road medical center would have 2‐4 helicopter patient transport per week at full build out (0‐1 for Phase 1). December 24, 2012 Mr. Clifford Trausch, Project Executive Banner Health Development and Construction, Western Region Northern Colorado Medical Center 1801 16th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Proposed Banner Health Medical Campus Project Site at the Southeast Corner of Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado Mr. Trausch: This letter report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the submittal of an ECS report for proposed development projects. The Banner Health Medical Campus project site is an approximate 28.2-acre parcel located south of Harmony Road and between Lady Moon Drive and Cinquefoil Lane in Fort Collins, Colorado. Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed on December 18, 2012. The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & i) The entire the proposed Banner Health Medical Campus site was historically converted from native grassland to non-native grass hayfield and a small area of residential and remnant farmstead tree stands. As a result the project area has minimal ecological value and supports no natural habitat features. The majority of the property’s surface has been planted to non-native grass, primarily smooth brome (Bromus inermis1), for hay production (see attached Figure 1). Less dominant vegetation species recorded in the grass hayfield areas included tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). The only woody vegetation remaining on the property are a number of landscape trees and shrubs planted around an occupied residence and a number of trees that appear to have been planted around farmsteads or residences that no longer exist on the property (see attached Figure 1). A number of dead or decadent trees were recently removed from the property based fresh cut tree stumps noted during field survey, but several mature trees still remain. Remaining trees on the property consist primarily of blue spruce (Picea pungens), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus pennsyvanicus), apple (Malus spp.), and cherry (Prunus spp.) trees. Most are over 6 inches in diameter and may be classified by the City Forester as significant based on the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The City Forester or a private arborist will need to evaluate the health of these trees in order for their significance status to be determined. Aside from potentially significant trees, the property does not support any native vegetation, wetlands, or other unique habitat features, and no features of ecological value exist within 500 feet of the development site. Wildlife use of the Banner Health Medical Campus site is minimal to nonexistent because of past conversion of native habitats to mowed hayfield. Trees on the property may be used for perching, nesting, and foraging by urban-adapted songbirds, and Canada geese grass may occasionally graze the hayfield areas. No raptor or songbird nests were located in the trees on the project area during the December 18th survey. (b) No wetlands are located on the Banner Health Medical Campus site or adjacent properties. 1 Scientific nomenclature follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/ C. Trausch 12/21/12 Page 2 of 4 (c) The Banner Health Medical Campus site provides relatively unobstructed views of the Front Range foothills. (d) As indicated under (a & i) the Banner Health Medical Campus site does not support any native vegetation, and significant trees are restricted to an existing residence and past residential or farmstead areas along the west edge of the property. (e) There are no natural drainages on or near Banner Health Medical Campus site. (f) There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species on or adjacent to the Banner Health Medical Campus site. A small extension of a black-tailed prairie dog town south and southeast of the project site extends into the southeast property corner. The portion of the town on the project area appears to have been subjected to prairie dog removal or poisoning. Most burrows had been recently plugged and no prairie dog presence was observed on the project area. Prairie dog activity was observed immediately south of the project area. (g) Past agricultural and residential conversion of the lands on the Banner Health Medical Campus site has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property. (h) There are no wildlife movement corridors on or near the Banner Health Medical Campus site. (j) Because of the lack of natural habitat features on the Banner Health Medical Campus site there is only one issue regarding the timing of property development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area. If the development proposal includes removal of any trees on the property, tree removal during the songbird nesting season could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest and would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (k) Since the entire project area has been converted to agricultural or residential land use, project development would have no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features, other than existing trees on the property. Because tree removal during the songbird nesting season could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest, it is recommended that tree removal or pruning occur outside of the songbird nesting season (April 1 – July 31), or trees be surveyed to ensure lack of nesting prior to removal during the nesting season. This mitigation recommendation would preclude the possible incidental take or disturbance of active songbird nests. Native trees or trees determined to be significant currently growing on the property should be preserved to the extent possible. Removal of any trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees, as determined by the City Forester based on the Land Use Code. This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the Banner Health Medical Campus development site. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding my evaluation, please give me a call. Sincerely, INC. T. Michael Phelan Principal, Senior Wildlife Biologist attachments: Figure 1, Habitat Mapping for the Banner Health Medical Campus Project Area, Legal Description pc: J. Messaros, BHA Design BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO JANUARY 2013 Prepared for: Banner Health Development & Construction, Western Region 1801 16th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1267 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 5 Pederstrian Facilities....................................................................................................... 5 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................9 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 10 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 14 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 14 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 14 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 22 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 30 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 30 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 30 Ambulance/Emergency Services .................................................................................. 30 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 31 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation for Banner Health Medical Campus............................................... 12 3. Trip Generation for Parcels G & H from Harmony Tech Park ODP......................... 12 4. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation ......................................... 21 5. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation........................................... 23 6. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 25 7. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation...................................................... 26 DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Averaged Recent Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................... 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 13 7. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 15 8. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................. 16 9. Phase 1 (2018) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic.................................................. 17 10. Full Development Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic............................................... 18 11. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 19 12. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Traffic............................................................ 20 13. Short Range (2018) Geometry ................................................................................ 28 14. Long Range (2035) Geometry................................................................................. 29 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Peak Hour Signal Warrant E. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation G. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation With Existing Geometry H. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation I. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets J. Emergency Services I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Banner Health Medical Campus. The proposed Banner Health Medical Campus is located on Parcels G & H in the Harmony Tech Park in the southeast quadrant of the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the developer (Banner Health), the developer’s representative (PCK Real Estate Consulting), the project planning consultant (BHA Design), the project engineering consultant (Northern Engineering), Fort Collins Traffic Engineering, and Fort Collins Transportation Planning. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 1 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Banner Health Medical Campus site on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2018) and long range (2035) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of Banner Health Medical Campus is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The trip generation for Phase 1 of the Banner Health Medical Campus resulted in 2810 daily trip ends, 200 morning peak hour trip ends, and 207 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of Banner Health Medical Campus resulted in 7850 daily trip ends, 546 morning peak hour trip ends, and 588 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The Banner Health Medical Campus will generate more daily and morning peak hour trip ends, but less afternoon peak hour trip ends than that calculated for the former proposed land use in the Harmony Tech Park ODP. - The key intersections operate acceptably with the existing traffic and geometry. - The Harmony/Lady Moon intersection is currently signalized. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection will meet peak hour signal warrants during the morning and afternoon peak hours in the long range (2035) future. However, roundabout control at the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection may be more appropriate. The other stop sign controlled intersections will not have traffic signals in the future. - In the short range (2018) future, given development of the Banner Health Medical Campus site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. - In the long range (2035) future, given development of the Banner Health Medical Campus site and an increase in background traffic, the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements or achieve level of service D or better overall during the afternoon peak hour. There are several intersections that will not achieve level of service C or better for all approaches during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection will operate acceptably with roundabout control. - The short range (2018) geometry is shown in Figure 13 and the long range (2035) geometry is shown in Figure 14. - Based upon the long range (2035) traffic forecasts, Cinquefoil Lane should be classified as a major collector street. The long range (2035) daily traffic volumes will be in the range of 4500-5000 vehicles per day, which puts Cinquefoil Lane in the major collector street category. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 31 DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 32 - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. - Banner Health provides information regarding ambulance and emergency services in Appendix J. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Banner Health Medical Campus site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, industrial, and residential. There are residential uses to the south of the site. There are commercial and industrial uses to the north, south, and west of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Banner Health Medical Campus site. Streets The primary streets near the Banner Health Medical Campus site are Harmony Road, Lady Moon Drive, Rock Creek Drive, and Cinquefoil Lane. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the key intersections. Harmony Road is to the north of (adjacent to) the Banner Health Medical Campus site. It is an east-west street designated as a six-lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a six-lane cross section with appropriate auxiliary lanes at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection. At the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection, Harmony Road has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, three through lanes in each direction, and a westbound right-turn lane. The existing speed limit in this area is 55 mph. Lady Moon Drive is a north-south street designated as a collector street south of Harmony Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lady Moon Drive has a two-lane cross section, with a center continuous two-way left-turn lane, south of Harmony Road. The north leg of the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection serves the Hewlett-Packard campus. At the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection, Lady Moon Drive has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, a northbound through lane, a southbound combined through/right-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn lane. The Harmony/Lady Moon intersection has signal control. At the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection, Lady Moon Drive has a southbound left-turn lane, a southbound combined through/right-turn lane, and a northbound combined left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection has all-way stop sign control. The existing posted speed is 30 mph on Lady Moon Drive. Rock Creek Drive is an east-west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Rock Creek Drive has a two-lane cross section east of Ziegler Road. At the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection, Rock Creek Drive has an eastbound combined left-turn/through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane, and a westbound combined left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The existing posted speed is 30 mph on Rock Creek Drive. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 2 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Harmony Rock Creek Ziegler Lady Moon Kechter Interstate 25 Horsetooth Timberline Precision Banner Health Medical Campus SCALE: 1"=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 3 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 4 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East - Denotes Lane _ Two-way Continuous Left-turn Lane Cinquefoil Lane is a north-south street designated as a collector street south of Harmony Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Cinquefoil Lane exists between Precision Drive and Kechter Road. Cinquefoil Lane will be extended when adjacent development occurs or when it is determined to be necessary. With the Banner Health Medical Campus proposal, Cinquefoil Lane will be constructed between Harmony Road and Le Fever Drive. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Harmony/Lady Moon, Lady Moon/ Precision, and Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at the key intersections were obtained in November 2012. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since traffic counts were performed on different days, the traffic volumes between the intersections were averaged and are shown on Figure 4. Existing Operation The Harmony/Lady Moon, Lady Moon/Precision, and Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Banner Health Medical Campus site is in an area termed “other.” In areas termed “other,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for any approach leg for an arterial/collector and level of service C or better for any approach leg for a local and collector/local intersection. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Harmony Road, adjacent to developed properties (Intel, Hewlett-Packard, etc.). There are sidewalks along the east side of Lady Moon Drive, between Harmony Road and Precision Drive. South of Precision Drive, there are sidewalks along both sides of Lady Moon Drive. There are existing sidewalks along the south side of Rock Creek Drive. On the north side of Rock Creek Drive, there are sidewalks adjacent to developed properties. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 5 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 6 24/26 58/44 3/5 5/5 37/78 16/22 16/12 18/59 12/49 20/16 56/50 7/3 1/0 93/71 0/1 2/1 57/103 4/13 1/5 0/0 0/1 22/9 0/0 1/1 49/23 28/1 43/45 4/77 1/53 1/150 14/5 1287/2109 25/55 145/12 1855/1993 45/24 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East AM/PM AVERAGED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 7 24/26 59/40 3/5 5/6 40/83 17/23 16/11 18/59 12/49 21/14 56/50 7/3 1/0 95/64 0/1 2/1 61/110 4/14 1/5 0/0 0/1 22/8 0/0 1/1 48/26 28/1 42/50 4/77 1/50 1/150 14/5 1287/2109 24/52 145/12 1855/1993 42/23 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E E EB T B D EB RT B D EB APPROACH B D WB LT D E WB T A B WB RT A A WB APPROACH B B NB LT C D NB T D D NB RT C D NB APPROACH C D SB LT D D SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D D Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL B C EB LT/T/RT B A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT A A SB T/RT A A SB APPROACH A A Rock Creek/Lady Moon (all-way stop) OVERALL A A DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 8 Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle lanes along Harmony Road, Lady Moon Drive, and Rock Creek Drive within the study area. Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 16 and 17. Route 16 operates along Harmony Road, Timberwood Drive, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. Route 17 operates along Timberline Road, Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Banner Health Medical Campus will include hospital, clinic, and medical office uses. Figure 5 shows a conceptual site plan of the Banner Health Medical Campus. On the site plan, the darker brown hatch on the main building is the approximate area of Phase 1 of the Banner Health Medical Campus site. The short range analysis (Year 2018) includes development of Phase 1 of the Banner Health Medical Campus site and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The long range analysis year is considered to be 2035. The site plan shows that there will be one full-movement access to/from Lady Moon Drive, a right-in/right-out access to/from Lady Moon Drive, two full-movement accesses to/from Cinquefoil Drive, and one full-movement access to/from Le Fever Drive. In addition to these public accesses, there will be a “service” access to/from Cinquefoil Drive. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at the Banner Health Medical Campus site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation for the Banner Health Medical Campus on a daily and peak hour basis. The initial phase (Phase 1) of the Banner Health Medical Campus site includes 147,000 square feet of hospital use and 13,000 square feet of medical office. All land uses for Phase 1 will be located in one building. The trip generation for Phase 1 of the Banner Health Medical Campus resulted in 2810 daily trip ends, 200 morning peak hour trip ends, and 207 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of Banner Health Medical Campus resulted in 7850 daily trip ends, 546 morning peak hour trip ends, and 588 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Table 3 shows the trip generation for Parcels G & H from the Harmony Tech Park ODP. The trip generation for Parcels G & H from the Harmony Tech Park ODP resulted in 7380 daily trip ends, 496 morning peak hour trip ends, and 775 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Based upon a comparison of Tables 2 and 3, the Banner Health Medical Campus will generate more daily and morning peak hour trip ends, but less afternoon peak hour trip ends than that calculated for the former proposed land use. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Banner Health Medical Campus site was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in Fort Collins, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2018) and long range (2035) analysis futures. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 10 SCALE: 1"=200' SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 11 TABLE 2 Trip Generation for Banner Health Medical Campus Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Phase 1 610 Hospital 147.0 KSF EQ 2320 EQ 106 EQ 62 EQ 64 EQ 104 720 Medical Office 13.0 KSF EQ 490 1.82 25 0.48 7 EQ 11 EQ 28 Total for Phase 1 2810 131 69 75 132 Phase 2 610 Hospital 183.0 KSF EQ 2885 EQ 133 EQ 78 EQ 79 EQ 130 720 Medical Office 57.0 KSF EQ 2155 1.82 107 0.48 28 EQ 48 EQ 124 Total for Phase 2 5040 240 106 127 254 Full Development Total 7850 371 175 202 386 TABLE 3 Trip Generation for Parcels G & H from Harmony Tech Park ODP Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Parcel G 710 Office 67.0 KSF 11.01 740 1.36 91 0.19 13 0.25 17 1.24 83 820 Shopping Center 108.0 KSF 42.94 4640 0.63 68 0.40 43 1.80 194 1.95 211 Parcel H 710 Office 181.5 KSF 11.01 2000 1.36 247 0.19 34 0.25 45 1.24 225 Total 7380 406 90 256 519 DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 12 Harmony Rock Creek Ziegler Lady Moon Precision 25% 20% 15% 20% 10% 5% 5% SCALE: 1"=1000' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 13 Background Traffic Projections Figures 7 and 8 show the respective short range (2018) and long range (2035) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the long range future horizon was developed by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and the Fort Collins traffic model. The short range (2018) background traffic was developed by generally increasing the existing traffic counts by two percent per year. The background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. In the long range (2035) future, existing traffic volumes were factored by one percent per year and the entire Harmony Tech Park was assumed to be built and occupied. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figures 9 and 10 show the Phase 1 (2018) and full development site generated peak hour traffic assignment, respectively. Figures 11 and 12 show the respective short range (2018) and long range (2035) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Harmony/Lady Moon intersection is currently signalized. None of the current or future stop sign controlled intersections are expected to have traffic signals in the short range (2018) future. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection meets peak hour signal warrants during the morning and afternoon peak hours in the long range (2035) future. A peak hour signal warrant is provided in Appendix D. However, roundabout control at the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection may be more appropriate. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the Harmony/Lady Moon, Harmony/ Cinquefoil, Lady Moon/Le Fever, Lady Moon/Precision, Rock Creek/Lady Moon, Cinquefoil/Le Fever, Cinquefoil/Precision, Rock Creek/Cinquefoil, and the Site Access intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range and long range futures, reflecting year 2018 and 2035 conditions, respectively. The long range (2035) analyses are provided for informational purposes. