The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/20/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final 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, June 20, 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, June 20, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, July 18 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 May 16, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA130002 This is a request to convert the former Little Bears Child Care facility, 1900 South Lemay Avenue, into an expansion for Ridgeview Classical School by remodeling the interior into classrooms that would serve grades 7 th through 12 th . The building contains 7,500 square feet and 19 parking spaces. There would be no changes to the total square footage and no changes to the existing parking lot. The existing playground would be converted to open space serving the entire campus. The site is one acre in size and zone R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Ridgeview Classical School, 1800 S. Lemay Ave, Fort Collins, Co 80525 Staff: Shepard E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 3. Pateros Creek Project Development Plan, # PDP130011 This is a request for a Project Development Plan for Pateros Creek. The parcel is 17.34 acres in size and located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately ¼ mile east of North Shields Street. The project proposes clustered residential development with 40 dwelling units on 8.02 acres of the parcel, approximately 46% of the site. The remaining 54% of the site (9.32 acres) is dedicated as permanent open space, either in the central green or in the Poudre River Buffer Zone. Applicant: Craig Russell, 141 S. College, Suite 104, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff: Ex The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 4. 2013 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in 2012. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Shepard 5. Land Use Code - Addition of Permitted Use This is a policy discussion requested by the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the various aspects of the Addition of a Permitted Use process which is contained in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Shepard F. Other Business G. Adjourn Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes May 16, 2013 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Gino Campana Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Excused Absence: Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Wray, Shepard, and Sanchez-Sprague Chair Smith welcome new member Jeff Schneider. Chair Smith provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • 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. • 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. Election of Vice Chair Chair Smith asked for nominations for the Vice Chair. Member Hatfield nominated Jennifer Carpenter. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0 Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 2 Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Kadrich noted the items on the consent agenda will be approved without discussion unless a member of the board or the audience would like a presentation. In this case, if requested, the Bella Vira One Year Extension of the Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B would be moved to the discussion agenda and would get a full presentation and board discussion. Kadrich noted APU (Addition of Permitted Use) initially considered for Other Business in May will be moved to the June agenda to allow for more time for citizens to participate in any discussion. Citizen participation: None Chair Smith asked if anyone on the board, in the audience, or staff would like to pull any items from the consent agenda. No one did. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the April 18, 2013 Hearing 2. Bella Vira, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the April 18, 2013 Hearing and the Bella Vira, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B. Member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, # FDP130006 _______ Project: Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006 Project Description: This request is to expand Avago Technologies Building Four which is the most northwesterly building on their campus located at 4380 Ziegler Road. The proposed addition would contain 138,800 square feet and be three stories in height. The addition would be placed on the west side of the existing building. The addition would allow more space for the current operations which include fabrication for wafer manufacturing, clean room operations and testing and other support functions. The total Avago site contains 70 acres and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed aerial information in context of the neighborhood. He described the site plan and architectural elevations and noted the applicant will go through the information in more detail. He said in response to a worksession question, he noted the building will be 521 feet from the north property line. Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 3 Applicant Presentation Angie Milewski of BHA Design said the project team will be available for presentations and questions. She introduced Steve Wooley of Avago. Steve Wooley said he is the Facilities Manager for Avago Technologies. He provided a history of the campus starting in 1978 with HP. He said they have 870 employees who make chips for cell phones. He indicated that current Building 4 is a shell that provides ‘clean room’ space. Tonight’s proposal is to construct an annex for more clean rooms so they can be more responsive to market demand. They are ultimately planning to hire 100 people to work inside the annex. He said employees park mostly to the west and to the south of that part of the campus which is theirs. Angie Milewski referred to the handout distributed prior to the meeting and explained they are in response to recent communications from neighbors to the north. Additionally she referred to materials in their handouts that will be covered in the slide show being presented tonight. She provided background information on the project and the public outreach including some that was a late as days before the hearing. Milewski described how the proposed Building 4 West Annex will expand to the west and how it will fit with the overall campus. She described the berm to the north of the existing building and how it will be expanded to 10-12 feet high and be 800 feet long. It will have evergreens so they’ll have both winter and summer visual screening. She said the configuration for the cooling towers and landscape planting plans have changed from those distributed in the board’s agenda packet in response to communications with Mr. Welch and Rinnela. Milewski reviewed a cross section that outlined distance and features between the Hidden Pond Drive and the cooling towers just north of Building 4 West Annex. She provided visuals of existing conditions and with expansion looking south from Hidden Pond Drive. She described how the cooling tower selection process considered mechanical performance, energy efficiency, life-cycle costs, location, layout and orientation, noise levels sound control options. Milewski referred to Municipal Code Section 20-12 – maximum permissible noise levels for the R-L and U-E zones (7 a.m. to 8 p.m. maximum of 55 dB (A) and 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. maximum of 50 dB (A)). The applicant engaged an acoustical consultant (Geiler and Associates) to provide technical guidance for the cooling towers and to help evaluate sound control options. Jeff Geiler, principal for Geiler and Associates, reviewed a ‘generic’ slide that described noise source and decibel levels. He highlighted an example of what decibel level 50 might be – quiet suburb conversation at home or an electrical transformer at 100 feet. He said that is typically the noise level set by state regulations and the Fort Collins Municipal Code. He reviewed noise measurements the evening of May 9 from 5 – 7 p.m. and 9-10 p.m. Most of the noise level results along Hidden Pond are in the 48-50 dB range. Closer to Ziegler they’re a little higher due to traffic noise. Chair Smith asked why those times were selected. Geiler said it was to get actual environmental noises including traffic noises that would be less as the evening worn on. In this case, he said they were slightly higher and in their subjective opinion they believe it was due to I-25 traffic noise. Geiler shared the results of their Cooling Tower Sound Modeling results using: • Marley QuadraFlow (preferred by Avago Mechanical), • Marley QuadraFlow with barrier wall, • Marley QuadraFlow with barrier wall and absorption --along the face of the building to reduce the reflection off the building, Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 4 • Whisper Quiet Crossflow Cooling Tower which is 20 dB quieter than the Marleys – 25% quieter than the original cooling towers, • Whisper Quiet Crossflow – no berm, • Whisper Quiet Crossflow – with berm. Some advantages to Whisper Quiet Crossflow model with berm was that it grouped the cooling towers together, it resulted in a smaller footprint, there was less piping and cabling, there was less visual impact, and it lowered sound levels to the lower 40s dB range. It is what is being proposed tonight. Geiler said he’d rather control the noise source as opposed to adding things to try to bring noise levels down. Geiler said it is a very nice engineered solution that results in a quiet property line. Milewski said their application is for a major amendment because it’s an addition to an approved and constructed Project Development Plan from 1998. It is a permitted use. In this case, anything over 80,000 square feet does require Planning and Zoning Board review. She requested the board approve Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006. Shepard said there was no staff response. Public Input Steven Clark, 3405 Hidden Pond Drive, said his home borders the Avago fence line. He represents himself and the Homeowners Association for Hidden Pond. In the interest of full disclosure, he is also an Avago employee although he does not work for this particular division. They support the plan as proposed. Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, said he resides in District 6. The Chamber supports the infill project and will serve as an extension of the major investment Avago has already made in our community. He said Avago is a great corporate neighbor. The project allows us to keep manufacturing jobs in Fort Collins and is exactly the kind of project that should be built in the H-C zone. He asked for the board’s support. Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde Street, represented a number of property owners in the Woodland Park area just north of Avago. He critiqued project elevations. He believes the elevations do not represent the scale of the 6 new cooling towers nor the impact they will have on adjacent property owners. He compared site plans to Sky-View/Google maps and thinks they did not disclose the key problem(s) at the neighborhood information meeting. He said it negated the opportunity to building a working, trusting relationship with the homeowners. Welch thinks because of this failure to communicate Avago did not develop appropriate plans to mitigate the detrimental impacts of the expansion on the homeowners. He also said their modeling has enormous limitation in that it is limited to the new towers and does not take the existing towers into account. In summary, Welch thinks the process has been corrupted in a manner which has been significantly detrimental to the homeowners and they initiated working with Avago to enable them to correct significant problems in their plans and they have submitted two mitigation proposals on which we have not received a response. Welch asked the board to: 1) Approve with conditions that Avago implement the homeowner submitted mitigation proposal #1 (move the cooling towers to the West.) 2) Approve with conditions that Avago implement the homeowner submitted mitigation proposal #2 (acoustic wall and upgraded landscaping.) 3) Deny approval. Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 5 End of Public Input Applicant Response Angie Milewski said that honestly they covered quite a few of the points raised during their presentation. Milewski said she’d like to explain the process. They had a neighborhood meeting before the submittal. It was early information and there was a lot of information that was not specifically labeled. The elevations did not show equipment beyond the building—typically they are meant to represent what the building itself will look like. There was no intent to hide information. The three times the questions came up about the cooling towers, Avago fully disclosed what they knew at that time. Milewski said that Geiler and Associates have been an integral part of the design team throughout the process. They will select and analyze the different equipment Avago will have so they can be assured they meet all Municipal Code requirements. Milewski said adding a barrier (wall) was one of the mitigation options they modeled and considered. She said adding a wall close to the towers can actually be counterproductive to the operation of the towers themselves. It will reflect and contain heat that will make them have to operate more often at a higher level. Milewski said there was a representative here from the Hill Pond HOA (Homeowners Association) that does endorse the plan. They’ve demonstrated with the design that it meets the code as it relates to noise levels. Once operational, if they are not achieving that noise standard, they would be willing to make changes as needed. Jeff Geiler said as just mentioned a wall around the cooling towers affects the performance of the cooling towers. They need air to cool. If you enclose them too much, you get recirculation where hot air coming off the tower gets sucked back in and it reduces the efficiency of the cooling tower. If it has to work harder to address the cooling load and it’ll then put out more noise. Geiler said with regard to the additive effects of sound, 50 dB (A) and 50 dB (A) do not add together to make 100 dB (A). When added together they go to 53 dB (A). As the differential between the sound level increases, the additive effect goes down. When it reaches 10 dB (in other words, half the loudness of the other signal), they don’t add any more. That’s one reason they are shooting for the low 40s because they want to eliminate any additive effects. Geiler said as mentioned earlier they did an analysis of the existing equipment. They were taken as the equipment was running on the day they were there—there was no effort to do anything unusual. It was normal operation for that period of time. He said looking at those number when you add the attenuation for distance—with sound when you double the distance, the sound level goes down approximately 6 dB (A). Geiler said they tried to see what the existing equipment was doing without the other influences of the neighborhood; it appears those numbers would be in the low 40s at the property line. Geiler said the residential area has an existing noise level and they want to be below that. He said they are also being very conservative. All their numbers are based on manufacturer sound levels for the cooling towers being proposed at 100 percent operation. Typically they’re not going to get above 70-80%. Geiler said there was some discussion about the effect of the berm. He said the respondent had a really nice cut sheet from Kinetics. He said they use Kinetics West products all the time. If they had been pursuing the barrier wall option, they would have been talking to them about one of their products. He said any berm or barrier wall works on the principle of line of sight. If it’s blocking you from the noise source it’s begins to attenuate the noise source. The more you are into the shadow zone, the more attenuation you get. He said all the noise mitigation factors were taken into account in their modeling. He said they have a high level of confidence (+/- 2 dB) in their model outcomes. Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 6 Milewski said the reason the towers are not on the west or south side has to do with the operations of that building and Avago’s desire to continue to expand to the west. Staff Response Shepard said the neighborhood meeting summary did not get mailed out to those who attended the meeting. Board Questions Member Carpenter asked about the feasibility of moving the cooling towers to the south. Milewski said the towers have to be approximate to the north third of the footprint of the building. Wooley said the building was designed originally where all the utilities are located on the north. In a fabrication facility you have to separate your infrastructure from your fabrication because fabrication is really vibration sensitive. He said they have already invested in a lot of infrastructure on the north side of the building. They’re adding to that infrastructure now with the expansion -- it will share capacity with what they already have. Member Hart asked when the Woodland Park subdivision built. Shepard said likely late 80s or early 90s. Member Hart asked when Building 4 was built. Wooley said it was built in stages starting in 1998 with full fabrication operation in 2001. Chair Smith asked what role sound has in the board’s purview. Shepard said the Sound Ordinance is in the Municipal Code Chapter 20. He said it includes a residential and a commercial/industrial component and that in the R-L zone the maximum allowable sound levels are 55 dB (A) from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and 50 dB (A) from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Shepard said measurements are at the receiving property line. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said criteria for approving a development application is the Land Use Code. He said noise violation enforcement would be under the purview of the Police Department. Chair Smith referenced the cumulative effect of sound. What would you get if you added 41 plus 49 dB (A)? Geiler said that is a logarithmic calculation and it would add up to 49.6 dB (A). That assumes that spectrally they are identical. If there are differences it would be less. Member Carpenter asked if the cooling towers are on all the time or do they cycle on and off. ‘Pat’, Avago Facilities Engineering Manager, said some of the towers will operate full time because of the loads in the building and some will run based on the outside ambient temperature. There will be times when the towers are off because the outside temps are low. He referred to a chart which indicated 2 towers will operate full time. All 5 towers will operate only 6% of the time. He said they do not oscillate; they come up gradually based on the how the air temperature rises. Member Hart what he sees is 40% (2 of 5) of the towers operate 100% of the time and it decreases from there with less cycling in the winter months. Pat said that’s based on these towers having variable drives for efficiency. They modulate. Hart said we’re talking about 40 dBs at the edge of the property assuming 100% operation and we’re not going to get that. Geiler said correct. Their worst case analysis has all 5 units running at 100%. Member Carpenter asked if the existing towers had been tested at the property line. Geiler said they did measurements of existing equipment on May 9 in the early evening and at night. Member Schneider asked why the board was focusing on decibels when that is not a part of the LUC. Chair Smith said when we’re talking about operational/physical compatibility of a proposal; often there are hard and fast standards. Smith said when the board can get measures for compatibility purposes; it’s useful in their deliberation. Eckman said the LUC makes reference in Section 3.4.4 that proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 7 the noise regulations contained in the city’s noise control ordinance. Eckman said the board needs to make a determination the noise won’t violate the city’s noise ordinance based on the evidence they’ve been given. Member Schneider said if he’s standing on Hidden Pond Drive and he’s reading 57 dB at 10:30 p.m. how does he know it’s not due to traffic on Ziegler or I-25. Shepard said staff that is trained in the sound meters has to make a determination as to what is causing the decibel levels to be over the prescribed limit. They need to make a professional judgment whether the noise is emanating from a source that is not exempt in Chapter 20. Member Hatfield asked if the materials received by the board tonight distributed at the neighborhood meeting. Shepard said no. Hatfield asked if any consideration was given to erecting a barrier around the towers. Geiler said initially they did consider that. Ultimately they decided to go with quieter cooling towers. They’d much rather start with a quieter piece of equipment than to have to mitigate afterwards. He said there’s always something for the back pocket, however, and more could be done if needed. Member Schneider said he’s wondering how we (the board) can guarantee it’s not going to exceed the maximum levels allowed. Is it yes/no based on that? Chair Smith said there is the ability to approve, to deny, or to approve with condition(s). Eckman asked how the consultant could isolate what is cooling tower versus other noise sources. Geiler said you ‘tease’ it out statistically. If you test in the middle of the night, you’d have less traffic noise than what was originally indicated. Member Hart asked if they’d be willing to have a condition of approval that you would have units that would attenuate the sound to a particular level. Milewski said they’re presenting this information as a recent change based on their analysis. They don’t normally specify equipment as a part of a project development plan. Hart said he’d like to know it would “attenuate sound to the level as shown’. Milewski said absolutely and they would be willing to make it a condition of approval. Member Schneider said because the packet information has changed in the last 24 hours, is the enhanced berm still a part of the proposal for the Whisper Quiet Crossflow. Milewski said the test did include the berm. Milewski said the only change made to the packet is the configuration of the towers. They were initially shown in a long configuration. They were reconfigured to be more compact – 6 boxes to 5 boxes in a more compact fashion. They are still generally in the same location. Board Discussion Member Hart asked if we need a finding regarding the noise level complying with City Code. Eckman said you just have to make a finding that the plan complies with requirements of the LUC. Eckman said if the motion is to deny, then you need to recite the specific sections that have not been met. Hart asked the board if they thought a condition would be required. Member Hatfield said in his opinion the sound enforcement would be up to the Police. It would be incumbent upon the applicant to comply. Chair Smith said when we look at compatibility; we’re looking at what the applicant has presented as their evidence and whether or not we have confidence that it will be compatible. Member Carpenter made a motion to approve Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006 based on the findings of fact and conclusion on page 8 of the staff report. Member Hart seconded the motion. Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees with staff that the proposal meets all the applicable standards in the LUC. Member Carpenter said she’d like to say thank you to the neighbors. She understands their concern. It’s something they might want to keep on top of but from what she has seen tonight (the extensive Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 8 modeling and the extent they’ve worked to get it below 50); it looks to her it’s definitely going to be compatible and it will meet city code. Chair Smith said he’ll support the motion. The applicant has demonstrated they’ll meet the standard. Member Carpenter said she’s also like to say thank Avago for staying with it and for continuing to work with the neighbors to make it the best it could be. That’s appreciated. The motion passed 6:0. Other Director Kadrich said with regard to the work session discussion to move hearings to the 2nd Thursday beginning in July; it would affect the July 4 holiday weekend. Staff is wondering if the board would rather begin the change in August. The board agreed it would be better to start in August. Director Kadrich said for the viewing public, hearings will be moved to the 2nd Thursdays starting in August. She said if the agenda is long enough (as it has been often times during the last year); items that will have a lot of public testimony will also have an option of being heard on the 3rd Thursday. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair ITEM NO ______2___________ MEETING DATE ___6/20/13_________ STAFF ___SHEPARD_______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Ridgeview Classical School Expansion, 1900 South Lemay Avenue, - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130002 APPLICANT: Ridgeview Classical School 1800 South Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to convert the former Little Bears Child Care facility, 1900 South Lemay Avenue, into an expansion for Ridgeview Classical School by remodeling the interior into classrooms that would serve grades 7 th through 12 th . The exterior of the building would be upgraded to improve energy efficiency and to more closely match the existing school next door. The building contains 7,500 square feet and 19 parking spaces. There would be no changes to the total square footage and no changes to the existing parking lot. The existing playground would be converted to open space serving the entire campus. The site is one acre in size and zone R-L, Low Density Residential. Ridgeview Classical School presently serves 754 students in grades kindergarten through 12 th . The primary purpose of the expansion would be to serve the existing enrollment. As with all public and public charter schools in Fort Collins, this expansion would be processed as a Site Plan Advisory Review per Colorado State Statutes. