No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final V4 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, November 21, 2013 TIME: 5:00 P.M. (NOTE EARLIER START) PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, November 21, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) # SPA130004 This is a request to develop a new 404 space surface parking lot on the property directly south of the existing Front Range Community College (FRCC), Larimer Campus. The parking lot is to be constructed in two phases: phase one will be 250 spaces to replace those lost with the development of a new building (Planning & Zoning will review the integrated Technology Building SPAR on December 19, 2013). Phase two will be constructed if and when new funding becomes available for new facilities. Applicant: Front Range Communtiy College, Larimer Campus, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Staff: Seth Lorson 2. Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan, # FDP130040 This is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaurant building will be removed and replaced with a 10,517 square foot retail building. The site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Applicant: Bryan McFarland, Alberta Development Parners, 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Staff: Courtney Levingston 1 E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 3. Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, #PDP130030 This is a request for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing located at an undeveloped parcel at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. The project includes 60 multi-family dwelling units with a proposed purpose to provide housing for adult men and women. The site is within the General Commercial District (C-G), and is also within boundaries of the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) and the South College Corridor Plan. Applicant: Fort Collins Housing Authority, 1715 W. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins,CO 80521 Staff: Jason Holland F. Other Business 4. 2014 Planning & Zoning Board Work Plan G. Adjourn 2 ITEM NO _______1_________ MEETING DATE _November 21, 2013 STAFF __Seth Lorson_____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot – 4616 South Shields Street - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130004 APPLICANT: Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a new 404 space surface parking lot on the property directly south of the existing Front Range Community College (FRCC), Larimer Campus. FRCC is proposing the parking lot to accommodate parking demand from the existing overcrowded facility. The parking lot is to be constructed in two phases: phase one will be 250 spaces to replace those lost with the development of a new building (Specifically, FRCC plans to develop a new Integrated Technology Building [SPAR for P&Z review in Dec. 2013] in the east parking lot for which this new parking lot will replace the spaces lost to the new building.). Phase two will be the remainder of the parking lot that will be constructed if and when new funding becomes available for new facilities. The new parking lot is proposed to be located on only the south half of the 8.22 acres that is naturally divided by an irrigation ditch that has been determined to be a wildlife corridor. FRCC proposes a 100 foot setback from the Clarendon Hills Subdivision in which a 6’ landscape berm and a nature trail are to be located; a 15 foot landscape berm from the Shields Street ROW (30’ from the curb); and a 100 foot wide wildlife corridor buffer spanning both sides of the irrigation ditch. The subject property is currently under contract for purchase by FRCC from First Church of God in Fort Collins (Peak Community Church). A warranty deed is attached to the property that requires that any proposed development receive the approval of the Architectural Control Committee of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision Home Owners Association (Clarendon Hills Subdivision is located directly to the south of FRCC and the proposed parking lot.). FRCC has worked with the Clarendon Hills HOA for several months to arrive at a mutually acceptable design; City Staff expects a determination by the HOA by November 18 and a revised landscape plan which will be forwarded to P&Z prior to the hearing. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 3 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 2 The FRCC Larimer Campus and the property containing the proposed parking lot are both zoned Low-Density Residential (R-L). RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 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: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Medium Density Mixed-use Neighborhood (M-M-N) and Low Density Residential (R-L) Multi-family residential and Single-family residential. South Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family residential (Clarendon Hills) East Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family residential (Coventry) West Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family residential 2. 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 State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education. 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 4 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 3 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 State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. 3. Location: The FRCC Larimer Campus is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of South Shields Street and East Harmony Road. The proposed parking lot is located on a parcel, zoned Low Density Residential (R-L), directly abutting the FRCC Larimer Campus. It is the only vacant land that abuts the campus. The 8.22 acre lot is bound by the FRCC Campus access to the north, Shields Street to the west, and Clarendon Hills Drive to the south. Clarendon Hills Subdivision abuts the proposed improvements along approximately 160 feet of the southeast property line. 4. Character: The proposed 404 space parking lot takes vehicular access from of the existing FRCC Larimer Campus and is separated from the Clarendon Hills Subdivision with a 100 foot-wide landscape area which includes a landscape berm and a nature trail; a 15 foot landscape berm from the Shields Street ROW (30’ from the curb); and a 100 foot-wide wildlife corridor buffer spanning both sides of the irrigation ditch. The parking lot contains several landscape islands and areas of permeable pavers. The lighting is proposed to be fully shielded and down cast to ensure that no light will spill over into the wildlife corridor or the Clarendon Hills neighborhood. 5. Extent: The parking lot is proposed to extend from the existing campus to the north buffer of the wildlife corridor and within 100 feet of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision. The area south of the wildlife corridor is proposed to remain undeveloped for the time being. 5 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 4 6. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection. 3.2.1(D)(2) Street Trees. Street trees are being provided at 30 - 40 foot increments in the planting strip along Shields Street. 3.2.1(E)(4-5) Parking Lot (Perimeter and Interior) Landscaping. The interior area of parking lots greater than 100 spaces are required to provide at least 10% landscape areas. Phase 1 of construction provides 11% of the interior area as landscape islands, and phase two provides 10%. Perimeter landscaping is provided with a significant berm along the southeast edge and along Shields Street. B. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) Schools are required to provide a minimum of 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The FRCC campus currently has 223,646 square feet of floor area which requires a minimum of 224 parking spaces. The campus currently has 1,895 surface parking spaces and is proposing to add 404 spaces for a total of 2,299 parking spaces. C. Section 3.2.4 - Lighting New lighting will be fully shielded with house-side shields and down-directional to ensure there will not be light spillover into the adjacent wildlife corridor or Clarendon Hills Subdivision. D. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The proposed parking lot will have lighting that will be fully shielded and the photometric plan shows 0.0 foot-candle levels at the adjacent single-family neighborhood (Clarendon Hills). The parking lot is separated from the neighborhood by a 100 foot-wide landscape buffer that contains a six foot high berm with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. Additionally, the parking lot will be graded to a lower elevation than that of the neighborhood and, because the wildlife corridor and irrigation ditch is located on a natural high area of the site, it will then serve as an additional buffer. E. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Feature. The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the site contains several natural habitats and features, predominately the southern irrigation ditch that serves as a wildlife corridor and the northern drainage ditch, 6 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 5 both of which contain small wetlands. The site’s existing habitat value is largely contained along the southern irrigation ditch. This area contains large, mature trees that have housed numerous wildlife species over the years (see the ECS Checklist, Attachment 4; and public comment, Attachment 7). Outside of the southern and northern ditches, the overall site is largely characterized as seeded pasture, e.g., smooth brome, as the site was historically used for grazing and hay production. To meet the standards associated with Section 3.4.1, the project has proposed to buffer the southern irrigation ditch that serves as a wildlife corridor from the parking lot by preserving all of the existing large, mature trees and by increasing the vertical structure along the corridor through additional landscaping with trees, shrubs, and native grasses adjacent to the ditch. For the Site Plan Advisory Review, staff is working with Front Range Community College (FRCC) on the following recommendations: o Lighting – Staff is working with FRCC to ensure no light spills over into the proposed buffer zone. o Wetland fill – Staff is working with FRCC to be provided a copy of the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the filling of the wetlands for the entrance road that crosses the north drainage ditch. As the wetland in this area is approximately 1-2’ feet-wide, it is anticipated the impacts would not be greater than 200 square feet of wetland loss. Staff will work with FRCC to ensure that these wetlands are appropriately mitigated. o Grading – The steep grade adjacent to the southern irrigation ditch helps to buffer the wildlife corridor from the proposed development. Maintaining this separation is a key design goal, and staff will continue to work with FRCC to maintain this grade to the maximum extent feasible. o Landscaping – Staff is working with FRCC to maximize the vegetative screening and wildlife value of the southern irrigation ditch. Staff is also working with FRCC to select appropriate plant species for the buffer zone and to maximize the width of the buffer while still maintaining access for the ditch company. o Construction Timing – In addition to the above-mentioned recommendations, a pre- construction survey should be conducted to ensure that development activities are conducted as far away from any active nests as possible, if construction occurs between February 15 and July 15. If Red-tailed or Swainson’s Hawks nests are found, the City standards call for a 450’ temporary Limits of Development around the nest. This standard should also be extended to other species, if other raptors, e.g., Great Horned Owls, are found to be nesting in the area at the time of construction. o Tree maintenance - As the majority of the wildlife corridor’s value is in the large, mature trees and the woody debris that remains on site, staff recommends working closely with the College’s naturalist program during tree maintenance to maximize the wildlife value of the corridor, e.g., by leaving woody debris in the corridor as refuge and nesting habitat for wildlife species. 7 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 6 Public Outreach In addition to the neighborhood meeting, staff met with eight neighbors on October 22, 2013 to review the project’s Ecological Characterization Study, the City’s Land Use Code standards, and staff’s recommendations for the project. During this discussion, the neighbors expressed concern about lighting, landscaping, site grading, landscaping, construction timing, and tree maintenance, all of which are addressed in the staff recommendations associated with the Natural Habitats and Features section of this staff report. 7. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 2, 2013. A summary of this meeting is attached. The majority of the questions and comments were in regard to the Integrated Technology Building that is not a part of this proposal. Originally, the parking lot and building were being proposed together but, due to community concerns with the building, FRCC has postponed the submittal of the building to consider design alternatives. Some concerns regarding the parking lot addressed storm water standards and the wildlife corridor. FRCC and the City have worked with concerned citizens to address their questions and concerns. 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The proposed parking lot triggers review by the City of Fort Collins as a Site Plan Advisory Review. The construction of a new parking lot for a public community college complies with State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the proposed parking lot conform to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. B. The location of the proposed parking lot directly abuts the existing FRCC campus and is the logical area to expand campus facilities. C. The character of the proposed parking lot is sensitive to the adjacent neighborhood in that it provides substantial interior and exterior landscaping, a 100 foot landscape buffer, and fully shielded, down directed lighting. D. The extent of the proposed parking lot is limited to the northwest side of the 100 foot- wide landscape buffer from the Clarendon Hills Subdivision and the 100 foot wide-wide wildlife corridor that bisects the undeveloped parcel directly south of FRCC campus. E. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. 8 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot – 4616 South Shields Street - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130004 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site and Landscape Plans 2. Photometric Plans 3. Project Narrative and Planning Objectives 4. Ecological Characteristic Study and ECS Checklist 5. Clarendon Hills HOA – Warranty Deed 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes, October 2, 2013 7. Public Comments 9 10 11 12 13 14 JWE JWE JWE 15 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN 10/8/2013 Page 1 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER PHONE: 303.861.5704 3003 LARIMER STREET FAX: 303.861.9230 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 WWW.OZARCH.COM October 8th 2013 Seth Lorson City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: SPAR Submittal - Front Range Community College – Southwest Parking Lot Dear Mr Lorson: On behalf of Front Range Community College, we are submitting a proposed development plan for a new parking lot just southwest of the existing campus parking. The new lot will provide approximately 415 additional parking spaces for the Front Range Community College’s (FRCC) Larimer Campus. The proposed development will happen in two phases. The initial phase one will provide approximately 250 parking spaces to account for existing spaces lost on the campus when the new Integrated Technology Building is constructed over existing parking. The second phase of parking is only anticipated to be needed when the school gets funding for additional facilities to meet the balance of the space deficiencies identified in the 2012 Master Plan Update. In this letter and the appropriate plans and documents included with this submittal, we are providing the information requested for the SPAR Submittal. STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES: Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: To meet the changing needs of our students and the community, Front Range Community College has developed a Larimer Campus facilities master plan with multiple goals. Some of these goals are to create efficiency with physical resources (more sustainable), be safe, maintain a secure clean and comfortable campus, and create sense of place. These goals and others closely align with the City Plan Principals and Policies. In addition, the campus employs local residents and promotes the economic health of the community by educating over 10,000 students each year, the majority of whom are Fort Collins residents and many of whom become key members of the local workforce. The college has strong relationships with the public schools in the area, including providing technical training to 400 high school students each year, and maintains strong partnerships with businesses within the community. FRCC also values the open space they have on the campus, and they see the value that those spaces provide to their community FRCC has carefully considered expanding parking on to newly purchased land rather than developing on the small amounts of open space on the existing campus property.. The campus maintains a storm water management strategy and is mindful of the impacts of their development on the city infrastructure which is in line with the city plan environmental policies. FRCC’s development of the new 8 acre property encourages infill within the developed area and growth management of its campus. The school encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the paths along the perimeter of the site. The campus creates an inviting destination for community members to gather with its nature path and library on campus. FRCC promotes a safe campus for its students and staff. Access to the walking trail around the campus provides a great wellness amenity to students, staff and community members. 16 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 2 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx 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 proposed plan includes a substantial buffer of natural habitat space on either side of the existing irrigation ditch that runs through the site of the proposed parking. Additionally 100 foot setbacks are being provided from the adjacent residential properties to the east. This set back will include some dense landscape vegetation and land berming to screen the neighbor’s view of the new parking lot. The site south of the ditch will remain in its natural state. There are many existing mature trees adjacent to the ditch that will remain as well. Improvements will be made to the existing unimproved foot path that runs along the east edge of the property and connects to existing improved paths on the FRCC campus. The development will follow city plan use code along shields and provide the required screening and vegetation planting along Shields Street. Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. FRCC will be the primary owner of the public and private open space areas and there are currently no other intentions with regard to ownership. The campus will maintain the new development and existing natural vegetation to remain on the site. Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses Front Range Community College’s Larimer Campus currently employs 267 full time faculty and staff and also has 548 part time employees. The current enrollment for the fall semester is 6,364 students, the previous summer semester enrollment was 1,779 students and last spring semester they had 6,673 students. Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The current campus is developed with most of the buildings located on the north side of the campus, centered east-west. The campus has little room to grow and in order to develop the campus to meet current space deficiencies, existing parking lots will be constructed over. This is to help preserve existing open space buffers within the campus. 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 development anticipates a substantial buffer on either side of the existing irrigation ditch to help reduce any impacts this parking lot may have on the ditch. All existing mature trees on the site will be preserved to reduce impacts of wildlife that may be present in them. Landscaped buffers adjacent to the new parking lot will provide areas of natural habitat to encourage wildlife habitation. Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. At this time we haven’t received the formal meeting notes on the comments provided at the neighborhood meeting. The biggest concerns with regards to the parking lot expansion were landscape buffering to the residences and screening the parking lot. This has been addressed by following the city plan use code requirements for screening of parking lots, and minimum setbacks have been exceeded. The other concern with regard to the parking lot was the environmental impacts of the development. An ecological characterization study of the site is included in this submittal. The mindful development around the existing ditch, providing the buffers and protecting the existing trees all help to reduce the impacts on the existing features. Additionally, a drainage study has been completed to help provide guidance for managing storm water retention and drainage on site. Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. 17 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 3 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx FRCC is calling this project the Southwest Parking Lot. When the original conceptual review was submitted it was titled FRCC Campus Master Plan. After the initial concept review meeting with city staff, we reduced the scope to only include the southwest parking lot and the new Integrated Tech Building. After the neighborhood review meeting on October 2nd 2013, FRCC decided that we would only be pursuing SPAR review of the southwest parking lot at this time. The College will submit the proposed Integrated Technology Building in a subsequent SPAR package. Response Letter addressing each of the applicable issues raised in the conceptual review letter. Department: Zoning, Contact: Peter Barnes 1. The new parking lot should comply with the landscape and design standards in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Land Use Code. If parking lot lighting is proposed, the lighting plan should comply with Sec. 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code. Noted Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering, Contact: Roger Buffington 1. Water and wastewater services for this site are provided by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The Districts can be contacted at (970) 226-3104. Noted Department: Transportation Planning, Contact: Seth Lorson 1. TRAFFIC : FRCC master plan No TIS is required as the changes are not expected to increase existing traffic Please provided a memo providing that the changes are not expected to generate additional traffic. Noted see memo within this document. Department: Stormwater Engineering, Contact: Glen Schlueter 1. Since the FRCC only requires a Site Plan Advisory Review the process is a little different than normal development within the City. However since FRCC has indicated they want to comply with the drainage requirements and the drainage does enter into the City's drainage system I will give some of the same comments as for any development site in the City. Noted 2. If FRCC pays Stormwater fees, the fees will be adjusted as more impervious area is added to the site. It would be good to document how much impervious are there is now on an exhibit showing the areas and listing them in a table on the exhibit. FRCC as a state entity is not responsible for these fees. 3. FRCC does have a drainage master plan so it will need to be updated. Normally a drainage report, erosion control report, and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. The erosion control report requirements are in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Section 1.3.3, Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Fort Collins Amendments. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com. Noted 4. Onsite detention and water quality treatment requirements do apply and have already been discussed with your drainage consultant. Fort Collins does normally require fifty percent of the site runoff to be treated using the standard water quality treatment as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3 – Best 18 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 4 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and- developers/development-forms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Noted 5. Also Low Impact Development (LID) requirements went into effect March 11, 2013. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. There is also more information on the EPA web site at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm?goback=.gde_4605732_member_219392996 Noted 6. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Mail Creek Master Plan Update as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Noted Department: Fire Authority, Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, FIRE LANES 1. It would appear that adequate fire lanes are not currently provided in all areas of this expansion project. Also, please advise if any of the expansion projects will result in buildings over 30' in height as additional code requirements apply (see below). 06IFC 503.1.1: Fire Lanes shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. When fire lanes cannot be provided, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. The revised scope for the SPAR review doesn’t include any structures. It is difficult to determine which of these comments are directed at the parking lot. We are making assumptions that most of the comments are regarding the new building. Please advise if there are areas of concern from the fire authority with regard to the parking lot only. FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width* & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. > Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. *STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5 19 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 5 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx 2. WATER SUPPLY 06IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Commercial hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. N/A 3. FIRE CONTAINMENT Buildings exceeding 5000 square feet shall be sprinklered or fire contained. If containment is used, the containment construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to installation. N/A 4. PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings or building additions that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 N/A 5. FDC Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. 2006 International Fire Code 912.2 N/A 6. KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 N/A 7. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 N/A 8. SECURITY GATES The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. 2006 International Fire Code 503.6 Noted – Any gates installed at access points to the new parking lot will be reviewed with the PFA and will provide appropriate emergency operation. 9. 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION 20 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 6 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx Be advised, the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins are currently in the process of reviewing the 2012 International Fire Code in preparation for its adoption in 2014. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application. Per the letter sent to Seth Lorson from Julia Fitzpatrick with FRCC, on September 16th 2013, this project will be permitted through the State Buildings Programs which have adopted newer codes. We will be design our development to those codes. Department: Environmental Planning, Contact: Lindsay Ex 1. An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (irrigation ditch that serves as a wildlife corridor). Please note the buffer zone standard for this feature is 50', as identified in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code, as you proceed with your site design process. We can have a separate discussion for scoping what should be included in this ECS. Please note that the Ecological Characterization Study is due a minimum of 10 days prior to the PDP submittal. Included in SPAR submittal. 2. Within the buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Please ensure that your ECS discusses the existing vegetation and identifies potential restoration options. If it is determined to be insufficient, then restoration and mitigation measures will be required. See landscape plan included in the submittal. The intent is to the leave the existing natural vegetation in place within the buffer zone adjacent to the irrigation ditch. 3. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Noted 4. The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. As several of the trees within this site may have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221 6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Noted 5. With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Noted Department: Engineering Development Review, Contact: Marc Virata, 1. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense. Noted 2. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. Noted – see information in memo form for Traffic Study included with SPAR submittal. 21 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 7 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx 3. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Noted 4. Civil construction plans are required with any needed public infrastructure installed in City right-of-way. If no infrastructure in City right-of-way is being installed, ideally a civil construction plan set is still submitted for approval to aid in documentation purposes for the general public. Noted 5. If public infrastructure in City right-of-way is to be installed, either a Development Construction Permit (DCP) or City Excavation Permit will need prior to starting any of the associated work. Noted 6. The City constructed road improvements to Harmony Road and Shields Street that abut the property. Typically, the City requires repayment from development/redevelopment of the local street portion of the abutting improvements, tied to a building permit. As the proposal under the SPAR process does not require this, City Engineering would still be interested in obtaining a repay for the infrastructure and would find interest in this being included in any IGA between FRCC and the City. Noted Department: Electric Engineering, Contact: Justin Fields 1. Electric development and system modification charges will apply. Contact Light and Power Engineering, 970- 221-6700, for an estimate of these charges. Noted 2. A C-1 form and 1-line diagram will need to be submitted for each new and upgraded service. The C-1 form is available at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf. N/A – this submittal is just for new parking lot. New parking lot lighting will be tied to existing campus lighting. 3. New transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. N/A – this submittal is just for new parking lot. New parking lot lighting will be tied to existing campus lighting. Current Planning, Contact: Seth Lorson 1. The integrated tech building should be turned 90 degrees so that the garage doors/bays face away from the neighborhood to the east. N/A – this submittal is just for new parking lot. 2. Please add additional space and landscaping between the integrated tech building and the parking lot and the neighborhood to the east (along the entire east side of the parking lot). This should have been done when this parking lot was developed. N/A – this submittal is just for new parking lot. 3. With the SPAR submittal, please provide detailed landscape plans that include berms and walls/fences; and a lighting plan that shows fixtures and poles with cut sheets and a photometric plan. Noted 22 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 8 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx 4. The Clarendon Hills HOA has requested that the minimum foot-candle of 1.0 as required in the Land Use Code be a maximum for the proposed parking lot. FRCC is currently working with the HOA to come to an agreement on light levels in the parking lot that will minimize the impact to the adjacent neighbors, yet still provide a safe environment for students and staff that will use the lot. The current designed lighting is well below the max levels the city allows. 5. What is the phasing plan for the parking lot? When will it get paved? Summer 2014? Please see informationin development scheduled included as Exhibit A 6. The Clarendon Hills HOA is requesting a 100' buffer from their neighborhood on the southeast corner of the parking lot. Noted 7. Provide bike parking as required in 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Land Use Code. Apparently the entire campus needs to be upgraded, please confirm whether that is accurate. N/A – this submittal is just for new parking lot to compensate for parking spaces lost with other development. There are multiple existing bike parking options on campus. These numbers will be verified with development of areas central to the campus as it is not logical to provide bike parking on the perimeter of campus. 8. Timeline: The neighborhood meeting is scheduled for Oct 2.; if the SPAR is submitted by Oct. 8, then the staff review meeting will occur on Oct 30 and the proposal will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on Nov. 21. Noted (g) Legal description of the site. Northwest quarter of section 2, township 6 North, Range 69 West of 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. (h) The name and address of each owner of property within the boundaries of the development plan area. PEAK Community Church, aka First Church of God, 500 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (i) A list of names of all general and limited partners (if a partnership), all managers and directors (if a limited liability company) and/or officers and directors (if a corporation) involved as either applicants or owners of the project development plan. PEAK Community Church is not a Partnership, LLC or Corporation, but we have three officers of the Church Council: Ronald A. Kechter – Chairman, John Daharsh – Vice Chairman, and Mike Dalrymple - Secretary (j) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed, including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas. Please find attached in Exhibit A, the project development schedule. In addition to addressing the planning objectives we have additional notes for the items listed below. Site Plan Drawings: The plan submitted is preliminary. Final site plans will be submitted on 10/15. Subdivision Plat: This is not included with this submittal as it is not applicable. 23 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 9 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx Architectural Elevations: These are not included with this submittal as they are not applicable; however we have included some site landscaping sections to help demonstrate the intent of screening of the new parking lot. Transportation Impact Study: Per previous discussions with the City a transportation impact study is not required. See attached letter in lieu of study included with SPAR Submittal Package. Utility Plans: At this time the utility plans for this site are in development and will be submitted on 10/15. Preliminary Drainage Report: At this time the drainage report for this site are in development and will be submitted on 10/15. Soils Report: At this time the soils report for this site needs revisions as the site development is only a parking lot. Summary pages from the original report are included but these will be revised are in development and will be submitted on 10/15. Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis: This is not applicable to this development and is not included. Explanation of any known Modifications: This is not applicable to this development. Requests for any known engineering variances: This is not applicable to this development. Letters of Intent: This is not applicable to this development. Other Information and data: This is not applicable to this development. We look forward to meeting with you and your staff to review our proposed development on October 30th. Sincerely, OZ Architecture, Inc. Rebecca Greek Project Architect 24 Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR Submittal – City of Fort Collins 10/8/2013 Page 11 of 11 P:\2012\812011.00 FRCC\Project Management\City of Fort Collins Development Review\131008 - SPAR Submittal\Written Documents\A Statement of Planing Objectives.docx EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 25 ID Task Name % Complete Duration Start Finish 1 FRCC Larimer Campus Projects 9% 464 days Tue 11/6/12 Wed 8/27/14 2 FRCC Technology Building 9% 464 days Tue 11/6/12 Wed 8/27/14 260 FRCC South West Parking Lot & Improvement 0% 145 days Mon 9/23/13 Fri 4/18/14 261 SPAR Process Milestones 0% 43 days Mon 9/23/13 Thu 11/21/13 262 Conceptual Review Meeting 0% 0 days Mon 9/23/13 Mon 9/23/13 263 Neighborhood Meeting 0% 0 days Wed 10/2/13 Wed 10/2/13 264 Submit SPAR 0% 0 days Tue 10/8/13 Tue 10/8/13 265 Staff Review Meeting 0% 0 days Wed 10/30/13 Wed 10/30/13 266 Planning and Zoning Hearing 0% 0 days Thu 11/21/13 Thu 11/21/13 267 Pre-Construction 0% 83 days Wed 10/2/13 Fri 1/31/14 268 Schematic Design & SPAR 0% 35 days Wed 10/2/13 Tue 11/19/13 269 CD Drawings 0% 25 days Thu 11/21/13 Wed 1/1/14 270 FRCC Closes on Land 0% 0 days Fri 12/6/13 Fri 12/6/13 271 Plan Review & Pricing 0% 11 days Thu 1/2/14 Thu 1/16/14 272 Notice to Proceed 0% 0 days Thu 1/16/14 Thu 1/16/14 273 Release Contracts 0% 11 days Fri 1/17/14 Fri 1/31/14 274 Construction 0% 55 days Mon 2/3/14 Fri 4/18/14 275 Layout 0% 2 days Mon 2/3/14 Tue 2/4/14 276 Overlot Grading 0% 3 days Wed 2/5/14 Fri 2/7/14 277 Over-ex and Re-compact 0% 3 days Mon 2/10/14 Wed 2/12/14 278 Culvurts & Storm Piping 0% 5 days Thu 2/13/14 Wed 2/19/14 279 Underground Electrical 0% 4 days Mon 2/10/14 Thu 2/13/14 280 Irrigation Sleeving 0% 2 days Mon 2/10/14 Tue 2/11/14 281 Stormwater Detention Pond Shaping 0% 3 days Thu 2/20/14 Mon 2/24/14 10/2 11/19 11/21 1/1 1/2 1/16 1/17 1/31 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/7 2/10 2/12 2/13 2/19 2/10 2/13 2/10 2/11 2/20 2/24 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 2013 2014 Normal Task Milestone Summary FRCC - TECHNOLOGY BUILDING Preliminary Construction Schedule Page 1 Schedule Subject to Change Project: FRCC Construction Projects - FRCC Technology Building Date: Mon 10/7/13 FRCC Larimer Campus Projects South West Parking Lot Preliminary Construction Schedule FRCC South West Parking Lot 26 ID Task Name % Complete Duration Start Finish 282 Light Pole Bases 0% 4 days Tue 2/25/14 Fri 2/28/14 283 Permanent Curb & Gutter 0% 8 days Mon 3/3/14 Wed 3/12/14 284 Asphalt Prep 0% 3 days Thu 3/13/14 Mon 3/17/14 285 Asphalt 0% 5 days Tue 3/18/14 Mon 3/24/14 286 Permenant Light Fixtures 0% 2 days Tue 3/25/14 Wed 3/26/14 287 Permanent Signage 0% 2 days Tue 3/25/14 Wed 3/26/14 288 Striping 0% 2 days Thu 3/27/14 Fri 3/28/14 289 Final Grade Site & Detention Pond 0% 2 days Mon 3/31/14 Tue 4/1/14 290 Irrigation 0% 3 days Wed 4/2/14 Fri 4/4/14 291 Landscape 0% 3 days Mon 4/7/14 Wed 4/9/14 292 Native Seed Disturbed Soils 0% 2 days Thu 4/10/14 Fri 4/11/14 293 Punch List 0% 5 days Mon 4/14/14 Fri 4/18/14 294 Parking Lot Complete 0% 0 days Fri 4/18/14 Fri 4/18/14 2/25 2/28 3/3 3/12 3/13 3/17 3/18 3/24 3/25 3/26 3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/31 4/1 4/2 4/4 4/7 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/14 4/18 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 2013 2014 Normal Task Milestone Summary FRCC - TECHNOLOGY BUILDING Preliminary Construction Schedule Page 2 Schedule Subject to Change Project: FRCC Construction Projects - FRCC Technology Building Date: Mon 10/7/13 FRCC Larimer Campus Projects South West Parking Lot Preliminary Construction Schedule FRCC South West Parking Lot 27 Ecological Characterization Study Front Range Community College Parking Improvement Project Prepared for: OZ Architecture 3003 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 Prepared by: Wildland Consultants, Inc. 1001 Jefferson Drive Berthoud, Colorado 80513 September 2013 28 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 1 2.0 Vegetation and Wetlands ……………………………………………………. 1 2.1 Rare Plant Species …………………………………………………………… 2 3.0 Wildlife Description …………………………………………………………. 3 3.1 Species and Habitats …………………………………………………………. 2 3.2 Wildlife Corridors ……………………………………………………………. 3 3.3 Rare Wildlife Species ………………………………………………………… 3 4.0 Views …………………………………………………………………………. 4 5.0 Project Impacts ………………………………………………………………. 4 6.0 Conclusions, Proposed Mitigation ……………………………………………. 5 7.0 References …………………………………………………………………….. 5 Attachment A- Site Photographs, Site Plan, Aerial Site Map, Natural Habitats and Features Map 29 1 Ecological Characterization Study – Front Range Community College Parking Improvements 1.0 Introduction The Front Range Community College (FRCC) Parking Improvement project is located in southwest Fort Collins, Colorado. The proposed parking lot project is located on a total of approximately 3.37 acres. Open space/park areas are proposed for buffers for streets, adjacent housing, and the irrigation ditch bordering the south side of the property. The site is bounded on the north by existing parking for the FRCC campus, the south by an unnamed irrigation ditch, and the west by South Shields Street. The development site is surrounded by existing residential and commercial development. Current land uses on the site include open space and pasture. A Site Plan, Aerial Site Map, and Natural Areas and Features Map are provided in Attachment A. The Fort Collins Land Use Code (Section 3.4.1) recommends that an Ecological Characterization Study be completed for projects that are within 500 feet of any natural habitat or feature mapped on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. There are no natural habitats or features or designated Natural Areas within 500 feet of the project (Attachment A, Natural Aras and Features Map). The Ecological Characterization study is also recommended if the site includes areas of unique plant life or wildlife habitat (City of Fort Collins, 2013). The 3.37 acre development site includes an irrigation ditch that supports woody vegetation and narrow wetlands. The Ecological Characterization study was completed by Mr. Eric Berg of Wildland Consultants, Inc. (WCI). Mr. Berg is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and Certified Professional Wetland Scientist. 