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key intersections operate in the short range (2018) background traffic future, with the existing geometry, as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours. DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 14 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 15 36/35 79/54 3/6 17/12 52/111 23/42 20/23 24/86 16/65 43/26 83/68 8/3 1/0 139/90 2/13 2/1 79/158 11/39 1/6 0/0 0/1 47/22 0/0 13/6 77/42 32/1 78/74 5/87 1/56 1/169 16/6 1449/2375 34/84 163/14 2089/2244 56/58 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East LONG RANGE (2035) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 16 115/65 140/80 60/55 35/115 70/175 30/70 115/60 160/245 35/150 55/30 210/250 45/75 35/10 280/235 25/10 45/10 190/330 140/80 5/35 5/5 5/35 50/200 5/5 5/25 45/10 235/145 30/15 25/10 110/295 65/85 5/30 5/5 10/35 100/80 5/5 15/30 205/400 35/5 80/180 5/100 5/65 5/190 20/10 1830/2910 175/155 180/15 2460/2505 275/225 NOM 100/115 100/150 NOM 130/95 65/85 AM/PM PHASE 1 (2018) SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 17 13/8 17/32 7/13 4/7 32/18 7/4 1/1 1/2 26/15 3/5 8/5 11/22 6/12 10/6 24/46 Harmony LeFever Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Cinquefoil Main Access Seondary Access Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access HP East 28/52 52/30 71/40 10/6 42/24 6/12 28/52 NOM 1/2 7/4 1/1 10/20 NOM 26/15 8/5 45/25 27/53 3/5 52/30 28/52 AM/PM FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 18 49/22 14/7 6/19 13/53 17/22 43/24 14/6 180/100 35/20 30/80 15/37 34/55 30/16 7/4 25/54 14/31 5/10 52/28 13/7 10/5 6/13 4/8 11/6 7/9 9/4 5/6 9/27 6/11 74/41 7/15 21/11 28/62 33/93 14/9 41/69 194/106 Harmony LeFever Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Cinquefoil Main Access Seondary Access Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access Office Access HP AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 19 1/1 1/2 2334/2331 1531/2623 8/5 11/22 193/129 10/6 24/46 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Cinquefoil Main Access Seondary Access Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access HP East 91/198 71/40 197/123 42/24 6/12 28/52 NOM 1/2 7/4 1/1 10/20 NOM 36/35 92/61 3/6 34/44 58/124 27/49 52/41 24/86 16/65 50/30 83/68 8/3 1/0 191/119 2/13 2/1 106/210 LONG RANGE (2035) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 20 115/65 170/95 65/60 60/170 85/205 35/80 170/90 175/250 35/150 65/35 215/265 50/80 35/10 340/270 60/25 45/10 225/385 155/85 5/35 5/5 5/35 55/215 5/5 15/65 45/10 330/195 30/15 25/10 155/390 65/85 5/30 5/5 10/35 100/80 5/5 15/30 275/550 35/5 85/195 5/100 5/65 5/190 120/10 1850/2920 295/220 180/15 2460/2505 350/265 5/5 110/150 100/150 10/5 140/100 65/85 TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E E EB T C D EB RT C E EB APPROACH C D WB LT D E WB T B B WB RT A A WB APPROACH B B NB LT C D NB T D D NB RT C D NB APPROACH C D SB LT D D SB T/RT D E SB APPROACH D D Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL B D EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT A A SB T/RT A A SB APPROACH A A Rock Creek/Lady Moon (all-way stop) OVERALL A A DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 21 DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 22 Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) background traffic future as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The Harmony/Lady Moon intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements or achieve level of service D or better overall during the afternoon peak hour. The Harmony/Cinquefoil intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for the northbound approach during the afternoon peak hour. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection was analyzed with all-way stop sign control and roundabout control. This intersection will operate acceptably with both all-way stop and roundabout control. The other key intersections will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key intersections operate in the short range (2018) total traffic future, with the existing geometry at existing intersections, as indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. The key intersections will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 12, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) total traffic future as indicated in Table 7. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix H. As with the long range (2035) background traffic, the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements or achieve level of service D or better overall during the afternoon peak hour. The Harmony/Cinquefoil intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for the northbound approach during the afternoon peak hour. The Lady Moon/Timberwood-Main Access and Lady Moon/Le Fever intersections will not achieve level of service C or better for all approaches during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection will operate acceptably with roundabout control. Geometry Figure 13 shows a schematic of the short range (2018) geometry. There are no geometric improvements needed at the existing intersections. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the long range (2035) geometry. The geometry at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection in the long range future should include dual northbound and westbound left-turn lanes. This will require Lady Moon to have two southbound receiving lanes. Based upon the long range (2035) traffic forecasts, Cinquefoil Lane should be classified as a major collector street from Harmony Road to Rock Creek Drive. The long range (2035) daily traffic volumes will be in the range of 4500-5000 vehicles per day, which puts Cinquefoil Lane in the major collector street category. If there was a desire to allow on-street parking south of Le Fever Drive (since most land uses in this area are residential), Cinquefoil Lane could be classified as a minor collector with parking, south of Le Fever Drive. Le Fever Drive should be classified as a major collector street from Lady Moon Drive to the Site Access. The long range (2035) daily traffic volumes in this segment will be in the range of 4000-4500 vehicles per day. The daily volumes on Le Fever Drive will be in the range of 3000-3300 east of the access. TABLE 5 Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E F EB T C F EB RT A A EB APPROACH C E WB LT D F WB T D C WB RT B B WB APPROACH D C NB LT E F NB T/RT D E NB APPROACH D E SB LT D E SB T/RT D F SB APPROACH D E Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL C E Lady Moon/RT Access EB RT B B (RT-in/RT-out) WB RT B B Lady Moon/Timberwood EB LT/RT B C (stop sign) NB LT A A EB LT/T/RT C C WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A Lady Moon/Le Fever (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T/RT B C WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T C D EB RT A B EB APPROACH C C WB LT/T/RT C E NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT B B SB T/RT B D SB APPROACH B C Rock Creek/Lady Moon (all-way stop) OVERALL C D Continued on next page DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 23 Continued from previous page TABLE 5 Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB APPROACH A B WB APPROACH B A NB APPROACH A A SB APPROACH A B Rock Creek/Lady Moon (roundabout) OVERALL A B Harmony/Cinquefoil (RT-in/RT-out) NB RT D F EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B D NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/ER Access (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT C C WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/Le Fever (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/Precision (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT C C Rock Creek/Cinquefoil (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT B B DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 24 TABLE 6 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E E EB T C D EB RT C E EB APPROACH C E WB LT D E WB T B B WB RT A A WB APPROACH B B NB LT C D NB T D D NB RT C D NB APPROACH C D SB LT D D SB T/RT D E SB APPROACH D D Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL C D Lady Moon/RT Access (RT-in/RT-out) WB RT A A Lady Moon/Main Access WB LT/RT B B (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A B EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T/RT A B NB LT/T/RT B B SB LT A A SB T/RT A B SB APPROACH A B Rock Creek/Lady Moon (all-way stop) OVERALL A B Harmony/Cinquefoil (RT-in/RT-out) NB RT A B Cinquefoil/ER Access EB LT/RT A A (stop sign) NB LT/T A A DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 25 TABLE 7 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E F EB T C F EB RT B A EB APPROACH C E WB LT D F WB T D C WB RT B B WB APPROACH D D NB LT E F NB T/RT D E NB APPROACH E F SB LT D E SB T/RT D F SB APPROACH D F Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL D E Lady Moon/RT Access EB RT B B (RT-in/RT-out) WB RT B C EB LT/T/RT F F WB LT/T/RT F F NB LT A A Lady Moon/Timberwood-Main Access (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T/RT C D WB LT/T/RT C D NB LT A A Lady Moon/Le Fever (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T/RT B C WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T E F EB RT B C EB APPROACH E E WB LT/T/RT D F DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 26 NB LT/T/RT E D SB LT B B Rock Creek/Lady Moon (all-way stop) SB T/RT C F SB APPROACH C F OVERALL D F Continued on next page Continued from previous page TABLE 7 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB APPROACH A C WB APPROACH B B NB APPROACH B A SB APPROACH A C Rock Creek/Lady Moon (roundabout) OVERALL B B Harmony/Cinquefoil (RT-in/RT-out) NB RT E F EB LT/T/RT B C WB LT/T/RT B D NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/ER Access (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/Secondary Access EB LT/RT B B (stop sign) NB LT/T A A EB LT/T/RT C C WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/Le Fever (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT/T/RT A A Cinquefoil/Precision (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT C D Rock Creek/Cinquefoil (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT B C EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT B B Le Fever/Office Access (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A B DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 27 SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY Figure 13 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 28 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Cinquefoil Main Access Seondary Access Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access HP East LeFever - Denotes Lane _ Two-way Continuous Left-turn Lane LONG RANGE (2035) GEOMETRY Figure 14 DELICH ASSOCIATES Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 Page 29 Harmony LeFever Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access Cinquefoil Timberwood Main Access Seondary Access Office Access HP East - Denotes Lane Two-way - Continuous Left-turn Lane DELICH Banner Health Medical Campus TIS, January 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 30 Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix I shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Banner Health Medical Campus. There will be three pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of Banner Health Medical Campus. These are: 1) the Hewlett-Packard Campus, 2) the residential areas to the south and southeast of the site, and 3) the commercial/industrial uses within the Harmony Tech Park (Custom Blending). This site is in an area type termed “Transit Corridor.” Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations in the short range (2018) future. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix I. The minimum level of service for “Transit Corridor” is C, except for directness and security which is LOS B. Bicycle Level of Service There are no bicycle destinations within 1320 feet of Banner Health Medical Campus. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix I. The minimum level of service for this site is C. This site is connected to Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service C can be achieved. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 16 and 17. Route 16 operates along Harmony Road, Timberwood Drive, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. Route 17 operates along Timberline Road, Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. It is expected that these types of land uses will precipitate an increase in transit service. Ambulance/Emergency Services A neighborhood meeting was held on November 26, 2012 for the Banner Health Medical Campus. Many of the concerns/questions were with regard to emergency services that will be present at the Banner Health Medical Campus. Banner Health’s detailed responses to the three general comment categories (ambulance traffic, helicopters, and toxic waste) discussed during the November 26, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting and subsequent follow up questions submitted to the City of Fort Collins are provided in Appendix J. The Banner Health Medical Campus will have ambulance service, as well as a helicopter pad. Ambulance service will be similar to smaller hospitals in the area, since the Banner Health Medical Campus will not be a major trauma center. There will not be a helicopter “parked” on the helipad full-time. Rather, the helipad is for specifically transporting patients to the Banner Health Medical Campus or to other area hospitals. The transport of hazardous waste (HW) and regulated medical waste (RMW) is regulated by the City of Fort Collins on city streets and State of Colorado on state highways and interstates. CHEMICAL VOLUME (gallons) USE BUILDING FLOOR ROOM SECURITY NOTES Diesel 30 Maintenance vehicle and equipment fuel (Utility ATVs, snow plow and snow blower) Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Herbicide ‐ Potassium salt of glyphosate (Round Up) 2 Weed control Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Insecticide ‐ Isopropanol (Raid) 2 Pest control Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Paint thinner 2 Building maintenance Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Cleaning chemicals ‐ alcohol ethoxilates, nonyl phenol ethoxilates 50 Building maintenance ‐ bulk storage Plant Services Building 1st Floor Environmental Service Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Cleaning chemicals ‐ alcohol ethoxilates, nonyl phenol ethoxilates 2 Building maintenance ‐ daily use Clinic, Patient Tower and D&T Buildings 1st and 2nd Floors Housekeeping closets Glutaraldehyde ‐2.55% solution (Cidex) 10 Medical equipment sterilization Plant Services Building 1st Floor Environmental Service Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Xylene 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Acetone 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Ethyl chloride 0.1 Pharmaceutical preparation Patient Tower Basement Pharmacy The basement level will be secured with card access control system. The Pharmacy will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the pharmacy. Ethyl alcohol 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Isopropyl alcohol 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Formaldehyde 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Methyl alcohol 2 Lab testing procedures Patient Tower 1st Floor Laboratory The Laboratory will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the laboratory. Methyl alcohol 0.25 Pharmaceutical preparation Patient Tower Basement Pharmacy The basement level will be secured with card access control system. The Pharmacy will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located throughout the pharmacy. Oxygen 575 Patient care Fenced bulk storage tank The gate providing access to the bulk storage tank will have locking hardware. Banner Health Medical Campus Neighborhood Meeting Concerns & Response Summary Concern Response Ambulance Impacts (neighborhood traffic, speed, noise) Ambulances typically avoid neighborhood streets as much as possible unless there is an emergency within the neighborhood itself. Neighborhood streets feature slower speed limits, school zones, speed bumps, etc. that decrease ambulance response times. In southeast Fort Collins, ambulances will primarily utilize I-25, Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, HWY 287, and Frontage Roads. It is estimated approximately 2-4 patients would be transported by ambulance to the Harmony Road medical center per day and 2-4 would be transported to other medical centers from the Harmony Road facility per day. Transports to other facilities will utilize Harmony Road & I-25. At other Banner medical facilities, such as North Colorado Medical Center in Greeley, ambulances turn off their lights and sirens approximately ½ mile from the hospital to be good stewards to the surrounding neighborhood. Hazardous Material Removal The proposed hospital, as a generator of Regulated Medical Waste (RMW) and Hazardous Waste (HW) is held accountable for the proper destruction/disposal of the waste and will follow State of Colorado regulations, including internal facility collection, storage, and external disposal through the use of licensed disposal vendors. The facility will follow City of Fort Collins regulations for the transport of RMW and HW which require the most direct and safest route possible between origin and destination. At the proposed hospital, this will require licensed transporters exit the loading dock, go north directly to Harmony Road and then east to I-25. Transport through residential neighborhoods is not necessary and unlikely to be permitted as Harmony Road is easily accessible from the loading dock via the north end of Cinquefoil Lane. Helicopters A permanent “helistop” will be built along the Harmony Road frontage. Helicopter medical transports are permitted only to land for limited periods of time to pick up or drop off patients. It is anticipated helicopters will be used exclusively to transfer patients to higher level trauma centers. In general, helicopters will fly over Harmony Road after takeoff or on final approach to the hospital. In populated areas, flight patterns typically involve flights over industrial corridors. In this area, helicopters will fly over I-25, Harmony Road and HWY 287. Banner Health Medical Campus Neighborhood Meeting November 26, 2012 Q: Will Kaiser have a presence on the campus? A: Not a full time presence, physicians may come in. Kaiser just opened a clinic across the street with room to grow. Q: Is urgent care included? A: Yes. Many emergency room walk‐ins are urgent care. Also, we are planning a clinic in town with extended care for urgent care needs. Q: Concerns with noise on the campus with ambulances, helipad. A: Ambulances use siren to clear up traffic; tend to shut down siren as they near medical center. Ambulance volume / arrivals not anticipate to be high. Q: Where will ambulances come from? A: Can come down both Lady Moon and Cinquefoil. It is anticipated that most traffic will come from the north from Harmony. Q: What is the city code for ambulances running through neighborhoods? Many people don’t want to have ambulances running through their neighborhood. A: No city code language specific to ambulances; other code provisions for mitigating noise. A: Helicopter will not be parked and stored at the site; want the ability to land a helicopter if necessary for transports. Unlikely in the early days to have a helicopter bring patients to the facility rather than transporting a patient to another facility. A: Helicopter flight path to follow/fly over Harmony road into and out of the site. C: Many children in the neighborhood going to neighboring schools, potential problem with speeding ambulances and noise going down Lady Moon Drive. A: Ambulance volume / arrivals not anticipate being high. Q: What is the anticipated trauma level designation? A: Not yet determined, but likely a level III. A: Four trauma level designations. Level 1 (some Denver hospitals) that require on site specialists. Level 2 requirements not as stringent as a level 1. Subsequent levels less stringent requirements. No level 1 trauma center in Northern Colorado. Q: What ambulance service will serve the campus? A: Poudre Valley owns ambulance service in Fort Collins. Not bringing in an ambulance service, will have to work this out with the City. Q: Are there any variances on density/zoning? Is the overall use within what it is currently zoned for? A: Hospital is a permitted use in the Harmony Corridor zone district – A Type 2 use requiring Planning & Zoning Board approval. Part of the overall Harmony Technology Park (200 acres). Permitted use in part because it’s along Harmony Road with the idea Harmony is one of the major arterial corridors within Fort Collins. Q: A lot of vacant land, what might develop in the next 20 areas. A: Entire area designated Harmony Corridor District; many different uses permitted in the zone district. Typical uses are employment uses with good access. Some secondary uses can go in the district but at a limited amount (restaurant, hotels, retail). What develops decided by the marketplace and fit within the zoning and development standards. Q: Campus is just down the road from the Poudre Valley campus – why is it located here rather than other parts of the City not as well served by medical facilities? A: Internal debate about where to locate facility. Fort Collins balanced north/south. Part of challenge was finding property of sufficient size for this type of development. Need a campus that can develop over a long life. Great location with access to Harmony. Proximity to I‐25 and an area of future growth in Fort Collins. Positioning additional services across town. Q: Comparing this campus to McKee, is there something new or something that will not be present? A: Scope has not been determined yet. As population grows and with partner organizations we will meet the needs based on future assessment. Cancer center at McKee but not a cancer center here at present – meet needs in the future. Not trying to duplicate high‐end equipment all over, trying to be efficient. Specialists available to see patients. Q: Is there bed capacity? A: Still working on the numbers. Q: When are you looking to break ground? A: End of 2013. Q: Will there be any LEED certification, public art? A: Do not do LEED certification, but do what it takes to get LEED certification and green design. Look for architectural components that are hard to distinguish in early renderings. Do a substantial amount of art in the facility and within reason outside; business is health care for servicing the community but have to be careful how money is invested. Q: What is being planned for the properties on either side of the campus (east/west). A: No development proposals submitted for the east or the west sides. The Overall Development Plan for the area is a mix of primary and secondary uses. Generally employment and commercial/retail secondary uses. Q: Is there any coordination amongst helicopter operators? A: Transfer center dispatches the helicopter; called to launch the helicopter. Q: Has there been an independent needs study for the facility. A: Not an independent study, but have studied extensively to make sure the need is there; otherwise a bad investment. Q: What’s the potential impact concerning traffic around the facility? A: Compared to planning done to date for the overall plan for the area, create a slight increase overall but a decrease in the peak periods. A transportation impact study will be prepared for the facility with experience in other Harmony Corridor projects. The City will require a transportation impact study as the project moves forward. Will compare it to the previous uses on site; anticipated likely that traffic will be close to the same as previous proposed land uses. Afternoon peak goes down slightly compared to previous uses. Q: How many employees will be on the campus? A: No specific number yet; based on size of services but several hundred. McKee is at 1,000; smaller footprint than McKee. Employees arriving at different shifts. Q: Who pays for the extension of Cinquefoil Drive and utilities? A: Paid by the developers for local portion of road improvements required. Q: When would the doors open? A: Late 2015 to early 2016. Q: Are physicians on staff or individual contractors? A: Employed, independent contractors, community physicians. Employee group growing nationally. Employed groups likely to grow faster. Work with a large number of independent groups. Q: Has there been an independent study on property value impacts? A: Not specific impact on property values, but an economic impact (positive economic impact). Usually asked by community to develop for access to health care services. Q: How can a facility on an unoccupied field produce less vehicular traffic. A: An overall development plan developed for the area. Each parcel had a use associated with them; two parcels in the overall development plan associated with the current proposed medical campus site. They had trip generation assigned. Trip generation compared to the overall development plan assigned use. A: Hospitals work in 3‐shifts, letting out during periods that may vary from normal employer schedules. Sporadic use throughout the day. This is the typical pattern seen with this type of use based on experience with similar projects. Q: How do you see mental health fitting into a primary care setting. Q: Would there be emergency/overnight stay for psychiatric emergencies? A: Psychiatric care now being placed and incorporated into primary care clinics. Use tele‐health for 24h site care and also set up contracts for psychiatric care. Q: Closing of in‐patient at NCMC. A: Business decision as it wasn’t consistently full. Aligned with two psychiatric hospitals (all they do) and can send patients to them. A: Not enough volume at each facility. Psych hospitals in Denver that have the capacity and willingness to take patients. Q: Does the planning process look at the need of another hospital / health care costs. A: No, the land use code is based on the physical aspects of a project, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the application code standards for the development. Code requires that developers pay review fees and other development fees. Land Use Code does not dictate marketplace needs, but does address whether