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The former child care facility is next door to the existing school. The conversion to a public school charter is governed by Colorado State Statutes. Public schools are a permitted use in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 2 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: M-M-N; Stuart Street Medical Park (1984) S: R-L; Residential (Vineyard at Stonehenge First Filing, 1980) E: R-L; Residential (Stonehenge Sixth Filing, 1978) W: R-L; Residential (Indian Hills Eighth Filing, 1965) 2. Zoning History: A. Former Child Care Facility – 1900 South Lemay Avenue The property was annexed in 1971 as part of the larger Spring Creek Farms Second Annexation. The parcel was originally platted as townhomes as part of the Stonehenge Sixth Filing in 1978. The parcel was replatted into a 1.06 acre parcel as National Child Care Center P.U.D. in 1984. B. Existing Ridgeview Classical School The original building was constructed for First Assembly of God. In 2001, the building was converted to the Ridgeview Classical School Public Charter School via the Site Plan Advisory Review process. In 2004, a request for a building addition was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board primarily due to concerns about a parking agreement with Stuart Professional Park . In 2006, a 9,366 square foot addition was approved by the Board along with the removal of a modular structure and installation of a playground and turf area. During this time frame, the parking dispute has been resolved and Ridgeview Classical School has grown but remains under the capacity authorized by the Poudre School District. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 3 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 charter school governing body, the Colorado Charter School Institute. 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 overruled by the Colorado Charter School Institute 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. 4. Location: With regard to location, the former child care facility at 1900 South Lemay Avenue is located within an established neighborhood known as Stonehenge, a master planned community featuring a wide variety of densities and housing types as well as a small office park at the corner of Stoney Hill Drive and Lemay Avenue. The site was originally developed as a child care facility featuring a 7,500 square foot building, 19- space parking lot, mature landscaping and an outdoor play area enclosed by a six foot high privacy fence. The site is connected internally to the neighborhood by Indian Summer Court with limited access onto Lemay Avenue (right-in/right-out only). There is internal cross-access with the Ridgeview Classical School allowing shared parking and access to East Stuart Street. Transfort Route Five provides hourly service along Lemay Avenue. The Spring Creek Trail is 1,100 feet (less than one-quarter mile) to the north. The proximity of the building to the existing school allows for the separation of ages within a campus setting. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 4 5. Character: With regard to character, the former child care facility have been in place since 1984. As mentioned, the building is one-story in height and contains 7,500 square feet. Its location along Lemay helps provide a buffer from an arterial street for the benefit of the Stonehenge neighborhood. Landscaping has matured and the building is now comfortably situated within the surrounding context of both the existing school and the two business parks to the north and south as well as the residential neighborhood. There are no planned building additions. The exterior improvements are designed to upgrade both the appearance and energy efficiency of the building. These improvements would not alter the existing character of the property. 6. Extent: With regard to extent, the conversion of a child care facility into classrooms for the existing public charter school is expected to create a level of intensity that is either equal to or lower than that of a child care facility. The existing outdoor play area will be available as open space serving the campus. The six foot wooden privacy fence will remain along Indian Summer Court. With the public school schedule, there will be minimal activity on evenings, weekends and during school holidays and summer break. In fulfillment of City Plan policies, the re-use of an existing building is sustainable and complies with polices related to compact urban growth. Existing infrastructure is in place and a public charter school contributes to the distinctiveness and vibrancy of the neighborhood. As part of this S.P.A.R., Ridgeview Classical will construct an 80-foot long segment of missing sidewalk along their Welch Street frontage. 7. Compliance with R-L Zone District: A. Section 4.4(B)(3)(b)1. – Permitted Use Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education are permitted in the R-L zone, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. (In this case, being a public school, the request is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board in accordance with state statutes.) Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 5 B. Section 4.4(D)(1) - Density This standard requires that the minimum lot area be at least three times the floor area of the building. With a lot area of 46,110 square feet and a building floor area of 7,500 square feet, the density complies with the standard. 8. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection The existing facility and parking lot are well-landscaped with mature plant materials. B. Section 3.2.1 - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The existing parking lot is located internally to the site with no exposure along a public street. C. Section 3.2.1 - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The existing parking lot includes more than 6% of the interior landscaping in the form of landscape islands. D. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking The site, in conjunction with the existing school, is already well-connected to the three surrounding public streets with direct access provided by connecting walkways. As mentioned, there is an 80-foot long gap of missing public sidewalk along Welch Street that will be constructed with this project. E. Section 3.2.2 – Parking The school will be picking up 19 spaces. Combined with the existing 128 spaces, the campus would now include a total of 147 spaces. The standard requires that schools provide a minimum of two spaces per three employees, or one space per 1,000 square feet, or one space per four seats in the auditorium, whichever is greater. The school has 94 employees requiring 63 spaces. The size of the combined buildings is 66,271 square feet requiring 67 spaces. The auditorium contains 400 seats requiring 100 spaces. The parking lot would contain 147 spaces thus exceeding the standard by the strictest of the three measures. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 6 F. Section 3.2.4 - Lighting There will be no new lighting associated with the conversion of the existing building. G. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The existing one-story building was designed such that the materials, colors and scale were selected to be compatible with the existing residential units to the south and east while at the same time intending to convey a commercial aspect located along an arterial street. The proposed exterior upgrades will modernize the building and yet remain compatible with the neighborhood. H. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was not performed for this building conversion due to the reduction in trips generated by the former child care facility and the projected school enrollment remaining at present levels. The City’s Traffic Operations Department, however, has reviewed the proposed project. While there is increased congestion associated with morning and afternoon activity, there is no diminution of Level of Service at the Lemay Avenue / East Stuart Street intersection. School traffic does not coincide with peak traffic on the roadways and tends to dissipate after a short period. The internal circulation pattern was improved with the expansion in the Fall of 2006. At that time, the internal flow of traffic associated with grades K – 1 were separated from grades 2 – 6. This system takes advantage of access from two public streets with grades K – 1 using Lemay Avenue and grades 2 – 6 using East Stuart Street. Grades 7 – 12 have staggered start and finish times reducing conflicts with the younger grades. This system is explained to parents, students and staff at the beginning of every school year. As to external circulation, the City’s Traffic Operations Engineer has agreed to adjust the auto-detection system at the existing traffic signal at Lemay/Stuart. This detection will adjust the protected left turn green phase for the westbound leg of Stuart Street thus allowing more cars to turn left to go south on Lemay than what is currently allowed. This extra time, however, will only be allocated during the school drop-off and pick-up times so the primary north-south traffic on Lemay is not impacted during peak times. In addition, the Traffic Engineer has committed to increasing enforcement of the illegal left turn exits from the campus to southbound Lemay. Drivers making these illegal turns are ignoring two large signs prohibiting this turn movement. As an alternative, these drivers will be encouraged to use the signal at Lemay/Stuart. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion SPAR, # SPA130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing June 20, 2013 Page 7 6. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on April 29, 2013. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, the focus of the discussion centered on issues related to traffic. Both the applicant and the City’s traffic operations engineer were able to address these concerns. As mentioned, beginning with the Fall 2013 semester, the City will increase the enforcement of the prohibition of left turns on to Lemay from the pork chop island and increase the protected left turn phase for the westbound leg of East Stuart Street at Lemay Avenue during times of morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up of students. 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. This is because public schools are permitted in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone and the existing facility has been a part of the Stonehenge neighborhood since 1984. In addition, its location along an arterial street provides a transition and buffer for the benefit of the residences to the east. The 7,500 square foot, one story building on a 1.06 acre lot is under the allowable density and fits within the established character of the neighborhood. The extent of the project is mitigated by a parking lot that exceeds minimum standards and an internal circulation system that has proven to be workable. The construction of a missing segment of public sidewalk completes the required public improvements. 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 Ridgeview Classical School Expansion, 1900 South Lemay Avenue, Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130002. Riffenburgh Elementary Edora Community Park Indian Hills Park Spring Creek Parkwood Lake Kirkwood Dr Dartmouth Trl E Lake St Stoney Hill Dr P a wnee Dr B u t t o n w o o d D r S e m i n o l e D r C h e y enn e D r T e a k w o o d D r Mo h a w k S t Navajo Dr Pawnee Dr Welch St Stoney Hill Dr Solstice Ln Commanche Dr Niagara Dr Brumal Ct Sonoma Pl Indian Summer Ct E Stuart St S Lemay Ave © 1 inch = 167 feet Aerial Site Map Ridgeview 1900 Classical South School Lemay Expansion Conversion of Little Bears Child Care ITEM NO ____3___________ MEETING DATE ___June 20, 2013___ STAFF ____Ex____________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Pateros Creek, PDP #130011 Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, RLA Russell + Mills Studios 141 S College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 OWNER: Sidehill Investment LLC 7307 Streamside Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for Pateros Creek. The parcel is 17.34 acres in size and located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately ¼ mile east of North Shields Street. The site is developed and formerly known as the Bender Mobile Home Park, which was a development that occurred while the parcel was in Larimer County. In 2012, the parcel was annexed as the Wood Street Annexation and was zoned Urban Estate. The project is located within the Northwest Subarea Plan, which suggests if this area is developed, any residential development should be clustered. Accordingly, the project proposes clustered residential development with 40 dwelling units on 8.02 acres of the parcel, approximately 46% of the site. The remaining 54% of the site (9.32 acres) is dedicated as permanent open space, either in the central green or in the Poudre River Buffer Zone. The average width of the Poudre River Buffer Zone is 350’. A stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) was approved in June, 2012. This Modification allowed the project to increase the overall average density in clustered residential projects from 2.00 dwelling units per acre to 2.36 dwelling units per acre, or 41 dwelling units. The project proposes 40 dwelling units over the 17.34 acre parcel, for a gross density of 2.31, in compliance with the approved Modification. With this P.D.P., the project is requesting a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) to allow for the front yard setback to be reduced from 15’ to 9’, allowing front porches within this additional six feet. The project is also requesting alternative Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 2 compliance to Section 3.6.3(F); instead of providing a public street connection to the south (where a large pond currently exists), the project is proposing to provide pedestrian connections to this potentially developable parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Pateros Creek Project Development Plan, PDP #130011, Modification of Standard to Section Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of the Pateros Creek 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 the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) that is proposed with this P.D.P. meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of this Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. • The Alternative Compliance proposed with this P.D.P. meets the requirements outlined in Section 3.6.3(H) as the design minimizes the impacts on natural areas while still providing for non-vehicular access. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, with conditions. • The P.D.P. is in conformance with the one Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(E)(2)(c), approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 21, 2012. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.2, Urban Estate Zone District (U-E) of Article 4 – Districts. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property was annexed in September, 2012 as the Wood Street Annexation into the Urban Estate Zone District. Prior to this development, the site was developed as the Bender Mobile Home Park. Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 3 The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: POL in the City of Fort Collins: McMurry Natural Area E: POL in the City of Fort Collins: Lee Martinez Park S: O in Larimer County: existing residential W: O in Larimer County: existing residential and horse stables E in the City of Fort Collins: City of Fort Collins Fleet Services A stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) was approved in June, 2012. This Modification allowed the project to increase the overall average density in clustered residential projects from 2.00 dwelling units per acre to 2.36 dwelling units per acre, or 41 dwelling units. The project proposes 40 dwelling units over the 17.34 acre parcel, for a gross density of 2.31, in compliance with the approved Modification. 2. Compliance with City Plan and the Northwest Subarea Plan: A. City Plan The proposed project complies with the Urban Estate policies outlined in City Plan, specifically Policy LIV 21.2 which establishes an interconnected street and pedestrian network. The project also provides a variety of housing models and types (LIV 22.1), creates visually interesting streetscapes (LIV 22.5), and reduces the visual impacts of garages and driveways (LIV 22.8) In the Structure Plan, the subject property is designated as “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors.” As noted in City Plan, “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors are not intended to be parcel-specific designations, but rather general designations that follow major drainageways and other wildlife and water corridors” (page 96). Thus, the Structure Plan and City Plan suggest development in these areas should emphasize and acknowledge the influence and value of the river in any proposed development. This project acknowledges the influence and the value of the river by clustering the development impact of the project on less than 50% of the parcel, providing an overall average of 350’ of buffering for the Poudre River, and by enhancing the previously developed site with significant native plantings and tree preservation. Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 4 B. Northwest Subarea Plan The project has proposed to cluster the residential development, which is supported by the Northwest Subarea Plan as the preferred land use for this parcel. The project also proposes increased connections to the Poudre River Trail, both from within the site and by providing a direct connection to the Trail from Wood Street. 3. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Urban Estate (U-E): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.2(B)(3) – Permitted Uses The proposed land use is a residential cluster development, which is a permitted use subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review. B. Section 4.2(D) – Land Use Standards 1) Section 4.2(D)(1) requires that development shall not exceed 2 dwelling units per gross acre. The stand-alone Modification of Standard approved on June 21, 2012 allows this project to have a gross density not to exceed 2.36 dwelling units per gross acre. The project proposes 40 dwelling units over the 17.34 acre parcel, for a gross density of 2.31, in compliance with the approved Modification. 2) Lot sizes and dimensional standards in this section do not apply as the project is clustered residential (Section 4.2(D)(1)(b) and Section 4.2(D)(2)). C. Section 4.2(E) – Development Standards 1) Section 4.2(E)(1) requires that all development in the U-E Urban Estate District shall comply with Section 3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards, to the maximum extent feasible. An alternative compliance justification has been submitted and reviewed by staff (see page 10 below). Nonvehicular connections have been provided to surrounding developments. 2) Section 4.2(E)(2) requires that clustered residential developments must meet specific design standards. The project is in compliance with all applicable design standards as follows: Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 5 • The only land use proposed on the site is residential cluster development. • The cluster development has set aside approximately 54% of the land as permanently preserved open space, exceeding the minimum 50% required by the Land Use Code. The open spaces, including the central green and the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (buffering the Poudre River and the site’s wetlands), shall be the responsibility of the Pateros Creek Homeowners Association. • The overall average density of the site is 2.31 dwelling units per acre (in compliance with the approved Modification of Standard) and the net density of the site is 4.75 dwelling units per acre, which does not exceed the 5 dwelling units per net acre prescribed in Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code. • Building envelopes have been identified on the site plans and the setbacks conform to the requirement set forth in Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code, except for the Modification of Standard regarding front yard setbacks, as described on page 11 of this staff report. Building height is 2 ½ stories. • The design of the cluster development protects the most significant natural features on the site, including the Poudre River with an average buffer width of 350’. The plan provides additional amenities, including a central green, a community garden and orchard, trails both internal to the site and connecting to the Poudre River Trail, and provides screening of the site to adjacent landowners, e.g., on the west portion of the site. No farm animals are proposed to be located on the site. 4. 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: Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 6 A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: • “Full Tree Stocking” is provided on the developed portion of the site, including the central green, and in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Street trees are provided in accordance with Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the requirements set forth in Section 3.2.1(D)(2) by providing more than one tree per lot when two or more consecutive residential lots along a street measure between forty-sixty feet in street frontage. In this case, only one tree per lot is required, but the applicants have instead used between 30-40’ spacing for the street tree plantings. Native tree species have been incorporated into the street tree plantings to enhance the ecological value of the urban portion of the site’s tree canopy. • The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of the proposed 257 new trees on the development plan exceeds 15% of the total trees on-site, or 39 trees. The most of any one species, the Plains Cottonwood (Populus sargentii), is 25 trees. • Section 3.2.1(E)(3) is complied with by the overall water budget of 3.87 gallons per square feet, which is dramatically less than the 15 gallons per square feet allowed. • The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees and a tree mitigation plan has been provided by the applicant in accordance with Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code. Of the site’s 172 significant trees within the developed portion of the site, 63 are proposed to be removed. 83 mitigation trees are required to replace the value lost from these 63 trees, for an average of 1.3 trees replaced per tree removed. In order to provide maximum benefit, street trees provided with the project will be upsized to meet the mitigation requirements. The 448 trees within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will all be preserved through the project; no tree mitigation is required in this portion of the site. At the direction of the City Forester, all of the trees planned to be preserved within the developed area of the site are currently being evaluated by a licensed arborist. This evaluation will assess whether the preserved trees can withstand site construction impacts and not pose a hazard to the future residents. In addition, the ash trees on the west side of Wood Street may need to be transplanted in order to install the required street improvements. Thus, additional tree Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 7 mitigation may be required as a result of the arborist’s evaluation and the relocation of the sidewalk along the west side of Wood Street. All tree mitigation will be reviewed and approved by the City Forester prior to final plan approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • 3.2.2(C) Development Standards - Detached sidewalks are provided along Peregoy Way and Hart Farms Lane. Two bulbouts are provided at key pedestrian connections, e.g., at the main entrance to the community garden and access to the Poudre River Trail, to enhance pedestrian safety. Direct pedestrian connections are provided to the Poudre River Trail from Wood Street and from the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone within the site. • Off-street parking requirements for the site include a minimum of 1 parking space per lot, as each lot has greater than 40 feet of street frontage (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c)). 76 garage spaces and 76 driveway spaces have been provided, for a total of 152 off-street spaces, exceeding the minimum parking requirements. • 58 on-street parking spaces are provided and one bike rack has been provided in the play area on the site. 3) 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading • A minimum of 65% of the lots must conform to the definition of a solar- oriented lot. 31 of the 40 lots conform to the solar-oriented lot standard, or 77.5% of the lots in the Pateros Creek P.D.P., achieving the standard. 4) 3.2.4 Site Lighting • A lighting plan is not required for single-family residential uses, but staff has reviewed the landscape plan to ensure that where street lights are placed in the vicinity of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, that there is adequate, year-round screening to prevent any light spillover to the buffer zone (in compliance with Section 3.2.4(D)(6) of the Land Use Code). Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 8 B. Division 3.3 – Engineering Standards 1) 3.3.1 Plat Standards A plat has been submitted for the project in accordance with the Land Use Code standards and is attached to this staff report. 