2.0 Vegetation and Wetland Description Vegetation on the site is dominated by seeded pasture that was used historically for hay and grazing. Dominant plants include seeded species like smooth brome grass (Bromus inermis), crested wheatgrass (Agropryon cristatum) and a few other species. Weedy species including field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serulia), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis) are present. There are no native plant communities present on the development site. Site photos are included in Attachment A. A formal wetland delineation has not been completed on the site. NWI mapping does not show any wetlands within the development boundaries (NWI 2013). However, the field review of the site found narrow wetlands present associated with the south unnamed irrigation ditch and along a drainage ditch adjacent to the north site boundary (See Attachment A Site Photos, Site Aerial Map). The south irrigation ditch goes underground at the east site boundary and comes above ground at the west site boundary. 30 2 It is believed the ditch connects with Mail Creek. The north drainage ditch runs through the FRCC campus and it believed connects with Mail Creek. The south irrigation ditch support a narrow strip of wetland vegetation (approximately 3- 5 feet wide). Dominant plants include: cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), peach leaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) and a few other species. Woody riparian vegetation is present along the south and western sections of the ditch. Upland species adjacent to the channels included smooth brome, and other grasses and forbs. The north drainage ditch supports cordgrass, reed canary grass and a few stands of cattails. Wetland hydrology is evident in the ditch and drainage channel. Flowing and standing water are present. Wetland soils are also present within channel bottoms (low chroma colors, soil mottling, high organic matter). Water sources include irrigation flows and drainage flows. The jurisdictional status (are these channels under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)) is not known. However, the drainages likely do meet the vegetation, soils and hydrology characteristics to be classified as wetlands. No wetlands or natural features are mapped on the site by the City of Fort Collins (City of Fort Collins 2013). However, mapping on the Natural Habitat and Features map is not entirely accurate in this area (See Attachment A Site Aerial). 2.1 Rare Plant Species The wetland zones along the unnamed drainages provide marginal/poor potential habitat for the Ute ladies’ tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana). The orchid has been documented in areas with seasonally wet soils and wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams and their associated flood plains below 6,500 feet above sea level in the South Platte River Drainage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). The Colorado butterfly plant typically grows on sub- irrigated alluvial soils in floodplains and drainage bottoms and in depressions along slow- moving streams (Fertig 2000, O’Kane 1988). Because these drainages are manmade, and vegetation along the drainages has been controlled (by mowing or herbicides) in the past it is unlikely that either rare plant species is present. In addition, there are no known populations of these plants located nearby within the City of Fort Collins. WCI ecologists did not observe either species on the site during the September field reconnaissance. 31 3 3.0 Wildlife Description 3.1 Species and Habitat The project area provides habitat to wildlife species adapted to pasture/grasslands, and urban areas. Wildlife species likely to use the area periodically include: red fox, coyote, raccoon, striped skunk; a variety of small mammals (deer mouse, meadow vole, house mouse, cottontail rabbit); a variety of birds (meadow lark, mourning dove, American robin, common grackle, common flicker, yellow warbler, house finch, English sparrow, black-billed magpie, starling, American kestrel, great horned owl, great blue heron, and many others); a few reptiles (western terrestrial garter snake, gopher snake) and amphibians (tiger salamander, plains spadefoot toad) (Andrews and Righter 1994, Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife 2013, Fitzgerald et al. 1998, Hammerson 1999). The site does not include any mapped key or important wildlife habitats (Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife 2013). The south drainage ditch does provide potential nesting habitat to a variety of passerine bird species. The wetland and limited riparian vegetation associated with the south drainage ditch provides a wildlife habitat area in an urban environment. Wildlife species or signs of species observed on the site during a fall 2013 field reconnaissance included: English sparrow, yellow warbler, common flicker, black- capped chickadee, starling, magpie, mourning dove, American kestrel, great horned owl, deer mouse, meadow vole, raccoon, striped skunk, cottontail rabbit, and red fox. The development site does not support a black-tailed prairie dog colony. There are no known raptor nests on the development site or adjacent areas. However, thick leaf cover during the field review prevented a definitive search for raptor nests. Great blue herons may forage occasionally along the unnamed south drainage ditch. 3.2 Wildlife Corridors The unnamed south irrigation ditch provides a narrow wildlife movement corridor that is generally limited to the development site. Raccoons, skunks and other urban adapted species use the drainage to move through the site. The south irrigation ditch does not continue above ground upstream to the west. The ditch goes underground at the east edge of the site (as a result of the existing Clarendon Hills Development). The ditch does appear again about 370 feet to the northeast after being fragmented by the subdivision. From here the ditch runs along the south side of the FRCC campus before disappearing again. The north drainage ditch is landscaped and supports a narrow wetland of 2-3 feet wide. This north drainage is paralleled by a concrete trail. The ditch runs through the developed FRCC campus. This ditch provides a limited wildlife movement corridor because of landscaped vegetation and intensive human use. 32 4 3.3 Rare Wildlife Species The site provides poor potential habitat to Federally Listed Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). The nearest quality potential habitat is present along the Cache la Poudre River. Preferred habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse includes thick shrubby riparian habitat along area streams and rivers (Armstrong et al. 1997). The nearest occupied habitat for the Preble’s mouse is along the Cache la Poudre River upstream of LaPorte. Bald eagles (delisted but protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act) may be present foraging in the general area during the winter periods. The area is mapped as part of overall bald eagle winter range (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2013). Bald eagle winter concentration areas are mapped along the Cache la Poudre River. There are no nests or bald eagle winter roost sites on or near the proposed development. 4.0 Views The area surrounding the site is already heavily developed with commercial and residential properties bordering all sides of the development. The proposed development will be visible from surrounding roads. Offsite views towards the mountains from the south and east will altered by project construction. 5.0 Project Impacts Project construction would result in the conversion of approximately 3.37 acres of pasture land to urban uses. Wetlands and Riparian Zones- The south drainage ditch would remain undisturbed (Attachment A-Site Plan). Buffer zones of approximately 22 feet to 75 feet are proposed from the ditch center to the edge of parking curb. The north drainage would remain undisturbed (except for 2 road crossings) within an existing FRCC open space/park area. Prior to any work in the drainage channels the ACOE would be consulted regarding jurisdictional status. If needed a formal wetland delineation would be completed, and appropriate permits would be obtained from the ACOE. All trees and shrubs along the south drainage would be preserved. Wildlife- Project construction would result in the conversion of approximately 3.37 acres of seeded pasture to a parking lot. The wetland vegetation (including trees and shrubs) along the south drainage would remain intact. Urban adapted wildlife species would be expected to continue to use the drainage. Species more sensitive to human disturbance (raptors for 33 5 example) may use the area with less frequency. No impacts to regional wildlife movement in southwest Fort Collins are anticipated with project construction. Development buffer zones from the south drainage ditch will protect existing vegetation and habitat. Rare Species- The project is not expected to impact any Federally listed, or special status wildlife or plant species. The site provides poor potential habitat to the Federally listed Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Impacts are not expected to occur to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse with project construction. No impacts to the Ute ladies’ tresses orchid and Colorado butterfly plant are expected to occur with project construction. The drainages provide marginal potential habitat for these species. No nearby locations for these species are present. No trees would be removed that provide potential nesting sites for passerine birds along the south drainage ditch. 6.0 Conclusion, Proposed Mitigation Project construction would result in the conversion of approximately 3.37 acres of seeded grassland/pasture to urban uses. The developer proposes the following general mitigation measures for the project. These will be refined for later submittals:  The ACOE will be consulted to determine if the north drainage on the site is jurisdictional. Appropriate permits will be obtained if needed from the ACOE. If needed wetland mitigation will be completed according to ACOE and the City of Fort Collins requirements.  The south irrigation ditch will buffered from the edge of the parking lot (buffer zone of 22 -75 feet). The north drainage will remain undisturbed in an existing FRCC open space corridor. The south drainage buffer will remain a natural area with no formal landscaping. Additional seeding of appropriate upland grasses will be completed as needed. Additional plantings of native shrubs and trees will be completed in this area.  All trees and shrubs along the north drainage will remain intact, except for removal at the 2 road crossings. 7.0 References Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. 442pp. Armstrong, D.M., M.E. Bakeman, N.W. Clippinger, A. Deans, M. Marguiles, C.A. Meaney, C. Miller, M. O’Shea-Stone, T.R. Ryon, and M. Sanders. 1987. Report on Habitat Findings of the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. Presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 34 6 City of Fort Collins. 2013. City of Fort Collins Natural Habitats & Features Inventory Map. GIS Data City of Fort Collins. 2013. City Code Section 3.4.1. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. 2013. NDIS GIS Data. Fertig, W. 2000. Status Review of the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis). Report prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467pp. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. 130pp. NationalWetland Inventory Mapping. 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWI GIS Data. O’Kane, S.L. 1988. Colorado’s rare flora. Great Basin Naturalist 48(4):434-484. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurries. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 35 7 Attachment A Site Photographs, Site Map, Site Aerial, Natural Habitats and Features Map Photo 1. View along north wetland/drainage from near the NE site corner. Photo 2. View of seeded grass/pasture to west from near NE site corner. 36 8 Photo 3. View of south drainage from east site boundary, culvert where drainage goes underground. Photo 4. View to west of south drainage where it ends at east site boundary. 37 9 Photo 5. View of wetland vegetation and riparian vegetation south drainage. Photo 6. View of wetland and riparian vegetation, south drainage. 38 10 Photo 7. View of south drainage to the west, from near site center. Photo 8. View to east of south drainage from west side. 39 11 Photo 9. View of very west end of south drainage where it comes above ground. Photo 10. View to west from near SW site corner. 40 12 Photo 11. View to south along Shields from near SW site corner. Photo 12. View to east across center of site from west boundary. 41 13 Photo 13. View to east across site from near NW site boundary. Photo 14. View to east along north drainage and wetland from near NW site boundary. 42 OCTOBER 2, 2013 6 EXPANDED PARKING PLAN 1:100 254 Parking Spaces Permeable Pavers for Water Quality 30’ Setback Storm Water Ponds 164 Parking spaces 100’ Setback 43 ECS Review – Front Range Community College SPAR Ecological Characterization Study Review Project Name: FRCC SPAR Project Planner: Seth Lorson ECS Consultant: Wildland Consultants, Inc. Review Date: October 22, 2013 Project Description: This is a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) request for a parking lot on the southwest corner of the Front Range Community College (FRCC) property, on approximately 3.37 acres. There will be approximately 400 parking spaces in the lot. Environmental Planner Summary. In accordance with Colorado State Statutes, the advisory review is limited to the location, character, and extent of a project. In keeping with those statutes, this summary and overall review focuses largely on these three issues. There are two ditches on the site, a north and south ditch. The southern ditch serves as a more intact corridor and will not be disturbed through this proposal, though construction will come as close to approximately 25’ from the ditch. Enhanced landscaping and not allowing any light to spillover onto the buffer zone associated with these ditches are critical recommendations by staff to support these areas’ ecological value. Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Is the project within 500’ of a Natural Habitat or Featurei? If yes, which features?    Yes, the project is within 500’ of a Natural Habitat or Feature. Though not mapped on the 1999 survey, there are two irrigation ditches on the property that serve as a wildlife corridor, and both of these ditches contain wetlands within the ditch bottom (pg. 1, 2). Is the wildlife use and value of the area described?    The ECS describes 26 species that would use the irrigation ditches and overall area (pg. 3) In addition to these species, neighbors adjacent to the property have provided evidence (both anecdotal and pictorially) of species observed in the ditches. These species include, but are not limited to bear, bats, bobcat, fox, coyotes, deer, raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, snakes, toads, and over 51 species of birds that were submitted (see attached list). It should be noted that neighbors have observed raptors nesting in the trees along the ditch, though thick leaf cover prevented such an observation during the field visit (pg. 3) 44 ECS Checklist Page 2 Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Are there wetlands present? If yes, have the boundaries and functions been described?    Yes, there are wetlands present at the base of both ditches. A formal delineation has not been provided, though the applicants have indicated that any Army Corps of Engineers permits will be acquired for the crossing of the north ditch that is required to construct the parking lot (pg. 1,2, and 4) The general functions are generally described as serving as a wildlife corridor (pg. 3). Are there any prominent views from or across the site?    While there are views to the foothills from the project site, the ECS notes the already developed nature of the area and that offsite views will be altered by project construction (pg. 4) Are the pattern, species, and location of significant native trees and vegetationii described?    The significant trees along the site are generally within the south corridor and are described. The significant trees are largely plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) (pg. 2). These trees contribute significantly to the value of the wildlife corridor. Are the pattern, species, and location of significant non- native trees and vegetation described?    The pattern of non-native trees is not described, as no significant non-native trees are present on the site, e.g., there are no bands of Russian olives or Siberian elms within the ditch corridors. Is a stream or perennial body of water present? If yes, is top of bankiii located?    The two ditches are located on the site, but the buffer measurements are currently from the center of the ditches. These measurements will need to be updated (pg. 4). Are Sensitive or Specially Valued Speciesiv present? If yes, are the areas of use identified?    No, there are not any endangered or threatened species within the project area or known to be present in this area of Fort Collins. Are other special ECS Checklist Page 3 Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Are the general ecological functions of the site described?    Yes, the site generally serves as an urban wildlife corridor. Are there any issues regarding development related timing that should be addressed?    A pre-construction survey shall be conducted to ensure that development activities are as buffered away from the active nest as possible, e.g., if construction occurs between February 15 and July 15. As no trees within the corridor are proposed to be removed, the most important element will be to minimize impacts to any active nests. Are any measures needed to mitigate adverse impacts projected by the development?   High Priority Recommendations: -Lighting – Please extend the photometric plan to the top of the bank or include the buffer line on the plan set. Please illustrate how there is no lighting spilling over into the buffer zone. -ACOE permit – Can the City be provided a copy of the ACOE permit once it is available? -Grading – it is difficult to tell on the grading plan how the natural berm will be kept in place – can the existing berm be left in place to the maximum extent feasible? -Landscaping – • Please provide the labeling of top of bank on the north side of the south irrigation ditch; • If the ditch company needs 15’ of space on this side for maintenance, please illustrate that area as well. Between the parking lot and 15’ maintenance area, please increase the buffering between the parking lot and the ditch through increased trees and shrubs. • Also, it is difficult to assess which species are which – are there native plants proposed or exotic species within the buffer zone? • Are there trees within the proposed detention area that can be preserved? What is the seed mix proposed for this area? Additional Recommendations: -Tree Maintenance - The majority of the value of the wildlife corridor is in the large, mature trees and woody debris that is left on the site. As FRCC maintains the trees in this area, can woody debris be left on the site? In addition, can FRCC work with their naturalist program to ensure that tree maintenance does not affect nesting species? -ECS Update – can the ECS please document the date of the site visit and comment on whether the Xcel construction staging area would impact the ECS recommendations or findings? Has the author checked with the FRCC Naturalist program regarding raptor’s nest? They may have additional ECS Checklist Page 4 Glossary of Terms i Natural features shall mean (a) natural springs, (b) areas of topography which, because of their steepness, erosion characteristics/geologic formations, high visibility from off-site locations and/or presence of rock outcroppings, and (c) view corridors which present vistas to mountains and foothills, water bodies, open spaces and other regions of principal environmental importance, provided that such natural features are either identified on the city's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or otherwise meet the definition of natural area as contained in this Article. ii Native vegetation shall mean any plant identified in Fort Collins Native Plants: Plant Characteristics and Wildlife Value of Commercial Species, prepared by the City's Natural Resources Department, updated February 2003. iii Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank. iv Sensitive or Specially Valued Species are defined as the following species: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Species of Concern as identified in the document, Colorado’s Natural Heritage: Rare and Imperiled Animals, Plants and Natural Communities, April 1996, Volume 2, No. 1, Animals and Plants of Special Concern and/or any other species identified as in need of protection in the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan (see Division 5 of the Land Use Code). v Special habitat features shall mean specially valued and sensitive habitat features including key raptor habitat features, such as nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; heron rookeries; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or NAPP; prairie dog colonies over fifty (50) acres in size as included on the Natural Areas Inventory Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified in the NAPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in the NAPP; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothills ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetland greater than one- fourth (¼) acre in size. 47 .