impacts of the development are mitigated based on the standards. A: Competition may help bring costs down, but more shifting to population health management. If part of a plan, pay a flat rate – similar to Kaiser Permanente. Work to keep people healthy and out of the hospital beds; a shift in the system. C: Would prefer to see something like this go up along Harmony rather than another big‐box store. Q: What is being discussed for other services across town? A: A clinic off Harmony currently and working on adding additional services. Q: Traffic increasing on Cinquefoil and going to get worse once the rest of the area is developed – can it be closed off to diminish traffic going south? Can Le Fever be extended to Strauss Cabin? Is it redundant with Lady Moon Drive? A: The Overall Development plan shows a network of streets; a grid of streets interspersed through the property. Collector streets to help connect neighborhoods. A: O.D.P. shows La Fever on the south side of intel; unknown when it is planned to be constructed. A: Other planned streets: Timberwood, Technology Parkway to feed the arterial street system. Unlikely for the City to allow any stoppage; always intended to go through. LUC requires minimum street spacing and connectivity. A: At intersection of Cinquefoil & Harmony there is only a right‐in, right out. A: Lady Moon Drive has full movement at Harmony; main entrance for the medical campus is off Lady Moon. A: Lady Moon intended to eventually connect to College as a way for people from Loveland to get into town. Lady Moon Drive likely to have more traffic. Don’t envision much more traffic on Cinquefoil, instead on Lady Moon. C: Lady Moon is a mess in the morning/evenings with the schools; if it is to be a major road it will need improvements. Q: Does Banner currently own the property? A: Working on finalizing. A: 207 acre area subject to an approved overall development plan approved in 1999 and amended four times describing land use, streets. Harmony Corridor intended to promote primary jobs along Harmony Road and secondary support uses. The proposed site currently shows retail/office development. This proposal unifies two tracts of land for the medical campus project. The Overall Development Plan also includes a master utility plan in order for development to proceed in phases. Extensive planning for 13 years on the property. Property owners that share in ownership have already extended South Fort Collins Sanitation sewer line 2 miles, put in water lines, Lady Moon Drive, storm sewer. Exhibit A: Neighborhood Meeting Comment and Question Response Banner Health Medical Campus April 04, 2013 1. Ambulance Traffic: Q: Does Banner have its own ambulances or contract this service? A: Banner Health owns and operates Banner North Colorado Paramedic Service. Q: How will PVH vs. Banner emergency response be determined? A: Emergency responses to calls for service in Larimer County are routed through the 911 System in Fort Collins to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) closest to the call’s origin. The PSAP receiving the call will dispatch the appropriate and closest responders to the emergency. Q: How do ambulance drivers decide their route? Is there a map screen as with fire engines? A: Banner Health ambulances have computers mounted in the vehicle providing GPS guided routing. Spillman Technologies is our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) service provider for computerized mapping that provides the fastest, least obstructed route to emergencies. Q: Can ambulance drivers deviate from prevailing traffic regulations (i.e., stop signs, speed limits)? A: The Colorado Model Traffic Code applies to the operation of ambulances. Section 108 describes the rules that apply to emergency response. Safe operation is the priority to ambulance response to and from calls for services at all times. However, Banner Health has strict policies for ambulance operations that are often more stringent than State requirements. Our policies require the following:  Employees receive driver training during their initial employment training.  Employees must pass motor vehicle record checks on an annual basis.  Ambulance operators are not permitted to exceed the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph.  Ambulance operators are required to approach all controlled intersections and “Slow, Stop and Clear.” This means that ambulances will slow down when approaching intersections, stop as necessary to verify that there are no vehicles approaching the intersection and proceed through the intersection only when it is safe.  If an ambulance is forced to drive in an on-coming lane of traffic, the maximum speed is 20 mph.  When operating in a school zone, ambulances will follow all posted speed limits, stop signs and crossing guards. Q: What would be the circumstances under which an ambulance would be using a neighborhood street? A: An ambulance will drive through a neighborhood in two cases only. 1. There is an emergency in that neighborhood. 2. There are unusual circumstances where all major arterial streets are closed off, such as an accident, water main break, or some other condition where there is no other option but to drive through a neighborhood. This would be an extremely rare occurrence. Please be aware that ambulances avoid driving through neighborhoods as much as possible. This is due to the following: 1. The goal of the ambulance is to get to the patient or hospital as fast and safely as possible. Neighborhoods generally have slower speed limits than arterial streets and contain school zones, speed bumps and pedestrians, all of which will slow down response times to and from the calls for service. In southeast Fort Collins, ambulances will drive primarily on I-25, Harmony Road, Zeigler Road, HWY 287 and Frontage Road. 2. Ambulances are equipped with Opticom transmitters that change traffic lights on arterial streets in their favor. This provides for a safe, smooth and rapid transport that can only be provided on arterial streets. Q: What is the expected frequency of ambulance arrivals and anticipated approach distribution? A: Assuming that this question is in reference to the number of ambulances coming in from Harmony Road vs. from Cinquefoil Lane or Lady Moon Drive from the south, unless an ambulance is responding to an emergency in the neighborhoods to the south of Harmony Road and east of Ziegler Road, we do not anticipate any ambulances approaching the hospital from the area directly to the south of the medical center. Therefore, practically all ambulance traffic is anticipated to come from Harmony Road. A response to the question below regarding trauma center level designations states that ambulances will likely take patients to other medical centers with higher level trauma center designations. It is difficult to estimate the number of ambulances that will transport patients to the Harmony Road medical center. We anticipate that it will be minimal due to the trauma level designation. However, Banner Ironwood Medical Center (BIMC) in San Tan Valley, AZ is a 36 bed Level 3 trauma center in a community of approximately 120,000 people. An average of 8 patients are transported by ambulance to the Emergency Department at BIMC each day. Based on this data, we would estimate that approximately 2-4 patients would be transported to the Harmony Road medical center per day since Poudre Valley Hospital will also receive patients throughout the day. It is also difficult to estimate the number of ambulances that will transport patients to other medical centers. BIMC transports an average of 8 patients per day to other medical centers. Based on this data, we anticipate that ambulances will be transporting 2-4 patients per day to other medical centers. All transports to other medical centers will take Harmony Road to I-25 then down to Loveland, Greeley or the Denver metro area. Q: Also include any other information from Banner to explain the operations and impacts from ambulance service associated with the proposed Banner facility. A: Please remember that the staff members who operate ambulances are healthcare workers whose goal is to safely tend to sick or injured people. They operate the ambulance in a manner to ensure the safety of patients in the ambulance as well as the public around them. They will not endanger the general public when responding to routine or emergency calls or when transporting a patient to a hospital. Despite having an Opticom transmitter that will change traffic lights in the favor of the responding emergency vehicle, Banner Health staff will still slow down at intersections to ensure a safe clearance through the intersection (Slow, Stop and Clear, as stated above). Additional emergency vehicles from police or fire agencies may also be responding to the same emergency, so all emergency vehicles will approach intersections and “Slow, Stop and Clear” to ensure that no other emergency vehicles are crossing the intersection at the same time. Ambulances are not operated in such a manner that will cause discomfort to the patient(s) being transported. A patient in the back of an ambulance may be sensitive to sudden jarring movements due to injuries or illness. Ambulances that aggressively accelerate and/or decelerate could be detrimental to a patient’s condition. Therefore, unless a patient’s condition is life threatening, rarely will an ambulance respond or transport using their lights and sirens. Instead, an ambulance will be operated no differently from the safe operation of a personal vehicle. At Banner North Colorado Medical Center in Greeley, there are private residences directly across the street from the hospital. Being a Level 2 trauma center, ambulances bring patients to the emergency department several hundred times a week throughout the year. Quite often, ambulances will access the emergency department by driving down 15th Street where there are numerous private residences, Heath Middle School and Greeley Central High School. To be good stewards of our neighborhood and to provide a safe and quiet environment for our neighbors, ambulances turn off their lights and sirens approximately 1/2 mile from the hospital. Should ambulances have to drive through the neighborhoods south of the proposed Harmony Road medical center, Banner Health will designate a zone where ambulance operators will be required to turn off lights and sirens and obey all traffic laws. We are sensitive to this issue and strive to be a good neighbor at all times. All Banner Health ambulances have forward- and rear-facing cameras. Should an ambulance be involved in an accident or receive a complaint, the Directors and Administrators will review recordings and act accordingly. Any employee who operates the ambulance with disregard for safety or is found to be in violation of State of Colorado Model Traffic Code and/or departmental policy will be subjected to applicable fines from law enforcement including disciplinary action up to and including their termination. 2. Helicopters: Q: Will there be a permanent helicopter station with helicopter at the proposed facility? A: There will be a permanent “helistop” built at the Harmony Road medical center along the Harmony Road frontage. This helistop will be an 80’ x 80’ concrete pad surrounded by approximately 40’ of landscaping built at grade level. There will not be a heliport, hangar or any other building or facilities to support the helicopter at this medical center. Helicopter medical transport aircraft are permitted only to land at helistops for limited periods of time to pick up or drop off patients. Refueling, parking and maintenance is not permitted at helistops. Q: Will helicopter service be picking-up and/or delivering patients? A: We anticipate that the helicopters will be used exclusively to transfer patients to higher level trauma centers or other regional medical facilities as required. Q: What is Banner's "trauma care" classification, and what does this mean? A: In Colorado, trauma centers are rated by levels ranging from Level 1 through Level 4, with Level 1 providing the highest level of emergency care and Level 4 being the lowest level of emergency care. These designation levels are earned by meeting specific requirements defined by The American College of Surgeons. A quick description of each level as defined by The American College of Surgeons is attached to this document (Exhibit 1). The Harmony Road Fort Collins facility is anticipated to be a Level 3 or Level 4 trauma Center. Because of this trauma level, it is anticipated that most ambulances responding to emergencies will not bring patients to this facility. Emergency cases will likely go to Medical Center of the Rockies or North Colorado Medical Center. And, all patients picked up at an emergency by helicopter will be taken to Level 1 or 2 trauma centers instead of the Banner Health Fort Collins facility. Q: How is the helicopter route determined? A: There are two different “zones” where helicopter routes are prescribed. First, the route that helicopters follow as they approach or depart from a landing is called Final Approach and Take Off (FATO). Second, when the helicopter is 500’ above ground level and higher where helicopters are in FAA regulated airspace and restricted to designated flight paths as approved per the FAA AC No. 150/5390-2C Section 4, Ground-Level Hospital Heliport Notice of Landing Area Proposal submitted flight path. The FATO for the Harmony Road Medical Center will generally involve the following:  Helicopters will fly into the wind. In Fort Collins, the prevailing winds come from the northwest direction.  During Take Off, the helicopter will travel northwest from the helistop towards Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive. After reaching a ground level above 500’the helicopter will turn to fly over Harmony Road.  During Final Approach, the helicopter will fly over Harmony Road and then when the helicopter reaches 500’ above ground level, approach the helistop from the southeast.  See the following map showing the approximate approach and departure routes for this facility (Exhibit 2). When the helicopter is 500 or more feet above ground level, it must follow a prescribed flight pattern. In populated areas like Fort Collins, the prescribed flight pattern is to fly over industrial corridors. In this area, helicopters will fly over I-25, Harmony Road and HWY 287. They avoid flying over high-density areas like residential developments, schools, churches, commercial areas, sensitive ecological areas, etc. Q: What FAA approvals are required? A: Notice of Landing Area Proposal is required to be filed with the FAA for approval of the hospital helistop flight path, FATO and the Touchdown and Lift-Off area. A primary and secondary FATO will be filed with the FAA. The secondary FATO is required if wind direction shifts dramatically. The FATO will be aligned with the predominant wind direction to avoid downwind operations and minimize crosswind operations. To accomplish this, the helistop will have more than one approach/departure path. Based on the approach/departure paths on the assessment of the prevailing winds, a secondary FATO will be provided at least 135 degrees from the primary FATO. Banner Health medical centers helistops are developed to FAA hospital design guidelines and standards to provide the maximum safety to all patients, air emergency transport service providers and emergency medical service personnel. Q: Any distance requirements from neighborhoods, schools, etc.? A: There are no required distances away from neighborhoods or schools. However, all helicopter operators realize that air traffic can be disruptive and undesirable in high-density areas. Therefore, the Banner Health Med-Evac program, as well as most other emergency air transport providers in the State of Colorado, voluntarily participates in the “Fly Neighborly” program. As participants in this program, Med-Evac will develop flight patterns and FATO routes that are published and distributed to all other helicopter operators. All helicopters must follow the published flight pattern and FATOs when landing at the proposed Harmony Road medical center. Banner Health has not yet filed with the FAA or submitted plans to Fly Neighborly. But, when these documents are filed, helicopters will be directed to approach the hospital from Harmony Road and, as stated previously, fly clear of the high-density areas, including the residential developments and schools in the area. Q: Frequency of helicopters? A: This is difficult to estimate. However, at Banner North Colorado Emergency Care in Greeley, we have had two helicopter transports out of the facility from August 1, 2012 to December 1, 2012. At McKee Medical Center and Banner Ironwood Medical Center an average of 1-2 patients per week is helicopter transported from each of those medical centers to other medical centers. Based on this data, our best estimate would be that the Harmony Road medical center would helicopter transport 0-1 patient per week to other medical centers. We do not anticipate any helicopter transport of patients in to this medical center. Q: Also include any other information from Banner to explain the operations and impacts from helicopters to the surrounding neighborhoods. A: The helistop at the proposed Harmony Road medical center facility has been intentionally located on the north side of the campus in proximity to Harmony Road. This placement will result in the most direct flight path for the helicopter from the prescribed flight pattern and keeps the helicopter as far away from the neighborhoods and schools as possible. 3. Toxic Waste: Q: What are Banner's procedures regarding the storage and disposal of any toxic waste? A: RMW is “bio-hazardous” waste that includes used bandages, dressings, sharps (needles), blood, lab cultures, and tissue from pathology. By State of Colorado regulation [25-15-401 CRS], the hospital (as a generator) is held accountable for the proper destruction/disposal of all RMW. The disposal of RMW is regulated and enforced by the State of Colorado. Banner Health complies with all State regulations related to the internal facility collection and storage of RMW and the external disposal of RMW generated materials through the use of licensed RMW disposal vendors. There are no federal regulations or enforcement. Per the Facilities Guidelines Institute (FGI), Soiled Utility Rooms are required in every patient wing, clinic and other appropriate departments (surgery, lab, etc). At Banner Health, all Soiled Utility Rooms are locked and accessible to staff only with appropriate security clearance via card access security system. Banner Health staff picks up RMW from Soiled Utility Rooms throughout the hospital and transfers RMW containers to a central, secure holding room where it is picked up by a licensed RMW disposal company. Banner Health uses Stericycle, a licensed RMW disposal company, to pick up and autoclave our RMW at their facility in Dacono. HW in hospitals comes from the Lab (histology/staining chemicals, like alcohol and xylene), Pharmacy (used/outdated pharmaceuticals and trace chemotherapeutic drug waste, like gloves, IV bags and tubing). The HW regulations come from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but are enforced by the State of Colorado - Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). The storage and transport of HW is similar to the storage and transport of RMW. Holding rooms are located in areas as required by the FGI (in labs and pharmacies). These rooms are locked and accessible via card access only by staff with the appropriate security clearance. Banner Health staff transports containers to a secure, central holding room where it is picked up by a licensed HW contractor. Banner Health uses Clean Harbors to remove and recycle or incinerate all of our HW at their facility. Clean Harbors is an EPA approved HW hauler with a licensed Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TDS) facility in Kimball, Nebraska. The transport of HW and RMW is regulated by the City of Fort Collins on city streets and State of Colorado on state highways and interstates. All regulations require transport of waste in the most direct and safe route possible between the origin and destination. At the proposed Harmony Road medical center, the City of Fort Collins will require that the licensed transporters exit the loading dock, go north directly to Harmony Road then east to I-25. Once on I-25, State Regulations will require the transporters to stay on I-25 until necessary in order to reach their destination. City and State regulations prohibit transport through residential neighborhoods unless absolutely necessary. At the Harmony Road location, Harmony Road will be easily accessible from the loading dock via the north end of Cinquefoil Lane. Therefore, transport through residential neighborhoods is not necessary and will likely not be permitted. See attached for the location of the loading dock and access to Harmony Road (Exhibit 3). Exhibit 1 - From the American College of Surgeons website. Trauma center levels: Level I The Level I facility is a regional resource trauma center that is a tertiary care facility central to the trauma care system. Ultimately, all patients who require the resources of the Level I center should have access to it. This facility must have the capability of providing leadership and total care for every aspect of injury, from prevention through rehabilitation. In its central role, the Level I center must have adequate depth of resources and personnel. Banner Health note:Level 1 trauma centers are required to have orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and anesthesiologists on-site 24/7. Level II The Level II trauma center is a hospital that is also expected to provide initial definitive trauma care, regardless of the severity of injury. Depending on geographic location, patient volume, personnel, and resources, however, the Level II trauma center may not be able to provide the same comprehensive care as a Level I trauma center. Therefore, patients with more complex injuries may have to be transferred to a Level I center (for example, patients requiring advanced and extended surgical critical care). Level II trauma centers may be the most prevalent facility in a community, managing the majority of trauma patients. Banner Health note:Level 2 trauma centers are required to be able to have orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and anesthesiologist on-site within 20 minutes. Level III The Level III trauma center serves communities that do not have immediate access to a Level I or II institution. Level III trauma centers can provide prompt assessment, resuscitation, emergency operations, and stabilization and also arrange for possible transfer to a facility that can provide definitive trauma care. General surgeons are required in a Level III facility. Planning for care of injured patients in these hospitals requires transfer agreements and standardized treatment protocols. Level III trauma centers are generally not appropriate in an urban or suburb an area with adequate Level I and/or Level II resources. Banner Health note: Level 3 trauma centers are required to have general surgeons on-site 24/7. Level IV Level IV trauma facilities provide advanced trauma life-support prior to patient transfer in remote areas where no higher level of care is available. Such a facility may be a clinic rather than a hospital and may or may not have a physician available. Because of geographic isolation, however, the Level IV trauma facility is the de facto primary care provider. If willing to make the commitment to provide optimal care, given its resources, the Level IV trauma facility should be an integral part of the inclusive trauma care system. As at Level III trauma centers, treatment protocols for resuscitation, transfer protocols, data reporting, and participation in system performance improvement are essential. Banner Health Medical Campus Neighborhood Meeting February 20, 2013 Q: Is the review process the same for hospitals and hotels? A: The Land Use Code is divided into different uses, so, yes the process is different based on the use of the building. Some uses are subject to Planning and Zoning Board decision and others are decided by a Hearing Officer. The general development code standards are the same, and there are specific standards for each zoning category. Q: Will surrounding residents and businesses be notified if the project goes to the Planning and Zoning Board for review? A: Yes, the same notification areas will be contacted just like they were for this public meeting. Q: Will Cinquefoil be extended all the way past Rock Creek Drive or will it dead end at La Fever? A: Yes, at some point, it will be extended based on future development in the area. It will not be extended with this project with Phase One. Q: Will the ambulance service use Cinquefoil Lane? A: No, there will be very little traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods unless there is an emergency in those neighborhoods. Q: Was a traffic study done in the area? A: A study was done and there will be improvements based on that study. At final build out of the Banner Medical Facility, there will be 2 left hand turn lanes from Lady Moon Drive onto westbound Harmony Road. In the future, there will be westbound duel turn lanes on Harmony Road as well. Q: There was a mention of Lady Moon Drive expanding into 4 lanes. Where would it stop? A: It would stop at Rock Creek Drive with a merging of lanes