2) 3.3.3 Water Hazards Portions of both the West Vine Floodway and Floodplain and the Poudre River Floodplain and Floodway are located within the Pateros Creek P.D.P. To meet the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, the following requirements have been met by the project: • Lots 1 and 2, which are located in the West Vine Floodway, cannot be developed until these lands are removed from the floodway. • Lots 9-14, Lots 31-33 and any construction elements, including detention ponds, bike paths, utilities, etc., require a floodplain use permit. Lots 9-14 and 31-33 also require a FEMA elevation certificate before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. • All fencing built within the floodway shall have a breakaway fence. • A no-rise certification is required for any work in the floodway. • Additional requirements are outlined in the floodplain exhibit attached to this staff report. C. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards • The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the Pateros Creek site contains several natural habitats and features, predominately the Poudre River corridor, several wetlands that have formed along the south side of the parcel and within the proposed Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (a total of 15,584 square feet or 0.358 acres), and 448 trees within the buffer zone. The site’s existing habitat value is largely contained within the areas to the east of the former mobile home development (the eastern portion of the property), where a continuous riparian forests exists, though this high value area is currently separated from the Poudre River by a 6’ chain link fence. The site has also been evaluated for Threatened and Endangered Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 9 species; the only potentially suitable habitat was for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, but not populations of jumping mouse are known to exist in the Poudre River downstream of Watson Lake (north of Bellvue). • To meet the standards associated with Section 3.4.1, the project has proposed to apply the performance standards contained in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. The project has proposed an overall buffer area of 8.04 acres with an average buffer distance of 350’. At no point is the proposed buffer zone less than 240’ and the buffer zone is as large as 550’ along the eastern portion of the site. • The project meets the standards in Section 3.4.1 by incorporating the following elements into the design: o The project’s fencing and pathways are incorporated into the site in a manner that does not diminish the value of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. The 6’ chain link fence will be removed through the project, and the proposed fencing along the property line mimics other Natural Areas fencing by allowing species to permeate the property boundary and utilize the buffer zone. In addition, the preserve the integrity of the buffer zone, the project has limited the site’s trail connections to only one connection in the eastern portion of the site (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(b), (h), and (i) and Section 3.4.1(M)). o The project is designed to preserve existing trees. All 448 trees within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will be preserved in the development (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(c)). o The project preserves the wetlands within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Where the wetlands on the south side of the parcel are affected by the development, the wetlands are mitigated through a forebay wetland just east of the existing pond. This mitigation provides for one larger wetland rather than the existing, separated, low value wetlands that exist along the south property line. This larger wetland is preferred because larger habitat patches provide higher quality habitat value than separated, smaller patches, meeting the requirements of Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(d) and Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code). o The clustering of the development into the already impacted, low value areas of the site and the vegetative screening provided adjacent to the street lights to prevent any light spillover into the buffer zone minimize impacts to the area as a wildlife corridor (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(e)). Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 10 o Where existing landscaping on the site is incompatible with a buffer zone, native plantings are proposed, e.g., between Lots 1-10 and the Poudre River Trail (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g)). o Where the buffer area proposed is less than 300’, the applicants have incorporated native plantings and extensive screening to ensure that the ecological value of the Poudre River corridor and the trail user’s experience is protected to the maximum extent feasible. D. Division 3.5 – Building Standards • The building elevations illustrate three different types of housing models (Section 3.5.2(B)(1) of the Land Use Code). The elevations illustrate these differences through distinctly different roof lines, exterior materials, and building faces. The developer has also committed to provide custom floor plans for the homes. • The applicants have requested a modification to the front yard setback requirements (see page 11 below). A minimum 5’ setback has been provided on the side and rear yards. The minimum lot width for all lots is 50’ (Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code). • All garage doors are recessed behind the front façade of the house by a minimum of 4’ (Section 3.5.2(E) of the Land Use Code) and are a minimum of 20’ from the back of the street sidewalk (Section 3.5.2(D)(2)). E. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: • The project has provided vehicular connections to Wood Street, and non-vehicular connection to the east and north to the Poudre River Trail. • Alternative Compliance: The project has requested alternative compliance to the public street connectivity requirements to adjacent developable parcels. Alternative compliance can be requested when an alternative design minimizes impacts to natural features but still provides for non-vehicular access (Section 3.6.3(H) of the Land Use Code). In this site, the property to the south is dominated by a large pond (known as the Nauta Pond) that prevents the site from being Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 11 developed. Should this site be developed, the majority of the vehicular traffic would travel south on Wood Street and not to the north, as the north of the project is bordered by a Natural Area and the Poudre River. In other words, connectivity from the potentially developable parcel to the Pateros Creek Project, and to the Poudre River Trail to the north, are adequately served by pedestrian connectivity. Staff supports the request for alternative compliance. 2) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: • The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study 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. • According to data, the net increase in traffic generated by this project as compared to the prior land use (Bender Mobile Home Park) includes 22 more daily trip ends, 8 more morning peak hour trips, and 19 more afternoon peak hour trips, for a total of 458 daily trips, 38 morning peak trips, and 47 afternoon peak hour trips. The Traffic Study indicates the key intersections operate at an acceptable level and that the development of this site is feasible from a traffic engineering perspective. • Street improvements to be constructed to meet the Level of Service requirements include the construction of curb and gutter along Wood Street, and a sidewalk on the west side of Wood Street to connect this project into the public sidewalk system on Wood Street. Letters of Intent to grant easements to construct these improvements have been received from all surrounding landowners. 5. Request for Modification The applicant requests a modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) of the Land Use Code to reduce the nonarterial street setback (front yard) from 15’ to 9’. This section of the Land Use Code reads as follows: 3.5.2(D)(2) Setbacks from a Nonarterial Street: Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 12 nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet. Applicant’s Request: The following is the applicant’s written request: The applicant requests a modification from the setback standard of 15’ from ROW to building as outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a). This typically includes porches with columns, which are provided per the design guidelines for the project. It is requested that this standard be modified to a setback of 9’ to allow for porches to extend beyond the building face, which will meet the required 15’ setback. This will allow for a 6’ porch extension, beyond the building face. This modification is requested for the interior courtyard lots (24-40) and for lots (14-20) at the south edge of the project. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: The applicant has indicated the proposed Modification of Standard is not detrimental to the public good and is equal to or better than a plan that complies with the standard. The following criteria apply: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or…” Any finding made under Section 2.8.2(H) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of this Section of the Land Use Code. Applicant’s Justification: The following is the applicant’s written justification: This modification is not detrimental to the public good in that: The cluster development standards encourage a more compact development, which encourages preservation and creation of open space. The plan exceeds the UE standard of 50% by 3.77%. This setback modification allows the creation of a more substantial and effective interior courtyard for the interior ‘courtyard community’, acting as a central amenity for the overall project. The modification also helps ensure maintains high quality habitat, open space and promotes a sense of community through its spatial structure and open space amenities. Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 13 The preferred plan is equal to or better than a comparable plan which meets the setback standard by providing a usable interior courtyard rather than a narrower, less functional open space. In addition, the applicant requests consideration of the following rationale: Under the standards outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a) the decision maker may approve an alternative setback. Although the UE zone district is exempt from this alternative compliance, the proposed development is very similar in character to single family detached developments in the LMN zone district, making the proposal ‘LMN – Like’. The LMN zone district allows for a maximum of 9 DU/AC gross density and 3 DU/AC net density for residential developments less than 20 acres. The proposed development achieves a net density of 2.34 DU/AC, making it similar in character to a typical LMN district single-family detached residential project. Therefore, the applicant requests that the alternative compliance option be considered and applied to this development plan. Under the alternative compliance provision outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a), the following is required to approve an alternative setback: a. Porches and Entry Features (i) A front porch with a minimum depth of six (6) feet (as measured from the building facade to the posts, railings and spindles) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet shall be provided on single-family detached dwellings. All porches will achieve a minimum depth of 6’ and minimum length of 18’. (ii) A clearly defined building front facing the street with a covered front porch or stoop measuring at least four (4) feet by four (4) feet shall be provided on each ground floor single-family attached dwelling. Building fronts will be clearly defined on the front and rear of the buildings with porches of the dimensions mentioned above. (iii) The floor elevation of the front porch or stoop shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches above grade. All floor elevations of porches shall be equivalent to building finished floor elevations at least 18 inches in height. b. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located behind the dwelling and access to such parking shall be gained from an alley or, if there is no alley, then from the street via a driveway which, up to the rear building line of the house, does not exceed ten (10) feet in width. Off street parking is located behind the front face of the dwelling and accessed from driveways ranging from 10’ or more. This standard is not met, however, the applicant believes that the solution is equal to or better than a comparable plan through meeting the intent of the standard, which is to create a landscape dominated street. There are approximately 30% more street trees provided than Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 14 required, streetscapes at important entry and crossing areas emphasize a rich shrub/perennial understory, and an interior open space and gathering area is provided in lieu of the alley access typically used to achieve this standard. The project could provide alley access at the interior instead of this interior open space/gathering area, sacrificing this critical amenity. The broad intent of a cluster development is to preserve quality and meaningful open space through a denser configuration. The applicant feels that the central courtyard is a critical component to the overall open space system, and sacrificing it to meet the above off street parking standard would be sacrificing overall project quality. c. Private Open Space. (i) A readily accessible, functional and clearly defined private outdoor space (such as a patio, courtyard or deck) with minimum dimensions of twelve (12) feet by eighteen (18) feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Rear outdoor porches, patios and decks will exist within areas shown on plans. The minimum size for these private outdoor spaces is 240 square feet, exceeding this dimension. (ii) All buildings on the same lot shall be spaced at least sixteen (16) feet apart. Residential buildings will all be located on individual lots. d. Front Yard Fences. (i) Front yard fences shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) opacity. Front yard fences will have pickets spaced to achieve 60% opacity. (ii) Front yard fences shall be between two and one-half (2½) feet and three (3) feet in height. Proposed front yard fences will be 3 feet in height. (iii) Front yard fences made of chain link are prohibited. No chain link fences are permitted within the project boundaries. (iv) Any privacy fence along an interior side property line shall gradually transition to the height of the front yard Interior privacy fences shall be 3’ high picket type, similar to front yard fences. The applicants also highlight several City Plan principles that their plan meets or exceeds. Staff Finding Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from a Nonarterial Street is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H) for Lots 24-40 and Lots 14-20. This is because: A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard is to provide a consistent streetscape and, when a decreased setback is sought, to increase the urban amenities associated with the streetscape to compensate for the open space Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 15 typically preserved through a 15’ setback. As the applicants have proposed a central green, enhanced streetscape plantings, and front yard fences and porches that achieve the standards outlined in Section 3.5.2(D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code, staff finds that the decreased setback is not detrimental to the public good. B. The request satisfies Criteria 1 (2.8.2(H)(1): The plan as submitted promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than the a plan that complied with the standard. As noted above, the purpose of the setback is to provide a consistent streetscape with private open space in front of residential homes. In the Urban Estate Zone District, residential setbacks are typically 30’ for the front yard, but they are decreased to 15’ in a clustered residential development. This is because the Land Use Code acknowledges that residential clustered developments are a more urban form of development within this district. By providing the central green, enhanced plantings, front yard fences and porches, the applicants have proposed a strongly urban streetscape that is consistent with the standard. In addition, this development is not located within a larger neighborhood of existing large-lot, low density single family dwellings. Without an established context, the 9’ setback will not be out of character. The applicants could meet the driveway requirement that the width of the driveways not exceed 10’ by elongating the lots and eliminating the central green. However, the provision of the central green and other site amenities is more consistent with the intent of the Urban Estate Zone District, and especially in a residential cluster development. 6. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting for the project was held on June 12, 2012. Questions from the citizens who attended included the following subjects: • Project fencing, • How nearby capital improvements will affect the project, • Site parking and access, • How pets will be managed at the site, • The need for screening between existing land uses and the proposed project, • Construction timing, and • The potential environmental impacts of the project. Detailed meeting minutes are attached with this staff report. Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 16 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Pateros Creek Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding Setbacks from a Nonarterial Street that is proposed with this P.D.P. would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). This is because the consistent setbacks proposed at the site, the provision of the streetscape amenities, and the central green establishes the urban character sought by the standard equally well or better than a plan that complied with the standard. B. The Alternative Compliance Request to Section 3.6.3 to provide pedestrian connectivity instead of a public street meets the Alternative Compliance criteria outlined in Section 3.6.3(H) of the Land Use Code. This is because the proposed plan accomplishes the intent of the connectivity standards by providing pedestrian connections between the sites and provides better protection of the natural feature to the south than the provision of a public street connection would. C. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. D. The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, on June 21, 2012. E. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) and the Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.3 that are proposed with this P.D.P. are approved. F. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.2, Urban Estate (U-E) of Article 4 – Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Pateros Creek Project Development Plan, PDP #130011. Pateros Creek PDP #130011 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – June 20, 2013 Page 17 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of Planning Objectives 2. Site and Landscape Plans 3. Pateros Creek Plat 4. Building Elevations 5. Floodplain Exhibit 6. Ecological Characterization Study 7. Transportation Impact Study 8. Alternative Compliance Request to Section 3.6.3 of the Land Use Code 9. Modification of Standard Request to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) of the Land Use Code 10. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 1 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Pateros Creek Preliminary Development Plan Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives 5.31.2013 Project Overview This 17.34 acre parcel is within the Urban Estate Zone District. Redevelopment of the property is proposed under the cluster plan standards for this district. The gross density is shown at 2.34 DU/AC under a previously approved stand alone modification request with a maximum gross density of 2.4 DU/AC. The net density is shown at 5 DU/AC, meeting the standard for cluster developments within the UE zone district. Redevelopment of the parcel includes residential single family lots within the southwest portion of the site surrounding the proposed loop drive. A courtyard community with small single family lots surrounding a community green and gardens comprise the interior of the loop road. The project preserves 53.77% open space. The interior loop road is shown with a 52’ ROW with detached walks and 30’ roadway per LUCASS standards. Storm-water drainage will be directed to the east utilizing existing drainage patterns and depressions for detention. Water quality will be provided with a constructed forebay wetland approx. 5,700 in size, which will discharge into the existing pond at the southeast of the site. Storm-water best practices such as bio-swales, etc. will be utilized to further enhance water quality. The project has been reviewed with Poudre Fire Authority where a second access point through a 16’ concrete access drive/trail at the southwest corner of the property was determined to provide sufficient access. The history of the site as Hart’s farm will be emphasized in the character of the overall development, through interpretive efforts along trails, the proposed orchard and community gardens. Urban Estate Zone District Policies as outlined in City Plan The project complies with policies for Urban Estate neighborhood design in the following ways: Policy LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The interior pedestrian route provides access to the interior courtyard, provides bicycle and pedestrian connections to the open-space area, and provides two connection points to the Poudre Trail. In addition, there are two bike/ped. connections to the adjacent neighborhood. Policy LIV 21.2 – Design Walkable Blocks A detached walk provides a loop walkway along all streets and creates connections to all amenities within the project as well as the adjacent neighborhood. Policy LIV 21.3 – Calm Traffic Two bulbout pedestrian connections create some traffic calming effect at the entry point and the primary open space connection point. Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types All housing within the project will be custom designed and constructed per owner requirements, and will adhere to requirements within the design guidelines, which enforce a bungalow theme ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 2 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 consistent with adjacent Old Town neighborhoods. No two houses will look alike, but will be thematically linked for a consistent overall look and feel. Policy LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Spaces All residences will be oriented toward the street network. In addition, the rear of all structures will have porches and detailing orienting them towards open space areas. In essence, all residences will be designed as 360 degree buildings. Policy LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes Streetscapes will provide approximately 30% more street strees than required, with shrub/perennial planting areas at the two bulbouts. Policy LIV 22.6 – Enhance Street Design and Image Two bulbouts help provide additional planting areas and provide shorter pedestrian crossing points. Policy LIV 22.7 – Consider Landmarks and Views All lots within the project have views to the Poudre River floodplain, the courtyard or to the existing lake at the adjacent property to the south. Policy LIV 22.8 – Reduce the Visual Prominence of Garages and Driveways All garages will be set back 4’ from the building faces. Policy LIV 22.9 – Form Neighborhood Edges Open space provides a neighborhood edge to the Poudre River corridor at the north and east portion of the project. Neighborhood edges are created through the transition of housing to open space provided and, along Wood St. the provision of a landscape separation tract. Policy LIV 22.10 – Provide Transitions at Community Edges Open space provides a transition to the Poudre River corridor at the north and east portion of the project. Policy LIV 22.11 – Promote Neighborhood Upkeep and Property Maintenance All common areas will be maintained by the HOA, ensuring consistent maintenance throughout. The HOA will also require owners to maintain landscapes and structures. Urban Estate Zone District Standards The project complies with the UE District standards in the following ways: 4.2(E)(2)(b) Cluster development shall set aside at least fifty (50) percent of the total land area of the proposed development as private or public open space. The project sets aside 57 percent of the land area as open space in perpetuity, to be managed by the HOA. 4.2(E)(2)(c) Minimum lot sizes do not apply provided that the overall average density of the proposed development does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per gross acre and the density of the cluster development does not exceed five (5) dwelling units per net acre. Gross density is shown at 2.34 DU/AC under a previously approved stand alone modification request with a maximum gross density of 2.4 DU/AC. The net density is shown at 5 DU/AC. 4.2(E)(2)(d) Building envelopes shall be identified on the cluster development, and the residential building setbacks, lot width and lot size shall conform to Section 3.5.2(D). The maximum residential building height shall be two and one-half (2½) stories. Building envelopes are shown ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 3 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 on the site plan with a requested porch setback modification. No buildings shall exceed 2.5 stories. 