-. - --_._- ....---.7". '-. . .:;:-~~ .:=... ~...-.-.-. .:,-. ----~--- serra,. ~1049273 10/07/91 -16:01,00 , PABB8 - 3 IIB- .K .JlODBlIBBRGD UCOllDBlt, LAIlIHBR COUll'n co 8'l'Aft DOC I'BB - ,,15.17.00 50 II I WAIIIIANTY DUD THlSDlED.Madtdlis ?f4 dQof October ,19 91. betwecu ClARENDON HIUS ASSOCIATES. a COlorado limited partnership . ale.· ·CDouIt7of Larimer .SlatcClfOfladQ.~)aod FIRST QUJRCH OFGODIN FORTCIOLLINS.a Colorado nonproftt corporation . _ •••••••••••• 500 Matthews. . Fort COllfns. CO80525 : .:.It uOCUM&lTAR\- l1(SV of the sa 1d Caamy 01' LariJller ,S'CIIeofCdaratllt,..-.co): WD'NE88BnI. DalthelfaldGr(l), "'_ IAcmoIdaillillll atllle_of ONEHUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ANDHO/lOO($175.000.00)----------00UAIIS. die NCCip&GIIln8Ic:iaIcJofwllldlls~~IIaS patecl.1WpiJ>od. oddud~a..sj,jU-~cIo es IIUIl.II2rpiQ. soli,_._-an.. _the .,.....). its lIdraudaslps~aII.Jal prGpCI1y. \IlIIIIIlettollll 1DIpm.-..ifary. •••••••~-SbdaaiDlIIe safd OIcdQat Larimer ,S'CIIeot~ descrilJoIdS fcIIIooq: All that prope~ described on Exhibit -AD attached hereto and incorporated herein Ii reference. Said properv .shall be sLibject to those certain ARCHITECTURAl STANDARDS attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. IIsobtlllDbJ_lIdm.-mbctao: vacant land TOGE1IIIBwillraD-SIlDaularIlleI>alcllUmalb \III::nII>bdOQ&IQs,otlll ~udthe....mac.aad ~ ftIIIOiadoao. _lasIIeImd pdIs *-f; aid 01111I<_ riIJn, Ii*. -....daimaod_ •••••••••••••. 01 IhcIlJlllllK(a).tiIII«lalawor~df; illlDlllD&abCMbazpIoed~ wIIIllII~eud8lJl)UC_.-- TOIL\YKANDlOROWlhcal4premisaabcNeboqdDcd_dotcdbed~IIIe • ._...c1), its IIdn aodIIl!Ipsfllmu Alldtbe-""<o)' fbt 1t HIf belr&udp••••••• heptCSdllBli •••• do es -...-. bq;oiII._~IO_ vidtlhcpa>dal(tl. its _aDd allhctlmeatlhc-=allllldolMrJoftl>ao_ is ...0sdIIdol'lhcpcaaiselllxne~haS aoocr._pedIocf. •••• lIIIIlDdctcMiYe_at~ ill ~lIIh~1IIII ha S .,od rialll.lIIDpoftl' mSllUJ!>orIIylOlIUIl.bIIpIa. ••• tad _1IIe udlnl as af..-Jd.aDddllllltIIo_meliN_clear ~aIl "",*lIIIIotIIotllJUll" baphIa. ab. ~ •••••••••. GIIl JOttrIcboBsd,",--lIIDdornatare_eu:cpt 1991 real prcperty taxes due and payable in 1992 and subsequent years' taxes; easements and rights-of-way of record or in. place. in al\Y; covenants or record; l1nd reservations of record. STATI!OFCOLORAOO } Larimer os. - ;i- ,+~\lt-:. _~belbreme1llls ?D1 _at October .!.·;fl91 president of Ho~ic COnstruction a Development. Inc.~ general rrlMJti'e'\d0n Hills Associates. a Colorado limited partnership. •• 7/9.>- :t;::~ No.!BZ.1IItY.J.8J. 'IlUIWI'IYDIIID(J!w~ _ _ -..no_IIL._OO_-IlGIl~ _ _ '.":":. r~ . • .......... ~.- ... 48 ,"--.J. ._.. ·~·...:::r·--····'--···-- -~ -:.--=-.- ..\ .- :.1 BXBIBl:l'IIA. That port:ion ot the West half oj! SectiOn 2. 'fownabtp 6 North. Range 69 wast of tho 6th PrIncipal Meridian. City of Fort Collins. county of Larimer. state of Colorado being more particularly described as folloNSZ C!onsidering the Weat Une of s4id Section 2 as bearIng North 00 .dtJg••eoa O'!31" KaRt and vUb all beariDCJS contaiatN :-"'&" •••1•• HlaU"., thereto I· . BeginnIng at the Southwest corner of said Seat Ion 2, thenoe aJong-said Hest lIne of Seotion 2 North 00 degrees 09131" East. 4004.26 leet to tbe North l1ne of the south one-half of the Northwest Quarter of Baid Section ~ and the TRUE POINT OP BEGINNINO; thence along yaid North line North 89 degrees 35- IS· East 852.29 feet to Lhe Northwest oorner of Clarendon Bills Third Piling (according to the·tinal plat thereof). City of Port Collins, Colorado; thence along the Westerly and Northeriy lines of said Clarendon Hilla Third Filing the follOWing three (3) courses and distancesl South 25 degrees 30·00· Wlist 155.00 feet, Sout.h 166.63 le.t tu a point on a ourV8 being eeneave to the suutheast having a central angle of 28 degrees 24-40· and a r.dlus of 450.00 feet. the long ohord of which bears South 55 degreea 42'20· Heat ~ distance of 220.86 feet, thence along lh. are of sald ourve 223.14 feet to a point on the boundary of Clarendon Bills First Filing (according to the final plat thereof). City ot Fort Collins, Colorado; thence tangent from said curvs and along said boundary line 2nd Nortberly right of way of Langdale. Drive and the Northerly right of way of Clarendon Bills Drlve (according to the tinal plat of said Clarendon Bills Firat Piling) the tull~wing ftve courses and distances: south 41 degrees 30·00A Hest 130.35 teel to the ~ulnning ot a tangent curve conoave to Lhe North having a central angle of 80 d.grees 00-20· and a radius ot 15.00 teet. the long ohord of which bears South 81 degrees 30' 10· Weut a distance of 19.29 feet; tbence along the arc of said r.urve 20.95 [eut ta tho beginning of a reverso curve conoave to the south having a central an9le of 31 degrees 20·49- and a radius ot 469.00 !eel. the long chord of'whlcb baarK North 74 degrees 10' 05- NeBt. a disLance of 253.41 teet; thenee along the.arc of said c:urve 256.59 Leet; thence tftngent lrolft said ourve Nortb 89 degrees 50'29D we.L 190.00 leet to the beginning of a tangent curve· concave to tho Northeast having a central angle of 90 degreea 00'00· and a radius of 15.00 feet. the long chord of whIch bears North 44 degrees 50'29" Waal a distance of 21.21 feet: thence along the aro of said curve 23.56 feetJ thenca continuing along the Northerly boundary ot 50.00 said C~et ("larenilcJIDlills .to a l~lnt on FIrst the West FiUng line North of. said 89 ddgreea Section 50'29- 2; thence Hest along Maid Heat line Nurth 00 degrees 09'31" East 440.80 feet. more or less. to the 7RUB POIN~ OF BBOINNING. ~!-" .•.-:: 1 "-..-::-:-:---~= 1 .~:..' ... . ' -r :'-~.='- :'•.:--.-- . ;t.o;.:··~:-:, ....~•.. • ... t~!. I .~;::: r. .:.-c:-_~ ...•. .::- '.',-.' ..•. . a ..•• ;' BXBIBIi' (DeedconveyingProperty ~rOllCllarendonBilla Assoc1.ates to I"irat Churcho~ 004) ARCBITBC'rORAL STA1l1DA1tDS ~ ~!.!~!!',"!'"ot:her sUUoture sll&11be erected, plaoed or altered on the ller8in-4eSaribed property uatU ii'l.ana a."" ~1- flc:ratiODs of ·t1te builct1ngand laDdsoaplq have been appr0ve4by the Arcb1tectural control COIIIIIl1t1:of ee ClarendonBills SUb41vl- aion, here1.nafter "COIIIlIlittee- • The approval process shall. be governed by Artiole :Ill: and appl1.oab18definitions of the Declaration and Covenantsfor ClarendonBille 8ubcU.viaion,being a subdivision located adjacent to the property describe4 in this Deedof Conveyance,as modified and supplementedby the fol10w- 1.ngs .: 1. Whenthe owner, or p~apeotive owner, of the property described in this Dead of conveyanceantiCipates constructing any building, structure or improvementon the property, such request for approval shall be submitted to the Committeefor review following the procedures set forth 1.nthe Covenants for ClarendonBilla Subdivision. Xf construotion is contemplated1.n phases, the request for auch phase construction shall be p~e- sented to the Committee. 2. The Committeeshall review the hulldin; and/or l.and- soaping requ.eet to insure compatibility with existing buildings looated on and/or proposed for ClarendonBills Subdivision. 3. 'fhere .shall be no raqW.rementthat all construction on the subject parcel be of the sametype material, color or des1.gn in order to effectuate the puxposeof the Dealaration or this Arch1.tectural Standard. --.:-:. 4. The Committeemay refuse permission to construct or alter any building or structure on the property wh1.ohthe COJDJDittee det:e%minas,after cona1dering the cr1.terla set forth in this Arohitectural Standard, is not compatible with the existing buildings located on and/or proposed for Clarendon Bills Subdivision, except that refusal maynot be on the baa!a that the building is to be used as a church. 5. Notwithstandingany provision contained in the Decla- ration to the contrary, in the event the Commi.tteedisapproves the plans, or any part of such plans, the owneror proapect;ive ownermaynotify the Committee,within thirty (30) days after 8uchdisapproval, that they wish to have the Is8ue determined by arbitration. Within 15 dars after receipt by the Comm1.tteoef the notice requesting arb trati.on, the COD1m1ttae and the re- quest1.ng party shall select: au architect in Larimer County, Colorado, whl)is not affiliated or in any vay has dealt with Clarendon Bills Associates, its partners., or the owner or proapective ownerof the property, as an independentarbitrator. Plans, specifications, and information reqn:l.redby the arbitra- tor ahall be submitted by the Committeeand the reque8ting party to the arbitrator. The parties to the arbitration shall abide by the deaision of the arbitrator, and any fees required for the arbitration shall be borne equally by the COlIIIIIitteaend the .requesting party. 6. To the extent the provisions of this Standard are inconsistent with the provis10ns of Article I1:I or any part of the Declarations, this Standard shall control • .•..•.•. .. ~. ..•.~- 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Front Range Community College (FRCC) Expansion DATE: October 2, 2013 LOCATION: Front Range Community College APPLICANT: Front Range Community College CITY PLANNER: Seth Lorson Seth Lorson opened the meeting by introducing himself and Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services; Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison; and Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner and by providing an explanation of the Site Plan Advisory Review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda. The project will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board Andy Dorsey, President of FRCC, presented information about FRCC’s growth over the years and its proposed master plan. The master plan includes three major changes: (1) replacement of the existing integrated technology building from the 1970’s with a one- story, 28,000 square foot integrated technology building on the east side of Starflower Dr., (2) addition of a 465 space parking lot on the south side of Westbury Dr. near Shields St., and (3) addition of a three-story, 30,000 square foot allied health building at the northwest corner of the site. The allied health building is planned for a few years from now; the integrated technology building and the parking lot would be implemented in the near future. Additional information about the integrated technology building: • Major functions of the building are proposed as follows: welding program (east side), auto program (south side), classrooms (west side), and offices (north side). • Materials would match the existing campus and have similar horizontal banding • Outdoor work and storage will be reduced by 99%; no welding will occur outdoors. • An eight-foot fence with opaque metal panels will be placed along the south side • Welding exhaust is on the north side; FRCC is working with an acoustic consultant • City staff has recommended examining rotating the building to reduce its impact on the neighboring homes in the Coventry neighborhood; FRCC is actively considering this option. 51 2 Additional information about the parking lot: • FRCC has not yet purchased the parcel from the existing owner, a local church • Parking will be developed in two phases; only the first phase is funded. Development is planned on the northern part of the parcel at this time. • Lot will be gated, unlit in the summer, and open 30 weeks per year • No access will be provided from the parcel onto Clarendon Hills Dr. • FRCC has met with the Clarendon Hills HOA; there are deed restrictions on the parcel that require Clarendon Hills HOA review of development on the parcel. Seth Lorson then opened the meeting for questions. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Comment: (Citizen) I’m interested to hear what residents of Coventry, Westbury and others have to say. I’m glad FRCC is going through the Site Plan Advisory Review process. The site plan has much surface parking, and wonder if FRCC would consider more transit strategies, including MAX, as an alternative to more surface parking. 2. Question: (Citizen) Where is MAX located and where are connections to public transportation? Response: (City) MAX is just under one mile to the east. Existing transit stops were pointed out (on Shields and near intersection of Westbury and Starflower). Some changes may occur in the future. Response: (Applicant) We have tried at all our schools to encourage students to use public transit. It is difficult for students to use public transit because of school, work, and bus schedules. Transfort service is not very frequent. With Phase 1, we will have the same number of parking spaces as now. We do not expect a huge increase in our welding and automotive programs (perhaps 20 more to the existing 700 per quarter). 3. Question: (Citizen) I’m a resident of Clarendon Hills and am concerned about traffic safety at intersections. My 12-year old daughter was hit on her bicycle at Clarendon Hills & Shields by a FRCC student; others have been hit as well. The exit at Harmony Library is unsafe as is. I’m concerned about safety for kids going to Harmony Library and Webber Middle School. Response: (Applicant) We were unaware of accidents involving FRCC students and neighborhood children, and are concerned. We can explore providing additional info to our students. 52 3 Response: (City) The City keeps statistics on accidents, and can look at the design of the intersection as well as facilitating education and information to FRCC students. 4. Question: (Citizen) What is the plan if this doesn’t go through? I’m concerned that you are providing setbacks and elevation drawings for the parking lot, but not for the integrated technology building, where the berms are small. I’m concerned about impacts on special needs kids (asthma). Why not place the offices on the east, and point the auto bays toward the interior of campus? Will additional water be channeled onto Harmony? I’m concerned about the abandoned cars near the current building (circulated pictures), and that they will be placed near the neighbors of the new building as well. I’m concerned about a potential 70% increase in traffic. Response: (Applicant) We will be channeling water to a detention pond at the northeast corner of the site. All welding activities will take place inside. There will be building filtration on the northwest edge of the building, and we are addressing the acoustic impacts of this filtration system. Response: (City) This proposal does not increase student enrollment. Traffic impacts would be examined with the next project or the master plan. 5. Comment: (Citizen) I live in Clarendon Hills and would like to thank FRCC for their work with the neighborhood to buffer the parking, to not provide access to the parking lot from Clarendon Hills Drive, and to continue to work to mitigate the impacts on neighbors. 6. Question: (Citizen) What happens to the gray area at the bottom of the map (southern part of the property currently owned by church)? Response: (Clarendon Hills resident) The warranty deed survives the purchase of the property, so any plans for development would be required to be submitted to the Clarendon Hills architectural review committee. Response: (Applicant) We do not have a plan for the area south of the canal. Initially we looked at placing the integrated technology building on the parcel, but we stopped consideration of this because of our meetings with Clarendon Hills. The eight-acre parcel is owned by a church; the entire parcel requires Clarendon Hills HOA architectural review. 7. Question: (Citizen) I believe you will need to re-engineer the intersection on Shields with the additional parking near that intersection. What are the hours of operation? The integrated technology building appears to be a “square peg” that is not friendly to the community on the east. 53 4 Response: (Applicant) The building was initially designed for the eastern location, and was planned for the eastern side until the church land came up for sale. At that point, we considered placing it on the church parcel, but when this concept was rejected by Clarendon Hills, we shifted it back to the east. 8. Question: (Citizen) I understand the need to expand, but how much might FRCC grow beyond estimates? The plans seem inward looking vs. outward looking (considering neighbors). Why is FRCC locating automotive and welding programs next to a residential area rather than an area zoned for light industrial uses? Is there another area in Fort Collins that would be more appropriate? 9. Comment: (Citizen) I’m a former student and instructor at FRCC. The integrated technology building in that location is unacceptable; it doesn’t belong in a residential area. I believe it should be located in an area zoned for this use. 10. Comment: (Citizen) The pictures of the existing building show FRCC is not being a good neighbor. The motorcycle classes have also been moved closer to the neighborhood. This proposal increases the impact. 11. Question: (Citizen) I support FRCC’s mission in educating people in our community. Might there be a location in the Mason Corridor where quasi- industrial uses like this? Could underground parking be considered? For shielding, I’d like to see berms, not just plants. How large are the trees and shrubs? Size might make a big difference. 12. Comment: (Citizen) What type of EPA rating do you have for the automotive shop? Response: (Applicant) Exact EPA rating is not known, but we have about 30 gallons of used oil that is pumped out monthly. 13. Comment: (Citizen) Is there a filter bag for the welding shop? Response: (Applicant) There are individual hoods at each welding station; the air is cleaned and blown back in to the building. 14. Question: (Citizen) Will there be an increase in students with the new building? Response: (Applicant) This expansion not intended to increase enrollment, but to service the present enrollment properly. Currently, we have seven car bays. The new building would have six tandem bays (six doors but twelve stations), and about 30% more space overall for the automotive program. Waste should not increase. 54 5 15. Question: (Citizen) How often do state inspectors come in to inspect the stormwater drainage, and is there a public review of the stormwater plan? Response: (Staff) We will provide information in the neighborhood meeting notes. Response: (Staff, post-meeting) The City, at some point, will be audited by the State and they will look at one or more of our stormwater facilities. The State is behind on auditing MS4 programs but that is just a part of the audit process. They will look at whether it was designed and built according to our standards, that it has not been altered unless planned and approved, and that it is functioning as designed. They will also look at our inspection and enforcement program to see that we are ensuring these things, as well. The City Council requires updates every year and has been reviewing our plans in more detail the last couple of years under what they call “Stormwater repurposing”. There has been numerous special sessions and hearings with City Council. Plus Stormwater puts out brochures and has open houses for every project and every master plan update for public comment. Also last year we switched from our own manual to using the Urban Drainage manual which is constantly updated. We had public input on the criteria manual from citizens and local engineering firms besides all the boards and commissions reviewed and commented on them. Staff contacts for further questions: Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Engineer, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Susan Strong, Environmental Regulatory Specialist, 970-416- 2325, strong@fcgov.com 16. Response to several questions about relocating the integrated technology programs to an off-campus location: (Applicant) We have looked at off-site alternatives, but they are much more expensive and more difficult to manage. The integrated technology programs are a training environment, not a production/industrial environment. 17. Comment: (Citizen) I’m concerned about Phase 2 and Phase 3. I’m concerned about a Wal-Mart-type parking lot and buildings with many students. I think FRCC may need to go elsewhere for future expansions, as it is landlocked where it is. 55 6 18. Question: (Citizen) I would like to see more development off of the main FRCC campus as the campus becomes full. I would like to express my concern about the irrigation ditch, as is a wildlife corridor and a drainage basin. I’m particularly concerned about Phase 2, if the parking lot is expanded to the south. Response: (Staff) There are regulations for ditches that serve as wildlife corridors. An environmental characterization study (ECS) will be required because the ditch has been identified as a wildlife corridor. 19. Comment: (Citizen) I would like to note that there is a dedicated irrigation ditch (some of it underground) that runs behind Coventry. This canal is used to water city parks as well as other uses. Response: (Staff) The City process will require a buffer from the irrigation ditch, and provides regulations about plantings and maintenance. 