north of Le Fever Drive. Q: How many deliveries do you expect to be made by larger trucks like oxygen trucks? A: Typically 2 to 3 deliveries by larger trucks per month including oxygen trucks. Q: What are the projected staff numbers for the medical facility? A: Approximately 175 total employees are anticipated, which will equate to around 70 at any one time due to shift work and different hours of operation. Q: How often will hazmat trucks pick up and drop off and what will their routes be? A: Hazmat drop off and pick ups will occur approximately once or twice per week. The hazmat routes are very restricted by city and state mandates. Banner will also have a contract with the trucks and determine the routes they will be taking. Basically, it will be the safest most direct route to and from the building off of Harmony Road. Q: What is the time frame between phase one and full build out? A: Phase one is projected to get us through 2020 as far as maintaining optimum service. It is possible that a full build out will never occur. The full build out will be very far off in the future. Q: What will be the trauma level at the Medical Facility? A: It will be a trauma level 3. Q: In the event that future expansion happens in the area, will another traffic study be done? A: All new developments are required to have a traffic study completed when they come in if impacts are anticipated Q: Looking at the occupancies of other area hospitals in the area, do we even need this hospital? A: This is a health facility focusing on special care, emergency care, outpatient surgery and clinical care. The idea is to place the medical campus in neighborhoods where it may best serve the community; the right place for care. Q: If you are willing to make improvements to the roads, and access is from Harmony and Interstate 25, why not build this facility in Timnath? There is plenty of open land in Timnath. A: Banner is trying to bring facilities into the communities they serve. Citizen Comment: Kaiser employee and neighbor mentioned he is happy to have the facility come in because he will be allowed to use their services for treatment instead of driving all the way to Kaiser or another location in Denver. Q: If you did not have any beds, would you be able to do surgery that is called outpatient? A: Yes at the proposed surgery center. Q: I have concerns about people driving recklessly to get themselves to the medical facility and travelling through the neighborhoods. A: That could happen anywhere at any time. Citizen Comment: Resident of a nearby neighborhood and a mother of children, who attend Fossil Ridge High School, said that she was happy that the proposed project is a medical facility and not a strip mall. Especially considering that the school has an open campus policy which means the kids can leave during the day. She is welcoming the idea that emergency vehicles which typically go to hospitals (ambulances, fire trucks and police cars) will be more visible around her neighborhood. She also mentioned that she believes the traffic congestion problem in the area is because of the schools and that this facility won’t add to that traffic. Citizen Comment: Another neighbor stated she was not opposed to the hospital or a medical campus at all but is passionate about the traffic in the area. The increase in the morning traffic with the high school has increased the amount of traffic in the neighborhoods. Kids are cutting through and speeding down the neighborhood streets, not the main roads. Q: Can we dead end Cinquefoil Lane? A: Traffic issues occur in all developments and neighborhoods. Speed radar signs could be be placed on neighboring streets, and those do work. However, difficulties do come with growth. The city encourages the public to deal with traffic issues they are having within their neighborhoods by contacting the police or using neighborhood resources available to them. For example, renting the speed gun and then sending letters to speed offenders from the neighborhood. Q: Is Cinquefoil Lane scheduled to go through no matter what development comes in? A: Yes, Cinquefoil is a planned street as part of the Master Street Plan. A connective grid of streets and street patterns are planned and are a key provision of the Land Use Code. The idea is to have connectivity between main roads and neighborhoods and businesses. Q: What is the timeline for construction from ground breaking to opening? A: Banner is expecting a fall ground breaking around September or October of this year with plans for opening in the spring of 2015. The contractor, Hazelton, has projected an 18 month schedule for the project. Q: Observatory Village is a low light neighborhood. Will low lights be used on the campus site? A: Yes. The lighting code in Fort Collins is stringent. The requirements are for full shield or full cut off lights and zero illumination at the property line. 1 Jason Holland From: Jason Holland Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:20 AM To: 'Amy Michael'; 'Janet'; 'ERICK LARSON'; 'Nicole Holmes'; 'Jessica O'Brien'; 'Stacy Bustamante'; 'Susan Mobley'; 'Tara B'; 'Scott'; 'danielle buchanan'; 'revfox@comcast.net'; 'Devin Hirning'; 'Tenley Haack'; 'Paul Rosenzweig'; 'J YOUNGHU, J YOUNG HU'; 'Colleen Pontes'; 'Jeff Pontes'; 'The Soke'; 'Staci Clark'; 'Beth Meyers-Bass'; 'Andrea Bradford'; 'chad and connie p'; 'Donna Hochberg'; 'kelly johnston'; 'Scott O'Brien'; 'Patti Springer' Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: Proposed Banner Health Medical Campus, second neighborhood meeting Attachments: banner_health_pdp_ngbh_mtng_notification2.pdf; harmony_lady_moon_medical campus_map.pdf Dear Fort Collins Residents, I wanted to let you all know that I received your e‐mailed comments for the proposed Banner Health medical campus, and that the correspondence will be presented to members of the Planning and Zoning Board for their consideration prior to any public hearing for the project. Based on both Banner’s request and staff’s suggestion, there will be a second neighborhood meeting for the proposed medical campus. The meeting is scheduled for February 20th, from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at the Council Tree Public Library; the same time and location as the previous meeting. Representatives of Banner Health will be present to discuss the project and your concerns in further detail. Attached please find the meeting notification letter. The Observatory Village H.O.A. was also notified so that this letter can be e‐mailed to their distribution list. City staff is currently in the process of reviewing the project, which was formally submitted several weeks ago. The review is ongoing and will continue past the second neighborhood meeting on February 20th. I hope to see all of you on the 20th, and look forward to talking with you all further. Thank you for your time and consideration. The submittal documents can be seen and downloaded at the following link: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?scope=doctype&dn=Current+Planning&dt=SUBMITTAL+DOCUMENTS&vid=185&q=banner& cmd=search The proposed plans submitted can be seen and downloaded at this link: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?scope=doctype&dn=Current+Planning&dt=MAPS%2FGRAPHICS&vid=185&q=banner&cmd=s earch Warm Regards, Jason Holland, RLA | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 jholland@fcgov.com 1 Jason Holland From: ERICK LARSON <emlarson05@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:11 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health proposal Categories: Red Category Mr. Holland, I understand that Colorado does not have a certificate of need requirement for new health care facilities. At the same time I hope that you do not treat the Banner proposal for a new health care facility the same as if was a department store. I believe there are more issues than noise, parking and traffic involved. I would at least hope that PVH and other health care providers are able to have some input as to why we need the additional duplicative healthcare services being proposed by Banner. I would hope that the Planning and Development would encourage mutual communication between these two major healthcare providers. There is a huge difference between a department store and a healthcare facility. Please keep me informed regarding the progress of the Banner proposal. Thank you, Erick Larson 2 Jason Holland From: Stacy Bustamante <bustamantestacy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:55 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Regarding the Banner Health medical facility Categories: Red Category Hello Jason, My Name is Stacy Bustamante and I am a resident of Observatory Village. It has recently been brought to my attention that the City of Fort Collins is proposing to build a new Banner Health medical facility directly North of our neighborhood. I understand that the land being considered for development is zoned for commercial purposes. I believe that our community in Southeast Fort Collins could benifit from commercial development, and I am in no way opposed to such progress. However, I am concerned that the placement of a new hospital in this area could have a detrimental affect on our community. Our neighborhood is filled with young families who chose this area for the sense of community and safety that has been established by the residents and the schools surrounding Observatory Village. Because of the close proximity of Zach Elementary, Kinard Middle School, and Fossil Ridge High School, most children must walk or ride their bikes to and from school daily. I watch my neighbors and other families from surrounding areas walk their kids to school, and it is important to our community that this ability remains unihibited. It is my understanding that the current proposal presents the use of Cinquefoil (and Lady Moon) as an alternative thoroughfare for emergency vehicles and hazardous material transport. Please consider the negative impact that this admittance would have on the families of Observatory Village and surrounding neighborhoods. There are countless other types of commerciaal development to be considered that would not place our children at risk on a daily basis. Although increased revenue for the City of Fort Collins is very important, the safety of our communities and the children who are being raised within them is our greatest responsibility. I believe that there are other areas within Fort Collins that could host the development of a medical facility without such adverse effects. We have entrusted the employees of the City of Fort Collins and our government officials to accurately represent the morals, ideals and values of its residents. I am asking you to hear the concerns that are being voiced at this time and allow the residents of Observatory Village to be properly represented and considered. Sincerely, Stacy Bustamante 3 Jason Holland From: Janet <janet_mylott@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:35 PM To: Jason Holland Cc: Michael Subject: Banner Health Proposal Categories: Red Category Hi Jason, I am a resident of Observatory Village writing to you to let you know I am concerned about Banner Health's proposal to build a hospital adjacent to our neighborhood. I am not opposed to commercial development, but have to voice my objection to this particular proposal: 1) We have an excellent reputation for our existing healthcare services. As a community have Fort Collins residents expressed interest in competition as a means of providing more access to or higher quality services? 2) The proposed location shows a disregard for the density of foot and bike traffic by children. I have heard (not sure this is true because it seems ridiculous) that Cinquefoil will be a secondary route for ambulances to the hospital. This street is flooded with children going to Zach Elementary during the school year and the pool in the Summer. I invite you to come to my porch where you can see this first hand. This street was not designed to be an access route and signing off on making this a route routinely or even an occasional path for ambulances would be negligent. 3) Do we have proof that this proposal will result in more jobs for Fort Collins residents and more tax revenue? And if so, isn't there an alternative site more suited to this kind of development? I worked at both the old and new UCH and know that more and more, the realities of the needs of hospitals require campuses and acreage that are not compatible with situating them next to high density neighborhoods and schools. Like many residents in Observatory Village, my husband and I moved here because Fort Collins valued families. We are lucky to telecommute (there are many like us in the community) and can live anywhere, but we are so proud to live here and support our community and our local businesses. A disregard for our concerns may mean that we misplaced our trust. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I have copied my husband as I know he shares them. Please reach out with any questions or to clarify the proposal, the review process or your position. Happy Holidays, Janet Mylott 7 Jason Holland From: Nicole Holmes <colochiefsfan@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 10:34 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health Center Categories: Red Category I just heard some information that there might be another hospital going up, this time on South Harmony. As a concerned resident of this area, I would like to know when there will be meetings announced so that we can voice our concern for this project. I do not think we need another hospital in the area, especially in an area so close to so much residential housing, where the pollution, the HAZMAT waste and the noise, just to name a few, will not be beneficial for these neighbors. Sincerely, Nicole Holmes 8 Jason Holland From: Tara B <tarazplace@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:45 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposed Development Categories: Red Category Mr. Holland, It has come to my attention that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board will be deciding on whether or not to approve a new Banner Health medical campus and hospital located on Harmony between Lady Moon and Cinquefoil. As a resident of Fort Collins I believe there are many points which I believe do NOT make this an ideal location for development. First, this will be the 7th hospital within a 15 mile radius and the 4th with a heli-pad. Second, and perhaps the most important is the safety of our community. Lady Moon would need to become a thorough fare for the new center. This road runs right near a major elementary school and right next to a high school. In addition, it runs through the Observatory Village neighborhood. All three of these points assure constant foot traffic, young children and adolescents throughout the area. With increased high speed traffic (not only ambulances but worried/anxious injured people/family members) the risk for an increased amount of serious accidents rises substantially. The proposed location for this medical facility is located way to close to schools and neighborhoods to make sense for construction to even be considered. I’m quite sure that there are many other beneficial business that could be built upon this empty lot. Please reconsider your development plan, something that effectively completes your goas, yet maintains safety to that residential portion of Fort Collins. Sincerely, Tara Brown 11 Jason Holland From: Susan Mobley <susanlmobley@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:28 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Hospital Proposal Categories: Red Category Good Morning, I’d like to give you my thoughts on the new Banner Hospital. I live in the Observatory Village neighborhood and am opposed to having the hospital built. My points are below and probably aren’t surprising to you. 1.Noise pollution. 2.Having a helipad so close to where people live and sleep is very insensitive to those that have invested in Fort Collins real estate. Most of us came to Fort Collins to enjoy this awesome well developed city. Putting a helipad in goes directly against all you have done to keep this city safe and well planned. 3.Increased traffic in our neighborhood and so close to schools just does not seem safe. Again, sacrificing safety for some tax dollars? Not a good call. 4.As far as my medical needs, I feel very much in good hands with the numerous hospitals and clinics within a 15 minute or less drive from my home. We do not need another hospital! Please save this land for a development that would be helpful and safe for all those in the community, especially those that live so close to it. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan Mobley 12 Jason Holland From: Jessica O'Brien <jrjones10.jj@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:53 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Re: Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan. Categories: Red Category Dear Jason Holland, I am a new resident in Observatory Village. I am very concerned and disappointed about the Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan for many reasons. I am a RN and have worked in the hospital system for 5 years. I am very surprised that anyone would think it appropriate to build a major hospital system near a neighborhood and high school. I know that the city is concerned with continuing to make money at any cost but this is potentially a very dangerous situation. First of all, I would like to express that my husband and I moved from Houston, TX with the hopes of living in a more peaceful, quiet community. We had lived down the street from a fire station and those sirens went on 24/7. So you can imagine our disappointment to find that not even 6 months into our move to Fort Collins, we could potentially be living near a major Medical Campus with a major ER and helipad. Not ideal. Second of all, I am also very disappointed to find out that this hospital will have a helipad. So not only will we be dealing with sirens from ambulances but also helicopter noise. Also, I am very concerned about the helicopter traffic between this new hospital and the MCR helicopter traffic. Helicopters have a very high accident rate and this just seems like a very unnecessary risk to take. Why is this necessary? I know it is less than 15 minutes to travel by car from our exact location(and the future Banner Health location) to MCR. I am pretty sure that helicopters travel faster than cars and that any emergency can wait the extra 2 minutes if they are coming in from the north to travel to MCR instead of traveling to Banner. Thirdly, I spent 4 of my 5 years in the ER. I worked with my patients who came to the ER just for narcotics, drunk patients, and violent patients. Many times an ER becomes a dumping ground for Police to leave a person who was too intoxicated to go to jail but will be sobering up for hours. So these are the types of people who will be leaving the ER just in time for students to be arriving at school. This increases risks for persons to be hit by a car. Not to mention the multitudes of people who drive themselves to the ER high on narcotics or intoxicated already. It does not matter what type of facility a hospital claims to be, these types of patients are to be expected in an ER. Despite what the general public may think about what happens in a hospital setting, the truth is that hospitals increase incidences of crime, loitering and essentially making an area less than desirable. I am very concerned about the safety of the high school students across the street, traffic safety and then our own personal safety. It is a proven fact that incidences of violence in hospitals is increasing, and what is Banner going to do to help to protect our safety? I don't think whatever they could implement would be sufficient, unless it involved getting rid of the ER department. Thanks for your time, Jessica O'Brien 14 Jason Holland From: Amy Michael <amyvmichael@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:20 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: New Banner Hospital Categories: Red Category Dear Mr. Holland: My husband and I live in Observatory Village and we are opposed to building the new Banner Hospital near Lady Moon and Cinquefoil. We enjoy our safe, quiet, family-oriented neighborhood. We don't want the extra noise, traffic, and safety issues a hospital would bring to the Southeast corner of Fort Collins. We do not want another hospital near our neighborhood under any conditions. Jon and Amy Michael 15 Jason Holland From: Tenley Haack <tenleyhaack@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:03 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: No to Banner Health hospital Categories: Red Category Dear Mr. Holland, I am a resident of Observatory Village and am asking you to please REJECT Banner Health's proposal to build a new hospital at Harmony Rd. and Lady Moon. We are very concerned about several issues. First, the sheer increase in traffic will be a huge detriment to our neighborhood schools. Zach Elementary is the largest elementary school in PSD and has 600 students that all walk or ride bikes to school each morning and afternoon (with the exception of only 1 school bus of kids). The traffic on Kechter Rd. (from Windsor) already makes this a very congested area in the mornings and afternoons. Lady Moon is also one of the main entrances for Fossil Ridge High School. This obviously means students are walking, riding bikes, and driving on Lady Moon at all hours of the day. In fact, Ziegler Rd. had to rebuild it's turning lanes because of the traffic back up in the morning and at noon for the other entrance for FRHS. Fort Collins is known for its exceptional school districts and family-friendly neighborhoods. A hospital with 500-1000 employees plus traffic from patients and vendors would kill this area! What we need are more restaurants and shops (think Old Town on the SE side)! We are well-served in terms of medical access in this area (this coming from parents who demand high-end care for our families). We do NOT need or want another hospital! Secondly, as our neighborhood name indicates, we house the Observatory. Our entire neighborhood is built around that fact. We have very few street lights to facilitate the viewings. The evening parking lot lights of the new hospital would add light pollution to our Observatory, rendering it less usable. PLEASE, please, please reconsider approving this new hospital. We are "die-hard" Fort Collins residents who absolutely want the BEST city! Building the hospital in this location would be a huge setback to the quiet, family-friendly, bike-friendly SE area. Keep this area as a place people want to live, go to school, and play! If you truly feel Fort Collins needs another hospital, please consider another, more commercial, area. Please do not ruin the good thing we have started in our SE area! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tenley Haack 16 Jason Holland From: revfox@comcast.net Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:04 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner's Plans Categories: Red Category Dear Jason, As a resident of Observatory Village I want to express to you my deepest concern for the development of a hospital and its facilities on the corner of Lady Moon and Harmony. It is not only a massive development of something I'm not sure we need. We certainly have lots of medical facilities already within walking distance of our area. I am concerned that the development of such a huge medical facility so close to a residential area......actually right within a residential area.....is not wise. It will mean more traffic cutting through a family friendly neighborhood as well as increased noise levels, etc. Please reconsider allowing Banner to develop a medical facility on this large piece of property. Thank you, Carol Fox Little Dipper Drive 17 Jason Holland From: Emma McArdle Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 9:47 AM To: 'r_u_sure@mybluelight.com' Cc: Jason Holland; Sarah Burnett Subject: FW: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Attachments: Re_write_Phase1_Offer119.9.pdf Categories: Red Category Hello Paul, Thank you for taking the time to talk to me this morning. As we discussed on the phone, below is my response to your concerns about bus stops' vicinity to the Banner Health Medical campus plans. However, I did not address your question about frequency and I'd like to speak to that briefly. Currently, much of the Harmony corridor only has 60 minute service as most of the eastern half of the city does. Increasing this frequency to 30 minutes was a priority for Transfort during the city's budget cycle, but unfortunately the increase in budget was not approved. We have high hopes that there may be some mid cycle budget funds that become available to fund some improvements in service for the 2014 year, but right now the approved budget only includes 60 minute frequency on the Harmony Corridor. The map attached shows the approved route frequencies on the left and our proposed route frequencies on the right. As you can see there would be a big improvement from one to the other. I am happy to talk with you more about this. Please give me a call anytime. Thanks, Emma McArdle Transit Planner Transfort | City of Fort Collins emcardle@fcgov.com (970)224‐6197 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Emma McArdle Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:41 AM To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Hi Jason, Yes I've required 2 bus stops to be located on this site, one on Lady Moon and one on Harmony Road. The Lady Moon stop would be utilized right away once it is built as Route 16 and 17 operate adjacent to it, but the stop on Harmony Road does not yet have service past Lady Moon for that stop to be served. The reason I've requested this stop is because our Strategic Plan has a route operating on Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer Center at I‐25 and Harmony to the South Transit Center. The pad provided by this development will have a shelter installed once we do begin service on this segment of Harmony Road. I share Mr. Rosenzweig's concerns about people who don't own cars accessing this site. In the Conceptual Review meeting that was one of the comments I made to the applicants. Currently their site plan requires people to walk a long distance from either stop to access the entry of the building. Unfortunately the zoning requirements for locating structures 80' back from Harmony Road is not ideal for those who utilize transit, but this plan sets the structures further 18 back than the minimum making the situation worse for pedestrians. Below are the comments I made in the Conceptual Review meeting. I'm happy to reach out to Mr. Rosenzweig if you like. Please let me know if so. 1. Two routes run adjacent to this site along Lady Moon Drive (route 16 and 17). Two stops are located on this site, one the southwest corner and one on the northwest corner. These stops will need to be upgraded and integrated into this site plan according to the Land Use Code Section 3.6.5. A concrete pad shall be provided for a stop of at least 12' by 18' wide with a direct connection to a sidewalk and curb. The stops shall be located in a Transit Easement. Please contact me and I can assist in exact location of stops. 