4.2(E)(2)(e) The design of the cluster development shall be appropriate for the site, as demonstrated by compliance with all of the following criteria: 1. preservation of significant natural resources, natural areas and features, native vegetation, open lands or agricultural property through maintenance of large, contiguous blocks of land and other techniques. A large contiguous open space area has been provided, which preserves floodplain riparian forest and other wetlands and native understory vegetation. 2. provision of additional amenities such as parks, trails, common areas or access to public recreational areas and open space. Two common areas are provided, one in the central courtyard and one pavilion/play area within the open space. A trail network with access to the Poudre River Trail is provided. 3. minimizing the visual intrusion of dwellings and other structures and the blocking of vistas to the foothills and prominent mountain vistas by avoiding building in the center of a meadow or open area. Views to the Poudre River flood plain and preserved open space are provided. 4. protection of adjacent residential development through landscaping, screening, fencing, buffering or similar measures. Landscape buffers provide screening from adjacent residential land uses to the south. 5. designing the layout of lots on the cluster development so as to conform to terrain, and locating such lots so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum, and natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes are retained. The lots within the cluster development are planned to maximize retention of existing trees. 6. if farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area, indicating those portions of the area to be developed that will be reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding uses. No farm animals shall be allowed within the project boundaries. 1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN ENV 4.3 – Improve Water Quality and Detention Storm water facilities will be designed to maximize water quality in each component of the development. Storm-water drainage will be directed to the east utilizing existing drainage patterns and depressions for detention. Water quality will be provided with a constructed forebay wetland approx. 5,700 in size that will discharge into the existing pond at the southeast of the site. Storm- water best practices such as bio-swales, etc. will be utilized to further enhance water quality. ENV 4.4 – Provide Neighborhood Natural Areas Trails and connections will link the residential lots to a neighborhood natural area providing a variety of amenities to the east and north. ENV 24.1 – Support Ecological Resilience Restoration/preservation of flood plain open space will assist and complement the ecological function and resilience of the Corridor. The project adds more functional wetlands to the floodplain, removes invasive and non-native species and enhances habitat with restoration efforts. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 4 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 ENV 24.2 – Conserve Natural Features Natural features such as Floodplain trees will be maintained/conserved. While some small, fragmented wetlands are removed, a more functioning and contiguous wetland system will be created. ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers The project is bounded by a large open space area within the 100-year floodplain which protects the Poudre River Corridor from any disturbance caused by development. Stormwater is filtered through a forebay wetland as part of this open space. ENV 24.4 – Restore and Enhance Restoration efforts to disturbed areas and some enhanced wetlands add to the ecological function within the Poudre River Corridor. ENV 25.1 – Minimize Impacts Open space amenities such as the play area and pavilion are located in less ecologically significant areas with lower habitat value, as are the orchard and community gardens – which are located within previously disturbed areas. Trails are designed as mown singletrack compacted earth paths, which minimize habitat disturbance. ENV 25.2 – Integrate Parks and Recreation Sites Trails and other open space amenities within the site provide recreational opportunities. ENV 25.4 – Develop Trail/Path Linkages Two trail linkages to the Poudre River Trail provide access for residents and neighbors. ENV 25.1 – Minimize Impacts Restoration efforts to disturbed areas and some enhanced wetlands add to the ecological function within the Poudre River Corridor. ENV 26.2 – Integrate Watershed and Stormwater Management Stormwater shall be filtered through a forebay wetland prior to introduction into the waterway. This will ensure settling, and some percolation as well as natural water quality assurance. ENV 26.4 – Development in Floodplain All lots have been located outside of the 100-year floodplain. LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. All roads, access points, sidewalks and street trees/roadway landscaping within the project will be paid for by the developer, including landscape treatments along Wood Street. LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods The proposed lot size, scale and housing character will be similar to what is found in adjacent Old Town neighborhoods. Architectural character is envisioned as a bungalow style, compatible with historic old town housing types. LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Well-lit streets with street trees and detached walks are included, with accessible ramps at each corner. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 5 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Street trees will be included per standards at least 40’ O.C. along all public ROW’s. LIV 10.4 – Incorporate Street Art Historic farm implements will be developed into project themed art at the entry to the site. LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Space Public spaces include the central courtyard with lawn, arbor, café seating, herb gardens and xeric edge planting to enclose and define the space. A community gathering area is envisioned in the open space with a shelter and play area. LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features Unique landscape features include entry bulb outs with xeric planting to facilitate parking and reduce roadway scale, community gardens, pond and orchard with fruit bearing trees. LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing xeric upland planting where appropriate and including edible plants and fruit trees within the orchard, community gardens, courtyard and courtyard edge planting areas. LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and a minimized turf area, reserved for functional/multi-use lawns will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or ‘snow-balling’ of shrubs. LIV 16.1 – Survey, Identify, and Prioritize Historic Resources All existing historic farm buildings have been surveyed in discussion with Historic Preservation. Historic Preservation determined that none of the previous existing buildings met required levels of historic integrity. LIV 16.2 – Increase Awareness The historic heritage and legacy as Hart’s Farm will become an integrated educational aspect of the overall development, with the implementation of the orchard (an historic use) interpretive materials and providing the community with an understanding of our agricultural heritage. LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street and pedestrian network will allow access to all proposed open-space features as well as providing an interconnected trail system from the residential units to the open space and beyond to the Poudre River Trail. A variety of open space connections to the trail system are provided within the Detached Single Family Area. LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces Neighborhood parks include the central courtyard with lawn, arbor, café seating, herb gardens and xeric edge planting to enclose and define the space. A community gathering area is envisioned in the open space with a shelter and play area. LIV 23.2 – Integrate Natural Features All existing stands of healthy trees and shrubs will be maintained through design efforts throughout the project, including a number of large and significant Cottonwoods, Box elders and Ash trees. The vision is to retain as much of the riparian forest as possible. LIV 26.3 – Promote Compatibility of Uses ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 6 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 All adjacent land use is residential with some City Facilities to the west and south. LIV 28.1 – Density The gross density is shown at 2.34 DU/AC under a previously approved stand alone modification request with a maximum gross density of 2.4 DU/AC. The net density is shown at 5 DU/AC, meeting the standard for cluster developments within the UE zone district. The density achieved with the cluster plan, together with preserving open space, meets the objectives of City Plan. LIV 28.3 – Mix of Housing Types A mix of larger, standard single family housing is provided with an alternative for cottage type, courtyard facing residences. LIV 28.4 –Neighborhood Center Easy access to neighborhood center retail commercial amenities provided near downtown Fort Collins is provided with the Poudre River Trail. LIV 30.2 –Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Roadway and pedestrian connections are proposed to connect to the existing neighborhood along Wood Street and to Old Town via the Poudre River Trail. LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Trail access from the project to the Poudre River is provided throughout the site. LIV 31.4 – Design for Pedestrian Activity The trail network encourages pedestrian use within the open space and along detached walks within the ROW. SW 3.1 – Encourage Community Gardens and Markets Community gardens are proposed within the open space and courtyard area, with the large orchard providing an additional source of edible plants. SW 3.3 – Encourage Private Community Gardens in Neighborhood Design Edible plants will be provided within all common. Community gardens are proposed within the open space and courtyard area, with the large orchard providing an additional source of edible plants. T 8.2 – Design for Active Living The trail access within the open space and to the Poudre River Trail promotes an active lifestyle. SW 3.1 – Encourage Community Gardens and Markets Community gardens are proposed within the open space and courtyard area, with the large orchard providing an additional source of edible plants. Northwest Subarea Plan Concepts promoted by plan: Within the Northwest Subarea Plan, the area is designated as The Poudre River and Bluffs and as such, cluster development patterns are preferred. As described within the Northwest Subarea Plan, this project helps protect the character of the low-density residential pattern and potentially achieve trail connections through neighborhoods while providing private and public open space in a wildlife friendly manner. The property also serves as a transition zone between more intense urban and residential development to the south and the Poudre River corridor to the north. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 7 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Compact Development Pattern Within the Northwest Subarea Plan, this area is designated for potential cluster development which would help preserve more community open space and achieve the compact development pattern goal. Interconnected System of Open Lands Open space within the property can easily be connected to the Poudre River Trail and Martinez Park, as the property is adjacent to the Trail. Growth Management Area Boundary The property is located within the Growth Management Area Boundary. Multiple Means of Travel The adjacency of the property to the Poudre River Trail will allow cycling and walking to be exceptionally convenient means of travel to and from the property, in addition to driving and bus routes. Density The city structure plan recommends a minimum of 5 DU/ACRE for new neighborhoods, which is achieved through the Northwest Subarea Plan’s preferred cluster development pattern for this parcel. Redevelopment and Infill Development of this parcel will be a redevelopment of the existing Bender Mobile Home Park. Transportation Choices The adjacency of the property to the Poudre River Trail will allow cycling and walking to be exceptionally convenient means of travel from the property, in addition to driving and bus routes. 2. 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. The plan is designed to preserve as many significant trees as possible and enhance open space to the east of the residential lots, where habitat quality is most intact as a riparian forest. The enhanced open space includes an orchard, community gardens, gathering area, enhanced pond, and trail connections to the Poudre River Trail at two points, one on the north side of the property and one on the eastern edge. 53.77% of the total project area is proposed as open space. Open space enhancements will include removal of non-native species, primarily Russian Olive trees and select understory shrubs that prevent visibility and prohibit a safe environment. Spot seeding of disturbed areas with native vegetation and removal of debris will improve the overall condition as well. The goal is to maximize contiguous open space and cultivate a Riparian Forest environment that contributes to the overall ecological health of the Poudre River Corridor. Some small existing wetlands near the south property line, primarily occupied by Canary Reed Grass, an invasive species, will likely be removed, as well as one small wetland within the utility access tract at the southeast of the lot area. These wetlands will be mitigated with the proposed water quality forebay wetland east of the existing pond. Other wetlands including fringes of the existing pond will be preserved. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 8 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 An interconnected open - space trail system is proposed connecting the outer lots to the interior courtyard with two open space access points at the east and southeast edge of the lots. The open space area provides interior access loops to the orchard, community gardens, pond, community gathering area and play area. One access point to the Poudre River Trail is provided at the north end of the open space and another is located at the northwest edge of the property, providing Poudre River Trail access at the end of Wood Street, as a neighborhood connection. The trails are envisioned as crusher fines surface and will weave in and out of existing stands of trees. 3. PROPOSED OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS In general, the property owner or tenant shall perform all maintenance on private residential lots. In addition, the property owner, or tenant shall maintain all sidewalks and landscaped parkways within the ROW, according to the width of the property. The HOA shall perform all maintenance on all common areas, parks, trails, community gardens, etc. storm water infrastructure, and any other non-private amenity and or feature. The City of For Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the roadway. Storm water infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within storm water infrastructure including detention ponds, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the HOA. This maintenance shall include all required mowing, weeding cleanout, removal of trash and debris and other typical maintenance required in order to ensure storm water infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape All landscape maintenance within areas other than private residential lots and the area of parkway and ROW adjacent to private residential lots shall be the responsibility of and performed by the HOA. Snow Removal The property owner or tenant shall perform Snow removal on private lots and sidewalks adjacent to private lots. The HOA shall perform Snow removal within all common areas, trails, private drives and parks. Trash All trash removal on private lots or within the sidewalk/parkway areas adjacent to private lots shall be performed by property owner or tenant. The HOA shall perform trash removal within common areas, parks, trails, and other non-private lots. 4. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES. N/A. 5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES MADE BY THE APPLICANT. The overall project layout is based on views and access to open space including the Poudre River Floodplain and interior courtyard in the center of the cottage homes. 6. EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 9 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Annexation of the project has been completed and filed with the City as well as an approval of the stand alone modification for an increase in overall density. 7. 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. The primary land use conflict is between the residential use and Poudre River Corridor, where a total of 57.4% open space within the project is intended to mitigate the use as well as an average buffer width of approx. 350’ from the bank-full discharge line established with City Staff. Some small existing wetlands near the south property line, primarily occupied by Canary Reed Grass, an invasive species, will likely be removed, as well as one small wetland within the utility access tract at the southeast of the lot area. These wetlands will be mitigated with the proposed water quality forebay wetland east of the existing pond. Other wetlands including fringes of the existing pond will be preserved. Privacy will be achieved through building orientation, landscape buffers and creating a park-like setting for the buildings. A landscape tract along Wood Street will provide mitigation between the neighborhood and residences/City Services use on the west side of Wood St. 8. WRITTEN NARRATIVE ADDRESSING EACH CONCERN/ISSUE RAISED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S), IF A MEETING HAS BEEN HELD. In general, the project received a positive response at the neighborhood meeting. Specific issues/concerns include the following: Issue: Several attendees commented that people would still use these areas if you don’t fence it. The applicants indicated they are wrestling with a solution to this issue but are considering signage. Resolution: A boundary fence similar to those used by City Natural areas is provided along the edge of the property. Issue: I foresee a conflict between building R1 and my stables. Resolution: A landscape buffer consisting of dense smaller street trees and existing trees has been provided at the western edge. Issue: Pateros Creek may propose to drain unhealthy storm water into the Poudre River, which may negatively impact stream flows, water quality, and aquatic wildlife. Resolution: All storm water will be required to meet the standards in Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code and the Municipal Code requirements for storm water treatment. The project’s proximity to the Poudre River means the project does not have to detain to the 100-year event. Several methods, including the site’s existing topography, are employed for water quality treatment. Never has it been remotely proposed that this development would drain unhealthy storm water into the Poudre River. A forebay wetland is proposed to further enhance water quality. Issue: I’m not thrilled with the proposed main entrance to the project; can the access be swapped out with the Poudre Fire Authority access? Resolution: The current locations of the access points are a requirement from PFA Issue: Pateros Creek proposes to encroach over and into the Poudre River landscape buffer zone. ATTACHMENT 1 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 10 of 10 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Resolution: Only a decision maker can establish the buffer zone. There are two ways to meet the buffer zone standard – either quantitatively (through the 300’ standard) or qualitatively (though the nine performance standards outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. We believe we are at a minimum of 280’ across the site. A main objective of both the code and the project design is to protect the areas of highest quality habitat. The plan has a minimum buffer width of 200’ in the area of lowest quality habitat, and a maximum buffer width of over 600’ in the area of the highest quality habitat. The average buffer width for the entire project is over 350’. This is without getting into detail on the aforementioned performance standards, or the additional restoration and enhancement efforts that the 6 additional dwelling units would afford. Issue: Can you explain the need for a modification of standard regarding density? Resolution: We are exceeding the open space requirement and the development meets the net density standard. Prior to this redevelopment, there were 45 mobile homes present and 49 lots for mobile homes. With the additional density, more restoration and amenities can be provided and there can be a fund established for long-term maintenance. We, the applicants, feel we can meet more City Plan objectives with the modification of standard. Issue: Pateros Creek filled in the floodplain on the property using standards that don’t meet City Code. Answer: This comment has been discussed quite a bit throughout the annexation process. It has been determined by staff that the floodplain requirements, outlined in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, do not apply until the time of annexation. There are portions of the property that are still in the floodplain and will be subject to Chapter 10 requirements upon annexation. The portion of the previous flood fringe that was filled under County and FEMA oversight fully satisfied all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Nothing about the act of fill placement itself would be any different or “more safe” had the property been within City limits at the time. Issue: Ecological Characterization Study provided is not adequate. Answer: A revised ECS has been provided to City Staff. Issue: Can you confirm there will be no storm water runoff from this project going toward Wood Street? Answer: The site’s natural drainage pattern is east, northeast. Some minor flow will occur on Wood Street, but the site is designed to drain east. 9. NAME OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS ANY PREVIOUS NAME THE PROJECT MAY HAVE HAD DURING CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. This project shall be titled Pateros Creek Project Development Plan. The project has previously been titled the 912 Wood Street for Conceptual Review. 10. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FINALIZE DEMOLITION OCTOBER 2013 EARTHWORK/GRADING/UTILITIES DECEMBER 2013 ROAD AND SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2014 PARKS, AMENITIES AND LANDSCAPING JUNE 2014 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION JUNE 2014 – NOVEMBER 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT DATE DRAWN 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com PRINTED FILE NAME: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3/13/2013 8:55:13 AM C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2013 0000-Project-SD.rvt CHARACTER ELEVATIONS 1138 Author 03/13/13 PDP 1 BELLISIMO INC. FORT COLLINS, CO PATEROS CREEK PDP CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE LAP SIDING - PAINT WARM GRAY, OLIVE GREEN, RUST RED OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ALUM. CLAD WD., FIBERGLASS OR VINYL WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES AND DBL. INSUL. GLAZING - WHITE, GRAY, DARK RED, BLACK OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ARCHITECTURAL PROFILE ASPHALT SHINGLE - WEATHERED WOOD OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS STONE VENEER - BUFF OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE FASCIA BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS NOTE: 1. ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT BUILDING SURFACE OR SCREENED. 2. ALL ROOF VENTS AND OTHER PENETRATIONS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ROOFING COLOR. FRONT CHARACTER ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" FARMHOUSE VERNACULAR SIDE CHARACTER ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" FARMHOUSE VERNACULAR FRONT CHARACTER ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW SIDE CHARACTER ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW FRONT CHARACTER ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" AMERICAN FOURSQUARE SIDE CHARACTER ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" AMERICAN FOURSQUARE CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE LAP SIDING - PAINT WARM GRAY, ATTACHMENT 5 REVISED ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE PATEROS CREEK PROJECT Prepared by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for Bellisimo, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado March 12, 2013 ATTACHMENT 6 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 HABITAT CONDITIONS AND WILDLIFE USE .............................................................................. 3 3.1 Disturbed Areas .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Non-native Grassland ................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Riparian Woodland, Tree Cluster, and Tree Line ....................................................................... 7 4.0 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY CHECKLIST ...................................................... 12 5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS WILDLIFE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 14 5.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 18 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX A - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Approval Letter APPENDIX B - Oversized Figure 2 - Habitat Mapping for the Pateros Creek Property LIST OF FIGURES 1 Location of the Pateros Creek Development Parcel ....................................................................... 