20. Question: (Citizen) I am a new resident, live very close to the proposed building, and am not happy about the plans. You mention that you plan to build a new building just because renovating the old one is too disruptive. What happens to the old building? Response: (Applicant) The vacated building will be used to expand the art program, which is currently underserved. Renovating the existing auto/welding building cannot be done in the same footprint, and the area is constrained around it. Also, students in the program would miss a year while renovation occurred. 21. Comment: (Citizen) I live in Coventry, and am a former student. When I walked past the integrated technology building as a student, the facility smelled (like eggs). I’m concerned about possible odors for Coventry neighbors if the facility is moved to the east. If it is not ok for Clarendon, why it is ok for Coventry? I would suggest placing the nursing program next to the housing, and put the automotive use on the northwest corner of campus. 22. Comment: (Citizen) I teach wildlife biology at CSU. FRCC offers good programs, and some have run out of space. CSU has brought its less impactful programs to the edge of campus. Why can’t FRCC do the same to reduce its impact on its neighbors? 23. Comment: (Citizen) I’m concerned about the location of the auto/welding building, and the noise that will go toward Coventry. Could the offices and classrooms be placed to the east? Also, please keep in mind kids biking to the library and to Webber – you will be shifting traffic from the north entrance to the west entrance of campus. 56 7 24. Comment: (Citizen) I work for FRCC; it provides an excellent education, but is now maxed out. The new building would provide indoor storage. 25. Comment: (Citizen) I live in Coventry. FRCC has seen remarkable growth, and just about maxed out. I thought FRCC would buy the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields, where there is lots of acreage. My son attended Wyoming Tech, which has uses such as this in an industrial area. 26. Comment: (Citizen) I am an electrical engineer, and would like to note that welding causes electromagnetic interference with electronics. The interference should be examined. Also, could the building be placed on the pie-shaped parking area on the west side of campus, away from Coventry and Clarendon Hills? 27. Comment: (Applicant) I am a welding instructor, and we are concerned about separating the program from campus. The ability to access the library, clubs, etc. would be harmed with an off-campus location. 57 Mark and Ingrid Layman 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 July 30, 2013 RE: FRCC purchase and development of Peak Community Church property Dear Council Members, We are the designated liaisons for the Clarendon Hills neighborhood concerning an impending purchase and development by Front Range Community College (FRCC), 4616 S Shields St., Fort Collins, CO 80526. For the past 17 years, we have lived in the neighborhood at 908 Langdale Drive. Our home adjoins an 8-acre parcel of vacant land located at Shields Street and Clarendon Hills Drive, south of the FRCC campus. When we bought our home we did so knowing that the vacant land was owned by the Peak Community Church, formerly the First Church of God, and zoned residential. Currently, the Peak Community Church is in the process of selling this property to FRCC which plans to develop the land with additional school buildings and parking lots. This property will expand FRCC’s campus by 20%. We are gravely concerned about this new development activity, the impact to our neighborhood, and the manner in which it is being conducted. We have had two meetings between ourselves, 2 to 3 members of our HOA, and FRCC. We have been told generalities of the FRCC plan for the property, but very little acknowledgement of the needs of our neighborhood. FRCC has communicated to Clarendon Hills that it is not required to go through the City’s zoning or planning processes, since it is affiliated with the State. However, we have heard that they plan on requesting a zoning change. FRCC has also told us that they will break ground as soon as they close on the property in August so that they can finish the first building in time for the 2014 Fall Semester. We are very concerned by the speed at which this development is being processed and would like the City’s involvement via a site plan advisory review. Of special note, is that this property is bound by a Warranty Deed set forth in 1991. The Deed stipulates that “No building or other structure shall be erected, placed or altered on the herein – described property until plans and specifications of the building and landscaping have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision.” See Deed attached. Our HOA committee has not received nor approved FRCC’s improvement plans. An illustration of our concern is that, according to an FRCC pencil drawing, FRCC’s “Phase 1” of construction includes an initial 28,806 Sq. Ft., single level Integrated Technology Building. This industrial building will house the Automotive Tech, Welding, and Clean Energy programs. The building will have 6+ automotive bays, welding machines, and solar panel assembly facilities--all facing away from the main campus toward the Clarendon Hills neighborhood. FRCC says that the building will have 14’ ceilings to accommodate lifts and 8-10’ tall solid white metal fencing which will provide security for Auto/Welding assets including automobiles, which will be stored outside. In contrast, the north side of the building, which faces the rest of the college and away from our 58 neighborhood, will contain staff offices, student space, and two classrooms. The remainder of the property will be assigned to parking lots and possibly an additional building in the future. The impact to our neighborhood is that it moves Clarendon Hills into an industrial setting -- significantly increasing sound pollution, introduces hazardous emissions, and brings an industrial setting to a quality residential neighborhood. Clarendon Hills Neighborhood current concerns regarding FRCC expansion: 1. Zoning: Currently Residential. Proposed use: industrial. - 6+ automotive bays, a racking system, pneumatic lifts and tools as well as a fleet of cars parked outside surrounded by an 8-10 ft. white metal fence. - Welding and fabrication - Solar panel assembly facility - Decibel levels of automotive, welding, solar tools and fabrication - Hours of operation 2. Parking Expansion: Includes additional parking covering multiple acres, situated within feet of homes and perimeters of the adjoining Clarendon Hills neighborhood. - Impact of the increase of students and vehicles parking in our neighborhood. - Ingress/egress of vehicles via Clarendon Hills Dr. or Langdale Dr. - Vehicle headlights and parking lot lighting 3. Destruction of property values in Clarendon Hills. 4. Environmental: - Noise pollution - pneumatic and industrial tools, HVAC, parking, trash services, engines running with and without mufflers, and outdoor activities/classes. - Heat pollution - parking lots, buildings. - Light pollution – lighted parking lots & buildings, vehicle headlights. - Storm water drainage and soil erosion. - Storage and use of hazardous materials. - Affect on City water and sanitary systems. - Ecological impact on the plants and animals in the 8-acre vacant lot. 5. Fast-track of this project needs to go through a Fort Collins City review/approval process as well as input from the surrounding neighborhoods. 6. Contractual requirements of the Warranty Deed. 7. Future FRCC growth: - We need a plan that legally protects our neighborhood from future FRCC growth and ensures their compliance with the Warranty Deed. - FRCC has suggested a second building on this site. What process will that project go through? 59 We ask the Council to please intercede on our behalf by requiring FRCC to comply with the Warranty Deed, have appropriate time for review (Community, Zoning, etc.), and to support the Clarendon Hills neighborhood to maintain our property values and quality of life in this beautiful community. Clarendon Hills considers this matter to be urgent. We have received significant feedback from our neighbors regarding the industrialized change and the impacts to the quality of the overall area. We look forward to your earliest reply. We are available at the phone numbers and email addresses below. Sincerely, Mark and Ingrid Layman Clarendon Hills - FRCC Expansion Communications Liaisons Mark (970) 231-8543 Email: mark.layman@hp.com Ingrid (970) 231-8615 Email: Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 60 Brookwood on Mail Creek Homeowners Association 5020 Crest Road Ft Collins, Co 80526 3 Oct 2013 To FRCC Board and planned unit developer City Planning Department Seth Lorson Clarendon Hills Homeowners Assoc RE: Front Range Community College Larimer Campus, Corner of Shields and Harmony Dear Sirs, The irrigation lateral ditch flowing through the proposed FRCC building lot (former Church property) serves the city parks service and the subdivision Brookwood on Mail Creek. It is vital to almost 70 acres of irrigated land on Crest Road and the City Parks behind McGraw School. It has been in existence since Ward Smith farmed this section of Larimer County. We have used it since 1976 and have tried to be good neighbors to both the school and the neighboring developments. When this utility easement was buried under Coventry subdivision, city standards required 24 inch concrete culvert, proper 100 foot manhole spacing and proper easements from buildings and structures, in case it needs to be re-dug and/or repaired. The ditch runs almost continuously during the summer months, from Pleasant Valley head gate 136. It should be easy to bury and not interfere in any way with the proposed development of buildings and parking. Brookwood and the City Parks service currently clean and maintain the ditch and its flow. This annually takes a lot of hand shovel work and occasionally a backhoe and/or chainsaws to remove large items. Putting the ditch in a large culvert would save a lot of this type work and facilitate cleaning what the neighborhood kids play with in this ditch. The rest of the ditch as it travels east along the south edge of Front Range CC could also be considered for the same concrete culvert which would save even more maintenance and cleaning on FRCC campus property. We are available to aid in any way to facilitate and advise this development and ditch maintenance. Sincerely Bob Underhill Pres Brookwood HOA 970-226-2573 5020 Crest Road Ft Collins, Co 80526 bcunderhill@gmail.com 61 1 TO: City of Fort Collins FROM: Clarendon Hills Home Owners Association, Wildlife Team RE: FRCC Ecological Characterization Study for the proposed developments on the land parcel adjacent to Clarendon Hills DATE: October 29, 2013 ATTACHEMENTS: (Appendix A: species list, Appendix B: petition) To whom it may concern, The Clarendon Hills Home Owners Association (CHHOA), through the Wildlife Team, submits these comments regarding Front Range Community College’s (FRCC) proposed development of the approximately 8 acre parcel adjacent to Clarendon Hills, with specific emphasis on the ecological value of the land as a wildlife corridor. We also provide specific comments and requests for clarification on the Ecological Characterization Study conducted by Wildland Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FRCC. 1. The development property is a wildlife corridor with significant habitat features that support nesting raptors: The CHHOA has compiled a list of observed species in the proposed development property, with observations occurring primarily along the irrigation ditch that cuts through the property and extends along the FRCC’s nature trail along the college’s southern border (Attachment A). CHHOA is fortunate to have professional wildlife biologist, ecologists, wildlife veterinarians, environmental engineers/consultants, and master birders in its community. The 83 taxa in the attached list have been verified by at least two observers over the last 10 years. Nine species of raptors have been documented, including an annual nesting of a pair of great horned owls. A nesting pair of Swainson’s hawks existed in the half-dead cottonwood on the south side of the property until the nest branch was pruned out by the current property owners (without mitigation or consultation with the City regarding protection for this sensitive species). A significant number of migratory bird species frequent the trees along the ditch during the summer. The diversity of mammals that use this property as a wildlife corridor is also 62 2 remarkable given surrounding development, and has included mega-fauna such as black bear, mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes. Special attention should be directed to the significant quality of tree and woody debris habitats along the ditch and FRCC nature trail, and the heavy use of these habitats by raptors and migratory bird species. These special habitat features support nesting birds, including but not limited to raptors. A pair of nesting great horned owls, dubbed “Athena and Hermes” by FRCC students, have been nesting in one of these trees for over a decade. Signs are posted by FRCC during mating, nesting and fledging periods to insure that the owls do not abandon the nest. Owlets are frequently seen using the grassy open areas along the CHHOA fences and in the proposed development property. Small mammals in the seeded pasture habitat, as well as doves and pigeons in the property and on campus, provide primary forage for the owls and other raptors. Important dates to protect these owls are included in the following table, compiled by FRCC faculty and students in the 2013 nesting season: Female first on nest: 1/29-1/30 Incubation period: 28-35 days *Note: Egg and hatch dates are estimates based on fledge dates, as these events were not directly observable. Owlets are estimated to be six weeks old at time of fledge. These dates are consistent with literature provided by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) which suggests that courtship of great horned owls occurs in January, and then nesting activity occurs from February through June (Raptor Monitoring Guidebook, CPW). Great horned owls brood Eggs Hatch Fledge* 1. 2/5-2/11 1. Aprx 3/12 1. 4/23 2. 2/12-2/18 2. Aprx 3/19 2. 4/30-5/1 3. 2/15-2/21 3. Aprx 3/22 3. 5/3 4. 2/18-2/24 4. Aprx 3/25 4. 5/6 63 3 for 21-28 days post hatch, fledging occurs 40-50 days post hatch, and then post fledge dependency to the nest occurs for another 7-14 days (D. Klute, CPW). A recommended buffer zone for these and other urban raptors is 200 meters during nesting activities (BLM Guide to Raptor Conservation in the western United States, pg. 61). However, since this owl species is more urban-adapted than many other raptors, a smaller buffer could potentially be tolerated. Due to regular wildlife use of the habitat features on the property, especially the irrigation ditch and the FRCC nature trail along this ditch, CHHOA and the City of Fort Collins both agree that the development property is a wildlife corridor. A wildlife corridor is defined as an area of natural habitat that serves as a conduit for wildlife movement between known wildlife reservoirs that have been fragmented by human activities. We have a large wildlife reservoir just to the west of Shields in the Cathy Fromme Prairie. The wildlife is drawn into Clarendon Hills (CH) from the Cathy Fromme Prairie via Fossil Creek. They utilize the cover and food sources provided by the irrigation canal and retention ponds within the CH neighborhood. Significant wildlife activity can be seen along the irrigation canal south of FRCC all the way to Ridgeview Park and beyond. A map has been submitted to the City showing the connectivity and is included here by reference (Dr. Raymond Watts, “Terrestrial Wildlife Corridors near Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus in a Landscape Context”, 2013). In essence, the wildlife corridor runs through the proposed development property and also along the FRCC nature trail. 2. Comments on the Ecological Characterization Study: The ecological characterization study (ECS) conducted by Wildland Consultants, Inc. was done at the request and initiative of FRCC. CHHOA greatly appreciates this exercise, which was not a City of Fort Collins requirement, but was in keeping with the intentions of the CHHOA and the warranty deed that restricts development and use on the proposed property. We appreciate that the ECS acknowledges the irrigation ditch as an urban wildlife corridor. We have specific comments and requests that should be addressed for the ECS to be a robust and interpretable assessment of the property’s ecological value. 64 4 1.) When were the observations of species use made? No dates are provided, so it is unclear how many visits were made, and what the environmental conditions were during those visits. PLEASE PROVIDE DATES AND WHETHER MIGRATORY SPECIES WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN THOSE SAMPLE DATES. 2.) Was staff from FRCC’s own Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Natural Resources consulted in regards to the habitat quality and wildlife use of the ditch? This department and its students have conducted a number of observational studies on the nature trail and on the nesting owls. PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF CONTACTS CONSULTED TO ASSESS WILDLIFE USE. 3.) There is no mention that the proposed development site is currently under MAJOR disturbance due to the pipeline staging area that Xcel Energy has constructed on the south side of the ditch. IF WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE DURING A PERIOD OF DISTURBANCE, THIS MUST BE NOTED. Otherwise, there is no context to the limited findings presented in the ECS. 4.) The ECS states “There are no known raptor nests on the development site or adjacent areas” (Section 3.1). PLEASE CORRECT THIS TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT TO DATE, THERE HAVE BEEN NESTING RAPTORS (great horned owls) annually nesting along the corridor. Owls (Strigiformes) are classified as raptors by both state (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) and federal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) agencies. 5.) The ECS states: “The unnamed south irrigation ditch provides a narrow wildlife movement corridor that is generally limited to the development site” (Section 3.2). An analysis of wildlife movement potential shows that animals can move from the Cathy Fromme Prairie, through the irrigation ditch corridor and CH neighborhood, and back to Cathy Fromme (see “Terrestrial Wildlife Corridors near Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus in a Landscape Context”, 2013, Dr. R. Watts). THE ECS SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT the FRCC’s OWN NATURE TRAIL and 65 5 GREENBELT are an EXTENSION of this WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. The proposed development site is not a stand-alone site, as the ECS contends. 