2. The land use code also requires development provide accommodations for future transit routes. The Harmony Road corridor is identified as an Enhanced Travel Corridor and within the next few years transit service is planned to be expanded beyond Lady Moon Drive to the Harmony Transfer Center at Harmony Road and I 25. This site will need to incorporate one bus stop pad along Harmony Road for future use, the pad will need to be located in a Transit Easement and shall have direct access to the sidewalk and adjacent to Harmony Road. Please contact me with questions as you integrate these stops into your site. 3. Design considerations should be made to accommodate ease of access into this site from Harmony Road. The current site plan would require pedestrians travel 200 plus feet to get to the entry of the structures. Thanks, Emma McArdle | Transfort ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jason Holland Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:31 PM To: Emma McArdle Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: FW: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Emma, I talked on the phone with this gentleman today in advance of his email below. We are requiring a new bus stop on Harmony in front of the new Banner Health campus, is that right? Any other thoughts, concerns or information to add? I have copied Sarah on this so she is up to speed. Thanks, Jason Holland 970.224.6126 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:r_u_sure@mybluelight.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:47 AM To: ptagfortcollins@gmail.com Cc: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion From : Paul Rosenzweig Address : 112 Rutgers Avenue #207 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EMAIL : r_u_sure@mybluelight.com 19 Phone : 970 221 2358 Regarding : Banner Health Fort Collins expansion I am a resident of Fort Collins On November 27th 2012, the Coloradoan printed an article concerning Banner Health's plans to build a large facility providing health care on East Harmony. The complete article is here: http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121126/BUSINESS/311260053/Banner‐pushes‐ahead‐Fort‐Collins‐medical‐ campus?nclick_check=1 The relevant excerpts appear at the end of my text. One of the reasons I joined the Barrier Busters Public Transit Advocacy Group was the lack of consideration the Poudre Valley Hospital Administration had for patients without private automobiles. PVH chose to locate their Medical Campus on East Harmony when no bus routes ran there. The City confounded the problem, when it resisted the establishment of bus routes to serve the PVH campus. Currently, East Harmony has hourly bus service, a 50% reduction of the original route frequency. The City, Banner Health, the PVH administration and other East harmony businesses should augment the inadequate bus routes serving East Harmony. This could take the form of restoring half hour, or South Side Shuttle service on East Harmony. My excerpts of the Coloadoan article are placed below: Plans for a new Banner Health hospital, clinic and emergency department in Poudre Valley Health System’s own back yard are moving forward with potential ground breaking next year and opening date in late 2015 or early 2016. Arizona‐based Banner announced last month it wanted to expand its Northern Colorado facilities increasing the competition for patients’ health care dollar. It chose 29 acres at Presidio, an 85‐acre mixed use project off Harmony Road across from Hewlett‐Packard owned by longtime Fort Collins developer Les Kaplan. <snip> Banner has a contract to buy Kaplan’s land contingent on its ability to get approval for the medical campus. Formal development plans will likely be submitted to the city of Fort Collins early next year, city planner Jason Holland said. ____________________________________________________________ Woman is 53 But Looks 25 Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/50b6406539b240640ad8st02duc 22 Jason Holland From: Scott <scottmattoch@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 1:14 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: I am against the hospital Categories: Red Category Mr holland I am writing to express my concern about the proposed hospital. Les Kaplan has demonstrated his lack of concern for our neighborhood. Please review the monopoly house apartment project he just built on rock creek. We really do not need another hospital in the area. My wife who is a doctor can testify to this fact. We certainly do not need a helicopter flying over our homes. Banner can fly patients to the Greeley hospital. The difference in flight time is less than five minutes. Sincerely Scott Mattoch 3633 Little Dipper dr. Sent from my iPhone 23 Jason Holland From: Staci Clark <smclarkslp@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 1:26 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: New Banner hospital Categories: Red Category Hello, I am writing to voice my opposition to the new hospital being proposed to be built in southeast Fort Collins. First and foremost it seems completely unnecessary. My husband is a physician in town who operates at both McKee medical center and PVH so he is well aware of the political "battle" between the 2. It is ridiculous to build a hospital especially on such a large scale when the NEED is not there. I realize Colorado does not have the certificate of need law but if we did, there is no way this hospital would have been approved! There are already 3 major hospitals in the Fort Collins/Loveland area and the medical needs of our community are more than met by the present infrastructure. Building a new hospital in Fort Collins will lead to duplication of services that already exist. This ultimately will lead to unnecessary medical care being given to patients in order to maintain profits. For these reasons I'm strongly opposed to the building of the additional hospital in southeast Fort Collins. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Staci Clark Resident of southeast Fort Collins Sent from my iPhone 24 Jason Holland From: Beth Meyers-Bass <bethbass5@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:50 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposed Banner Hospital Categories: Red Category Dear Mr. Holland; Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting about the proposed Banner facility. I would like to express to you my personal perspective on the facility. First, as a member of the Observatory Village community for the past 7 years, we take great pride in the community we have developed with the neighborhood. It is a sought after location due to its proximity to schools, location and access to I-25, and convenience of shopping areas. When we purchased our home, we were told that particular parcel of land had been slated to be "The Presidio" which would entail shopping, restaurants, pedestrian trails, and a fitness center, perhaps a small hotel. I was clearly okay with such a development, as were many others in this neighborhood, since we chose to buy here. Hearing the news that there may be yet another hospital within a 15 mile radius is, quite honestly, ludicrous. There are clearly ample medical facilities in the area. That said, the idea of Cinquefoil and Lady Moon being access points for the hospital's ambulance service and toxic waste removal is unsafe and detrimental to our neighborhood. Surely, you are familiar with Cinquefoil. Not only are there homes that face the street, we have children continuously crossing the street to play in the parks and green spaces; we use that street to access Fossil High School and Zach Elementary; we use the bike paths; we have our pool located on that street; we have an annual 4th of July parade on Cinquefoil as well. Cinquefoil is the heart of this neighborhood. Lady Moon also has homes facing out onto it. We use Lady Moon, again, as access for the high school, tennis courts, bike track, etc. Currently, I feel very safe allowing my children to cross those streets. Allowing this developer to use either street, boxes this community in with NO safe access to parks, pools, schools, etc. I am certain I am not the first concerned member of this community to send you their thoughts. Please don't allow this developer to override the safety and sense of community in Observatory Village merely for money. All too often we lose sight of what is important in this world and, I can assure you, it is not money. Thank you for your time. -- Sincerely, Elizabeth Bass 3751 Full Moon Drive 970-213-3449 25 Jason Holland From: danielle buchanan <dani_musgrove@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:57 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner hospital. Categories: Red Category I am voicing my concerns as a homeowner in Observatory Village regarding placing a hospital in our neighborhood. We have a beautiful community in this area. Pools, parks, schools, wonderful shopping and beautiful neighborhoods. And the city of Fort Collins wants to put a hospital in this area! Why? There are enough hospitals!!!! Harmony exit is the gateway into Fort Collins and instead of building more shopping, restaurants, hotels, you want to stick a hospital here. Harmony is congested as is with traffic so let's make it worse with adding a hospital. A hospital is not going to benefit anyone but CEOs that want to compete with Poudre Valley which is much respected in Fort Collins. Much the neighbors have been talking that if this is something that the city will approve of, we will sell our homes and move out of the neighborhood that our children have grown to love and move to Windsor away from this nonsense! Make the gateway into Fort Collins beautiful and welcoming, don't stick a hospital here!!! How embarrassing for someone out of town driving down I25 and sees a hospital off Harmony and then a few miles down I25 another hospital. Makes no sense. You see hospitals tucked away. The gateways into Westminster, Thornton, Brighton, even Lovelands bridge are beautiful and welcoming with shopping and restaurants. You don't see them sticking a hospital off the entryway into their town. Please don't approve of this. I don't want to have to move my children away. Thank you Danielle 5427 Cinquefoil Lane Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android 26 Jason Holland From: The Soke <thesoke@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 12:27 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health medical campus Categories: Red Category Mr. Holland, Hello. I am a home owner in Observatory Village and I am totally against the Banner health medical campus being built near here. Having fast moving ambulances and toxic hazardous waste trucks operating so close to several schools is in my opinion a very bad combination. Not to mention the fact that we have six hospitals within a 15 mile radius and three with a heli-pads. Why not put it somewhere that it can actually do some good for the surrounding residents. Thank you, Randall Brown 27 Jason Holland From: Jeff Pontes <jdpontesnyc@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:03 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Fwd: Banner Health Facility Categories: Red Category Hi Mr. Holland, As a resident of Observatory Village I am truly concerned about the proposed Banner Health Campus on the corner of Lady Moon and Harmony At least 90% of our neighborhood consist of families with young children. The beauty of our neighborhood is in the community of all these children playing together, walking or biking to each others homes, the neighborhood pool, school and the various parks in our area. We have already seen a significant influx of traffic due to the new apartments & homes being built in the area. I cannot imagine how dangerous it will be for our kids with another 500-1000 employees, patients & ambulances speeding through our residential streets. Plus I really do not understand why another medical facility is even needed when we have 7 in a 15 mile radius. Please feel free to reach out to me for any further questions. We moved her from New York City two years ago for the quality of life for our children. I feel this Medical Campus goes completely against all what Fort Collins stands for & why it's consistently rated one of the Top 10 places to raise a family. Warmly, Jeff Pontes 917-579-1012 Sent from my iPad 28 Jason Holland From: Colleen Pontes <pontesjc@me.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:20 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: New Banner Health Campus Categories: Red Category Hi Mr. Holland, As a resident of Observatory Village I am VERY concerned about the proposed Banner Health Campus on the corner of Cinquefoil & Lady Moon. At least 90% of our neighborhood consist of families with young children. The beauty of our neighborhood is in the community of all these children playing together, walking or biking to each others homes, Zach and the various parks in our area. We have already seen ‐ & will see more ‐ a significant influx of traffic due to the new apartments & homes being built in our area. That alone has been concerning. I cannot imagine how dangerous it will be for our kids with another 500‐1000 employees, patients & ambulances speeding through our residential streets. Plus I really do not understand why another medical facility is even needed when we have 4 within a 15 mile radius. Please feel free to reach out to me for any further questions. We moved her from New York City two years ago for the quality of life for our children. I am personally a die‐hard urbanite & I am all for urban planning & job creation. However I feel this Medical Campus goes completely against all what Fort Collins stands for & why it's consistently rated one of the Top 10 places to raise a family. Warmly, New Program Starts JAN 2013! www.AtHomeWeightLossCamp.com Get on the Insiders List Now + a FREE Cookbook Colleen Joyce Pontes ‐ CHCC, AADP Weight Loss Coach & Owner www.reJoyceHealth.com 29 Jason Holland From: J YOUNGHU, J YOUNG HU <jyounghu@msn.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:11 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Possible Banner Health Development Categories: Red Category Hi Jason, I am sure you are receiving tons of messages opposing the idea of a Medical Campus off Harmony north of the Observatory Village Subdivision. Unlike many of the messages you are receiving I do NOT strongly oppose the project. Overall a medical campus would be good for the economy and provide much needed jobs. My one and only concern is traffic. You may not be aware but traffic and speeding are already a huge problem in our community. Between parents rushing to pick up/drop off their children at Zach Elementary and teenagers from Fossil Ridge High School, it is a mad house already and I anticipate the problem will get worse with the completion of the community park directly west of Zach Elementary nearing completion. We have a very active community with tons of children and frankly I already fear for their safety. If the medical project does occur the only responsible thing would be to add speed bumps on Lady Moon, Rock Creek and Cinquefoil. Personally I think this should be done whether the Banner project occurs or not. Thank you for reading my concern. Sincerely, Jenny Young 3714 Eclipse Lane Ft Collins, Co 80528 970-207-9329 30 Jason Holland From: Andrea Bradford <abradford72@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:05 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposal for new Banner Hospital on Harmony Categories: Red Category Jason, I live in the Observatory Village neighborhood and have concern over this proposal. As you know, the Observatory Village neighborhood is mainly comprised of families with young children. We have 2 little boys. If this proposal is approved, we will definitely put our home on the market. We see this hospital as having a very negative impact on this area, and will present many dangers for our children. Please reconsider. There are many other businesses that would have a positive impact on our community. Thank you, Andrea Bradford Sent from my iPhone 31 Jason Holland From: Donna Hochberg <dshochberg@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:55 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Potential Banner Hospital Location Categories: Red Category Dear Mr. Holland, I am a resident of Observatory Village, and I vigorously object to Banner building a hospital/medical campus near Fossil Ridge High School and the Observatory Village neighborhood. There are literally hundreds of children walking, running, scooting and riding their bikes to/from Zach Elementary School and Fossil Ridge High School every morning and afternoon during the school year. During the summer, innumerable children play on the fields surrounding Fossil Ridge High School, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. The increase in traffic, speeding vehicles, noisy ambulances & dangerous hazardous waste vehicles will increase the likelihood of accidents and reduce our quality of life in the surrounding areas. Also, evening lights at such a facility will adversely affect Observatory Village's observatory, which is a core part of our neighborhood. Lady Moon is currently where parents and busses park to attend school & sporting events, which will be significantly affected if you build a large, active medical facility. Certainly there is a better, less intrusive location for this medical facility. If finalized, this new proposed hospital will be the 7th hospital within a 15 mile radius and the 4th with a heli-pad. I realize there is an economic benefit to having Banner locate to a site in Fort Collins, but it cannot outweigh the safety concerns and negative affect on the nearby neighborhoods. Please keep in mind the importance of maintaining safe, quiet neighborhoods for our children and families. Sincerely, Donna Schwall 32 Jason Holland From: chad and connie p <chad.connie@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:42 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health Proposal at Harmony and Lady Moon Categories: Red Category Dear Mr. Holland, I am a resident of Observatory Village. Me and my family strongly oppose approving the Banner Health proposal at Harmony and Lady Moon. Not only would this bring our property values down, but it would cause a substantial increase in traffic not only on Lady Moon, but on Cinquefoil, which is right through the middle of our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has many families with kids of all ages, but also very young that walk or ride their bikes to the pool and parks located on Cinquefoil. There are also two schools, Zach Elementary and Fossil Ridge High School that would be affected. The traffic on Lady Moon is already congested in the mornings with the students that drive to school or are dropped off. It would also be a safety issue for those needing to cross Lady Moon for school, but also where many sports take place such as football, soccer, baseball, tennis, track, etc. We have many hospitals in this area that are easy and quick to get to within minutes. We do not NEED nor WANT this facility. There are better options available. Respectfully, Chad and Connie Pallansch 33 Jason Holland From: kelly johnston <kellyjohnston3@me.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:01 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: hospitol at harmony and Lady Moon Categories: Red Category To Whom It May Concern: i am writing on behalf of my family to ask you to consider NOT approving this hospital! There are already so many health care facilities in a short distance. Hundreds of little kids are walking, skating, biking around our community, we chose this Observatory Village location because of it's safe streets for kids. With all the traffic of a hospital, I do not feel our kids will be safe. I hope you will consider the NOT approving this proposal. Thank you for your time! Kelly and Tyler Johnston 34 Jason Holland From: Patti Springer <PSpringer@waterpik.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:14 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health facility - opposed! Categories: Red Category Dear Jason Holland, This letter is to let you know that I am against the proposed Banner Health facility on Harmony between Lady Moon and Cinquefoil. First and foremost, to think that ambulances and toxic hazardous waste trucks could be driving through our community on a daily basis is outrageous. The safety of the children and the residents has to take priority over the economics of the project. If finalized, this will be the 7th hospital within a 15 mile radius and the 4th with a heli‐pad. Can’t we find a more suitable business to move into this space? There are literally a couple hundred kids walking, running, scooting and riding their bikes to and from Zach elementary and Fossil Ridge High, every morning and afternoon. Throughout the year (mostly in summer) there are a vast amount of children playing in the park and going to the pool. Think about the traffic and speeding going down Cinquefoil and Lady Moon. Now think about all of the kids! The facility will attract at least 400‐500 cars per day and does not include all of the vendors as well as the patients (by the way have you seen what traffic is like during school drop off and pick up hours). It would be irresponsible of the city to place such a facility that attracts large amounts of traffic in this family dominated community. Please reconsider for the safety and well‐being of our children. Thank You and Best Regards, Patricia A. Springer 3815 Cosmos Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970‐222‐6628 36 Jason Holland From: Emma McArdle Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:41 AM To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Categories: Red Category Hi Jason, Yes I've required 2 bus stops to be located on this site, one on Lady Moon and one on Harmony Road. The Lady Moon stop would be utilized right away once it is built as Route 16 and 17 operate adjacent to it, but the stop on Harmony Road does not yet have service past Lady Moon for that stop to be served. The reason I've requested this stop is because our Strategic Plan has a route operating on Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer Center at I‐25 and Harmony to the South Transit Center. The pad provided by this development will have a shelter installed once we do begin service on this segment of Harmony Road. I share Mr. Rosenzweig's concerns about people who don't own cars accessing this site. In the Conceptual Review meeting that was one of the comments I made to the applicants. Currently their site plan requires people to walk a long distance from either stop to access the entry of the building. Unfortunately the zoning requirements for locating structures 80' back from Harmony Road is not ideal for those who utilize transit, but this plan sets the structures further back than the minimum making the situation worse for pedestrians. Below are the comments I made in the Conceptual Review meeting. I'm happy to reach out to Mr. Rosenzweig if you like. Please let me know if so. 1. Two routes run adjacent to this site along Lady Moon Drive (route 16 and 17). Two stops are located on this site, one the southwest corner and one on the northwest corner. These stops will need to be upgraded and integrated into this site plan according to the Land Use Code Section 3.6.5. A concrete pad shall be provided for a stop of at least 12' by 18' wide with a direct connection to a sidewalk and curb. The stops shall be located in a Transit Easement. Please contact me and I can assist in exact location of stops. 