2 2 Habitat Mapping for the Pateros Creek Property ......................................... attached in Appendix B 3 Habitat Infringement Comparison ................................................................................................. 16 LIST OF PHOTOS 1 Disturbed/Graded/Debris Pile Area Along the Pateros Creek Northwestern Property Boundary ... 5 2 Residential Area and Bare Ground Along the Pateros Creek Middle North Property Boundary ..... 5 3 Disturbed/Debris Pile Area Along Pateros Creek Northeast Property Boundary ............................ 6 4 Non-native Grassland Area in West Portion of the Pateros Creek Property ................................... 6 5 Non-native Grassland Opening in Undisturbed Riparian Woodland at West End of Pateros Creek Property ................................................................................................................................ 8 6 View of Disturbed Debris Pile Areas at South End of Undisturbed Riparian Woodland .................. 8 7 View of Another Debris Pile at Edge of Riparian Woodland ............................................................ 9 8 View of Small, Isolated Wetland Depression at West Edge of Riparian Woodland ........................ 9 9 View of Wetland at the West End of the Southeast Corner Pond ................................................. 11 10 View of Pond in Southeast Corner of Pateros Creek Property ...................................................... 11 ATTACHMENT 6 1 DRAFT ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE PATEROS CREEK PROPERTY 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION This report documents the evaluation of habitat conditions on the proposed Pateros Creek development parcel in Fort Collins, Colorado. The report is provided as a draft at this time since development plans for the property have not been finalized. The report was prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the preparation of an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Report. The proposed development site is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 2 (T. 7 N. R. 69 W.) at the north termination of Pateros Creek. The property location is shown on Figure 1. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Cedar Creek completed field surveys of the Pateros Creek property in 2011 on October 31 and November 22 and again on January 10, 2012. . The initial field survey on October 31 was completed primarily to delineate the “top of bank line” along the south side of the Cache la Poudre River. The top of bank line was delineated and mapped in the field in consultation with City of Fort Collins staff, Lindsay Ex (Environmental Planner, Current Planning) and Marsha Hilmes-Robinson (Floodplain Administrator). The City of Fort Collins uses the top of bank line for determining buffer setback distances from streams and other water bodies. The second field survey was completed on November 22 to characterize existing wildlife habitats, as well as to identify any unique or sensitive natural resource features. Observations recorded during the field evaluation included major vegetation communities / wildlife habitats present within the property, dominant vegetation associated with each community / habitat, unique habitat features, tree species, and observations of wildlife species and/or definitive sign. Photographs showing representative views of existing habitats were also taken to document site conditions. Wildlife presence and habitat use was based on on-site observations and habitat presence in conjunction with the known habitat requirements of potential wildlife species. Existing habitats were also evaluated regarding their ability to support populations of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive plant and wildlife species. The final survey on January 10, 2012 was completed to delineate and characterize wetlands on the Pateros Creek property. Wetlands on the property were previously reviewed by Terry McKee with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on December 30, 2011, and the wetland mapping was approved by the ACOE on January 12, 2012 (see attached letter). ATTACHMENT 6 2 ATTACHMENT 6 3 Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) soils mapping (Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado) was also reviewed to evaluate soils resources regarding potential establishment of native vegetation communities and determine if any known hydric (wetland) soil mapping units are located on the property. 3.0 HABITAT CONDITIONS AND WILDLIFE USE Although the Pateros Creek property is adjacent to and contains portions of the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridor (see Figure 2, at end of report), the ecological function and character of the site have been considerably compromised by existing residential development and the use of portions of the property for refuse disposal and equipment or materials storage. As indicated on Figure 2, there are few portions of the property that have not been impacted by residential development, past disturbance, or refuse disposal. Relatively undisturbed riparian habitat conditions are supported only in the approximate eastern quarter of the proposed development site. The continuity of the site with the existing Cache la Poudre riparian and river corridor is further affected and segregated by the paved Poudre River recreation trail and by a 6-foot chain-link fence along the north and east property boundaries. This fencing continues around the east end of the site and along the southern property boundary as well. Topography of the site is nearly level. Existing land uses within the property consist developed residential, refuse disposal areas, and undeveloped land and wildlife habitat for urban adapted species. Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of residential, commercial, undeveloped land, and river corridor with recreational trail. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping (2011) indicates that Paoli fine sandy loam and Table Mountain loam are the predominant soils contained within the property boundaries. Paoli fine sand loam occupies approximately two-thirds of the property along its northern and eastern portions. Table Mountain loam comprises the remainder of the southwest portion of the property. Both soils are deep, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium on terraces and floodplains near drainages. Neither is classified as a hydric (wetland) soil, but they can contain hydric inclusions. The Soil Conservation Service (1980) indicates that native vegetation supported by these two soils consists primarily native prairie species including blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)1, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), and bluegrasses (Poa spp.) (SCS 1980). Field surveys completed for the Pateros Creek property indicate that Paoli fine sandy loam also supports native riparian woodland dominated by eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and a number of non-native tree species. 1 Scientific nomenclature for vegetation follows: USDA, NRCS PLANTS National Database at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/. ATTACHMENT 6 4 Habitats delineated within the property boundaries include disturbed areas (including residential, graded, and refuse disposal sites), non-native grassland, riparian woodlands, wetlands, and a small pond (see Figure 2). The following sections summarize the ecological characteristics of habitats on the Pateros Creek property and wildlife use of the area. 3.1 Disturbed Areas Disturbed areas on the property consist of existing residences, shops and garages, debris or refuse piles, and areas graded to remove debris or for fill placement to elevate areas above the floodplain. These areas are generally devoid of vegetation except where residential landscaping has been established. Some of the trees in the residential areas would be classified as significant by the City of Fort Collins and should be preserved wherever possible. In addition, a few remnant native riparian as well as undesirable, invasive tree species exist along the western half of the north property boundary (see Figure 2). Trees growing in this area are primarily Siberian elms (Ulmus pumila) with a few eastern cottonwoods. Siberian elms are generally considered to be an undesirable, invasive tree species. All trees over 6 inches in diameter have been surveyed, and their locations are plotted on an exhibit in the conceptual review documents submitted to the City of Fort Collins. In the other disturbed, mostly bare areas, annual weeds such as kochia (Bassia scoparia), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), redroot amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis) are the most common species. Photos 1, 2, and 3 provide representative views of disturbed and graded areas on the Pateros Creek property. Because of the disturbed nature of these habitats and human presence and activities, habitat value and wildlife use is limited primarily to urban adapted songbirds use of established landscape and existing trees. 3.2 Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland is dominated primarily by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) with minor amounts of intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). The largest non-native grassland parcel is located along the western edge of riparian woodland (see Figure 2). This area of non-native grassland appears to have been subjected to some form of past surface disturbance since the ground surface is uneven and hummocky. Past disturbance in this non-native grassland parcel has also resulted in a greater representation of annual weedy species such as kochia, cheatgrass, Canada thistle, netseed ATTACHMENT 6 5 ATTACHMENT 6 6 ATTACHMENT 6 7 lambsquarters (Chenopodium berlandieri), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Photos 4 and 5 provide views of non-native grassland/disturbed areas on the property. Habitat value and wildlife use of non-native grassland is limited by the lack of woody vegetation and the relative small size and lack of continuity of these habitat parcels. Where non-native grassland is intermixed with riparian woodland, it provides additional habitat diversity. Mice, voles, and pocket gopher are the only species likely to establish resident populations in non-native grassland habitat. Songbirds such as western meadowlark, Brewer’s blackbird, common grackle, and black-billed magpie may also occasionally use the more open portions of these grassland habitats. Red fox, striped skunk, and raccoon may also forage in this area on occasion. 3.1 Riparian Woodland, Tree Cluster, and Tree Line Riparian woodland is associated with the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridor (see Figure 2). The small tree cluster area is a small pocket of riparian vegetation isolated from the main riparian corridor by past disturbance and vegetation clearing. A number of tree species are supported by these two habitat areas including both relatively young and large, mature eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides); crack willows (Salix fragilis); Siberian elms; and a few peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and boxelder (Acer negundo) trees. Most of the larger native and desirable non-native trees would be classified as significant by the City of Fort Collins and should be protected, to the extent possible. A non-native grass, smooth brome, dominates the understory. There are locations within and adjacent to riparian woodland where large trash items (e.g. metal tanks, appliances, lumber, furniture, woody slash, etc.) have been dumped. The line of trees growing along the southern property boundary consists of a mix of native riparian, ornamental landscape, and non-native invasive tree species. These trees appear to have developed along an abandoned irrigation ditch that parallels the south property boundary. The principal native species is eastern cottonwood, which range from 3 to 14 inches in diameter. Blue spruce is an ornamental species planted in this area, while Siberian elm, Russian olive, and boxelder are the non- native species growing in this tree line. Photos 5, 6, and 7 provide representative views of riparian woodland. In terms of vegetation and wildlife species diversity, riparian woodland areas represent the most valuable and diverse wildlife habitat within or near the project area. However, dominance by smooth brome in the understory and refuse piles somewhat reduce the overall habitat value of riparian woodland in the project area. Several of the trees are large enough to be suitable as raptor nest sites, but no raptor nests were located on or near the property. The proximity of nearby developments and recreational use ATTACHMENT 6 8 ATTACHMENT 6 9 ATTACHMENT 6 10 of the Poudre River trail reduce the likelihood of any future raptor nesting use of the property by most raptors except perhaps by great horned owl and American kestrel. Larger trees and snags in riparian habitats provide important foraging and/or nesting habitat for woodpeckers, a variety of songbirds, and, possibly, American kestrel. Because of the fall season timing (October and November) of the field survey, observations of songbirds and other avian species were limited. Northern flicker, dark-eyed junco, and blue jay were the only bird species observed on the property, but spring and summer avian use of the property is likely to be much more diverse. Other wildlife species documented using riparian woodland on the Pateros Creek property were mule deer, red fox, raccoon, mink, and fox squirrel. Apparently, the 6-foot chain-link fence along the north, east, and south property boundaries does not prevent larger mammals such as mule deer, red fox, and raccoon from moving in and out of project area riparian habitats. 3.4 Wetlands and Pond Wetlands exist on the property as four isolated depressions in riparian habitat, six small wetland pockets on a remnant irrigation ditch along the southwest property line, and two slightly larger wetlands on the remnant irrigation ditch along the southeast property line. The only other project area wetland is associated with the pond perimeter at the southeast property corner (see Figure 2). The dominant wetland herbaceous species in all but the pond wetland is reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Small stands of coyote willow (Salix exigua) are also present in the two of the four riparian woodland wetland depressions as well as in the largest of the southern property line wetlands. The wetland area around the pond perimeter is dominated by reed canarygrass with crack willow in the overstory, but the west, and apparently drier, end of this wetland supports primarily smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and sedge (Carex sp.). Photos 8, 9, and 10 provide representative views of wetland areas and the pond on the Pateros Creek property. The ACOE has not provided an jurisdictional determination for the project area wetlands, but all of the wetlands except for the southeast corner pond/wetland area would likely be classified as non-jurisdictional since they have no wetland or channel connection to other Waters of the U.S. (i.e. the Poudre River). The pond and associated wetland in the southeast property corner would likely be classified as jurisdictional since the outflow channel from the pond flows into the Poudre River. All wetlands are under ¼ acre in size, but riparian and pond wetlands provide additional habitat diversity within riparian woodland and may provide spring breeding habitat for local amphibian populations such as northern chorus frog and Woodhouse’s toad. The small pond was observed being used by a mink during the second field survey and may also serve as resting, loafing, feeding habitat by puddle ducks such as mallard and green- winged teal. The six small pocket wetlands along the southwest property line have developed in a remnant irrigation lateral that is no longer functioning, and these wetlands may not persist into the future. ATTACHMENT 6 11 ATTACHMENT 6 12 These wetland pockets no longer provide a water quality function, and their value as wildlife habitat is negligible because by their small, isolated nature and single-species dominance by reed canarygrass. Coyote willow in the largest south boundary wetland may provide some additional songbird-nesting habitat. 1.0 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY CHECKLIST The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (i). Items (j) and (k) are addressed under the next section, 5.0 Potential Impacts and Wildlife Mitigation Recommendations. (a and i) Wildlife use and general ecological functions of the Pateros Creek property are described in the preceding Section 3.0. (b) Wetlands on the property are described in Section 3.4. (c) The project area provides significant and relatively unobstructed views of the Cache la Poudre River and the riparian corridor, although these views are compromised somewhat by existing 6-foot chain-link fencing and the paved Poudre River recreation trail. (d) As indicated in Sections 3.1 and 3.3 a number of significant trees existing within the disturbed areas and in riparian woodland. Trees 6 inches or greater in diameter on the property may be classified as significant trees by the City’s Land Use Code. All trees over 6 inches in diameter have been surveyed, and their locations are plotted on an exhibit in the conceptual review documents submitted to the City of Fort Collins. The applicant is in the process of having the health status determined for all inventoried trees. Loss of trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees as per Section 3.2.1 (F) of the Land Use Code. (e) The only natural drainage in the project area is the Cache la Poudre River. The top of bank of the river and 300-foot buffer from the top of bank is depicted on project survey maps provided in the conceptual review submittal documents. (f) The project area was evaluated with regards to potential habitat for state and federal listed threatened and endangered species. The Cache la Poudre River corridor and adjacent wetland and riparian habitats could possibly provide suitable habitat for three federal listed threatened species, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis), and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). An evaluation of their potential presence is provided in the following paragraphs. ATTACHMENT 6 13 Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Suitable habitat for the jumping mouse is provided by low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or both in open wet meadows and riparian corridors or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover. Potential habitat includes wet meadow habitats, native hayfields, stream channels (perennial and intermittent), riparian habitats, or floodplains below 7,600 feet elevation in Colorado. Saturated wetlands supporting dense stands of cattail or bulrush do not provide suitable habitat conditions for the jumping mouse (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999; Armstrong et al. 1997). Potentially suitable wetland herbaceous and woody cover for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse may be supported in the riparian and pond/wetland areas at the east end of the property, but no populations of jumping mouse are known to exist along the Poudre River downstream of the Watson Lake area. Colorado butterfly plant. The Colorado butterfly plant is a short-lived, perennial herb endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows of floodplain areas in southeastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, and extreme western Nebraska. This early to mid-seral stage species occurs primarily in habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains with vegetation that is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrown. It is found on subirrigated, alluvial soils of drainage bottoms surrounded by mixed grass prairie at elevations of 5,000 to 6,400 feet (Spackman et al. 1997, Federal Register 1998). Populations of this species are often found in low depressions or along bends in wide, active, meandering stream channels a short distance upslope of the actual channel. The plant requires early to mid-seral riparian habitats. Typical habitat is relatively open without dense or overgrown vegetation. It commonly occurs in communities dominated by redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) and Kentucky bluegrass on wetter sites and by wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), Flodman's thistle (Cirsium flodmanii), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and smooth scouring rush (Hippochaete laevigata) on drier sites. These areas are usually intermediate in moisture between wet, streamside communities dominated by sedges, rushes, and cattails, and dry shortgrass prairie (Federal Register 1998). Suitable streamside habitats for Colorado butterfly plant do no exist on the Pateros Creek property. Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. Habitat for the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid typically consists of seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near lakes, springs, or perennial streams and their associated floodplains below 6,500 feet. Associated vegetation species typically include those with a "FACW" Corps of Engineers classification (Equisetum, Asclepias, Calamagrostis, Solidago, etc. genera) occurring in relatively open and not overly dense, overgrown, or over-grazed areas. This species prefers comparatively well-drained, high moisture content wetland soils that are not strongly anaerobic or composed of heavy clays. Conversely, sites consisting entirely of dense stands of reed canarygrass, those characterized by standing water including monocultures of cattails or three-square, dense clayey soils, or highly saline soils supporting a dense community of inland saltgrass (Distichlis stricta) are not ATTACHMENT 6 14 considered to be habitat for this species (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum: Plants - Spiranthes diluvialis, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, dated November 23, 1992). No suitable wetland habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid exists on the Pateros Creek property. (g) Because of past disturbances over most portions of the project area, the only special habitat features on the property are the pond, wetlands, and relatively undisturbed riparian woodland habitat parcels in the eastern quarter of the property. The Cache la Poudre River corridor immediately north of the property and the pond immediately south of the property also represent special habitat features. (h) The Cache la Poudre River corridor along the north and east property boundaries represents a wildlife movement corridor primarily for songbirds and urban-adapted water birds and other terrestrial species (e.g. striped skunk, raccoon, red fox, fox squirrel, and mule deer). The river corridor is partially isolated from the project area by the existing paved recreation trail and a 6-foot chain-link fence. 2.