3. Actions needed to protect the corridor and local biodiversity: Disruption of this wildlife corridor, and failure to preserve the special and significant habitat features associated with this corridor, will disrupt local wildlife movement and diminish the localized biodiversity of surrounding neighborhoods and of FRCC property. As such, we ask the City of Fort Collins to work with FRCC on buffer rules and best practices for development and timing of construction to minimize development disturbance along this corridor. FRCC has already demonstrated good faith with proposed buffer widths, providing a 100 ft buffer from the center of the ditch to protect wildlife use (reduced physical impacts). These buffers need to be adjusted to run from the ditch edge, not the center of the ditch, to be consistent with City recommendations. The FRCC should also consider directional parking lot lighting to reduce interference of nocturnal use of the corridor. In addition, construction activities should be limited to periods that do not interfere with raptor nesting behaviors. Specifically, construction should not occur within 200 meters of the owl nests from January 1 through June to allow for successful mating, brooding, fledging and post-fledge activities. Finally, we ask FRCC and the City of Fort Collins to work jointly with the Clarendon Hills and Coventry neighborhoods to preserve this unique urban wildlife corridor which adds value to all entities and to the public. Specifically, we ask that the City designate the area as having special habitat features for wildlife (the large trees, snags and downed woody debris) and that the FRCC work with CHHOA to maintain (or even improve!) these habitat features for long-term wildlife use. Respectfully submitted by the Clarendon Hills Wildlife Team, on behalf of the Clarendon Hills Home Owners Association and homeowners, including 289 petitioners to protect the corridor. October 29, 2013 Lead contact for CHHOA: Ingrid and Mark Layman, Ingrid.Layman@aastarship.com 66 6 APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST ON THE PROPERTY AVIFAUNA (Raptors) 1 Great horned owl (nesting pair for the last decade) 2 Swainson’s hawk (nesting pair, until nest pruned out) 3 Sharp-shinned hawk 4 Coopers hawk 5 Prairie falcon* 6 Bald eagle (winter perch, flyovers) 7 Merlin falcon 8 American kestrel 9 Red-tailed hawk (Residents and migratory passerines) 10 American crow 11 American goldfinch 12 American robin 13 American tree sparrow 14 American white pelican (flyover) 15 Barn swallow 16 Black-billed magpie 17 Black-capped chickadee 18 Blue jay 19 Bohemian waxwing 20 Broad-tailed hummingbird 21 Canada goose (nesting) 22 Cedar waxwing 23 Common grackle 24 Common nighthawk (flyover) 25 Common raven 26 Dark-eyed junco 27 Downy woodpecker 28 Eurasian collared dove 29 European starling 30 Great blue heron (flyover) 31 Hairy woodpecker 32 Horned lark 33 House finch 67 7 34 House sparrow 35 Killdeer 36 Lazuli bunting 37 Mallard 38 Meadowlark 39 Mountain chickadee 40 Mourning dove 41 Nighthawk 42 Northern flicker 43 Red-breasted nuthatch 44 Red-winged blackbird 45 Ring-billed gull 46 Rock pigeon 47 Rough-legged hawk 48 Rufous hummingbird 49 Sandhill crane (flyover) 50 Scrub jay 51 Steller’s jay 52 Townsend’s solitaire 53 Tree swallow 54 Turkey Vulture 55 Western Kingbird 56 Western meadowlark 57 Western tanager 58 White-breasted nuthatch 59 White-crowned sparrow 60 Yellow warbler HERPETOFAUNA 61 Bull snakes 62 Common garter snake 63 Plains garter snake 64 Prairie rattlesnake* MAMMALS 65 Big brown bat 66 Other bat species 67 Black bear 68 Bobcat* 69 Cottontail rabbit 70 Coyote 68 8 71 Deer mouse 72 Gray fox* 73 Mountain lion* 74 Mule deer* 75 Raccoon 76 Red fox 77 Red fox squirrel 78 Striped skunk 79 Meadow vole AQUATIC SPECIES 80 Crayfish 81 Aquatic beetles 82 Hemipterans (water striders, etc.) 83 Tiger salamander *: Species with asterisks are seen less frequently Bird list primarily compiled by Alan Godwin, 4801 Langdale Ct., using the City of Fort Collins “CHECKLIST OF LOCAL BIRDS” format. File: BirdList10-15-2013 Additional bird, mammal and herptile species compiled by: neighbors bordering the property, wildlife biologists, ecological researchers and consultants, wildlife veterinarians, environmental engineers, and master birders who are homeowners in Clarendon Hills; Colorado Parks and Wildlife; and Front Range Community College Forestry, Wildlife and Natural Resources Department. Please contact Dr. Nicole Vieira or Mark Vieira for further information: Dr. Nicole Vieira, Assistant Professor Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology Department Nicole.vieira@colostate.edu Mark Vieira, Wildlife Biologist Colorado Parks and Wildlife Mark.vieira@state.co.us 69 9 Watching the owl nest! 70 Hello Clarendon Hills, FRCC Expansion, impact on wildlife corridor Petition to Preserve and Protect Wildlife Diversity in Clarendon Hills Front Range Community College is rapidly moving towards the construction of a parking lot on the north side of the irrigation ditch located in the empty field South of the College We are concerned about the impact this will have on our neighborhood wildlife, and more regionally, on the biodiversity of south Fort Collins wildlife. The goal of this petition is to drive the parking lot as far north as possible and simultaneously preserve as much of the area in its natural state as possible. A wildlife corridor is defined as an area of natural habitat that serves as a conduit for wildlife movement between known wildlife reservoirs that have been fragmented by human activities. We have a large wildlife reservoir just to the west of Shields in the Cathy Fromme Prairie. The wildlife is drawn into Clarendon Hills from the Cathy Fromme Prairie via Fossil Creek. They utilize the cover and food sources provided by the irrigation canal and detention ponds. Significant wildlife activity can be seen along the irrigation canal south of FRCC all the way to Ridgeview Park and beyond. Disruption of this corridor, or failure to preserve a wide swatch of natural landscape, will disrupt local wildlife movement, detract from the beauty of our neighborhood, and diminish the biodiversity of our wild visitors. Clarendon Hills has many environmental experts and wildlife enthusiasts. From amateur birdwatchers and nature photographers to professional wildlife biologists, naturalists, and veterinarians; our neighborhood values these natural visitors. The sheer number of bird feeders, butterfly gardens, and wildlife-friendly yards reinforce this fact. We have reports of a very diverse and healthy wildlife population in this area. (See Appendix A overleaf) We fear that the expansion of FRCC will greatly diminish, if not eliminate, this amazing biodiversity and quality of life in our neighborhood. This petition documents Clarendon Hills’ desire to preserve as much of the property south of FRCC in its natural state as possible and to protect and preserve the wildlife corridor. By signing this petition you are stating your desire to support and minimize the impact of the planned FRCC parking lot development to our wild visitors. Thank you for your support. Please protect the wildlife corridor on the vacant lot south of FRCC. Address: _______________________________________________ Signed: ________________________________________ Date: ____________ Printed Name: __________________________________ Signed: ________________________________________ Date: ____________ Printed Name: __________________________________ 71 Appendix A: Species sightings in Clarendon Hills neighborhood 1. Red fox 2. Gray fox 3. Raccoon 4. Striped skunk 5. Red fox squirrel 6. Coyote 7. Bats 8. Cottontail rabbits 9. Field mice 10. Voles 11. Mule deer 12. Bobcat 13. Mountain lion 14. Common garter snake 15. Plains garter snake 16. Bull snakes 17. Prairie rattlesnakes 18. Crayfish 19. Western tanagers 20. Broad tailed hummingbirds 21. Rufous hummingbirds 22. Black-chinned hummingbirds 23. Grackles 24. Red-winged blackbirds 25. Blue jays 26. Scrub jays 27. Flickers 28. Downy woodpeckers 29. Chickadees 30. Juncos 31. Warblers 32. Mourning doves 33. American kestrels 34. Red tailed hawks 35. Swainson’s hawks 36. Sharp-shinned hawks 37. Coopers hawks 38. Ravens 39. Crows 40. Lazuli buntings 41. Bald eagles 42. Prairie falcons 43. Mallard ducks 44. Canada geese 45. Nuthatches 46. Great blue heron 47. Rock doves 48. Magpies 49. Meadowlark 50. Nighthawks 51. Cedar waxwings 52. Great horned owls 72 From: Edwin T. Neset To: Seth Lorson Cc: swftc.connected@yahoo.com Subject: FRCC Development Review Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:45:49 AM We live in Clarendon Hills and are going to be out of town tomorrow. I thought I would pass on my thoughts regarding the proposed expansion of the Front Range Community College: 1. If they expect to dramatically increase their enrollment over the next few years then they should find another location for their campus. There is just not enough room to keep expanding at the current location. 2. The initial plan to put an auto workshop in the expanded site would be a dramatic change for the bad for the Clarendon Hills residents living in the area. Noise and pollution would definitely increase. 3. If the college now plans to put just parking in the area then they should put a buffer zone of a fence and trees/shrubs between the parking area and the neighborhood. 4. There should be NO access to the parking area from the Clarendon Hills residential area. We already have problems getting in and out of the area from Hinsdale onto Harmony Road and if students are allowed to access the parking lot from Clarendon Hills Drive, it will just create more problems to access the residential areas (not factoring in the safety and noise concerns). Terry and Anita Neset 5130 Abbey Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 73 From: Barb Ridgley To: Seth Lorson Subject: FRCC Expansion Date: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:11:34 PM I was at the neighborhood meeting last night regarding the expansion of Front Range Community College. Along with the points made last night, I wanted to add a few thoughts. It was said in the meeting “We don’t expect to continue to expand this campus indefinitely”. I believe that Front Range Community College plays a good role in the community. I also see this campus continuing to grow, as Northern Colorado population increases. I saw proposals to build at least 3 new buildings and to expand others. Why doesn’t FRCC pursue buying land for a new campus and build these new buildings on the new land in an area where they can expand and grow? It doesn’t make sense to keep adding to a campus that is bound on all sides by residential neighborhoods. I also think that in this computer era – FRCC needs to begin looking at expanding its Online classes, so less students need to commute to campus on a daily basis. I don’t really want to look over a sea of asphalt parking lots every time I walk down Clarendon Hills Drive and Langdale Drive. Being an IT professional working at HP, I am aware of so many new technologies that allow for great training of students virtually. Although I realize that that some things just can’t be taught remotely (i.e. automotive and welding), I know math, science, Information Technology, art classes, and business all have classes that would work remotely. I work from my home, my team is virtual, we are spread all over the world. We hold meetings, conference calls, and work together. My point is that it works – it works for businesses, and it should be considered for colleges as well. I am in agreement with the majority of the speakers last night, in that I don’t believe the current campus is a good place to put the new Integrated Technology building. It needs to be in a light industrial zoned area, not in a low density housing area. The concern raised about Interference is a concern for the people of Coventry. I would be furious if I lived 65 feet from that building and had no way to connect to my personal wireless router! Thanks for listening. Barb Ridgley 930 Alexa Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 74 From: Edlyn Meringolo To: Seth Lorson Subject: Front Range Community College - SPAR Submittal for SW parking Lot Date: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:30:47 PM Dear Mr. Lorson, I attended the Oct. 2, 2013 community meeting and just received the meeting minutes. One of the many issues with the proposed parking lot plan was specifically related to the increase in traffic and potential traffic accidents . One of the citizens at the meeting mentioned that her daughter riding a bike was hit by a FRCC student. During the past week, the Coloradoan has had articles about the increase in bicycle/ car accidents There were 3 in 1 day this week. I am concerned that the proposed parking lot to include 425 new spaces once its built out will have a detrimental and potential dangerous impact on our citizens. There are plans to expand the Fossil Creek bike trail from College to Shield. This will bring more people riding their bike up and down Shields and crossing the entry road to the proposed parking lot. Please consider these issues in your review. Thanks You, Edlyn Meringolo 5112 Abbey Road Clarendon Hills 75 From: joyce carroll To: Seth Lorson; Lindsay Ex Date: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:13:19 PM As to the FRCC expansion, I would like you both to take a look at the school's track record. Their last expansion was a parking lot on the south side of campus. They put up landscaping intended to screen the houses in Clarendon Hills and the nature trail. In this so called buffer zone, a number of the trees have died and have not been replaced. The quality of the trees they put was marginal and not the type that would give residents and trail users any sort of screening. In addition, the trees were spaced so far apart, they will never be able to provide the necessary buffer effect. At the recent meeting, they mentioned that heaviest use of the parking lot is during the school year and not in the summer. So why did they put in deciduous trees, that only leaf out in the summer? Why aren't they all evergreen trees that would give year round coverage ? Many of us have no trouble seeing the parking lot from our windows. In addition, can also hear the cars' radios, yes, even in the winter.(the students do love turning up the bass) If they had fuller, thicker, evergreen trees like the ones they put to the west of this area it would not only block people seeing the parking lot, but also hearing it in their houses. Why did they choose not to continue those trees ? Are there any regulations for types of trees that should be used for buffers or can FRCC once again put in any low grade trees they wish and call it good? Could FRCC be persuaded to put the appropriate trees in this area as well as the new area that is under discussion? They did mention they want to be good neighbors and appropriate plantings would go a long way towards that stated goal. Thank you for your time and consideration, Joyce Carroll 76 From: Access Fort Collins To: scolorosa@hotmail.com Cc: Ward Stanford; Seth Lorson Subject: RE: City of Fort Collins case number 24023 Date: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:05:18 PM Sara, Your comment was forward to the Zoning Department, but Zoning really isn't involved in this issue. I have reassigned this to Ward Standford (Traffic) and Seth Lorson (Planning). Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Original Request Due to the traffic at FRCC on Harmony and Starflower, I would like to recommend adding a left turn light for north and south - bound traffic on Starflower. There are many times that as I leave my neighborhood, I have to sit through three and four lights in order to turn onto Harmony. The traffic coming out of FRCC do not obey traffic laws, by not using their turn signals. In addition, with the proposed addition to the FRCC campus, there may be an increase in traffic coming from the parking lot. Please keep the students and neighborhood safe. Installing turn signals are a simple fix. 77 From: Layman, Mark C (PCGBU TCE&Q) To: Seth Lorson Cc: Laurie Kadrich; "Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com" Subject: RE: FRCC Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 7:38:04 AM Attachments: FRCC Facilities Master Plan Update Larimer Campus October 2012.pdf Seth, Thank you very much for you and your office’s engagement and leadership with the FRCC expansion SPAR. We have shared the news of this development with the community and have received positive feedback. Thanks also for the status update. Please keep us informed as substantive progress is made. My sense is that within this SPAR, FRCC’s overall plan will be discussed. In October 2012 FRCC updated their Facilities Master Plan (attached). Of special note is that FRCC’s Larimer campus currently has 191,428 gross sq. ft. of facilities. FRCC’s updated master plan details adding 82,000 sq. ft. of new construction, a 43% increase in facilities. FRCC has also discussed adding a 45,000 sq. ft. building for their Allied Health program. Adding the combined total of 127,000 sq. ft. of new facilities will enlarge FRCC’s capacity by 66%. Additionally, FRCC’s master plan notes, “The amount of parking will be a major concern. If adding facilities requires additional faculty, staff, and students, parking demand will increase. Parking and building space are already beginning to compete for land use.” As you move forward with FRCC I would like you to discuss with them whether the campus is maxed out in terms of facility/building space and parking. The Larimer campus is fairly unique in the Colorado Community College System given that it is closely surrounded by residential communities on all sides, i.e. residentially land-locked. As other Colorado Community Colleges have done, FRCC may be better served to develop and expand into a new campus. Located elsewhere in the city, this new location could provide FRCC with room to expand and the opportunity to serve a geographically different segment of the market. Please find attached FRCC’s Facilities Master Plan Update Larimer Campus Oct 2012 document. Note this can also be found on the State Board of Community Colleges and Occupational Education website at: http://www.cccs.edu/SBCCOE/sbccoe.html The Master plan can be found at: http://www.cccs.edu/SBCCOE/Minutes.html ** Please see the minutes from November 14, 2012 K sq ft. Oct 2012 Master Plan April 2013 Building Plan Main Campus 191.4 192.4 New Construction Int Tech 30.0 28.8 78 Red Cloud 26.8 23.0 Mt Antero 10.0 11.4 Blanca Peak 15.0 October 2012 plan 81.8 63.2 Campus Growth % 43% 33% Allied Health 45 45 Total Growth 126.8 108.2 Campus Growth % 66% 56% Mark Layman 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, Co 80526 HM: 970-223-4321 From: Seth Lorson [mailto:slorson@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:32 AM To: Layman, Mark C (PCGBU TCE&Q); 'Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com' Cc: Laurie Kadrich Subject: RE: FRCC Hi Mark, I am planning a conference call between FRCC and Peak Community Church to discuss a coordinated process to subdivide the church lot and process the FRCC SPAR. I do not yet have details regarding the proposal but I have heard that they are not planning to develop the applied technology education building on the church lot. I will update you after our conference call. Best regards, Seth Seth E. Lorson, AICP | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6189 slorson@fcgov.com From: Layman, Mark C (PCGBU TCE&Q) [mailto:mark.layman@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:40 AM To: Seth Lorson; 'Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com' Cc: Laurie Kadrich Subject: RE: FRCC 79 Hello Seth, What is the current status of FRCC’s SPAR process? Have they submitted their plans? If not, have they indicated when they will? Do you have a schedule for working thru the different steps of the SPAR? Thank you, Mark Layman 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, Co 80526 HM: 970-223-4321 From: Seth Lorson [mailto:slorson@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 5:03 PM To: Laurie Kadrich; 'Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com'; Layman, Mark C (PCGBU TCE&Q) Cc: Gerry Horak; Steve Roy; Darin Atteberry; Karen Cumbo Subject: RE: FRCC Greetings Mark, Nice speaking with you. I’m looking forward to our meeting on Monday where we can walk through the neighborhood’s concerns. And by then, I should have a schedule coordinated with Front Range Community College for their Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process with the City of Fort Collins, which I can share with your team. Again, the meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 12, at 3 P.M., at 281 N. College in the NS Venti Room. Best regards, Seth Seth E. Lorson, AICP | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6189 slorson@fcgov.com From: Laurie Kadrich Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:12 PM To: 'Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com'; 'mark.layman@hp.com' Cc: Seth Lorson; Gerry Horak; Steve Roy; Darin Atteberry; Karen Cumbo Subject: FRCC Dear Mark and Ingrid, I am forwarding your concerns to the planner assigned to review the Front Range 80 Community College plan. Front Range has agreed to voluntarily review their project through a city process. This will ensure a neighborhood meeting will be held and that neighbors comments and concerns will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration. I should note, however that the Planning and Zoning Board’s review is advisory in nature. However, as I have met with representatives from Front Range Community College, I believe they are interested in responding to the concerns expressed by neighbors. By sending this email you will be notified of any further meetings and of the process Front Range will be required to follow by Mr. Seth Lorson, who is the planner assigned to this project. I know a lot of communications regarding this project have occurred since you wrote this to us and I am uncertain whether I need to communicate additional information or if you have heard information in other meetings, so please let me know if you would like to visit further on this. I can be reached at 221-6765. Mark and Ingrid Layman 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 July 30, 2013 RE: FRCC purchase and development of Peak Community Church property Dear Council Members, We are the designated liaisons for the Clarendon Hills neighborhood concerning an impending purchase and development by Front Range Community College (FRCC), 4616 S Shields St., Fort Collins, CO 80526. For the past 17 years, we have lived in the neighborhood at 908 Langdale Drive. Our home adjoins an 8-acre parcel of vacant land located at Shields Street and Clarendon Hills Drive, south of the FRCC campus. When we bought our home we did so knowing that the vacant land was owned by the Peak Community Church, formerly the First Church of God, and zoned residential. Currently, the Peak Community Church is in the process of selling this property to FRCC which plans to develop the land with additional school buildings and parking lots. This property will expand FRCC’s campus by 20%. We are gravely concerned about this new development activity, the impact to our neighborhood, and the manner in which it is being conducted. We have had two meetings between ourselves, 2 to 3 members of our HOA, and FRCC. We have been told generalities of the FRCC plan for the property, but very little acknowledgement of the needs of our neighborhood. FRCC has communicated to Clarendon Hills that it is not required to go through the City’s zoning or planning processes, since it is affiliated with the State. However, we have heard that they plan on requesting a 81 zoning change. FRCC has also told us that they will break ground as soon as they close on the property in August so that they can finish the first building in time for the 2014 Fall Semester. We are very concerned by the speed at which this development is being processed and would like the City’s involvement via a site plan advisory review. Of special note, is that this property is bound by a Warranty Deed set forth in 1991. The Deed stipulates that “No building or other structure shall be erected, placed or altered on the herein – described property until plans and specifications of the building and landscaping have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision.” See Deed attached. Our HOA committee has not received nor approved FRCC’s improvement plans. An illustration of our concern is that, according to an FRCC pencil drawing, FRCC’s “Phase 1” of construction includes an initial 28,806 Sq. Ft., single level Integrated Technology Building. This industrial building will house the Automotive Tech, Welding, and Clean Energy programs. The building will have 6+ automotive bays, welding machines, and solar panel assembly facilities--all facing away from the main campus toward the Clarendon Hills neighborhood. FRCC says that the building will have 14’ ceilings to accommodate lifts and 8-10’ tall solid white metal fencing which will provide security for Auto/Welding assets including automobiles, which will be stored outside. In contrast, the north side of the building, which faces the rest of the college and away from our neighborhood, will contain staff offices, student space, and two classrooms. The remainder of the property will be assigned to parking lots and possibly an additional building in the future. The impact to our neighborhood is that it moves Clarendon Hills into an industrial setting -- significantly increasing sound pollution, introduces hazardous emissions, and brings an industrial setting to a quality residential neighborhood. Clarendon Hills Neighborhood current concerns regarding FRCC expansion: 1. Zoning: Currently Residential. Proposed use: industrial. - 6+ automotive bays, a racking system, pneumatic lifts and tools as well as a fleet of cars parked outside surrounded by an 8-10 ft. white metal fence. - Welding and fabrication - Solar panel assembly facility - Decibel levels of automotive, welding, solar tools and fabrication - Hours of operation 2. Parking Expansion: Includes additional parking covering multiple acres, situated within feet of homes and perimeters of the adjoining Clarendon Hills neighborhood. - Impact of the increase of students and vehicles parking in our neighborhood. - Ingress/egress of vehicles via Clarendon Hills Dr. or Langdale Dr. 82 - Vehicle headlights and parking lot lighting 3. Destruction of property values in Clarendon Hills. 