2. The land use code also requires development provide accommodations for future transit routes. The Harmony Road corridor is identified as an Enhanced Travel Corridor and within the next few years transit service is planned to be expanded beyond Lady Moon Drive to the Harmony Transfer Center at Harmony Road and I 25. This site will need to incorporate one bus stop pad along Harmony Road for future use, the pad will need to be located in a Transit Easement and shall have direct access to the sidewalk and adjacent to Harmony Road. Please contact me with questions as you integrate these stops into your site. 3. Design considerations should be made to accommodate ease of access into this site from Harmony Road. The current site plan would require pedestrians travel 200 plus feet to get to the entry of the structures. Thanks, Emma McArdle | Transfort ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jason Holland Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:31 PM To: Emma McArdle Cc: Sarah Burnett 37 Subject: FW: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Emma, I talked on the phone with this gentleman today in advance of his email below. We are requiring a new bus stop on Harmony in front of the new Banner Health campus, is that right? Any other thoughts, concerns or information to add? I have copied Sarah on this so she is up to speed. Thanks, Jason Holland 970.224.6126 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:r_u_sure@mybluelight.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:47 AM To: ptagfortcollins@gmail.com Cc: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion From : Paul Rosenzweig Address : 112 Rutgers Avenue #207 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EMAIL : r_u_sure@mybluelight.com Phone : 970 221 2358 Regarding : Banner Health Fort Collins expansion I am a resident of Fort Collins On November 27th 2012, the Coloradoan printed an article concerning Banner Health's plans to build a large facility providing health care on East Harmony. The complete article is here: http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121126/BUSINESS/311260053/Banner‐pushes‐ahead‐Fort‐Collins‐medical‐ campus?nclick_check=1 The relevant excerpts appear at the end of my text. One of the reasons I joined the Barrier Busters Public Transit Advocacy Group was the lack of consideration the Poudre Valley Hospital Administration had for patients without private automobiles. PVH chose to locate their Medical Campus on East Harmony when no bus routes ran there. The City confounded the problem, when it resisted the establishment of bus routes to serve the PVH campus. Currently, East Harmony has hourly bus service, a 50% reduction of the original route frequency. The City, Banner Health, the PVH administration and other East harmony businesses should augment the inadequate bus routes serving East Harmony. This could take the form of restoring half hour, or South Side Shuttle service on East Harmony. My excerpts of the Coloadoan article are placed below: Plans for a new Banner Health hospital, clinic and emergency department in Poudre Valley Health System’s own back yard are moving forward with potential ground breaking next year and opening date in late 2015 or early 2016. Arizona‐based Banner announced last month it wanted to expand its Northern Colorado 38 facilities increasing the competition for patients’ health care dollar. It chose 29 acres at Presidio, an 85‐acre mixed use project off Harmony Road across from Hewlett‐Packard owned by longtime Fort Collins developer Les Kaplan. <snip> Banner has a contract to buy Kaplan’s land contingent on its ability to get approval for the medical campus. Formal development plans will likely be submitted to the city of Fort Collins early next year, city planner Jason Holland said. ____________________________________________________________ Woman is 53 But Looks 25 Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/50b6406539b240640ad8st02duc 39 Jason Holland From: Paul Rosenzweig <r_u_sure@mybluelight.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:47 AM To: ptagfortcollins@gmail.com Cc: Jason Holland Subject: Banner Health Fort Collins expansion Categories: Red Category From : Paul Rosenzweig Address : 112 Rutgers Avenue #207 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EMAIL : r_u_sure@mybluelight.com Phone : 970 221 2358 Regarding : Banner Health Fort Collins expansion I am a resident of Fort Collins On November 27th 2012, the Coloradoan printed an article concerning Banner Health's plans to build a large facility providing health care on East Harmony. The complete article is here: http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121126/BUSINESS/311260053/Banner‐pushes‐ahead‐Fort‐Collins‐medical‐ campus?nclick_check=1 The relevant excerpts appear at the end of my text. One of the reasons I joined the Barrier Busters Public Transit Advocacy Group was the lack of consideration the Poudre Valley Hospital Administration had for patients without private automobiles. PVH chose to locate their Medical Campus on East Harmony when no bus routes ran there. The City confounded the problem, when it resisted the establishment of bus routes to serve the PVH campus. Currently, East Harmony has hourly bus service, a 50% reduction of the original route frequency. The City, Banner Health, the PVH administration and other East harmony businesses should augment the inadequate bus routes serving East Harmony. This could take the form of restoring half hour, or South Side Shuttle service on East Harmony. My excerpts of the Coloadoan article are placed below: Plans for a new Banner Health hospital, clinic and emergency department in Poudre Valley Health System’s own back yard are moving forward with potential ground breaking next year and opening date in late 2015 or early 2016. Arizona‐based Banner announced last month it wanted to expand its Northern Colorado facilities increasing the competition for patients’ health care dollar. It chose 29 acres at Presidio, an 85‐acre mixed use project off Harmony Road across from Hewlett‐Packard owned by longtime Fort Collins developer Les Kaplan. <snip> 40 Banner has a contract to buy Kaplan’s land contingent on its ability to get approval for the medical campus. Formal development plans will likely be submitted to the city of Fort Collins early next year, city planner Jason Holland said. ____________________________________________________________ Woman is 53 But Looks 25 Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/50b6406539b240640ad8st02duc 43 Jason Holland From: Scott O'Brien <obrienscott33@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:34 PM To: Jason Holland Cc: Kelly O'Brien; Amy Coen Subject: Banner Health Hospital Proposal and its impact on Observatory Village Categories: Red Category Hi Jason Thank you again for taking the time last night to listen to our concerns about the proposed campus. Being a home owner and a landlord in the community, we are taking this proposal and its possible implications and dangers very seriously and feel the city should as well. Let me be clear that I personally do not have a problem with a health campus. Our issues lay with the ambulatory ER, the obstructive three story hospital and the heli pad as per your sketches. Our safety, health, noise and traffic concerns about the proposed campus have been shared with the Master HOA in Observatory Village and the feedback has already been similar. We are positive that the residents in this community (which will have the most impact) are NOT fully aware of the scope of this project and we will do our best to share this information. We will also be putting together a list of names and addresses of homeowners who feel the same way and will forward this to you. In the meantime, I have taken some time to do some research.... First and foremost, there are literally hundreds of children riding their scooters and bikes to Zach every morning and back in the afternoon and there are literally hundreds of high schoolers driving down Rock Creek and Lady Moon every morning and afternoon. There is a pool and park on Cinquefoil and there are tennis courts and parks on Lady Moon. To think that ambulances and toxic hazardous waste trucks will be driving through our community on a daily basis is outrageous. When someone is rushing a loved one to the hospital they are very distracted and are wanting to get there as fast as they can. The safety of the children and the residents has to take priority over the economics of the project. Hospitals are not meant to be in or this close to residential neighborhoods for this exact reason. Even more so, this facility will be open 24/7/365. The noise from a helicopter this close to the ground and the community is unimaginable. Any other business will not have these types of concerns. Imagine if a wreck happens in the neighborhood. Imagine if a child is hit by an ambulance while walking to school. Imagine if a hazardous spill occurs from the daily drop off / pick ups. What then?? Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Johnstown and Windsor have a combined population of 320,000 people (give or take). Within a 15 mile radius there are currently 6 hospitals (PVH, NCLT, McKee, MCR, NCMC, NCRH). Banner on Harmony would be the 7th hospital within that radius. To put this in perspective, we moved here from Long Beach CA and it has a population of over 525,000 people (including the small surrounding cities). Within a 15 mile radius they have 4 hospitals (St. Mary's, Memorial, Pacific and Community). All in all, Long Beach has 65% more people and yet we already have 2 more hospitals than they do. Do we really need another? There is a dearth of information about ambulatory wrecks. Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) require reporting. This means there is no central repository for crash reports, making it difficult to quantify the number of incidents that occur in any given year. It’s important to note that of the 264 crashes found by some organizations, very few, if any, occurred in large metropolitan areas. They were all in residential areas. 44 The developers claim the economic impact will be great, but any company coming in there would provide just as many jobs without the safety concerns and the 24/7 traffic and light pollution. There was a great article in the Denver Post written this year (April) about the battle between PVHS and Banner. If you havent read it, I suggest you do: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20506083/colorado- hospitals-competition-has-eye-bigger-health-care We will be in touch soon. ITEM NO _______6__________ MEETING DATE ___4/18/13_________ STAFF ___HOLLAND______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Mountain Sage Community School, 2310 East Prospect Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130001 APPLICANT: Mountain Sage Community School c/o Liv Helmericks Founding Director / Board president P.O. Box 1253 Fort Collins, CO 80522 OWNER: Warren Messioh 1341 Jayhawk Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request by Mountain Sage Community School to rent and occupy an existing office building located at 2310 E. Prospect Road, in the Seven Lakes PUD, to be used for Mountain Sage Community School. The existing building would be converted into a school setting with classrooms and room for future expansion within the building. The adjacent vacant lot to the east may be used for a playground. The site is located in the Employment (E) Zone District and a public school use is permitted subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review. The existing building is approximately 17,500 square feet. The school will occupy approximately 15,000 square feet of the building, and the remaining 2,500 square feet is currently occupied by Larimer County Wellness. The proposed addition of the school use is intended to apply to the entire building in the event that the Larimer County Wellness space becomes available. Mountain Sage Community School is authorized by the Poudre School District Board of Education as a public charter school. An enrollment of 157 students in grades K - 5 is anticipated for the first year beginning in 2013, served by 14 teachers and staff. A total enrollment of 288 students is estimated for grades K - 8 served by 18 teachers and staff at the end of five years. Proposed exterior improvements are limited to the installation of a privacy fence surrounding the proposed playground area on the vacant lot east of the school building. The proposed limits of the playground fencing will be positioned to stay clear of existing trees and existing earth berms along Prospect Road and the entrance drive to the east. Currently, a temporary chain link construction fence exists on the vacant lot in approximately the same location as the proposed fence limits, and the area is being used as a temporary construction staging / storage area for Orthopedic Center of the Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Mountain Sage Community School, Project #SPAR 130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 2 Rockies. Areas outside of the proposed fence, between the fence and the back of curb, are currently irrigated turf and will remain undisturbed or restored to match adjacent turf. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Advisory Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The conversion to a public school charter is governed by Colorado State Statutes. The use is permitted in the E zone. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes as to the location, character and extent of the project. Further, the project complies with the applicable General Development Standards, Zone District Standards and is in conformance with City Plan. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E (Employment), Commercial S: E (Employment), Commercial E: E (Employment), Commercial W: E (Employment), Commercial 2. Zoning History: The project is part of the Seven Lakes Revised Final PUD, Tract A, as approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23 rd , 1985. 3. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: A. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S., as amended, addresses the right of a public school to construct facilities within a municipality and the location or manner of construction of such schools. The statutes specifically limit the municipalities’ participation in the process to a limited right of review and appeal to the school governing body, Poudre School District. B. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the School District. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be Mountain Sage Community School, Project #SPAR 130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 3 overruled by the Poudre School District Board of Education by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. With regard to location, the site is located within an established commercial development with one vacant parcel remaining to the east of the proposed school. Access into the site from Prospect Road is served by private drives. Space exists within the existing parking lot to accommodate student pick up and drop off. Staff has recommended that the school develop a detailed pick-up/drop-off circulation plan to determine the number of cars that can be accommodated within the on-site parking lot, and to seek solutions to mitigate any potential overflow into the main private drive to the north that services nearby businesses. With regard to character, the proposed building and physical site improvements are currently in place. There are no planned building additions or any other development improvements that would significantly alter the existing character. With regard to extent, the proposed public charter school is expected to create a level of intensity that overall is either equal to or nominally higher than other permitted uses that could occupy the building. With the public school schedule, there will be minimal activity on weekends and during school holidays and summer break. Additionally, peak traffic hours for the school operations should not be expected to overlap with peak traffic hours for the surrounding businesses. Therefore, Staff finds that the location, character and extent of Mountain Sage Community School comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan). 4. Compliance with Applicable Employment Zone District Standards: A. Permitted Use – the proposed land use is considered a public school and is consistent with the purpose of the Employment zone. The Employment District is intended to include a variety of uses such as schools, child care centers, offices, clinics, lodging, health clubs, research, light industrial uses, as well as residential uses. B. The school will be moving into an existing building that presently complies with the requirements of the E zone. There are no planned building modifications or additions associated with the proposed school. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: Mountain Sage Community School, Project #SPAR 130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 4 A. Section 3.2.1 - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The existing parking lot has mature perimeter trees along Prospect Road to the south and the private drive to the north. B. Section 3.2.1 - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The existing parking lot provides landscape islands with mature trees that meet the required standards. C. Section 3.2.2 – Parking The standard requires that schools provide a minimum of two spaces per three employees, or one space per 1,000 square feet of building, whichever is greater. The school will have a maximum of 20 employees and the size of the school is 17,282 square feet, therefore a minimum of 17 spaces is required. The proposed school will share the building with an existing tenant, Larimer County Wellness, which occupies approximately 2,500 square feet of the building. Using a ratio of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, 13 parking spaces are required for the Larimer County Wellness use. With 17 minimum spaces required for the school, added to the 14 spaces, 30 total spaces are required for the building. With the existing parking lot having 53 spaces, a surplus of parking is available. Representatives from Larimer County Wellness (current tenant), the building owner, and a representative from Mountain Sage Community School (future tenant) have met to discuss details of sharing the parking lot. There was agreement that the parking lot offers more than adequate space for the two operations to co-exist. There was discussion about designating a certain number of parking spots (5-10 out of the 53 spots) for use by Larimer County Wellness to ensure their parking needs would always be met. All parties agreed on this plan and the details regarding parking spot designation will be determined closer to the time of shared occupancy (Mountain Sage lease begins May 1, 2013). The existing parking lot has drive isle space to accommodate a queue for student pick- ups and drop-offs. A conservative estimation is that the parking lot has space for a single queue lane of 16 cars without backing out onto the main private drive north of the parcel. It is anticipated that volunteers would need to assist with traffic control within the parking lot. A second queue lane could be added within the existing parking drive isle to accommodate additional cars, but this would require additional traffic control coordination. Staff has recommended that the school develop a detailed pick-up/drop- off circulation plan to understand the number of cars that can be accommodated within the on-site parking lot, and to seek solutions to mitigate any potential overflow into the main private drive to the north that services nearby businesses. Mountain Sage Community School, Project #SPAR 130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 5 D. Section 3.2.4 - Lighting There will be no new lighting associated with the new charter school. E. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was required by staff and completed for this project. This study assessed the impacts of Mountain Sage Community School on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2018) future. As a result of this analysis, the following was concluded: • The development of the Mountain Sage Community School is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Mountain Sage Community School will generate approximately 648 daily trip ends, 213 morning peak hour trip ends, and 140 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection is currently signalized and operating acceptably. In the short range (2018) future, given the development of Mountain Sage Community School and an increase in background traffic, the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection will continue to operate acceptably with existing control and geometry. • An acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. 6. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 14 th . Representatives from the school were in attendance as well as the property owner. Additionally, one resident attended the meeting representing the adjacent property to the west at 2290 East Prospect Road. The adjacent property owner asked several questions as follows: Q: Has a traffic Study been done? A: No, not yet. Q: What are the hours of operation? A: 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Q: What is the anticipated number of kids? A: About 160 kids the first year, to increase to 350 at the end of five years. Comment: We are concerned about noise coming from the proposed playscape area southwest of the building, since this area will be close to our building. We are also concerned that parents dropping off their kids will back up onto the streets. Mountain Sage Community School, Project #SPAR 130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing April, 18, 2013 Page 6 A: That playscape area may not be needed. We’re thinking that the parents will be able to stack up in the parking lot without affecting the streets. Q: Is bussing anticipated? A: No, busses. Carpooling is likely. Comment: We are also concerned about additional wear and tear on the shared driveways within the business park. Staff Summary of Neighbor Input: Based on comments from the neighborhood meeting, the proposed playscape area located southwest of the building is no longer proposed. A traffic study was provided for the project as recommended by City staff. Staff is in agreement that the study confirms the school’s operations will not exceed the required minimum Level of Service traffic requirements. However, additional concerns have been raised by nearby businesses that daily traffic for the school will overflow onto the shared main private drives within the Seven Lakes PUD, impacting the nearby businesses. Staff has recommended that the school develop a detailed pick-up/drop-off circulation plan to determine the number of cars that can be accommodated within the on-site parking lot. Representatives from the school and nearby businesses have agreed to meet to discuss the circulation plan and discuss any alternatives or additional measures that could be implemented. It is anticipated that this meeting will occur prior to the Planning and Zoning Board Work Session. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The change of use to a public charter school within an existing facility triggers review by the City of Fort Collins. B. The use of the building for a public charter school complies with State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the charter school conform to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. C. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three and the zone district standards of Article Four. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Mountain Sage Community School - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130001 Mountain Sage Community School HC T LMN POL UE RL Fossil Ridge High School Future Southeast Community Park Beaver Pond Precision Dr Galileo Dr Northern Lights Dr S a b e r Cat Dr Brookfield Dr Le Fever Dr Big Dipp e r D r Cornerstone Dr Southern Cross Ln L i t tl e Dippe r D r Steelhead St Indigo Cir S Observatory Dr Indigo Cir N Cassiopeia Ln Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Copernicus Dr Exploration Ln Daylight Ct Observatory Dr Rock Creek Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Big Dipper Dr E Harmony Rd Ziegler Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E Harmony Rd 1 inch = 700 feet © Rivendell School Liberty Common Elementary Mountain Sage Community School E I POL RC I MMN T POL POL Rivendell School Liberty Common Elementary Big Pond Dragonfly Pond Kingfisher Point SW Pond Heron Pond Merganser Pond Prospect Pond #2 North ConfluenceRiver and Wigeon Ponds Cache la Poudre Black Bird Pond Spring Creek West Milne Pond Chorus Frog Pond Kingfisher Point NE Pond Song Sparrow Pond Kingfisher Point NW Pond Academy Ct Specht Point Rd March Ct Midpoint Dr Sharp Point Dr Riv e rsi d e A ve Prospect Park Way E Prospect Rd S Timberline Rd 1 inch = 500 feet © PROSPECT TIMBERLINE SPRINGCREEK TRAIL MOUNTAIN SAGE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2310 E. PROSPECT NATURAL PLAYSCAPE AND GARDENS (approx 40,000 sq ft) DROP OFF AREA YEAR 1 YEAR 1 YEAR 1 FUTURE EXP. MOUNTAIN SAGE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2310 E. PROSPECT March 12, 2013 On Friday March 1, 2013 a meeting was held in regard to the building and future shared space at 2310 East Prospect Road. Representatives from Larimer County Wellness (current tenant), the building owner, and a representative from Mountain Sage Community School (future tenant) were in attendance. All agreed that the parking lot offers more than adequate space for the two operations to co-exist. There was discussion about designating a certain number of parking spots (5-10 out of the approximately 55 spots) for use by Larimer County Wellness to ensure their parking needs would always be met. All parties agreed on this plan and that details regarding parking spot designation could be determined closer to the time of shared occupancy (Mountain Sage lease begins May 1, 2013). Jon S. Pointer Mountain Sage Community School MOUNTAIN SAGE COMMUNITY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO MARCH 2013 Prepared for: Mountain Sage Community School Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #: 1316 DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 6 Northbound Queue on Prospect Parkway....................................................................... 