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS WILDLIFE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The remaining Items, (j) and (k) of the ECS Checklist, are addressed in this section. (j) There is only one issue regarding the timing of building construction/removal and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area. If existing trees or shrubs require removal for project development, they should be cut down outside of the songbird-nesting season (April-July) to avoid any potential loss of active nests with young, which would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In lieu of a timing restriction for removal, trees and shrubs could be removed during the nesting season if nest surveys confirm a lack of nests. None of the trees on or near the property exhibited any evidence of raptor nesting activity, and it is unlikely any raptors would nest near the property because of the intensity of human activities within and surrounding the area. (k) Re-development of the Pateros Creek parcel and removal of some existing disturbances would create few additional impacts to the Cache la Poudre River corridor beyond those that currently exist with existing development and disturbance. However, the physical configuration, important natural resource features, and City of Fort Collins buffer requirements regarding these natural resources put some constraints on re-development of the Pateros Creek property. Habitats of greatest value on or near the property are the riparian woodlands and wetlands in the eastern quarter of the site and the Cache la Poudre River corridor, along with associated riparian woodlands, to the north and east of the property. The primary City of Fort Collins Land Use Code buffer zone and other environmental standards (Section 3.4.1) that apply to the Pateros Creek property are as follows. • 300-foot development buffer from the top of bank of the Cache la Poudre River ATTACHMENT 6 15 • 50-foot development buffer from the edge of isolated patches of native riparian forest and from wetlands less than 1/3 acre in size • Preserve significant trees wherever possible; mitigation will be required for loss of any significant trees The existing condition of the property is not in compliance with the 300-foot Poudre River buffer. In addition, many of the undeveloped portions of the property within the 300-foot buffer have been significantly disturbed by vegetation removal, dumping of debris, and equipment and materials storage, even where development has not occurred. The Pateros Creek property is currently outside City Limits, and the majority of the site was developed and disturbed before City buffer standards were promulgated. However, once the property is annexed by Fort Collins, City Land Use Code buffer standards would apply. The design team for the Pateros Creek property has developed three different scenarios based on buffer standards, as well as other City of Fort Collins development requirements (see Figure 3). These design scenarios are provided in the conceptual review documents submitted to the City. Relative habitat quality rankings provided in the conceptual review documents were based on the habitat mapping provided in Figure 2 of this report. This ECS Report evaluates the three development scenarios solely on environmental and habitat quality considerations, while conceptual review documents evaluate the three scenarios on a variety of planning and development considerations. Table 1 provides a summary comparison of the principal environmental considerations for the three development scenario alternatives. Based on this comparison, Alternative C appears to be the most environmentally appropriate alternative for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there would be no encroachment into higher quality riparian habitat with this alternative, and the river buffer would exceed 300 feet in the area supporting the highest value riparian habitat. A development buffer of 80 to 200 feet would be maintained in the areas currently supporting the most degraded or non-existent riparian habitat on the development site. There would also be no loss of native riparian tree or other vegetation with this alternative. Although the 300-foot Poudre River buffer would be reduced by Alternative C (average 18% reduction over 55% of buffer zone length), proposed buffer habitat conditions would be considerably enhanced over existing conditions. In addition, reduction of the buffer in existing, lower quality habitat areas permits total preservation of higher quality riparian habitats and an expanded buffer from the river in these areas. As indicated in Section 3.0, much of the property has been degraded by past disturbances and land use practices. Areas to remain as open space and be landscaped within the Poudre River buffer zone would be considerably enhanced, over existing conditions. Enhancement would occur by the conversion of areas dominated by bare ground, debris piles, and/or mostly weedy and non-native grass ATTACHMENT 6 16 ATTACHMENT 6 17 Table 1. Environmental Comparison of Alternative Development Scenarios Design Alternative Compliance with 300-foot Poudre River Buffer1 Compliance with 50-foot Riparian Woodland and Wetland Buffer1 Compliance with Significant Tree Preservation Clean Up and Removal of Debris Piles, Scrap Equipment, and Materials from Open Space Alternative A Yes No Plan would result in encroachment into higher quality (relatively undisturbed) riparian habitat. A 50 -foot buffer would be maintained for the riparian and pond wetlands, but all other south property boundary wetlands would be lost to development A. Yes There would be some loss of significant landscape trees, as well as native riparian trees. Losses of significant trees would be mitigated with tree plantings in the buffer zone. Yes Alternative B Yes No Same as Alternative A Yes Same as Alternative A, except there would be a greater loss of existing significant landscape trees. Yes Alternative C No 300-foot buffer would be reduced by ~ 25 to 70 feet (avg. ~ 18% reduction) over 18 species to areas revegetated by native riparian, perennial woody and herbaceous species. With these enhancement measures and extensive plantings of native vegetation, buffer zone performance standards specified in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code would be met, even with some reduction in the buffer zone standard. Another consideration regarding a reduction in the 300-foot buffer is the existing Poudre River recreation trail along the northern boundary of the Wood Street property. This existing, paved trail is within the 300- foot buffer (near its outer edge), and the considerable recreational use it receives has compromised and will continue to compromise the environmental benefit of a 300-foot buffer. Alternative A and B would have greater impacts to wetlands and would not maintain a 50-foot buffer from existing riparian habitat. Alternatives A and B would result in the loss of all wetlands along the southern property line except for the pond/wetland complex in the southeast property corner. Alternative C would maintain a 50-foot buffer from existing riparian habitat and all wetlands except the seven western-most southern boundary wetlands, a total of 3,315 square feet (< 0.08 acre), which would be lost to development. No ACOE permit would be required for theses wetland impacts since wetland loss would be under 0.1 acre. The wetland losses would be mitigated by the development of higher quality and more diverse wetlands in the proposed wetland forebay area and by expansion of the pond/wetland area complex. The size of the proposed forebay wetland would be 5,740 square feet (0.13 acre and the expanded pond area would create an additional undetermined amount of wetlands around the expanded pond perimeter. 2.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures Regardless of which development alternative is selected, a number of wildlife and habitat mitigation recommendations would apply to development of the Pateros Creek property. 1. Remove all trash and debris piles from riparian woodland and reclaim the existing dirt road in this area with native riparian species. 2. Existing native cottonwood and willow trees and significant non-native trees should be preserved unless they pose a human safety risk. 3. The currently disturbed portions of the buffer zone between proposed development and existing riparian areas should be planted with an upland riparian vegetation mix, including shrubs and trees, to create a zone of native riparian vegetation. The goal of these plantings should be to create a self-sustaining, native vegetation community to stabilize soils and enhance wildlife habitat. Plantings of native shrubs and trees should be completed along the buffer zone to provide further visual screening between development sites and important habitat areas. Buffer zone enhancement and planting plans should be coordinated with City Planning and Natural Resources staff. 4. It is not the intention of the mitigation recommendations to convert areas currently supporting stable non-native grass cover to be converted to native grassland species. Conversion of stable ATTACHMENT 6 19 non-native grass areas to native grassland is not recommended for three principal reasons. First, although the majority of existing grass cover is non-native, non-native grassland on the property is well established and meets the general intent of the three objectives listed in the third recommended mitigation measure. Soils are stable in the non-native grassland areas and non- native grass (primarily smooth brome), when not mowed, provides adequate wildlife cover adjacent to riparian habitat. Finally, any attempt to convert well-established non-native grassland habitat to native grassland are likely to fail without intensive management efforts, and converted areas are most likely to be dominated by aggressive, undesirable weedy species such as cheatgrass and kochia. 5. Browse cages may need to be installed around planted young shrubs and trees for several years to prevent their loss from deer, beaver and other wildlife species feeding on these young plants. 6. Habitat enhancement plantings would likely require soil treatment to relieve compaction (ripping) and improve fertility (fertilizer amendments). Supplemental irrigation may be required for initial establishment of shrubs, trees and herbaceous species. A weed management plan should be developed in concert with habitat enhancement plantings to minimize the development of non- desirable, invasive species in the habitat enhancement areas. 7. Loss of trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees as per Section 3.2.1 (F) of the Land Use Code. 8. It is recommended that if trees require removal, they should be cut outside of the songbird nesting season to avoid any potential loss of active nests with young, which would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In lieu of a timing restriction for removal, trees and shrubs could be removed during the nesting season if nest surveys confirm a lack of nests. 9. All residential trash should be contained within animal proof containers or enclosures to minimize the risk of human conflicts with species such as raccoon, skunk, red fox, and coyote. 10. Free-roaming cats and dogs should be prohibited to protect wildlife from harassment by domestic pets and to protect predation of domestic pets by wildlife. 11. The intensity of night lighting from the sides of houses facing buffer zones, riparian habitat, and designated open space habitat should be shielded or directed to minimize the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into these areas. 12. A split rail or similar type open-rail fencing should be used as a replacement for the existing 6-foot chain-link fence along the north and east edge of the property to permit greater ease of wildlife movement between riparian areas on the Pateros Creek property and existing riparian woodlands along the Cache la Poudre River. 3.0 REFERENCES CITED Armstrong, D.M., M.E. Bakeman, N.W. Clippinger, A. Deans, M. Margulies, C.A. Meaney, C. Miller, M. O’Shea-Stone, T.R. Ryon, and M. Sanders. 1997. Report on habitat findings of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Edited by M.E. Bakeman. Report presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 pp. Federal Register. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed threatened status for the plant, Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis. Federal Register: March 24, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 56) pp.14060-14065. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado rare plant field guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. ATTACHMENT 6 20 Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1980. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service). U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.174 pp. + maps. USDA, NRCS. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Soil mapping for the Pateros Creek property accessed December 28, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Interim survey guidelines for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 19, 1999 ATTACHMENT 6 Appendix A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Approval Letter ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 6 Appendix B Oversized Figure 2 - Habitat Mapping for the Pateros Creek Property ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 1 of 1 Alternative Compliance – Pedestrian Connections to South Russell + Mills Studios | 03 June 2013 Pateros Creek Preliminary Development Plan Alternative Compliance – Pedestrian Connections to South 6.03.2013 Alternative Compliance The applicant requests an alternative compliance for public street connectivity to the adjacent property to the south, as outlined in LUC 3.6.3. This code provision typically provides for future street connectivity for future build-out to neighboring properties. It is requested that pedestrian connectivity is considered as an appropriate connection to the southern property through the public access points C & D as shown on site plan. This creates two pedestrian connections to the adjacent property to the south when or if the property is developed. Access tract C is 20’ wide, access point D is shown at 30’ wide. Both tracts provide 12’ concrete paved paths. Under the standards outlined in 3.6.3 (H), the decision maker may approve an alternative development plan that may be substituted for the plan meeting the standards of this section. Street connectivity to the southern property should not be required as it is unclear when or if the southern property is developable due to the large lake within the parcel that occupies approximately 60% of the site. In addition, the Pateros Creek project exists in a somewhat isolated parcel bounded on the north and east by the Poudre River floodplain, where pedestrian connections through the Pateros Creek property to the Poudre River Trail seem more appropriate than roadway connections. In lieu of developing street connections to the adjacent property, the applicant requests that the proposed pedestrian connections be considered an appropriate alternative. ATTACHMENT 8 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 1 of 3 MODIFICATION REQUEST – PORCH SETBACK Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Pateros Creek Preliminary Development Plan Modification Request – Porch Setback 5.31.2013 MODIFICATION REQUEST The applicant requests a modification from the setback standard of 15’ from ROW to building as outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a). This typically includes porches with columns, which are provided per the design guidelines for the project. It is requested that this standard be modified to a setback of 9’ to allow for porches to extend beyond the building face, which will meet the required 15’ setback. This will allow for a 6’ porch extension, beyond the building face. This modification is requested for the interior courtyard lots (24-40) and for lots (14-20) at the south edge of the project. The preferred plan is equal to or better than a comparable plan which meets the setback standard by providing a usable interior courtyard rather than a narrower, less functional open space. In addition, the applicant requests consideration of the following rationale: Under the standards outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a) the decision maker may approve an alternative setback. Although the UE zone district is exempt from this alternative compliance, the proposed development is very similar in character to single family detached developments in the LMN zone district, making the proposal ‘LMN – Like’. The LMN zone district allows for a maximum of 9 DU/AC gross density and 3 DU/AC net density for residential developments less than 20 acres. The proposed development achieves a net density of 2.34 DU/AC, making it similar in character to a typical LMN district single-family detached residential project. Therefore, the applicant requests that the alternative compliance option be considered and applied to this development plan. Under the alternative compliance provision outlined in 3.5.2(D)(2)(a), the following is required to approve an alternative setback: a. Porches and Entry Features (i) A front porch with a minimum depth of six (6) feet (as measured from the building facade to the posts, railings and spindles) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet shall be provided on single- family detached dwellings. All porches will achieve a minimum depth of 6’ and minimum length of 18’. (ii) A clearly defined building front facing the street with a covered front porch or stoop measuring at least four (4) feet by four (4) feet shall be provided on each ground floor single-family attached dwelling. Building fronts will be clearly defined on the front and rear of the buildings with porches of the dimensions mentioned above. (iii) The floor elevation of the front porch or stoop shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches above grade. All floor elevations of porches shall be equivalent to building finished floor elevations at least 18 inches in height. b. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located behind the dwelling and access to such parking shall be gained from an alley or, if there is no alley, then from the street via a driveway which, up to the rear building line of the house, does not exceed ten (10) feet in width. Off street parking is located behind the front face of the dwelling and accessed from driveways ranging from 10’ or more. This standard is not met, however, the applicant ATTACHMENT 9 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 2 of 3 MODIFICATION REQUEST – PORCH SETBACK Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 believes that the solution is equal to or better than a comparable plan throught meeting the intent of the standard, which is to create a landscape dominated street. There are approximately 30% more street trees provided than required, streetscapes at important entry and crossing areas emphasize a rich shrub/perennial understory, and an interior open space and gathering area is provided in lieu of the alley access typically used to achieve this standard. The project could provide alley access at the interior instead of this interior open space/gathering area, sacrificing this critical amenity. The broad intent of a cluster development is to preserve quality and meaningful open space through a more dense configuration. The applicant feels that the central courtyard is a critical component to the overall open space system, and sacrificing it to meet the above off street parking standard would be sacrificing overall project quality. c. Private Open Space. (i) A readily accessible, functional and clearly defined private outdoor space (such as a patio, courtyard or deck) with minimum dimensions of twelve (12) feet by eighteen (18) feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Rear outdoor porches, patios and decks will exist within areas shown on plans. The minimum size for these private outdoor spaces is 240 square feet, exceeding this dimension. (ii) All buildings on the same lot shall be spaced at least sixteen (16) feet apart. Residential buildings will all be located on individual lots. d. Front Yard Fences. (i) Front yard fences shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) opacity. Front yard fences will have pickets spaced to achieve 60% opacity. (ii) Front yard fences shall be between two and one-half (2½) feet and three (3) feet in height. Proposed front yard fences will be 3 feet in height. (iii) Front yard fences made of chain link are prohibited. No chain link fences are permitted within the project boundaries. (iv) Any privacy fence along an interior side property line shall gradually transition to the height of the front yard fence. Interior privacy fences shall be 3’ high picket type, similar to front yard fences. ATTACHMENT 9 Pateros Creek Project Development Plan Page 3 of 3 MODIFICATION REQUEST – PORCH SETBACK Russell + Mills Studios | 31 May 2013 Cross section illustrating street/dwelling unit relationships The proposed plan also advances the Land Use Code and exceeds it in many cases, supporting Plan Fort Collins principles such as the following: Compact Development Pattern The proposed plan creates a compact development form that achieves greater than 50% open space. Interconnected System of Open Lands Open space within the property is connected to the Poudre River Trail via a system of proposed trail connections. The courtyard achieved by this modification is connected to the overall trail system. Community Gardens The project will provide two community gardens for residents. One garden will serve the entire community and will be located within the open space, strategically placed in a lower quality habitat area. A second garden will be provided within the courtyard community, which is allowed for by the requested modification. Edible Plants The project will contain an orchard and a variety of edible plants that provide an additional food source for the community. Community Gathering Areas The modification allows the project to create an effective central courtyard in the courtyard community. This modification is not detrimental to the public good in that: The cluster development standards encourage a more compact development, which encourages preservation and creation of open space. The plan exceeds the UE standard of 50% by 3.77%. This setback modification allows the creation of a more substantial and effective interior courtyard for the interior ‘courtyard community’, acting as a central amenity for the overall project. The modification also helps ensure maintains high quality habitat, open space and promotes a sense of community through its spatial structure and open space amenities. ATTACHMENT 9 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/currentplanning NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Pateros Creek DATE: June 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studio CITY PLANNER: Lindsay Ex The potential project is known as Pateros Creek. Pateros Creek is a proposed clustered residential development project, pending the annexation and zoning of the property by City Council. The proposal includes a request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) which caps the maximum, overall average density in clustered residential projects in the Urban Estate (U-E) zone at 2.00 dwelling units per gross acre and 5.0 dwelling units per net acre within a cluster development plan for Pateros Creek While the proposal meets the net density standard by proposing 4.75 dwelling units per net acre, the request seeks a maximum density of 2.36 dwelling units per gross acre which would result in six additional dwelling units from 35 to 41. The parcel is 17.34 acres in size and located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately ¼ mile east of North Shields Street. The site is proposed to be annexed into the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district and the proposed clustered residential development is permitted, subject to a Type 2, Planning and Zoning Board, review and public hearing (Section 4.2(B)(3)(a)(1)). A total of fourteen individuals attended the meeting. Three members from the public, including a representative for Save the Poudre, attended the meeting. Nine representatives for the applicant were present. Two members of City staff were present. QUESTONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1. Question: (Citizen) Will there be fencing around the proposed project? Answer: (Applicant) The fencing currently around the project will be removed. At this time, a fence is not planned around the perimeter of the project, but there may be a fence on the boundary of the lots. This fence will need to be wildlife-friendly, according to the City’s Land Use Code. Several attendees commented that people will still use these areas if you don’t fence it. The applicants indicated they are wrestling with a solution to this issue but are considering signage. 2. Question: (Citizen) How is this project affected by the improvements on Shields? The citizen would like to see less traffic down the road and would like a stronger buffer between their property and the proposed project with no access to the Poudre. ATTACHMENT 10 1 Answer: (Applicant) The Shields Street effort shouldn’t affect this project. (City): The trail connection from Wood Street is a requirement by the City. Lindsay will discuss this requirement with the City’s Transportation Planning staff. 3. Question: (Citizen) I’m not thrilled with the proposed main entrance to the project, can the access be swapped out with the Poudre Fire Authority access? Answer: (Applicant) The current locations of the access points were a requirement from PFA. The applicant will follow up with PFA to see if they can be swapped. 4. Question: (Citizen) Is the proposed street a public right-of-way? Answer: (Applicant) Yes. 5. Comment: (Citizen) There are thousands of people trying to use this space every day. I’m concerned folks will try to park on the loop street. Parking should be directed to Shields Street. There are going to be a lot of security problems on the site. 6. Question: (Citizen) You mentioned Susan Sasanka in your presentation, are you working with her? Answer: (Applicant) We have had contact with her, and she’s agreed to help with the project, but we haven’t had her working with us yet. The emphasis is on the quality of the homes and they are inspired by her work. 7. Comment: (Citizen) Pateros Creek may propose to build a “levee” structure along the river so that floodwaters don’t rush through the property (see attached letter, comment #3). Response: (Applicant) The word ‘levee’ has never been used and the engineering of the site has not been started. The citizen comment referenced previous staff review comments from Conceptual Review, which again, have never inferred any sort of levee. Stormwater Engineering comment #8 from the January 10, 2012 Conceptual Review letter mentions the need to properly analyze erosion potential. Should any such scour protection measures prove necessary, it is important that they are not confused or falsely described as a ‘levee’. 8. Comment: (Citizen) This area is designated as a large, open channel. You should be aware of that. Response: (Applicant) We are working with stormwater and floodplain staff regarding the West Vine Drainage floodway. 9. Question: (Citizen) Pateros Creek may propose to drain unhealthy stormwater into the Poudre River, which may negatively impact streamflows, water quality, and aquatic wildlife. Answer: (City) All stormwater will be required to meet the standards in Section 3.4.3 and the Municipal Code requirements for stormwater treatment. (Applicant) Nick Haws with Northern Engineered explained that the project’s proximity to the Poudre River means the project does not have to detain to the 100- year event. Several methods, including the site’s existing topography, will be employed for water quality treatment. There has never been a proposal that this ATTACHMENT 10 2 development would drain unhealthy stormwater into the Poudre River. The applicants noted this not only would be in direct violation of applicable codes and regulations, but it is counter to the goals and mission of the project. 10. Question: (Citizen) Who will manage the open space? Answer: (Applicant) The Homeowners’ Association. 11. Question: (Citizen) Will pets be allowed? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, pets will be allowed. Additional comments were made regarding concerns with attacks on livestock and that the dogs will use the trail as a highway. 12. Comment: (Citizen) This project looks much better than the trailer park. 13. Question: (Citizen) Are you keeping any of the buildings? Answer: (Applicant) No, as of right now, we are planning on removing all the existing buildings. 14. Question: (Citizen) Are people still living at the site? Answer: (Applicant) There are two residents still living at the site. 15. Comment: (Citizen) I foresee a conflict between building R1 and my stables. Answer: (Applicant) Can we meet out on the site and discuss this? Citizen: Yes. We need a buffer along that edge. 16. Question: (Citizen) Do you have the data for the number of users on the Poudre Trail in this area? I saw it in a report from Natural Areas. The beach in this area is quite popular. Answer: (City) Made the suggestion of talking to HOA’s in similar situations, e.g., those on the Spring Creek trail to see if there are similar issues and how they’ve addressed them. Follow-up: Staff obtained trail use data on the Poudre River trail from 2006-2011. At Lee Martinez Park, the data at Lee Martinez Park ranged from a low of 220 individuals on May 15 th , 2010 to a high of 1374 individuals on August 2 nd , 2009. The average number of users (based on 29, 24-hour periods) was 567.7 individuals and the median number of users was 472. 17. Question: (Citizen) Are you going to have re-plumb the entire site? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, the existing septic and leach field will be removed and all future sewer will be tied into the city sewer main. 18. Question: (Citizen) Regarding the lake view homes, did the Nauta owners give you permission to access the site? View the lake? Answer: (Applicant) We believe we have their permission to view the lake, but we are working on the access question. ATTACHMENT 10 3 19. Question: (Citizen) Pateros Creek proposes to encroach over and into the Poudre River landscape buffer zone (see comment #4 from the attached letter). Answer: (City Staff) Only a decision maker can establish the buffer zone. Staff explained that there are two ways to meet the buffer zone standard – either quantitatively (through the 300’ standard) or qualitatively (though the nine performance standards outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. (Applicant) It was stated that a main objective of both the code and the project design is to protect the areas of highest quality habitat. The current concept plan has a minimum buffer width of 200’ to the rear lot lines in the area of lowest quality habitat (with approximately 20-40’ to the rear of the house), and a maximum buffer width of over 600’ in the area of the highest quality habitat. The average buffer width for the entire project is over 350’. This is without even getting into detail on the aforementioned performance standards, nor the additional restoration and enhancement efforts that the 6 additional dwelling units would afford. As a follow-up, the applicant informed City staff that a 300’ buffer would provide 7.6 acres of Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, and that the proposed buffer area for this project is 8.2 acres. 20. Question: (Citizen) Do you have water rights to Arthur’s Ditch? Where does the water come from? How does the pond stay full? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, we have water rights and an adjudicated well. We know the water comes from the west side of Wood Street but haven’t followed it along its entire length. The pond stays full from an outfall from the Nauta Pond. We could use the ditch water for the orchards. 21. Question: (Citizen) Can you explain the need for a modification of standard regarding density? (See attached letter, comment #1). Answer: (Applicant) We believe we are exceeding the open space requirement and the development meets the net density standard. Prior to this redevelopment, there were 45 mobile homes present and 49 lots for mobile homes. With the additional density, more restoration and amenities can be provided and there can be a fund established for long-term maintenance. If they didn’t receive the modification of standard, they would remove some of the cottage lots in the center of the project but the overall development size would remain the same. We, the applicants, feel we can meet more City Plan objectives with the modification of standard. 22. Question: (Citizen) If the mobile home park were to annex, would it have been allowed to remain? Answer: (City staff) If the site were to annex, it would be grandfathered in as a legal, nonconforming use, which means that they would be allowed to replace mobile homes with other mobile homes but couldn’t expand the number of homes (see Division 1.5 of the Land Use Code for more information). 23. Question: How long will construction take? Answer: (Applicant) Site preparation will take six months or less, give or take, and include the sewer, streets, and water lines. It is hard to foresee how long home construction will take. ATTACHMENT 10 4 24. Comment: (Citizen) I am concerned about the timing of the City dump trucks who come to and from the facility building early on Sunday mornings disturbing the new residents. 25. Question: (Citizen) Are extra occupancy rental units allowed in this zone district? Answer: (City staff) No, there would have to be an “Addition of Permitted Use” (See Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code for more information). 26. Comment: (Citizen) Pateros Creek filled in the floodplain on the property using standards that don’t meet City Code (see comment #2 in attached letter) Answer: (City staff) This comment has been discussed quite a bit throughout the annexation process. It has been determined by staff that the floodplain requirements, outlined in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, do not apply until the time of annexation. There are portions of the property that are still in the floodplain and will be subject to Chapter 10 requirements upon annexation. (Applicant): The portion of the previous flood fringe that was filled under County and FEMA oversight satisfied all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. The applicant believes that nothing about the act of fill placement itself would be any different or “more safe” had the property been within City limits at the time. 27. Comment: (Citizen) The Ecological Characterization Study provided is not adequate (see comment #6 in attached letter). Answer: (City staff) Staff has discussed with Save the Poudre that a draft ECS has been provided but still needs revisions. It is expected these revisions will be provided at the time of PDP submittal. 28. Question: (Citizen) Will you be putting in large trees? Will it look like your graphics? Answer: (Applicant) There will be a significant transplant effort to preserve as many existing large trees as possible. Additionally, a survey of the existing trees has been completed and the site has been designed in a way to maintain as many existing trees as possible. 29. Question: (Citizen) Will the trees all be on a drip system? Answer: (Applicant) Drip will be used around the houses, but not in the park strip. 30. Question: (Citizen) When do you estimate full buildout? Answer: (Applicant) Not certain but based on the current market demand it could be fairly quickly. 31. Question: (Citizen) Can you confirm there will be no stormwater runoff from this project going toward Wood Street? Answer: (Applicant) The site’s natural drainage pattern is east, northeast. Some flow may occur on Wood Street, but the site is designed to drain east. 32. Question: (Citizen) Do you have consultants addressing the history of the site? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, we have hired a historian. ATTACHMENT 10 5 33. Question: (Citizen) Can you simultaneously have a Modification of Standard and a Project Development Plan going through the process? Answer: (City staff) Yes, although if the PDP depends on the modification, and the modification is stand-alone, the PDP could not go to hearing until the Modification of Standard is approved or the plan is adjusted so that a modification is not needed.. 34. Question: (Citizen) Can modifications be appealed to Council? Answer: (City staff) Yes. 35. Question: (Citizen) Will the trails be open to the public? Answer: (Applicant) Right now, yes. ATTACHMENT 10 ITEM NO ______4____________ MEETING DATE ____6/20/13_________ STAFF ____SHEPARD______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 2013 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: There are 26 proposed items that change, clarify or add to the Land Use Code. The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows: • Article One – Organization – one change; • Article Two – Administration –four changes; • Article Three - General Development Standards – nine changes; • Article Four – Districts – seven changes; • Article Five – Definitions – five changes. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Policy Discussion June 20, 2013 I. Purpose of the Discussion The Planning and Zoning Board has asked for a policy discussion on the Addition of a Permitted Use process. This paper provides background and information of the development of the standard – Land Use Code Section 1.3.4. The intent is to facilitate a Board Discussion and to gain an understanding of the Board’s concerns. II. Overview and Summary The Addition of a Permitted Use process was adopted in order to introduce a measure of flexibility on a parcel specific basis subject to the requirements of a Type Two review. Without such a tool, the only options for evaluating a potential land use that was not codified as a permitted use was to either rezone the parcel or add a text amendment to the existing zone district. For both of these options, the result would have ramifications a zone district-wide or city-wide basis and not be limited to the individual parcel. The process invites citizen participation and an analysis of impact mitigation. The concept was established in the original version of the Land Use Code in 1997 and expanded in 2008. III. Summary of Addition of Permitted Use Standards 1. Chronological History of the Standard – Section 1.3.4: 1997: Section 1.3.4 is titled Addition of Permitted Uses and was part of the original Land Use Code that was adopted in March of 1997. The original intent of this section was to address development applications which included land uses that were never foreseen or considered for inclusion into the Land Use Code and were not found in any of the permitted use lists in Article Four. Unlike certain land uses that were considered but rejected as being Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 2 June 20, 2013 inappropriate within the City, such as campgrounds, the standard was meant to address uses that were simply never considered. The original standard allowed the Director to allow a specific use on an individual property based on review criteria. Staff was then obligated to bring forward a code change that would address the omission of this particular use. There are two early examples of how the original standard was implemented. First, Non-alcoholic Nightclub was authorized by the Director as an allowable use in the Downtown zone. The remedy was to broaden the definition of nightclub in Article Five. Second, Wildlife Rescue and Education Center was allowed in a project in the Industrial zone. The remedy was to add this use to eight zones in Article Four. 1998: A request was received to add a use to a parcel in one particular zone but in this case, the use was already listed in the Land Use Code as a permitted use but in other zone districts. This request brought attention to the fact that the existing code language was not as clear as was intended. A code revision was adopted clarifying the original intent with the following: “Such use is not specifically listed as a “Permitted Use” in Article 4. (See Section 2.3.3 for the procedures for text amendments.)” 2000: A code revision was approved because the cross-reference in the 1998 change was incorrect. The correct cross reference to text amendments is not 2.3.3 but 2.9. 2008: This was the major change to this Section. The fundamental change was to allow for an Addition of a Permitted use that could be added to parcel even though the use was recognized and included in other zones as permitted uses in Article Four. The reason was to allow consideration of a use that could be appropriate for a specific site in a given development plan based on unique circumstances. There had been a number of situations where a rezoning would be inappropriate due to location or parcel size. And, it would have been inappropriate to add the use to the zone as a text amendment. A text amendment was considered too broad an approach as it would allow the use not only on the subject parcel but on a zone district-wide basis city-wide. This change to Section 1.3.4 was intended to require that such an addition could not be approved by the Director but only by the Planning and Zoning Board. Finally, additional review criteria were added by which such a request would be considered. Since July of 2008, 17 applications have been made under this provision. 2 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 3 June 20, 2013 2009: A concern was raised about the vagueness of the standard. At that time the standard stated that a request for an Addition of Permitted Use must be submitted “in conjunction with a particular development proposal and upon application by the applicant.” A technical clarification was made and the clause “a particular development proposal” was deleted and replaced by the following specific applications: • Overall Development Plan • Basic Development Review • Project Development Plan • Final Plan • Major or Minor Amendment to any of the above. 2010: Section 1.3.4 is now a provision that authorizes either the Director to add a use per the original intent or the P & Z Board to add a use under the major 2008 change. A Director’s action must be followed up with consideration of a code remedy such as revising an existing definition or adding the use to one or more zones in Article Four. A P & Z action, however, does not require such a follow- up. This is because the whole premise is that the use has been deemed appropriate for a specific parcel based on the particular attributes of that parcel. The code revision at this time made a clear distinction between the functions of the Director and the Planning and Zoning Board, and clarified that a use added by the Board does not have to be considered for adoption into the zone district on a city-wide basis but remains specific only to the subject property. 2. July, 2008 – Summary of the Major Change (Excepted from 2008 Staff Memo): Item 795 Amend 1.3.4(A) – Addition of a Permitted Use – to allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1. Problem Statement The Land Use Code contains 25 zone districts. Each zone contains a list of permitted uses. Further, each zone district states: “Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited.” 3 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 4 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) Prescribing certain land uses to each of the 25 zone districts was designed to implement the vision of the City Plan and the Structure Plan Map. In addition, this high degree of specificity was intended to bring a measure of extra predictability to the land use regulatory system. While the Land Use Code moved the regulatory system further along the predictability scale, there is a concern that such predictability came at the expense of flexibility and did not consider emerging new uses or changing market conditions over the life of developed properties. Presently, Section 1.3.4 can only add uses that were not contemplated by the L.U.C. Very few land uses have been added by way of Section 1.3.4. By way of example, non-alcoholic nightclubs were added to the Downtown zone, and wildlife rescue and education center was added to eight zone districts. Staff contends that introducing flexibility, on a limited basis via the Addition of a Permitted Use, does not come at the expense of predictability. In other words, the balance between predictability and flexibility is not a zero sum game. With a Type Two review process and compatibility and operational standards in Article Three, plus any specific conditions related to the individual P.D.P. applicant, there are sufficient safeguards to mitigate any impacts and protect surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, many towns and cities throughout the region have adopted a Special Use/Conditional Use Permit process to allow for unforeseen, unique variables in certain circumstances, while still protecting the public good. It has been Staff’s experience that introducing a level of flexibility on a limited parcel-by-parcel basis will not undermine the overall objectives of City Plan and the Structure Plan Map. The Addition of a Permitted Use provision will allow the Planning and Zoning Board to address site specific issues that may make a certain land use appropriate with given circumstances and limitations. For example, Staff has encountered proposals involving houses situated on arterial streets in the L-M-N zone. Proposals have involved small businesses that may fit the specific property but are not appropriate to simply allow throughout the zone district. The Addition of a Permitted Use would reduce the all-or-nothing choice of either rezoning to a commercial zone or denying the request. Once a re-zoning occurs and a use is permitted, any further conditions on the land use is considered inappropriate. One of the fundamental attributes of City Plan is to promote a mix of uses in newly developing areas, and to strategically allow certain mixed-uses to be 4 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 5 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) added into existing established areas. Calibrating the precise recipe of these mixes, however, is more art than science. Staff’s experience suggests that different degrees of intensity within use categories may warrant additional uses to be allowed in the mix, with limits on intensity tailored to the specific site, and without setting a precedent for any other situations. Staff contends this can be accommodated without any serious detriment to overall community vision and goals. Staff has discussed the following guiding principles: • New uses that add a level of intensity near residential neighborhoods will be limited to transition areas or along arterial and collector streets. • New uses that are permitted will be for site specific properties only and not be considered approved for that zone district on a city-wide basis nor considered a precedent on which to base future decisions. • Any violations of an Addition of a Permitted Use are subject to standard enforcement procedures on par with a zoning violation. • An Addition of a Permitted Use may only be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. • As is presently the case, the Planning and Zoning Board may impose conditions on a P.D.P as may be found to be necessary. • For example, these limitations are enumerated in (but not limited to) Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition, Section 3.5.1(I) – Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment and Section 3.5.1(J) – Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. • An Addition of a Permitted Use may run with the property, not any one specific owner/applicant, but any expansions or changes are subject to further review. • This process will allow commercial properties in the Southwest Annexation a degree of flexibility in finding practical uses as the area transitions from unincorporated Larimer County to City of Fort Collins. 5 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 6 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) Examples of Potential Properties Several properties have been brought to Staff’s attention where the proposed land uses do not necessarily match the permitted use list for the affected zone. A cursory review of these properties, and their prospective land uses, does not lead us to conclude that the overall vision of City Plan would be jeopardized. This list is by way of example and not intended to be exhaustive: • 1225 Redwood (New Beginnings, Wingshadow) Originally constructed for 30-day drug and alcohol treatment, this building includes residential wings, commercial kitchen, large meeting rooms, ample parking and offices. Over the years, various uses have come and gone, including group home, child care and a small private high school. This building will continue to attract various public/private institutional type land uses. • 421 Parker (Columbine Care Center) Originally constructed as a large nursing home, this vacant building is zoned L-M-N and is attracting a variety of uses that are either not permitted in the zone or permitted but exceed maximum allowable number of clients. • 5009 Fossil Boulevard Originally constructed for a wholesale distributor, the soon-to-be vacant building features dock-high loading, high-rack storage, and an ample indoor floor area for bulky goods. Wholesale distribution and light industrial, however, are not permitted in the zone. • 4800 Innovation Drive Originally constructed for sheet metal contractor, this building includes a large shop area, outside enclosed storage for material and overnight truck parking and a small office. The parcel backs up to the railroad tracks. A recent wholesale distributor was denied use of the building due to the use not being permitted in the zone. • 315 West Harmony Road Originally constructed as a large single family detached home, this structure sits on nine acres and includes a 1,700 square foot office. And yet the parcel abuts the railroad tracks and a South College Avenue 6 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 7 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) shopping center. Several proposals have been brought forward that slightly exceed the Home Occupation limits and do not match the zoning. • 4101 South Taft Hill Road This older, small single family detached home fronts on South Taft Hill Road. But, due to the re-alignment of West Harmony Road, this parcel now finds itself at the southwest corner of two arterials. A mom and pop bicycle repair shop was denied due to underlying residential zoning. • 921 East Prospect Road This property includes a house that fronts on Prospect Road and a large shop. The original owner resided in the house and operated a machine shop. Upon the death of the owner, the house became an office and the shop transitioned to a small company that restores houses after floods, fires, etc. Under today’s Land Use Code, however, both uses would not be permitted. • 706 East Stuart Street Originally constructed as a single family home by a photographer operating as a home occupation, this structure has transitioned to a variety of non-owner occupied, non-residential uses. The large structure has ample off-street parking. Again, under today’s Land Use Code, the only permissible use would be as a residence with a home occupation. In these examples, land uses were proposed that seemed reasonable, market-driven, with few impacts but not allowed in the zone district. Further, re-zoning of individual parcels did not make sense either to avoid spot zoning, or because rezoning would open up a whole new set of uses and standards inappropriate to the site. The proposed revision would provide for a reasonable approach that would allow properties with unique attributes to be considered for specific land uses subject to conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed provision would allow existing buildings to adapt to changing market conditions over the life of the structure. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend Sections 1.3.4; 2.11 and 3.5.1 in order to create a process by which a use can be added to zone but only for a specific parcel, potentially subject to conditions and subject to Type Two review. 7 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 8 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (A) Required Findings. In conjunction with a particular development proposal and upon application by the applicant or on the Director's own initiative, the Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board as specifically authorized in subparagraphs (5) and (6) below) may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all of the following conditions: (1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added; (2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added; (3) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added; (4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added; (5) Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the zone district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the proposed use shall be specific to the proposed site, shall not be considered for a text amendment under paragraph (B) below, and shall be specifically found by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; (6) Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 or if such use is not specifically listed, the proposed such shall be specific to the proposed site, shall not be considered for a text amendment under paragraph (B) below, and shall be specifically found by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1. (See Section 2.9 for the procedures for text amendments.) (B) Codification of New Use. When any use has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this Section, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Land Use Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Land Use Code at the first convenient opportunity, by 8 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 9 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under (A), above. (C) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board, if applicable) may impose such conditions and requirements on such use as are necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Land Use Code, to ensure consistency with City Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, to prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses. Amend Section 2.11.1(B)(1) to read as follows: (B) Applicability. This Division shall apply to appeals from an administrative decision regarding the interpretation and/or application of the land use regulations which preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the following administrative decisions made under this Land Use Code, provided such administrative decision is not for approval, approval with conditions, or denial either of a project development plan or a final plan pursuant to Divisions 2.4 or 2.5 or of an administrative amendment/abandonment of any such plan or of any plan approved under prior law, processed pursuant to Section 2.2.10 (Step 10): (1) Addition of a Permitted Use by Director (but not by Planning and Zoning Board) under Section 1.3.4; Amend Section 3.5.1(A) to read as follows: 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to “developments”, “the development plan”, “buildings”, and other similar terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under Section 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an additional use. 9 Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion Page 10 June 20, 2013 (Excerpt Continued) For each zone district: (C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. 