6 Pederstrian Facilities....................................................................................................... 6 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................6 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................7 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................. 8 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 8 Trip Distribution ...............................................................................................................8 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 11 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 11 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 11 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 17 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 17 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 17 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 17 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 19 DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 7 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 8 3. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 15 4. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 5 4. Site Plan.................................................................................................................... 9 5. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 10 6. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 12 7. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 13 8. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 14 9. Short Range (2018) Geometry ................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Mountain Sage Community School. The proposed Mountain Sage Community School is proposed to be located in an existing building in the northwest quadrant of the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the owner’s (Mountain Sage Community School) and the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Staff. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). Since this is a school, it was determined that the peak hours should be the typical morning peak hour and the school dismissal time (3:00pm-4:00pm). Due to the trip generation, this is an intermediate level transportation impact study. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Mountain Sage Community School is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial or open. There are commercial uses to the west, north, east, and south of the site. There are open space uses to the north and east of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the west of the proposed Mountain Sage Community School. Streets The primary streets near the Mountain Sage Community School site are Prospect Road and Prospect Parkway. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection. Prospect Road is south of (adjacent to) the proposed Mountain Sage Community School site. It is an east-west street classified as a four-lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four-lane cross section, west of Prospect Parkway and transitions to a two-lane cross section, east of Prospect Parkway. At the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection, Prospect Road has an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane, two through lanes in each direction, and a westbound right-turn lane. The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection has signal control. The posted speed limit in this area of Prospect Road is 40 mph. Prospect Parkway is east of the proposed Mountain Sage Community School site. It is a north-south street classified as a two-lane collector south of Prospect Road according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. The north leg of Prospect Parkway serves the Seven Lakes Business Park. The north leg is not a public street, but this short segment carries traffic volumes commensurate with that of a commercial local street. Currently, Prospect Parkway has a two-lane cross section. At the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection, Prospect Parkway has a northbound and a southbound left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane in each direction. The posted speed limit in this area of Prospect Parkway is 25 mph. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The morning count at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection was obtained in November 2012, by the City of Fort Collins. The school dismissal count, at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection, was obtained in February 2011. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Summitview Drive Sharp Point Drive Timberline Road SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 3 Prospect Road BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Prospect Parkway Specht Point Drake Road EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 4 Prospect Road Prospect Parkway - Denotes Lane RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 5 Prospect Road 7:30-8:30AM/3:00-4:00PM Prospect Parkway 176/261 2/2 40/59 15/37 3/3 10/21 101/30 766/913 73/38 32/1 853/655 48/25 DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 6 Existing Operation The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection was evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection is currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and school dismissal peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Mountain Sage Community School site is in an area termed “mixed use district.” In areas termed “mixed use districts,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better. Northbound Queue on Prospect Parkway The northbound left-turn queue at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection in the afternoon hour was requested to be analyzed in this study to determine if the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection could continue to run at the existing signal timing. The existing queue was observed during traffic counting in the afternoon school dismissal time. In the afternoon peak hour the maximum queue was 24 vehicles. The length of the green phase for Prospect Parkway is 30.5 seconds at this time of the day. It was observed, during traffic counting that the maximum number of vehicles that could advance during this phase was 14. Therefore, there was a residual, carry over queue for the next green phase. There were two more queues (15 vehicles and 17 vehicles) that exceeded the maximum 14 vehicle clearance. All of these queues occurred between 3:08 and 3:17 pm (9 minutes). Based upon these observations, most of the vehicles appeared to be from the Liberty Commons School. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along both sides of Prospect Road and along Prospect Parkway, south of Prospect Road. Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road east of Timberline Road. However, the Fort Collins Bike Map indicates that Prospect Road is a street with bike lanes. The Spring Creek Trail is to the north and west of the Mountain Sage Community School site. The Poudre Trail is to the east of the Mountain Sage Community School site. DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 7 Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 17 and 18. It operates along Prospect Road with a bus stop at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT A A EB T/RT A B EB APPROACH A B WB LT A A WB T A B WB RT A A WB APPROACH A B NB LT D D NB T/RT D C NB APPROACH D D SB LT D D SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH D C Prospect/Prospect Parkway (signal) OVERALL B B DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Mountain Sage Community School staff indicated that this school will have a total of 326 students in 5 years. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the Mountain Sage Community School. The total floor area at the site is 17,282 square feet. The short range analysis (Year 2018) includes development of the Mountain Sage Community School and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. Since this is an intermediate level transportation impact study, a long range analysis is not required. The site plan shows that the Mountain Sage Community School accesses Prospect Road via Prospect Parkway. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip generation for Private School K-8 (Code 534) in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE fit the description of the Mountain Sage Community School. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. A reduction of 0.8 was taken for siblings that attend the school and a reduction of 0.9 was taken for carpooling/alternative modes. The trip generation of the Mountain Sage Community School resulted in 648 daily trip ends, 213 morning peak hour trip ends, and 140 afternoon peak hour trip ends. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 534 Private School K-8 326 students 2.76 900 Eq. 163 Eq. 133 Eq. 91 Eq. 103 Total with reductions 648 117 96 66 74 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Mountain Sage Community School was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2018) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 10 Prospect Road Prospect Parkway 95% 5% SITE DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 11 Background Traffic Projections Figure 6 shows the short range (2018) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. The other traffic studies in this area are the Spring Creek Farms North and Bucking Horse. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes would increase by approximately 1.25% per year in the short range future. The approved Springs Creek Farms North and Bucking Horse traffic were added to determine the short range volumes at Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection. The existing traffic from the current use (office) was removed from the background traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip generation and trip distribution process. Figure 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 8 shows the short range (2018) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection is currently signalized. Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting a year 2018 condition. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection will operate in the short range (2018) background traffic future as indicated in Table 3 with the existing geometry. Calculation forms for this analysis are provided in Appendix D. The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection will operate in the short range (2018) total traffic future as indicated in Table 4 with the existing geometry. Calculation forms for this analysis are provided in Appendix E. The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersections will operate acceptably. SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 12 Prospect Road 7:30-8:30AM/3:00-4:00PM Prospect Parkway 176/261 2/2 40/59 12/35 3/3 10/21 82/28 856/976 73/38 31/1 928/701 48/25 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 13 Prospect Road 7:30-8:30AM/3:00-4:00PM Prospect Parkway NOM. 91/70 NOM. 5/4 111/63 6/3 SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 14 Prospect Road 7:30-8:30AM/3:00-4:00PM Prospect Parkway 176/261 2/2 40/59 103/105 3/3 15/25 193/91 856/976 73/38 37/4 928/701 48/25 DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 15 TABLE 3 Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT A A EB T/RT B B EB APPROACH B B WB LT A A WB T A B WB RT A A WB APPROACH A B NB LT D D NB T/RT D C NB APPROACH D D SB LT D D SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH D C Prospect/Prospect Parkway (signal) OVERALL B B DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 16 TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT B A EB T/RT B B EB APPROACH B B WB LT A B WB T B B WB RT A B WB APPROACH B B NB LT E E NB T/RT C C NB APPROACH D E SB LT D D SB T/RT D C SB APPROACH D C Prospect/Prospect Parkway (signal) OVERALL B C DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 17 Geometry Figure 9 shows a schematic of the short range (2018) geometry. This is the existing geometry. Using LCUASS, Chapter 8 evaluation criteria, no improvements are required. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Mountain Sage Community School development. There are two pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Mountain Sage Community School development. These are: 1) the office and commercial areas to the south of the site and 2) the Spring Creek and Poudre Recreation Trails to the north/west of the site. This site is in an area type termed “transit corridor.” The minimum level of service for “transit corridor” is C, except for Directness and Security which is B. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Mountain Sage Community School development. There will be one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of the Mountain Sage Community School development. This is 1) the Spring Creek and Poudre recreation Trails. A Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. The level of service is acceptable. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 17 and 18. These routes have a transit stop at the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection, which is adjacent to this site. SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 Page 18 Prospect Road Prospect Parkway - Denotes Lane DELICH Mountain Sage Community School TIS, March 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 19 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Mountain Sage Community School on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2018) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the Mountain Sage Community School is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The Mountain Sage Community School will generate approximately 648 daily trip ends, 213 morning peak hour trip ends, and 140 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection is currently operating acceptably. - The Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection is currently signalized. - In the short range (2018) future, given development of the Mountain Sage Community School and an increase in background traffic, the Prospect/Prospect Parkway intersection will operate acceptably with existing control and geometry. - The short range (2018) geometry is shown in Figure 9. This is the existing geometry. - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. Edora Community Park Big Pond Dragonfly Pond Kingfisher Point SW Pond Heron Pond Merganser Pond Prospect Pond #2 North Cache la Poudre River Confluence and Wigeon Ponds West Milne Pond Black Bird Pond Spring Creek Chorus Frog Pond Song Sparrow Pond KingfisherPond Point NW Pond Kingfisher Point NE Academy Ct Specht Point Rd March Ct Midpoint Dr Sharp Point Dr R i v er s i d e Ave Prospect Park Way E Prospect Rd S Timberline Rd 1 inch = 500 feet Security cameras will be located in areas adjacent to the oxygen tank. Nitrous Oxide 5‐'E' tanks Patient care Patient Tower Basement Bottle Storage Room The basement level will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Nitrogen tanks & 50 'H' tPatient care Patient Tower Basement Bottle Storage Room The basement level will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Nitrogen 10 'H' tanks Patient care Patient Tower 2nd Floor Patient Rooms Tanks are delivered to patient rooms only as needed. Calcium chloride 250lbs Snow melt Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Glutaraldehyde ‐2.55% solution (Cidex) 2 Medical equipment sterilization D&T Building 2nd Floor Procedure Room ‐ Equipment Cleaning Room The Procedure Room area of the floor will be secured with card access control system. The Equipment Cleaning Room will be secured with card access control system. Security cameras will be located in corridors outside of the Equipment Cleaning Room. Bleach ‐10% solution 12 Sterilization of patient rooms contaminated by clostridium difficile (CDif) infections. Plant Services Building 1st Floor Environmental Service Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Bleach ‐10% solution 2 Sterilization of patient rooms contaminated by clostridium difficile (CDif) infections. Clinic, Patient Tower and D&T Buildings 1st and 2nd Floors Housekeeping closets Housekeeping closets are secured with locking door hardware. Solvents (Gum‐Out, WD‐40, degreasers 2 Equipment maintenance Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Lubricants (chain oil, machine oil) 1 Equipment maintenance Plant Services Building 1st Floor Facilities Services Storage Room The building will be secured with card access control system. Storage room will have locking door hardware. Security cameras will be located in corridors leading to storage rooms. Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis Banner Fort Collins Harmony Medical Center ‐ Hazardous Materials 20/30 5/5 5/5 10/65 15/50 40/210 30/10 145/145 85/35 25/75 65/200 90/45 40/80 45/25 10/30 30/55 35/85 30/85 45/40 10/5 10/5 130/260 5/10 35/55 210/180 40/140 20/45 40/40 130/70 5/10 30/10 210/140 30/60 10/10 75/260 20/45 15/25 10/30 5/25 35/25 45/25 70/45 2990/2785 1725/3115 215/190 140/245 340/630 20/15 55/120 25/70 625/480 10/40 Harmony LeFever Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access HP East AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 10/5 205/275 10/5 175/310 10/30 5/10 Cinquefoil Timberwood 40/35 315/460 45/25 70/20 385/400 180/100 15/105 35/20 5/25 30/80 15/35 35/55 Main Access Seondary Access Office Access 15/5 45/160 30/5 5/20 NOM 15/55 50/20 85/85 85/10 5/30 NOM 15/70 11/39 1/6 0/0 0/1 47/22 0/0 13/6 104/95 32/1 81/79 5/87 1/56 1/169 16/6 1457/2380 79/109 163/14 2089/2244 82/73 LeFever 119/250 239/147 East 74/41 21/11 120/65 67/147 7/15 Timberwood 34/55 14/6 57/33 35/16 3/13 10/40 92/49 44/95 10/21 4/9 9/5 10/5 20/11 5/10 29/16 14/30 12/6 17/10 2/1 9/16 1/5 5/14 6/4 10/32 10/6 11/5 18/30 3/5 NOM 5/5 NOM 10/65 15/50 40/210 15/5 130/135 85/35 25/75 55/185 90/45 40/75 45/25 5/15 30/55 35/85 30/85 45/40 10/5 10/5 120/240 5/10 30/45 190/170 35/130 20/45 30/35 120/65 5/10 30/10 180/125 30/60 10/10 60/230 20/45 15/25 10/30 5/25 35/25 45/25 70/45 2915/2745 1720/3100 195/180 110/180 305/535 5/5 15/50 25/70 430/375 10/40 Harmony LeFever Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon Cinquefoil Ambulance/ ER Access RT Access HP East AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 40/35 295/435 70/20 370/395 15/105 5/25 Timberwood OFF CANOPY MASONRY, TYPE 2A STOREFRONT EIFS, COLOR 1 WINDOW METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1 EIFS, COLOR 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN MASONRY, TYPE 2A METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 2 METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN EIFS, COLOR 1 MASONRY, TYPE 2 MASONRY, TYPE 2A MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 2A EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN SUNSHADE FIN VERTICAL SUNSHADE MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP CANOPY MOUNTED SIGNAGE STONE BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN STOREFRONT WINDOW BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE EIFS, COLOR 1 METAL PANEL SUNSHADE, TYP. AT WEST FACING PATIENT ROOMS METAL PANEL STOREFRONT WINDOW MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY , TYPE 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL CANOPY FOR STAFF ENTRANCE AND BIKE PARKING METAL FENCE AND SECURITY GATE EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 2A MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1A STOREFRONT METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN WROUGHT IRON FENCE SUNSHADE FIN MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP WALK-IN DOOR MASONRY, TYPE 1A CURTAIN WALL WALK-IN DOOR TRASH ENCLOSURE ACCESS, METAL DOOR EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1A CURTAIN WALL EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP BIKE PARKING UNDER METAL PANEL OVERHANG MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY, TYPE 1 SUNSHADE, TYPICAL AT ALL EAST FACING PATIENT ROOMS. SEE SHEET A2 FOR MORE INFO. STOREFRONT WINDOW METAL PANEL METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN (TYP.) MASONRY, TYPE 2 METAL PANEL CURTAIN WALL MASONRY, TYPE 1 CURTAIN WALL METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN EIFS, COLOR 1 MASONRY, TYPE 2 STOREFRONT WINDOW MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 2A MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 2A MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 2A SUNSHADES PROJECT 3' FROM FACE OF WALL (TYP.) METAL PANEL EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN EIFS, COLOR 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN SUNSHADE FIN DIAGNOSTICS AND TREATMENT WALL SITS APPROXIMATELY 80' BEYOND THE FACE OF THE CENTRAL UTILITY PLAN. SEE NORTH ELEVATION FOR OFFSET *SEE SHEET A1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE MASSING OF THIS ELEVATION MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP STOREFRONT WINDOW METAL PANEL STOREFRONT WINDOW BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SCREEN CANOPY MOUNTED SIGNAGE STONE BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SCREEN SUNSHADE, TYPICAL AT ALL WEST FACING PATIENT ROOMS MASONRY, TYPE 1 BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY , TYPE 2A METAL FENCE AND SECURITY GATE MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A MASONRY, TYPE 1 EIFS, COLOR 2 EIFS, COLOR 2 MASONRY, TYPE 1A METAL PANEL MECHANICAL SCREEN BEYOND (TYP.) MASONRY, TYPE 1 METAL PANEL METAL PANEL METAL PANEL CANOPY FOR STAFF ENTRANCE AND BIKE PARKING SUNSHADE FIN MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP MASONRY PARAPET CAP Beaver Pond Precision Dr Galileo Dr Northern Lights Dr S a b e r Cat Dr Brookfield Dr Le Fever Dr Big Dipp e r D r Southern Cross Ln L i ttl e Dipp e r D r Steelhead St Observatory Dr Indigo Cir S Cassiopeia Ln Indigo Cir N Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Copernicus Dr Exploration Ln Daylight Ct Observatory Dr Rock Creek Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Big Dipper Dr E Harmony Rd Ziegler Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E Harmony Rd 1 inch = 700 feet Site BIKE PARKING (5) TRELLIS ABOVE TRELLIS & ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE BIKE PARKING (10) BALCONY ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 2'-8" +/- "NO PARKING" SIGNS CONCRETE WHEELSTOP - TYP SANDSTONE SEAT BLOCKS TABLES & CHAIRS BY TENANT SEATWALL 2'x2' SCORING PATTERN 1'X1' SCORING PATTERN BIKE LOCKER (1) T 3'-0" SETBACK BENCH BENCH BENCH 1 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN MASON STREET - NO PARKING LANE NO PARKING ALONG ENTIRE FRONTAGE MULTI-PURPOSE AREA: BRT PULLOUT & EMERGENCY SERVICES BIKE PARKING (5) TRELLIS ABOVE TRELLIS & ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE BIKE PARKING (10) BALCONY ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 2'-8" +/- "NO PARKING" SIGNS CONCRETE WHEELSTOP - TYP SANDSTONE SEAT BLOCKS TABLES & CHAIRS BY TENANT SEATWALL 2'x2' SCORING PATTERN 1'X1' SCORING PATTERN BIKE LOCKER (1) T 3'-0" SETBACK BENCH BENCH BENCH 1 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN DISTANCES BETWEEN BUILDINGS 25' 84' 22' 40' 85' ZERO LOTLINE 30' BIKE PARKING (5) TRELLIS ABOVE TRELLIS & ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE BIKE PARKING (10) BALCONY ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 2'-8" +/- "NO PARKING" SIGNS CONCRETE WHEELSTOP - TYP SANDSTONE SEAT BLOCKS TABLES & CHAIRS BY TENANT SEATWALL 2'x2' SCORING PATTERN 1'X1' SCORING PATTERN BIKE LOCKER (1) T 3'-0" SETBACK BENCH BENCH BENCH 1 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 4 4 '-0" 3'-3 333 00000" 0" " SE SS S ETTBB ETBBBBA E T BBBB B CC ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 7.5-ft wide (750 sq.ft.) 111074.00 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING 04/18/2013 1 EAST 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION 2 NORTH 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION EAST FRONTAGE - 249' - 0" USE DIMENSION % RETAIL/PLAZA 30' - 0" 12.0% BIKE PARKING 51' - 6" 20.7% STAIRS 20' - 0" 8.0% ENTRIES 44' - 0" 17.7% MAX BRT STATION 19' - 0" 7.6% TOTAL 164' - 6" 66.1% WEST FRONTAGE - 86' - 0" USE DIMENSION % RETAIL 48' - 0" 55.8% PLAZA 24' - 0" 27.9% TOTAL 72' - 0" 83.7% STUCCO COLOR #1 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 8.2 7.1 7.3 7.2 15.1 4 NM 1.4 ADJACENT EXISTING BUILDINGS LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" PARKING STUCCO WALL BEYOND LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" PARKING LAP SIDING WALL BEYOND LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" RETAIL STUCCO WALL BEYOND BALCONY MAX FLATS STAHL DEVELOPMENT / BRINKMAN PARTNERS BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING 04/18/2013 1 SOUTH 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION 2 WEST 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION ELEVATION MATERIAL FLAGNOTES DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE 3.4 CONCRETE WALL 3.5 CONCRETE COLUMN DIVISION 4 - MASONRY 4.1 BRICK VENEER 4.3 GROUND-FACE MASONRY DIVISION 5 - METALS 5.1 PARAPET COPING DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTIC 6.4 WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME 6.6 WOOD BEAM DIVISION 7 - THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.1 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING 7.2 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 7.3 STUCCO WITH REVEALS 7.4 METAL WALL PANEL DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS 8.1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 8.2 VINYL WINDOW 8.3 FULL GLASS DOOR 8.8 OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 5.7 METAL GUARDRAIL 5.8 METAL FASCIA 5.9 METAL LANDSCAPE GRID ("GREEN SCREEN") DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10.2 TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL 15.1 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 15.2 WALL VENT 15.3 GAS METER DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL 16.1 ELECTRIC METER 4 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 5 - PDP 5 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 6 - PDP 3 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 4 - PDP 5.8 6.6 5.8 4.1 6.4 5.7 4.3 6.6 7.2 CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 STUCCO STUCCO COLOR #2 COLOR #1 4.3 5.7 7.3 8.