3. Next Steps / Further Discussion: The information provided in this memorandum is intended to provide a detailed background on which to base further discussion. If the Planning and Zoning would like any additional research, Staff can provide further information. Staff looks forward to the Board’s discussion as this policy discussion moves forward. 4. Summary list of all applications. Please see attached. 10 Addition of Permitted Use The following uses were authorized by the Director: 1. Non-Alcoholic Nightclub was added to the D, Downtown zone, Old City Center sub-district. 2. Wildlife Rescue and Education Center was added to the I, Industrial zone. 3. Campus Employment was added to the C-C-R, Community Commercial Poudre River zone. The A.P.U. process was amended in July of 2008 to authorize the Planning and Zoning Board to consider an A.P.U. To date, we have processed the following requests: 1. Wholesale Distribution - 4800 Innovation Drive (existing building, formerly Simpson Sheet Metal) in the H-C, Harmony Corridor zone. This was in conjunction with an Amendment to a Final Plan. Approved. 2. Restaurant, Drive-in and Gas station – North College Shopping Center (King Soopers) at the northeast corner of North College and Willox Lane in the C-C-N, Community Commercial - North College zone. This was in conjunction with a Preliminary Design Review. Approved with conditions. 3. Workshop and Custom Small Industry - 525 South Taft Hill Road (existing building, formerly Atlas Roofing) in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood zone. This was in conjunction with an Amendment to a Final Plan (Atlas Roofing P.U.D.). Approved with condition. 4. Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage to a property located one lot east of the southeast corner of South College Avenue and Skyway Drive, located in the CG, General Commercial zone. (Formerly in the County and annexed as part of the Southwest Enclave.) Denied. This was in conjunction with a P.D.P. Then after the adoption of the South College Corridor Plan, the request was re-submitted and approved. 5. Warehouse and Public Facility to the Poudre School District property on East Prospect Road in the U-E, Urban Estate zone. This was in conjunction with an Overall Development Plan. Denied. 6. Unlimited Indoor Recreation – Rocky Mountain Archery in the H-C, Harmony Corridor zone. Since the building exceeded 5,000 square feet, it was then defined as “unlimited.” Submitted with P.D.P. Approved. 1 7. Professional Office and Bed and Breakfast with Six or Fewer Beds – 1124 West Mulberry at the northeast corner of Mulberry and Shields, existing building was occupied by State Farm Insurance in the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone. Approved with condition that there be no exterior changes. 8. Light Industrial to the former Toys R Us building at 120 Bockman Drive, zoned C-G, General Commercial, to allow Ice Energy to occupy the building specifically for research, design, development, prototype fabrication and testing in association with an office component in conjunction with a referral of Minor Amendment to the P.U.D. Approved. 9. Professional Office to 616 W. Mulberry, zoned N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. This was done in conjunction with a Minor Amendment. (Currently the Sheldon House Bed and Breakfast.) Denied. 10. Child Care Center to former Poudre School District Washington Elementary School, zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. This was done in conjunction with a Site Plan Advisory Review by C.S.U. Approved. 11. Light Industrial to 220 East Olive Street (northwest corner of East Olive Street and Matthews Street), zone N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. Request to convert an existing building from office to micro- brewery, or micro-distillery or micro-winery. This item had two neighborhood meetings and then withdrawn. 12. Professional Office and Agricultural Activities were added to the area of the Bucking Horse O.D.P. that is zoned Urban Estate. Approved with condition. Multi-family was added to the area of the Bucking Horse O.D.P. that is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Approved with condition. Retail, Standard Restaurant, Farmers Market, Agricultural Activities and Single Family Detached Dwellings were added to the area of Bucking Horse O.D.P. that is zoned Industrial. Approved with conditions. (Bucking Horse O.D.P. included a total of eight new uses distributed across three zone districts but are counted as one for the purpose of this list.) 13. Professional Office at 1008 Mantz Court was added to allow a professional office use within an existing single family detached home in association with the adjoining place of worship that is zoned N-C-L, 2 Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Approved with the condition that there be no exterior alterations and in conjunction with a P.D.P. 14. Multi-family request to be added the Christ Center Community Church property at the southeast corner of Drake and Lemay, 175 dwelling units on 11 acres (on a 25-acre church campus) located in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone. This item was submitted in conjunction with a P.D.P. and was approved by P & Z then denied by City Council. 15. Dwelling, Single Family Attached was added to the historic McIntyre House at 137 and 143 Mathews Street in the N-C-B and done in conjunction with a P.D.P. Approved. 16. Retail Store with Vehicle Servicing to the C-C-N, Community Commercial – North College zone at the North College shopping center in conjunction with a P.D.P. Approved with conditions. 17. Convenience Retail Store applied for inclusion into the D, Downtown zone, Canyon Avenue Sub-district, at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Magnolia Street. Denied. Summary of the 17 applications presented to P & Z Board: Approved 7 Approved with Conditions 5 Denied 4 Withdrawn 1 Summary of all applications by Zone District (including the eight in Bucking Horse O.D.P.) – total of 27 uses in 11 zone districts: U-E Urban Estate 3 R-L Low Density Residential 1 L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 2 N-C-L Neighborhood Conservation Low Density 3 N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation Buffer 3 D Downtown 2 C-C-N Community Commercial North College 2 C-C-R Community Commercial Poudre River 1 C-G, General Commercial 2 H-C Harmony Corridor 2 I Industrial 6 3 Addition of Permitted Use Public Comments Compiled for the Planning and Zoning Board June 20 Regular Meeting Paul Patterson (Neighbor of Regency Lakeview proposal) Statement read during Public Comment at City Council on December 18, 2012 My wife, Kathryn Dubiel, and I were involved in the appeal of the Regency Development request for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). Based on our experience, we think the APU is vaguely defined and reasonable people can come to very different conclusions on its application. We request the City Council review the APU section of the Land Use Code. Let me be specific on a couple items. A Purpose section should be added to the APU that details the intended uses of the APU. Since the APU section of the code has been amended several times since 1998, this will entail a review of both the City Staff discussion notes and City Council agenda notes. Currently we have been unable to do this for many of the amendments to the APU section. The prohibited uses for most zoning district are given as those not listed as approved,…with the exception that those approved under the APU process are OK. Given the vagueness within the APU we think explicit prohibited uses should be added for zoning districts. It seems reasonable that these prohibited uses would be based on characteristics such as density, building attributes, and other such clearly defined attributes. We also request that the City Council suspend the APU process until the suggested review is conducted. Thank-you for considering my comments. Andy Lewis (Neighbor of Regency Lakeview) Notes from meeting with Sarah Burnett on November 29, 2012 (Mr. Lewis has reviewed these notes and said they capture his concerns.) Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) • Believes purpose/intent of APU is not being followed, and that P&Z/Council should ask: what use did we intend for it to have? • Believes it was intended for minor changes; has reviewed examples given when APU LUC changes were being discussed, and they were more for different uses of existing buildings, rather than large new projects. • Felt staff used the most extreme examples (rather than typical patterns) of what uses were permitted in an RL district and traffic in an RL district to justify the additional traffic • Asks: how do you define compatibility/character of a zone? • Believes that Regency/Lakeview would have been precedent-setting, and that a church could close doors and seek another use entirely for their property through APU. Mark Kenning (Neighbor of Regency Lakeview) Statement read during Public Comment at Planning and Zoning Board Meeting on August 15, 2012 1 At that work session…City staff went through their reasoning for recommending both the APU and PDP. They suggested what we thought were irrelevant things, (like you visit other places where medium density abuts single-family homes which had nothing to do with the validity of the APU process); they downplayed or ignored things we thought were important (that under APU rules, alternate development MUST not create ANY greater negative impacts than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted used listed in the zone district). The here’s the thing: there was no format for anyone outside city staff to point these things out to you, nor to offer reasons why you maybe should not approve the APU or PDP. And that’s the crux of our frustration: we think you only heard one side. And it only got worse at the public meeting July 19. …while you the board freely dialogued with city staff and the applicant, none of you ever asked a question of any of the citizens opposing the APU. Yet I know you were listening, because we made a point about the LUC forbidding use of an APU to approve a prohibited use in a zoning district, and you later asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain how you should interpret that. Original Request From: Michelle Haefele Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:43 AM To: City Leaders Cc: Laurie Kadrich Subject: APU in Single Family Residential Neighborhoods Date: October 2, 2012 To: City Council, City Leaders From: Michelle Haefele, 623 Monte Vista Ave RE: Addition of a Permitted Use in Single Family Residential Zones I am writing to ask the City Council to enact an ordinance which would discontinue the use of the “Addition of a Permitted Use” (APU) in single family residential zones. The APU is itself inappropriate, process is unfairly rigged to favor developers, citizen input is essentially ignored, and access to information on the process and specific projects is difficult, if not impossible to obtain. While I understand that there might be some circumstances where an APU is a useful tool (allowing additional industrial uses in industrial or commercial zones for example), it is not appropriate in residential zones. The permanent conversion from single family residential to commercial or multi-family property destroys the protection for single family residential zoning (which is the most important function of zoning). Allowing individual property owners to essentially “rezone” their property without going through the rezoning process has two effects – it gives these property owners an unearned windfall (all such requests are for conversions to higher valued uses) and it reduces the property values for the remaining homeowners. I have heard repeated assertions that an APU is not spot rezoning, but the permanence of these changes has the identical effect on the remaining residential property owners. It is patently unfair for someone who owns single family residential property to ever expect to simply convert it to a more lucrative use. This is essentially an end-run around the zoning, making zoning irrelevant. As a homeowner we expect the city to protect our residential property values and quality of life. This process destroys that trust. In the last three years, we have had two houses converted to offices in our neighborhood (both within two blocks of our home). Throughout the city there have been other such conversions, as well as APUs converting single family residential to multi-family residential. These conversions destroy the protection that zoning is supposed to give single family homes. 2 It is unfortunate that planners refer to conversions from single family residential to multi-family, commercial, industrial, etc. as “up zoning.” It would be more appropriate to view single family neighborhoods as the pinnacle of zoning, the most sacrosanct zone, rather than the least valuable. Our homes are, for most of us, the biggest investment we will ever make. It is an outrage that our city planning department colludes with would-be developers to enrich these developers at the expense of the rest of us. Furthermore, the process whereby city planners cooperate with developers to make a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board is unfair. Citizens speaking against these conversions are given only limited time to speak (often only three minutes). Following citizen input, the city staff (whose salaries are paid for by these very citizens) confer with the developer to make a rebuttal presentation to the P&Z Board. Citizens are never given any additional opportunity to speak. In one case it is clear from the email messages included in the public record that city planners had apparently actually solicited supportive comments from the developer. This is unacceptable, the city planners should be working for all residents of Fort Collins and not working to force through such objectionable projects. Making matters worse, citizens who attempt to educate themselves about the actions of the Current Planning Department are thwarted by a lack of transparency and publically accessible documents and information. I have been requesting a major revision of the way that the Current Planning Department informs the residents of Fort Collins about their activities since at least November of 2011 (almost a year now), to no avail. The only response that I, and others making this request, have received, are assurances that “we are working on it.” This is unacceptable. This information should be made available on-line, organized by address and project name. An interested citizen should be able to go to the page or portion of the website pertaining to a specific project (denoted by address) and find all meeting dates, agendas, minutes, staff reports, staff notes of meetings with applicants/developers and any other documents that pertain to the project starting from the minute that project comes into the Current Planning Department’s office. Again, this information should be organized by address/project. Right now bits and pieces of any given project may or may not be found in various locations on the Current Planning website, under categories such as the wildly out-of-date “current planning” list, the neighborhood meetings, hearing agendas (which are organized by date) and conceptual review (again, organized by date). None of the minutes from any of these meetings are ever available (or at least not in any obvious way). It is virtually impossible to keep up with all the development actions going on in the city. The new yellow signs, replacing the old green ones are an insult not an improvement. As before, after seeing a sign while away from home, one still has to remember an address (or a project number) and call the planning department. In one case in our neighborhood, we called and were emailed a document that had not been made available to the public, but one which contained considerable information about the project and which should have been readily available. This department has the potential to inflict considerable negative impacts on city residents, especially in single family neighborhoods (as has been the case in our neighborhood). Knowing this, a diligent homeowner has to dig through often out of date lists of several types of meetings, actions, and decisions on the completely convoluted website. There is no place where all the actions (including those of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning and Zoning Board) are compiled BY ADDRESS. Furthermore notes from the various meetings are not made available on the website and are only rarely emailed to those who attend neighborhood meetings. In a wholly inadequate response to this request the department now sends out an email which simply directs the reader right back to the torturous, out-of-date, incomplete Department website. 3 I am requesting that a complete listing by address of all actions occurring on a property be compiled in one place (by project and address). This information should be updated at least weekly. The “current projects” document that is available on the city website is ridiculously out of date. Several projects with which I am familiar are listed but they include out of date information (some as old as several months even though new actions have been taken). I am asking that this department make this radical change in the transparency of their actions because they have the potential to radically alter our property values and quality of life with decisions that are often made solely by city planning staff in very generous cooperation with developers. Even in cases where the final decision rests with the Planning and Zoning Board, there are almost no examples where the Board has rejected a proposal that city planning staff have recommended – in many cases despite overwhelming opposition from residents of the affected neighborhoods. Finally, recent attempts at reform have included increased neighborhood meetings. However the input from neighbors at these meetings does not, in most cases, make it into final proposals. In the end neighbors are burdened with additional meetings, but with no actual beneficial outcome. Input from residents must be taken into account. I feel that being fully informed of every project – including all the staff reports, documents filed by applicants, meeting minutes (including “internal” meetings between city staff and applicants) would give citizens at least some ammunition in what has begun to look like a losing battle between our own city staff and the residents they are supposed to serve. Sincerely, Michelle Haefele From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:39 AM To: Gerry Horak Gerry, Please see the following response from Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director, re: your request for an update concerning Michelle Haefele’s email below: _____ This issue has come up previously by Michelle and others. Those concerns were shared with Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison, shortly after she was hired and, since that time, Sarah has been contacting citizens directly and summarizing their collective concerns for review by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board. We are scheduled to meet with them next week. The following is information directly from Sarah as to what will be shared with the Board: This use of APU is one of the issues that has come forward from several citizens, and is included in the list of concerns to discuss with P&Z at a future work session (which will be scheduled at the December 14 work session). I have spoken with Michelle previously about the pending improvements to the website. Summary of comments from Michelle and others include: • Believes purpose/intent of APU is not being followed, and that P&Z/Council should ask: What use did we intend for it to have? • Believes it was intended for minor changes; has reviewed examples given when APU LUC changes were being discussed. 4 • Feels staff used the most extreme examples (rather than average patterns) of what uses were permitted in an RL district and traffic in an RL district to justify the additional traffic. • Asks: How do you define compatibility/character of a zone? • Believes that Regency/Lakeview would have been precedent-setting, and that a church could close doors and seek another use entirely for their property through APU. • Concerned about APU in RL district – since rezoning difficult to get through, staff is recommending APU instead (staff asserts it is not spot rezoning). • Believes APU grants windfall to property with APU, while adversely impacting neighboring property values. • Believes that maintaining residential zoning is not a priority of planning staff, and therefore recommendations to decision makers reflect that priority. • Feels concerns were downplayed or ignored (in APU, alternate development must not create any greater negative impacts than other permitted uses, but neighbors believed outlier examples were used instead of typical RL patterns). This is from a different person than second bullet point above. • Suggestion: examine reasons for establishing APU. Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Discussions • Board discussions have included whether APU should be used for new development as well as new uses for existing structures. At least one former Board member has questioned the use of APU for new development. 5 55% of buffer length. Average buffer width would be ~ 355 feet due to extensive buffer at east end of site. All areas of higher quality riparian habitat would be preserved. Yes With one exception. Buffer from higher quality riparian habitat would be maintained in excess of 50 feet at ~ 80 to 200 feet. A 50-foot buffer would be maintained for all wetlands except the 7 low quality, remnant ditch wetlands would be lost to development. Wetland losses would be mitigated by development of the forebay wetland and expansion of the wetland pond complex at the southeast property corner. Yes Loss of significant landscape trees would be similar to Alternative A. No native riparian trees would be lost. Losses of significant trees would be mitigated with tree plantings in the buffer zone. Yes 1 The decision maker can modify the buffer zone standards as long as overall project design meets the performance standards described under Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENT 6 OLIVE GREEN, RUST RED OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ALUM. CLAD WD., FIBERGLASS OR VINYL WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES AND DBL. INSUL. GLAZING - WHITE, GRAY, DARK RED, BLACK OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ARCHITECTURAL PROFILE ASPHALT SHINGLE - WEATHERED WOOD OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS STONE VENEER - BUFF OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE FASCIA BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS WOOD COLUMN AND TRIM - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS WOOD RAILING - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS WOOD COLUMN AND TRIM - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS WOOD RAILING - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE LAP SIDING - PAINT WARM GRAY, OLIVE GREEN, RUST RED OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ALUM. CLAD WD., FIBERGLASS OR VINYL WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES AND DBL. INSUL. GLAZING - WHITE, GRAY, DARK RED, BLACK OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS ARCHITECTURAL PROFILE ASPHALT SHINGLE - WEATHERED WOOD OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS CEMENT FIBER SMOOTH TEXTURE FASCIA BOARDS - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS WOOD COLUMN AND TRIM - PAINT WHITE, CREAM, GRAY OR OTHER APPROVED COLOR PER THE PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS NOTE: 1. ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT BUILDING SURFACE OR SCREENED. 2. ALL ROOF VENTS AND OTHER PENETRATIONS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ROOFING COLOR. 3. THE PROJECT MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF THREE DISTINCT HOUSE DESIGN TYPES ALTHOUGH MINOR MATERIAL CHANGES ARE ALLOWED TO BE APPROVED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS 4. THESE CHARACTER BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE TO ILLUSTATE THE DESIGN INTENT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. 05/08/13 ATTACHMENT 4 S t o n e h e n g e D r Osage St Apex Dr Commanche Dr C h e r o k e e D r R o b e r t s o n S t H i a w a t h a C t Iroquois Dr L u k e S t Amherst St Sequoia St Ouray Ct Solstice Ln Y ount S t Shawnee Ct W e l c h S t P a t t o n S t Ni a g a r a D r Emigh St Apache Ct C h i ppewa Ct H eather w o o d L n Cambridge Dr Brookh a v e n Cir W Bear Ct Avery Ct Brumal Ct Niagara Ct Osprey Ct Stoney Hill Ct W e l ch St E Stuart St Broo k w ood D r Welch St Parkwood Dr Col u m b i a R d Parkwood Dr S Lemay Ave E Prospect Rd © Ridgeview 1900 Classical South School Lemay Expansion Conversion of Little Bears Child Care 1 inch = 500 feet Site