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 5.9 4.3 8.1 15.1 5 NM 1.3 3 NM 1.3 4 NM 1.3 9' - 0" STAIR 6' - 0" ENTRY 23' - 0" BIKE PARKING 38' - 0" RESIDENTS' ENTRY 16' - 0" BIKE PARKING 19' - 0" BRT STOP 12' - 0" BIKE PARKING 11' - 0" STAIR 30' - 0" RETAIL / PLAZA LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" PARKING BIKE RACK WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME BALCONY METAL TRELLIS BALCONY LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" GREEN SCREEN PARKING RESIDENTS' ENTRY BEYOND BALCONY BALCONY LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF PLAN 154' - 0" LOBBY RESIDENTS' ENTRY BALCONY METAL PANEL BEYOND BALCONY ENTRY CANOPY MAX 6" 8' - 0" PLANTER WIRE LANDSCAPE TRELLIS ON HANGERS ("GREEN SCREEN" OR EQUAL) 3" THICK x 4' WIDE x 8' HIGH PANELS 4" X 6" STEEL POSTS @ 4' ON CENTER STEEL BEAM GROUND-FACE MASONRY WALL PARKING MAX FLATS STAHL DEVELOPMENT / BRINKMAN PARTNERS BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING 04/18/2013 2 NORTH 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION 1 EAST 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION ELEVATION MATERIAL FLAGNOTES DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE 3.4 CONCRETE WALL 3.5 CONCRETE COLUMN DIVISION 4 - MASONRY 4.1 BRICK VENEER 4.3 GROUND-FACE MASONRY DIVISION 5 - METALS 5.1 PARAPET COPING DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTIC 6.4 WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME 6.6 WOOD BEAM DIVISION 7 - THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.1 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING 7.2 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 7.3 STUCCO WITH REVEALS 7.4 METAL WALL PANEL DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS 8.1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 8.2 VINYL WINDOW 8.3 FULL GLASS DOOR 8.8 OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 5.7 METAL GUARDRAIL 5.8 METAL FASCIA 5.9 METAL LANDSCAPE GRID ("GREEN SCREEN") DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10.2 TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL 15.1 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 15.2 WALL VENT 15.3 GAS METER DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL 16.1 ELECTRIC METER 5 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 3 - PDP 3 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 1 - PDP 4 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 2 - PDP 6 GREEN 1/2" = 1'-0" SCREEN S89�43'17"E 64.93' 46.10' 6.00' 94.00' 7.50' 251.26' UTILITY EASEMENT PER THIS PLAT UTILITY EASEMENT (WIDTH VARIES) LOT 1 29,754 sq.ft. 0.683 ac POINT OF BEGINNING NE CORNER BLOCK 105 HARRISON'S ADDITION NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 105 BASIS OF BEARINGS N89�34'49"W 100.04' (M) WEST 100' (R) N89�38'39"W 399.99' PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 105 HARRISON'S ADDITION BLOCK 115 HARRISON'S ADDITION BLOCK 104 CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIMITS OF FLOODWAY RESERVED 20' UTILITY EASEMENT WITH ALLEY VACATION BOOK 1943, PAGE 447 (TO BE VACATED WITH THIS PLAT) RESERVED 20' UTILITY EASEMENT WITH ALLEY VACATION BOOK 1943, PAGE 447 (TO BE VACATED WITH THIS PLAT) SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE W. MULBERRY ST. MASON ST. LAUREL ST. RIVERSIDE AVENUE NE CORNER BLOCK 95 FND 1" IRON ROD REVIEWED BY: G. Gilliland DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 2/19/12 PROJECT: 860-001 Sheet Of 1 Sheet MAX FLATS MAX FLATS MAX FLATS NOTICE : According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years after the date of the certificate shown hereon. RANGE: TOWNSHIP: SECTION: 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 10 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE: The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty and guarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional Land Use Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements and other public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catch basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department. The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safety requirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also have any other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end of said two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain the responsibility of the Owner. REPAIR GUARANTEE: In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public improvements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include, without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges within the right-of-way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defects in materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/her successors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineering techniques and due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any and all monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I further warrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat. NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS: All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Development which create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and may include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are on file in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested in purchasing any portion of the Development site. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I, Gerald D. Gilliland, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Subdivision Plat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the foregoing plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. __________________________________ Gerald D. Gilliland Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor No. 14823 CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION: The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter “City”), for public use, forever, a permanent right-of-way for street purposes and the “Easements” as laid out and designated on this Plat; provided, however, that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of Easements does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain the Easements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied. The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of the City as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City's rights under the Easements include the right to install, operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace within the Easements public improvements consistent with the intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain and use gates in any fences that cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of the Easements with suitable markers; and the right to permit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the Easements for purposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible for maintenance of its own improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, but by acceptance of this dedication, the City does not accept the duty of maintenance of the Easements, or of improvements in the Easements that are not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the Easements in a sanitary condition in compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirements. Except as expressly permitted in an approved plan of development or other written agreement with the City, Owner will not install on the Easements, or permit the installation on the Easements, of any building, structure, improvement, fence, retaining wall, sidewalk, tree or other landscaping (other than usual and customary grasses and other ground cover). In the event such obstacles are installed in the Easements, the City has the right to require the Owner to remove such obstacles from the Easements. If Owner does not remove such obstacles, the City may remove such obstacles without any liability or obligation for repair and replacement thereof, and charge the Owner the City's costs for such removal. If the City chooses not to remove the obstacles, the City will not be liable for any damage to the obstacles or any other property to which they are attached. The rights granted to the City by this Plat inure to the benefit of the City's agents, licensees, permittees and assigns. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code. Attorney:________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Registration No.:__________________________________ NOTICE ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES. APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER By the City Engineer of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this ______day of _____________ A.D., 20_____. ____________________________________________________ City Engineer PLANNING APPROVAL By the Director of Planning the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this _____ day of ___________ A.D., 20_____. ____________________________________________________ Director of Planning NOTES: 1) The Basis of Bearings is the North line of Block 105, City of Fort Collins bearing South 89°38'39" East (assumed bearing). 2) All information regarding easements, right-of-way or title of record, Northern Engineering relied upon File Number 597-F0381199-383-JNB prepared by Fidelity National Title Company, dated June 21, 2011. 3) The lineal unit of measurement for this plat is U.S. Survey Feet. 4) 20' alley was vacated by Book 1943, Page 447. 5) The lot dimensions that are noted and make up the East line of Block 105 in the Harrison's Addition have an apparent error. The East line of Lots 1 and 3 is shown to be 180' in length. With an alley width of 20', the East line of Block 105 adds up to 380'. The original town plat shows Block 105 to be 400' x 400' square which matches the physical dimension of the Block. 6) Benchmark: City of Fort Collins Vertical Control 6-00 - on a catch basin at the Northwest corner of Mulberry St. and College Ave. Elevation = 4990.68 OWNER: 203 W. Mulberry, LLC BY:_________________________________ Kevin Brinkman, Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, by Kevin Brinkman, as Manager of 203 W. Mulberry, LLC. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: ________________ _______________________________ Notary Public STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION: Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned owner(s) of the following described land: Lot 3, a portion of Lot 1, and a portion of a 20' alley, Block 105, Harrison's Addition to the City of Fort Collins, located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Considering the North line of Block 105, Harrison's Addition to the City of Fort Collins as bearing South 89° 38' 39" East, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, ��������� at the Northeast corner of said Block 105; thence, South 00° 15' 02" West, 189.82 feet; thence, South 00° 15' 02" West, 20.00 feet; thence, South 00° 18' 49" West, 95.04 feet; thence, North 89° 34' 49" West, 100.04 feet; thence, North 00° 17' 34" East, 95.09 feet; thence, North 00° 02' 05" East, 20.00 feet; thence, North 00° 17' 50" East, 189.66 feet; thence, South 89° 38' 39" East, 100.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, contains 30,504 square feet or 0.700 acres, more or less. For themselves and their successors in interest (collectively "Owner") have caused the above described land to be surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as MAX FLATS (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicated on this Plat. The rights and obligations of this Plat shall run with the land. MAX FLATS LOT 3, A PORTION OF LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF A 20' ALLEY, BLOCK 105, HARRISON'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO VICINITY MAP VICINITY MAP {SCALE 1" = 1500'} SITE 1 SECTION 14, T7N, R69W CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO L. Smith 1"=30' 14 7N 69 W of the 6th PM NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 30 0 30 Feet 30 60 90 (US SURVEY FEET) LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE LOT LINE FOUND CORNER AS DESCRIBED RIGHT-OF-WAY LIENHOLDER: BY:_________________________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, by __________________________, as ______________________ of _______________________________. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: ________________ _______________________________ Notary Public 7.3 STUCCO COLOR #2 STUCCO COLOR #1 5.7 6.4 12' - 0" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 11' - 0" 8.2 7.1 7.3 7.2 15.2 16.1 15.3 15.1 4 PDP 5 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" PARKING STUCCO WALL BEYOND LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" PARKING LAP SIDING WALL BEYOND LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" TRUSS BRG 152' - 1" TOP PARAPET 155' - 10" RETAIL STUCCO WALL BEYOND BALCONY PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 3/15/2013 9:08:49 AM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt As indicated MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS PDP 5 MAX FLATS EI 1 SOUTH 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION 2 WEST 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION ELEVATION MATERIAL FLAGNOTES DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE 3.4 CONCRETE WALL 3.5 CONCRETE COLUMN DIVISION 4 - MASONRY 4.1 BRICK VENEER 4.3 GROUND-FACE MASONRY DIVISION 5 - METALS 5.1 PARAPET COPING DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTIC 6.4 WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME 6.6 WOOD BEAM DIVISION 7 - THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.1 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING 7.2 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 7.3 STUCCO WITH REVEALS 7.4 METAL WALL PANEL DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS 8.1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 8.2 VINYL WINDOW 8.3 FULL GLASS DOOR 8.8 OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 5.7 METAL GUARDRAIL 5.8 METAL FASCIA 5.9 METAL LANDSCAPE GRID ("GREEN SCREEN") DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10.2 TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 2/19/2013 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL 15.1 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 15.2 WALL VENT 15.3 GAS METER DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL 16.1 ELECTRIC METER 4 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 5 - PDP 5 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 6 - PDP 3 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 4 - PDP 3/13/2013 7.4 6.6 4.3 6.4 5.7 5.8 8.1 4.1 5.8 6.6 5.7 7.2 CEMENT SIDING COLOR #2 STUCCO COLOR #2 STUCCO COLOR #1 4.3 5.7 7.3 8.2 STUCCO COLOR #1 5.9 4.3 10.1 8.1 6.4 15.1 5 PDP 4 3 PDP 4 4 PDP 4 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" PARKING BIKE RACK WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME BALCONY METAL TRELLIS BALCONY LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" GREEN SCREEN PARKING RESIDENTS' ENTRY BEYOND BALCONY BALCONY LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 4" LEVEL 4 132' - 8" LEVEL 5 143' - 0" ROOF 154' - 0" LOBBY RESIDENTS' ENTRY BALCONY METAL PANEL BEYOND BALCONY ENTRY CANOPY MAX 6" 8' - 0" PLANTER WIRE LANDSCAPE TRELLIS ON HANGERS ("GREEN SCREEN" OR EQUAL) 3" THICK x 4' WIDE x 8' HIGH PANELS 4" X 6" STEEL POSTS @ 4' ON CENTER STEEL BEAM GROUND-FACE MASONRY WALL PARKING PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 3/15/2013 9:06:47 AM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt As indicated MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS PDP 4 MAX FLATS EI 2 NORTH 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION 1 EAST 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATION ELEVATION MATERIAL FLAGNOTES DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE 3.4 CONCRETE WALL 3.5 CONCRETE COLUMN DIVISION 4 - MASONRY 4.1 BRICK VENEER 4.3 GROUND-FACE MASONRY DIVISION 5 - METALS 5.1 PARAPET COPING DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTIC 6.4 WOOD SLATS ON METAL FRAME 6.6 WOOD BEAM DIVISION 7 - THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.1 FIBER CEMENT PANEL SIDING 7.2 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 7.3 STUCCO WITH REVEALS 7.4 METAL WALL PANEL DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS 8.1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 8.2 VINYL WINDOW 8.3 FULL GLASS DOOR 8.8 OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 5.7 METAL GUARDRAIL 5.8 METAL FASCIA 5.9 METAL LANDSCAPE GRID ("GREEN SCREEN") SIGNS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SIGNS TO BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE PERMIT PROCESS. NOTE DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10.2 TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN 2/19/2013 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL 15.1 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 15.2 WALL VENT 15.3 GAS METER DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL 16.1 ELECTRIC METER 5 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 3 - PDP 3 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 1 - PDP 4 WALL 3/16" = 1'-0" SECTION 2 - PDP 3/6/2013 6 GREEN 1/2" = 1'-0" SCREEN BIKE PARKING (5) CENTERLINE R.O.W. EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS 4'-0" UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT GAS METER 46'-0" SETBACK 10'-6" SETBACK 8' - 0" 34'-0" BIKE PARKING (5) STOR STOR 24'-0" 15'-0" 2'-0" 15'-6" 15' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 8'-0"+ 8' - 0" 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 19' - 0" 18'-6" TYP 12'-0" 4'-9" TYP 9' - 0" 18' - 0" 2' - 0" TYP 8' - 8" FLOOD- RESISTANT DOOR FLOODPROOF DOOR FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS FIRE PUMP TO BE RAISED ABOVE B.F.E. "PERMIT PARKING ONLY" SIGN 15' - 0" TYP 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" BIKE PARKING (6) ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE TRELLIS & BALCONY ABOVE BALCONY ABOVE BIKE PARKING (5) TRELLIS ABOVE TRELLIS & ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE BIKE PARKING (10) BALCONY ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE STAIR ROOF ABOVE 6' - 0" 2'-0" 100-YEAR CITY FLOODWAY 2' - 0" 17' - 0" 5' - 0" 2'-8" +/- "NO PARKING" SIGNS CONCRETE WHEELSTOP - TYP 100-YEAR CITY FLOODPLAIN SANDSTONE SEAT BLOCKS TABLES & CHAIRS BY TENANT SEATWALL 2'x2' SCORING PATTERN 1'X1' SCORING PATTERN BIKE LOCKER (1) T 3'-0" SETBACK BENCH BENCH BENCH SITE DATA TABLE ZONING PARCEL SIZE LAND USE SQUARE FOOTAGE C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) 0.70 ACRES 30,503 SF LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: LEVEL 4: 15,150 SF 15,150 SF 15,150 SF LEVEL 5: 15,150 SF 3,300 SF TOTAL: 63.900 SF LANDSCAPED AREA OPEN SPACE / OTHER 2,473 SF (8.1%) 2,520 SF (8.3%) BUILDING COVERAGE 16,400 SF (53.8%) PROPOSED COVERAGES DRIVEWAY AND PARKING 9,110 SF (29.9%) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 66'-0" MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & RETAIL/COMMERCIAL NET DENSITY 91.4 DU/ACRE FLOOR AREA RATIO RESIDENTIAL 2.04 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL 0.04 TOTAL 2.08 MASTER BEDROOM BATH TYPE B1 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN TYPE K1 BALCONY WH BIKE RACK MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATH TYPE B2 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN TYPE K2 BATH 2 TYPE B3 BEDROOM 2 WH BIKE RACK PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 1805 29th Street Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 phone 303.449.8900 DEVELOPMENT STAHL 3/15/2013 9:04:54 AM C:\revit local files\Max Flats\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13\111074.00_B_MasonMulberry_A13_pschultz.rvt As indicated MAX FLATS FT. COLLINS, CO 111074.00 BL PS 12/11/2012 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN PDP 3 MAX FLATS EI 1 PDP 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 0' 10' 20' 40' 80' TRUE NORTH 2 TYPICAL 1/4" = 1'-0" 1-BEDROOM UNIT 3 TYPICAL 1/4" = 1'-0" 2-BEDROOM UNIT 2. FLOODPROOF DOORS TO BE WATERTIGHT PER FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 3-93. FLOODPROOFING NOTES 5. ELEVATOR TO MEET FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 4. A) ELEVATOR TO BE MACHINE-ROOM-LESS TYPE WITH CONTROL PANEL LOCATED AT LEVEL 2 OR ABOVE. B) ELEVATOR PIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF REINFORCED CONCRETE. C) FLOAT SWITCH TO BE INSTALLED TO PREVENT CAB FROM ENTERING FLOOD WATER. D) EQUIPMENT THAT CANNOT BE LOCATED ABOVE B.F.E. TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF FLOOD-RESISTANT MATERIALS WHERE POSSIBLE. 3. FLOOD-RESISTANT DOORS TO MEET SEEPAGE REQUIREMENT OF FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 3-93. 4. FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 2. 6. WATER ENTRY & STORAGE ROOMS TO HAVE FLOOD-DAMAGE RESISTANT MATERIALS. NO CHEMICALS OR OTHER ITEMS SUBJECT TO FLOOD DAMAGE ARE TO BE STORED BELOW B.F.E.. 2/19/2013 1. ENTIRE SITE IS WITHIN FLOOD FRINGE ZONE. SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BUILDING OVERHANGS, SEAT BLOCKS, AND TABLES & CHAIRS IN THE R.O.W. ARE INDICATED TO SHOW INTENT. THESE ITEMS TO BE APPROVED VIA A SEPARATE REVOCABLE PERMIT. 2. "ART IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND/OR AN OUTDOOR PIANO ARE POTENTIAL AMENITIES FOR THE PLAZA. SPECIFICS TO BE DETERMINED. 3/13/2013 OWNER (SIGNED) DATE THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON THIS_______DAY OF _________________________, 20______ BY ________________________________________________________ (PRINT NAME) AS _____________________________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _______________________________ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ___________________________________________ ______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS MAX FLATS 203 WEST MULBERRY STREET LAUREL AVE PLUM ST MYRTLE ST MULBERRY ST LOCUST ST ELIZABETH ST MAGNOLIA ST OLIVE ST WHITCOMB ST SHERWOOD ST MELDRUM ST HOWES ST MASON ST COLLEGE AVE REMINGTON ST MATHEWS ST 2/19/2013 Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 9 SPACES SEWER WATER / FIRE STONE SITTING WALL TRELLIS STONE SITTING WALL TRELLIS 6005 S.F. FF = 12.18 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE GARAGE TURF STORM WATER STORM WATER STORM WATER STORM WATER WATER / FIRE WATER / FIRE WATER / FIRE SEWER SEWER GARAGE GARAGE 30' SETBACK 15' UTILITY EASEMENT WALK WALK SANITARY SANITARY CONC. PVMT. 9' UTILITY EASEMENT 9' STOR MWATER STORM WATER STORMWATER WALK WALK TURF TURF TURF WALK CONC. PVMT. STORM WATER STORM WATER TURF FUTURE STORM WATER FUTURE STORM WATER SEWER SEWER WATER LINE PROPERTY LINE WATER LIN E HCP SEWER WALK WALK 5 PLEX RESIDENCE 21 2 STORY BUILDING C 6 PLEX RESIDENCE 21 2 STORY BUILDING B 5000 S,F, FF = 10.60 SEWER SEWER SEWER 100' BUFFER FROM WETLANDS 100' BUFFER FROM WETLANDS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT EASEMENT EASEMENT EASEMENT HIGH WATER MARK 5' UTILITY EASEMENT TURF 17' TYP. 20' ESMT. BR ALLEY 5 8 SPACES GARAGE 5 PLEX RESIDENCE 21 2 STORY BUILDING C 5000 S,F, FF = 10.60 County Fair Lane Saber Cat Drive