4. Environmental: - Noise pollution - pneumatic and industrial tools, HVAC, parking, trash services, engines running with and without mufflers, and outdoor activities/classes. - Heat pollution - parking lots, buildings. - Light pollution – lighted parking lots & buildings, vehicle headlights. - Storm water drainage and soil erosion. - Storage and use of hazardous materials. - Affect on City water and sanitary systems. - Ecological impact on the plants and animals in the 8-acre vacant lot. 5. Fast-track of this project needs to go through a Fort Collins City review/approval process as well as input from the surrounding neighborhoods. 6. Contractual requirements of the Warranty Deed. 7. Future FRCC growth: - We need a plan that legally protects our neighborhood from future FRCC growth and ensures their compliance with the Warranty Deed. - FRCC has suggested a second building on this site. What process will that project go through? We ask the Council to please intercede on our behalf by requiring FRCC to comply with the Warranty Deed, have appropriate time for review (Community, Zoning, etc.), and to support the Clarendon Hills neighborhood to maintain our property values and quality of life in this beautiful community. Clarendon Hills considers this matter to be urgent. We have received significant feedback from our neighbors regarding the industrialized change and the impacts to the quality of the overall area. We look forward to your earliest reply. We are available at the phone numbers and email addresses below. Sincerely, Mark and Ingrid Layman Clarendon Hills - FRCC Expansion Communications Liaisons Mark (970) 231-8543 Email: mark.layman@hp.com Ingrid (970) 231-8615 Email: Ingrid.layman@aastarship.com 83 908 Langdale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 84 85 86 Terrestrial Wildlife Corridors near Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus in a Landscape Context A Report for the Clarendon Hills Wildlife Group and a Public Comment on the Proposed Parking Lot Development on a Parcel Adjacent to the Southwest Perimeter of Front Range Community College by Raymond D. Watts, Ph.D. 815 Langdale Drive, Fort Collins 80526 October 2013 87 Focus of Report: Ground Dwelling Animals Roads and fences inhibit movement of terrestrial (ground dwelling) animals and focus wildlife occupancy and movement patterns into corridors—zones where barriers to movement are minimized and concealment is maximized. In contrast, birds inhabit and move with an entirely different set of considerations and constraints. This report focuses on factors that influence terrestrial animals, and on opportunities to maintain and enhance populations and movement of terrestrial wildlife across the area. Landscape Context In order to appreciate the value of wildlife-friendly corridors on the campus of FRCC and the surrounding neighborhoods, it is helpful to look at the FRCC setting in a larger development context (Map 1). There are two landscape factors to consider: (1) the ease or difficulty that animals experience in moving through a particular part of the landscape (landscape permeability); and (2) hazards to wildlife. Shields St and Harmony Rd, the two major roads adjacent to the area, are relatively impervious to animal movement owing to long segments that are solidly fenced or walled. These roads also present hazardous crossings for animals of all sizes. Animals certainly cross both roads, particularly at night, using barrier gaps at Pyrenees, Westbury, and Starflower streets. The fences on the Clarendon Hills (east) side of Shields are relatively more permeable, as there is a gap in fencing at the end of each Clarendon Hills cul-de-sac. Clarendon Hills, Westbury, and Coventry have high internal densities of solid fencing that inhibits movement of larger mammals, particularly mule deer; smaller mammals (amphibians, rodents, skunks, raccoons, and foxes) move more readily through a maze of fencing gaps. Le Jardin, Applewood, and Scenic Knolls, the neighborhoods that border on the Cathy Fromme Prairie, generally have split rail fences that present little movement resistance for animals of all sizes. T06N R69W T07N R69W 03 02 35 11 34 01 10 36 12 FortCollins S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGEAVE WHARMONYRD FOSSILCREEKDR Dogs and cats, common in all neighborhoods, are hazards to many wildlife species and are generally avoided by wild animals. Many species also exhibit aversion to humans, although humans generally do not pose a direct threat. Landscape permeability offers escape routes when there are encounters between wild animals and domestic animals or humans. The great reservoir of wildlife habitat in the area is the Cathy Fromme Prairie, which extends substantially farther to the south and west than shown on Map 1, and connects directly to the foothill ridges and valleys. Animals of all sizes can move freely across the low density, rail fenced subdivisions of Scenic Knolls and Applewood toward the Redtail Grove Natural Area and into the fields along the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. Animals that move in this pattern are then in a habitat cul-de-sac, hemmed in by dense, solidly fenced developments and busy roads on the west, north, and east sides. East-west pathways through the neighborhoods of Clarendon Hills, Coventry, Westbury, and Le Jardin thus provide two benefits: (1) pathways for wildlife to move in both directions between the open fields along the west side of the railroad tracks, and the large natural areas to the west and southwest; and (2) opportunities for residents to view and appreciate wildlife. Water Streams and ditches, along with their associated riparian vegetation corridors, are particularly important because wet areas have higher biological diversity than the broader landscape. Dense vegetation provides concealment that is important to many terrestrial species, and types of food that are unavailable in drier zones. Numerous bird species use riparian zones either principally (e.g. for nesting), intermittently for food and water, or as migratory habitat. The principal watercourse in the area is Fossil Creek (Map 2), with headwaters in the Cathy Fromme Prairie and running from there eastward to Redtail Grove. Water is added to Fossil Creek by the Trilby Lateral Ditch, which runs north to south through Westbury and then adds flow to Fossil Creek via a natural tributary that crosses the southwest corner of Clarendon Hills. A diversion from the Trilby Lateral in Le Jardin feeds an underground culvert that runs east to emerge on the east side of Shields Street, where it forms the Map 2. Shows watercourses in more detail, although many small irrigation ditches are omitted. Fossil Creek and its tributaries are blue; ditches are turquoise; the stormwater and spring-fed wetland through the FRCC campus is green (at its eastern end this is much disturbed Mail Creek); and the chain of ponds through Clarendon Hills is red (cross hatching of this feature is explained below). Railroad tracks along the east margin are magenta . 89 surface ditch that bisects the property proposed for purchase and development by FRCC. This flow goes underground again briefly, and re-emerges farther east on the FRCC campus, then goes underground again through Coventry and Ridgeview Park. All natural watercourses, along with associated flood plains and riparian zones, comprise de facto wildlife corridors. Existing Corridors across Developed Land The band of unpaved land along the south margin of the current FRCC campus, which is partly bounded by a ditch, forms a significant east-west corridor. On the east end, this corridor gives way to a pathway through Coventry, although the total distance between structures there is as little as 50 ft., which is narrow enough to diminish its corridor value. At the west end, this corridor leads to Shields St and continuous walls and fences except for a small gap at Westbury Drive. To the east, the corridor ends at Ridgeview Park, which is bounded on its east side by homes on Crest Rd, about half of which have unfenced yards. Typical gaps between homes on Crest Rd are 20 feet, which is less than optimal for wildlife passage. Clarendon Hills maintains a significant east-west corridor that contains a chain of spring fed ponds (Map 3). Natural vegetation along this corridor has generally been replaced by park-like landscaping. The average width measured on the six cross sections shown on Map 3, is 129 feet; the minimum width is 84 feet; the length is 1945 feet; and the area is approximately 6 acres. The lack of natural vegetation, which would provide concealment and add habitat value, is partially compensated by the near absence of fences behind homes adjacent to this common area. Thus, animals using this corridor can find concealment on adjacent private properties. On the west end, there is an additional pond on the west side of Clarendon Hills Dr, and then cul-de- sac streets ending at fences along Shields St (these fences have gaps that allow wildlife passage). The west end of the Clarendon Hills common area is not what one would intentionally design for a wildlife corridor, because it creates another habitat cul-de-sac on a small scale, but the unimpeded corridor east of Clarendon Hills Dr nevertheless adds considerable east-west movement possibilities. Rail fences at the east end of this corridor give wildlife access to the large fields along the west side of the railroad tracks. The corridors through the Clarendon Hills common area and along the south margin of the FRCC campus have one significant hazard zone at their western termini: Shields Street, with its high traffic volumes and speeds. Ashford and Hinsdale, the streets crossed by these corridors, have curves, stop signs, and radar speed monitoring close to potential wildlife crossing areas; slow traffic speeds and generally low volumes limit the potential for animal-vehicle collisions. The net effect is to provide wildlife friendly passage for well over half the distance between the open fields along the BNSF railroad tracks and the large habitat areas of the Cathy Fromme Prairie and Fossil Creek. Map 3. The Clarendon Hills Common Area corridor, which incorporates a chain of ponds. Red numbers and lines indicate measured distances in feet. 116 184 161 84 90 137 1945 90 The Urban Ecosystem Other comments on the proposed development list the diverse wildlife that has been observed in Clarendon Hills and its neighboring communities. Urban ecosystems are not, and cannot be, natural ecosystems; in fact urban ecosystems support many non native species, in part owing to the abundant tree and shrub cover of the urban landscape. Although the local ecosystem is disturbed from what would naturally occur, it is nevertheless an intact, functioning, and diverse ecosystem that provides a robust food web and includes apex predators. Fences, large roads, and other cultural features fragment the landscape, diminish genetic diversity and biodiversity, and ultimately populations of species that are not well adapted to the urban environment. Maintenance of wildlife friendly corridors is the only defense against habitat fragmentation. Appreciation of wildlife in this corner of Fort Collins is beyond dispute: more than 250 signatures have been applied to a petition stating support for maintenance of the wildlife corridor at FRCC. Summary and Conclusions There are already many significant barriers to wildlife movement around the FRCC campus and its surrounding neighborhoods. The objective now cannot realistically be to provide ideal wildlife corridors, but rather to maintain and improve the bits and pieces of corridors that remain. The benefits that can be realized by maintaining these corridors are: • diminished animal-vehicle collisions (benefit to animals and motorists) • more frequent animal sightings in neighborhoods (cultural and educational value) • maintenance of biodiversity (ecological value). East-west travel corridors are particularly lacking in the area; without these, animals that move relatively freely from the foothills and the Cathy Fromme Prairie, east toward the railroad tracks, and then north along the west side of the tracks, are in a travel cul-de-sac. Exits across Harmony Rd to the north and the busy travel corridors to the east are deadly. With additional opportunities to move west, some animals will find their way south to the relatively safe corridor along Fossil Creek, to the undeveloped areas to the northwest of the Harmony-Shields intersection, or through the few unfenced gaps into Westbury and thence along the Trilby Lateral Ditch. The community of Clarendon Hills invests large sums to maintain its east-west open space corridor. This effort has not been made specifically for wildlife, but animals frequent this corridor and benefit from it, and residents benefit from frequent wildlife sightings. Clarendon Hills residents encourage FRCC and the City of Fort Collins not only to maintain the current wildlife corridor along the south edge of the FRCC campus, but to improve it. Additional plantings that provide concealment would simultaneously improve habitat value and esthetic appeal. A corridor of at least 100 foot width would be an asset to FRCC and to the community. 91 1 Seth Lorson Subject: FW: FRCC - Detention pond From: sbevans5@msn.com [mailto:sbevans5@msn.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 5:06 PM To: Ingrid Layman Subject: Detention pond Good afternoon, Ingrid, I am sending you some of our concerns we have over the intended detention pond at FRCC that we discussed at our last meeting. We have ground movement on our properties, just behind FRCC (Bob and Pat's fence is on the verge of falling down) and with the depth of the pond, we're concerned that more and more of our property will fall away. From the diagram, you showed me, it looks like the pond will be very close to the ditch, which is where the big Cottonwood trees stand (one having the owls' nest) - are they taking them out, or taking the chance that the trees won't be falling into their pond (due to our ground movement)?? Before FRCC had the trees trimmed, one of the Cottonwoods slowly leaned over into our property until its branches were touching the ground. There is also a concern about the water table - we have been pumping our sump a good portion of this year (and in years past). There has been water seeping out of the ground over by Bob and Pat's fence (to the west) as well as other water seeping over near the owl tree. Will this water be sitting in the pond to stale and become stinky? If they claim this is to be a "dry" pond, then I don't think they've taken into consideration the depth of the water table in this area. One of our other concerns is what the pond will be made of, will it be cemented, will it be grass, or will it be rock? And how is it going to be maintained? Will we need to put up with an eyesore??? I understand FRCC needs to have somewhere for the storm water, from the parking lot, to flow to, but this pond's situation is going to be a bit higher than most of the proposed lot - how is the water going to be directed into the pond, and most importantly, how is it to flow out? I'm afraid with all these changes, that FRCC is making to the area, we will be losing our wildlife visitors - which is one of the reasons we love about living here. It is really sad that FRCC is taking every bit of "green" space to build and cover with asphalt. Definitely not "Eco" friendly. Becky 92 November 6, 2013 Dear Lindsay and Seth, I would like to include the Clarendon Hills petition to Preserve and Protect the Wildlife Corridor in the public record for the property being purchased by FRCC. As of today, 292 neighbors of the Clarendon Hills subdivision have signed this petition with a desire to support and protect the amazing biodiversity of the wildlife corridor and the value and enjoyment this corridor brings to the homeowners in Clarendon Hills. Thank you, Ingrid Layman Communications Liaison Clarendon Hills HOA & Wildlife Corridor Team 93 94 95 ITEM NO 1 MEETING DATE _November 21, 2013 STAFF __Seth Lorson_____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FOLLOW-UP MEMO PROJECT: Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot – 4616 South Shields Street - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130004 APPLICANT: Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526 OWNER: FRCC & First Church of God in Fort Collins (Peak Community Church) WARRANTY DEED: The subject property is currently under contract for purchase by FRCC from First Church of God in Fort Collins (Peak Community Church). A warranty deed is attached to the property that requires that any proposed development receive the approval of the Architectural Control Committee of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision Home Owners Association (Clarendon Hills Subdivision is located directly to the south of FRCC and the proposed parking lot). FRCC has worked with the Clarendon Hills HOA for several months to arrive at a mutually acceptable design. As of Nov. 18, 2013, Clarendon Hills HOA Architectural Control Committee has not issued an official decision regarding approval of FRCC’s proposed Southwest Parking Lot. However, FRCC has provided the following statement: FRCC will purchase the north half of the Church property, defined roughly as a parcel that will extend 10 feet beyond the phase II parking lot improvements and then will also include the landscaped area on the east side of the proposed parking lot. The irrigation ditch will not be purchased by FRCC and will remain with the south half of the parcel. FRCC also agreed to keep the deed restriction on the north parcel being purchased. FRCC will also designate the strip of open space running along the parking lot (between the phase II improvements boundary and the property line) as well as the bermed/landscape area to the east of the parking lot as a wildlife corridor/open space. In return the ACC will approve and the HOA will endorse the parking project as submitted on November 4 th and as modified (for lowering the grading) on November 11 th . Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 96 FRCC SW Parking Lot, SPAR #130004 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11-21-2013 Page 2 RETRACTION: Below is a direct excerpt from page 2 & 3 of the staff report. Section 2A incorrectly references Section 22-32-124 of Colorado Revised Statutes. This section is specific to school districts and is not applicable to junior colleges. Please disregard the section in strikeout and note the change in section 2B. 2. 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 State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education. 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 Community College. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Site Plan (Nov. 4) 2. Revised Landscape Plans (Nov. 4) 3. Revised Grading Plan (Nov. 11) 97 98 99 100 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS ‹2=$5&+,7(&785( SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 LARIMER STREET DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com 4616 SOUTH SHIELDS ST. FT. COLLINS, CO 80526 812011.00 RAB JTC 11/11/13 ACC SUBMITTAL REVISIONS SOUTH PARKING LOT CRH 1" = 50' C1.2 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN PARKING C1.2 101 ITEM NO _____2__________ MEETING DATE November 21, 2013 STAFF C. Levingston PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, Consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan– #FDP130040 APPLICANT: Mr. Bryan McFarland Alberta Development Partners 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 OWNER: Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC c/o Mr. Don Provost 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaurant building will be removed and replaced with a 10,517 10,501square foot retail building. The site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase One development area is 2.23 acres in size and will be located on the future Block 16 of the larger amended PDP and will replace a small portion of the previously approved Foothills Redevelopment Project Development Plan (February, 2013). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, Major Amendment and Final Plan #FDP130040, with one condition. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 102 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: . This new Phase One building located on the future Block 16 will replace the previously approved 31,715 square foot building formerly located on Block 15. Staff finds that the approval of the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One Consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan generally complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Phase One MJA/FP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Phase One MJA/FP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The Phase One MJA/FP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (C-G) Foothills Mall; Corner Bakery Cafe South General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial/retail uses; Chicos East General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial uses West General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial uses; Markley Motors The subject property was part of the Strachan Second Annexation on August 26, 1971. The property was platted in October 1972 as Lots T and U of Southmoor Village, Fifth Filing. The 6,076 square foot building was constructed in 1976 as part of the Foothills Plaza North P.U.D. and was occupied by a restaurant called "The Wine Cellar" in the 1980's. 103 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 3 The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan on February 7, 2013. A Final Plan for the PDP is yet to be approved. 2. Compliance with Overall Development Plan: The proposed consolidated Phase One MJA/FP is consistent with the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan (ODP) in terms of land use, access, circulation, connectivity, and the Foothills Drainage Basin Master Plan. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Commercial (C-G) Land Use and Development Standards: The Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase One is in compliance with the applicable land use and development standards of the General Commercial (C-G) District, including the following: A. Section 4.21(A) – Purpose • The purpose of the General Commercial District is to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. B. Section 4.21(B)(2) – Permitted Uses • The proposed Phase One MJA is for a 10,517 10,501 square foot retail building. Buildings under 25,000 square feet in size are permitted, subject to a Type 1 (Administrative) review and hearing. This Phase One building is being considered as a Major Amendment to the previously approved Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 7, 2013. The Land Use Code requires Major Amendments to be reviewed and processed in the same manner as the original Project Development Plan. 104 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 4 C. Section 4.21(D) – Land Use Standards • The height of the maximum height of the proposed building is 23 feet tall, meeting the Code requirements. 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) Section 3.2.1– Landscaping and Tree Protection: • Street trees (Chinkapin Oak) are provided along the South College Avenue frontage on 40 foot centers, meeting the LUC requirements. • The project provides "full tree stocking" in landscape areas around the building as required in Section 3.2.1(D). • The loading dock area along the south elevation is screened by a thru- brick wall in conjunction with a row of upsized, blue spruce evergreen trees. • The project has large planting areas along the South College Avenue frontage, as well as the south building elevation, meeting the foundation planting requirements. • Section 3.2.1(E)(3) is complied with by the overall water budget of 6.85 gallons per square foot, which is less than the 15 gallons per square feet allowed. • The building provides screening of the internal parking area from South College Avenue. Shade trees are provided in a landscaped area along the north edge of the parking area, meeting the parking lot perimeter screening requirement. • Parking lot area is required to devote at least 10 percent of the area to landscaped areas. There are no rows of parking that exceed 15 spaces. As illustrated on the landscape plan, the proposed parking lot area provides adequate landscape islands featuring canopy trees. 105 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 5 • Within the Phase One development boundaries, there are a total of 26 trees proposed to be removed with a mitigation value of 50. There will be a total of 54 new, upsized trees planted in this area, meeting the requirement. 2) Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking: • Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires general retail uses to provide 1 bicycle parking space per 4,000 square feet of building with a minimum of 4 spaces. The proposed building is 10,517 10,501 square feet in size and is required to provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. Phase One is proposing a bicycle rack just south of the loading dock that will provide 12 bicycle spaces. • Parking lots are required to be setback from arterial streets by 15 feet and 5 feet from lot lines. The parking area is over 180 feet from South College Avenue, exceeding the required setback (Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code). • Nonresidential uses are limited to a maximum number of parking spaces under the Land Use Code. For shopping centers, 5 parking spaces are allowed per 1,000 square feet. This building is part of a larger, 619,434 square foot shopping center and is allowed 3,097 parking spaces total. Phase One shows 108 parking spaces shared with adjacent lots including two handicapped accessible spaces. 3) Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting • There are no illumination levels that exceed 10 foot-candles on-site, as measured 20 feet beyond the property line. Additionally, the parking lot area is unobtrusively lit. The Phase One area, as a whole, meets the functional needs and safety requirements with an average minimum illumination of .91 lumens. B. Division 3.5 – Building Standards 1) Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility • Section 3.5.1(B) notes that "in areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established… the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area." 106 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 6 The proposed building has a lower parapet height of 20 feet and an upper parapet height of 23 feet. The building features earth toned Dryvit (synthetic stucco) and stone veneer as its primary materials. • The project complies with Section 3.5.1 (I) in that the utility meters are located behind the loading dock screen wall and will be painted to match. • The site plan (sheet A100) and the elevations (sheet A301) provide notes regarding the rooftop mechanical, stating the rooftop equipment will be fully screened from College Avenue. 2) Section 3.5.3 – Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Standards • The proposed building is oriented towards South College Avenue in conformance with the "build-to" line requirement. • The building is 120 feet in length along the South College Avenue frontage and meets the required variation in massing, wall articulation and changes in mass related to entrances and other architectural features. No building module exceeds 60 feet in length in conformance with Section 3.5.3(D) requirements. • All bays are less than 30 feet in length and are defined by windows or other vertical divisions. The South College Avenue and north elevations are subdivided and proportioned with windows. • Entrances are clearly identified and articulated with awnings as a sheltering element. • The building facades feature a stone "base treatment" that matches the window mullion elevations as well as a EFIS cornice that serves as a top treatment, complying with Section 3.5.3(E)(6) requirements. C. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements 107 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 7 • In order for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One to fully meet the pedestrian Level of Service Standards, the 12 foot-wide sidewalk along South College Avenue from the north access drive adjacent to the building, south to East Monroe Drive would need to be constructed (approximately 360 linear feet of sidewalk). Due to the proposed construction timing, the Applicant contends that it is not feasible for this large stretch of sidewalk to be constructed prior to the construction of the future Block 17 retail building, which is part of Phase Two. In lieu of the necessary sidewalk construction, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide financial security for the construction of the sidewalk from the northern portion of the Phase One frontage south to East Monroe Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase One. • With the completion of the future Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two improvements (such as the College Avenue Sidewalk), Phase One will provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards. D. Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone Phase One of the Foothills Redevelopment is located within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road. As such, the following standards apply: 1) 3.10.4 - Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections • Street trees are provided along the South College Avenue frontage. Pedestrian light fixtures are also proposed along the building frontage, meeting the requirements. • All parking is located behind the building and will not be visible from South College Avenue. 2) Section 3.10.5 - Character and Image • The building features a 20 foot lower parapet height and a 23 foot upper parapet height with three-dimensional Dryvit (synthetic 108 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 8 stucco) cornice treatments. The building meets the minimum height requirement of 20 feet. • Stone veneer and Dryvit (synthetic stucco) in neutral earth tones are the primary building materials for Phase One. The loading dock screen wall is proposed to be constructed with a matching thru-brick system. • Over 60 feet of glazing is provided along the 120 foot long College Avenue frontage in tandem with enhanced landscaping and changes in massing, complying with the minimum glazing requirement outlined in Section 3.10.5(G). 5. Neighborhood Meeting: The neighborhood meeting requirement for this project was waived by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, as a neighborhood meeting was held for the related Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP in September, 2012. 6. Findings of Fact and Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The MJA/FP complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. B. The MJA/FP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. C. The MJA/FP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts. D. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide financial security for the construction of the sidewalk from the northern portion of the Phase One College Avenue frontage south to East Monroe Drive, in accordance with Section 3.6.4 of the Land Use Code. 109 Foothills Redevelopment Phase One - #FDP130040 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, #FDP130040, subject to the following condition: 1) The Applicant shall provide financial security to ensure the construction of the sidewalk from the northern portion of the Phase One frontage south to East Monroe Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Phase One building. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan 2. Landsacpe Plan Set 3. Building Elevations 4. Lighting Plan Set 5. Previously Approved PDP Set 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 PA1 LIMIT OF WORK PA1 LIMIT OF WORK 61 59 118 FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FINAL PLANS PLANNING AREA 1 NOVEMBER 6, 2013 Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. 2010 JPRA Architects Issued for: Subject: Project: Sheet No. Job No. FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT 3 A-300 2 A-300 1 A-300 4 A-300 GROUND MOUNTED SCISSOR LIFT ROOF DRAIN PIPE WITH ADJACENT OVERFLOW DRAIN PIPE ROOF DRAIN PIPE WITH ADJACENT OVERFLOW DRAIN PIPE METAL STUD WALL BEHIND SPANDREL GLAZED STOREFRONT GAS METER ELEC. PANEL SCREEN WALL PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOACATION T BIKE RACKS METAL STUD WALL BEHIND SPANDREL GLAZED STOREFRONT GROSS AREA 10,501 SF 1 FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN A200 12048.01 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 119 FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FINAL PLANS PLANNING AREA 1 NOVEMBER 6, 2013 Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. 2010 JPRA Architects Issued for: Subject: Project: Sheet No. Job No. FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" UPPER PARAPET 123' - 0" 1 3 4 5 6 LOWER PARAPET 120' - 0" T.O. WINDOWS 110' - 0" E-14 E-14 E-8 M-1 E-8 ST-2 ST-2 ST-1 SF-2 SF-2 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 AW-1 AW-2 M-2 AW-1 M-2 SIGNAGE 10' - 0" 4' - 0" 2 FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" UPPER PARAPET 123' - 0" B C D F LOWER PARAPET 120' - 0" T.O. WINDOWS 110' - 0" E-14 M-1 E-8 ST-2 ST-2 E-14 E-8 E-1 B-1 M-2 M-2 3 121 FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FINAL PLANS PLANNING AREA 1 NOVEMBER 6, 2013 Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. 2010 JPRA Architects Issued for: Subject: Project: Sheet No. Job No. FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS REDEVELOPMENT FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" UPPER PARAPET 123' - 0" CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RE: STRUCTURAL 2" PERIMETER RIGID FOUNDATION INSULATION. EXTEND MIN. 2' BELOW FINISH GRADE. 1/2" CONT SEALANT INTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB OVER 4" GRANULAR FILL DAMP PROOFING. ST-2 PRECAST BASE EIFS OVER WEATHER BARRIER OVER SHEATHING OVER INSULATED METAL STUDS OVER GYP. BD. EIFS CORNICE MECHANICALLY FASTENED TPO INSULATION OVER METAL DECK METAL CAP FLASHING FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" LOWER PARAPET 120' - 0" METAL CAP FLASHING CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RE: STRUCTURAL 2" PERIMETER RIGID FOUNDATION INSULATION. EXTEND MIN. 2' BELOW FINISH GRADE. 1/2" CONT SEALANT INTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB OVER 4" GRANULAR FILL DAMP PROOFING. ST-2 PRECAST BASE ST-1 STONE OVER WEATHER BARRIER OVER SHEATHING OVER 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 PDP Submittal A104 CONNECTIVITY PEDESTRIAN EXHIBIT DEC 28, 2012 LEGEND * MALL/CINEMA ENTRANCE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE TRANSPORTATION NODE * PROPOSED HARD SURFACE MULTI USE MAX BRT TRANSIT HUB BUS STOP EXISTING CROSSWALK * * BIKE RACK LOCATIONS BUS STOP BUS STOP E. SWALLOW RD. S. COLLEGE AVE. STANFORD RD. E. MONROE DRIVE REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. J.F.K. PARKWAY E. MONROE DRIVE *PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 0’ SCALE: 1”=150’ 75’ 150’ 300’ 131 A248 Building Plan Block 6 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale 132 A249 Building Elevations Block 6 S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac T-2 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Ground Coffee Honed W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 cop alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 san eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige E-1 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-106 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-10 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 14 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobbleston P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 roc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 24’-0" 33’-0" A250 Building Elevations Block 6 26’-0" 24’-0" E E-12 E-7 W-1 C-1 S-3 P-5 E-1 T-2 W-1 P-1 W-1 C-1 S-3 W-3 S-3 E-12 E-7 P-2 P-5 W-1 E-12 C-1 F O OTHILLS 29’-0" 26’-0" 24’-0" 25’-0" 29-0" 29-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 25’-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor P-2 W-1 S-3 E-1 E-12 E-7 W-3 S-3 P-5 W-1 E-12 F O OTHILLS Block 6 Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish A251 Trash Enclosures B-5 B-6 B-5 B-5 B-6 W-1 P-8 W-1 P-8 P-8 B-5 B-6 P-8 B-6 Interstate Brick Ironstone - Size 4x4x16 B-5 Interstate Brick Smokey Mountain- Size 4x4x16 W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-8 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Davenport Tan HC-76 135 LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK S. COLLEGE AVE. MONROE DRIVE MATCHLINE LA-102 MATCHLINE LA-106 FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PLANT LEGEND: SHRUBS, GRASSES, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVER TREES NORTH SCALE: 1"=20'-0" P D P S U B M I T T A L 1 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 PLANT LEGEND: 12047 LA - 101 L A N D S C A P E PLANTING PLAN 136 ITEM NO _3________________ MEETING DATE Nov. 21, 2013 ______ STAFF Holland ______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030 and Modifications of Standard to Sections: 3.8.30(D),(1), (2) and (3) Block StandardsStructure, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and, 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, LLLP 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request from the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) for consideration of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing located at an undeveloped parcel at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. The proposed project has approximately 225 feet of frontage on the west side of South College Avenue and is south of and adjacent to Woodley’s Fine Furniture. The site is accessed by the current terminus of Fossil Boulevard. The South Transit Center for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit System is located one block northwest of the site. The Redtail and Cameron Park Office Parks are located to the south. A drainage tributary supporting wetland, riparian and open water habitats exists to the west of the site and flows into Fossil Creek to the south. The project includes 60 multi-family dwelling units with a proposed purpose to provide housing for adult men and women. The 60 units proposed are dedicated to three tenant classifications, with 25 of the units intended for currently homeless individuals, 20 units intended for individuals who qualify as low/middle income and are not currently homeless and 15 units for currently homeless veterans. The project proposes 24-hour on-site staff to provide supportive services for the residents; FCHA has provided supplemental information with the development application that describes the project services, management and operations. 137 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 2 The site is approximately 2.82 acres, and the applicant proposes a four-story building, with a portion of the building transitioning to one-story to the south. The total building coverage proposed is 14,680 square feet, which is approximately 12% of the site. 36 parking spaces are provided and 66 bicycle spaces. The site is within the General Commercial District (C-G), and is also within boundaries of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the South College Corridor Subarea Plan. The proposed multi-family use is permitted in the C-G zone district, subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval. The project is consistent with the South College Corridor Subarea Plan. Objectives of the plan support the proposed residential use, encouraging higher intensity uses, increased densities and high quality design as part of a transit-oriented district at this location. The Plan describes residential uses as being envisioned to occur on vacant or underutilized lands, with residential growth helping the Corridor become a more complete district. As part of the project description some background on Land Use Code (LUC) definitions may be helpful. While the tenant classifications for the 60 units provide project information, these classifications are not defined in the LUC. In terms of occupancy of dwelling units, the LUC is less specific and uses language such as household, family and persons. In terms of use, this project is defined by the following definitions in Article 5 of the LUC: Family: Family shall mean any individual living alone or any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Dwelling Unit: Dwelling unit shall mean one (1) or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least one (1) bathroom, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use of a single family for living, cooking and sanitary purposes, located in a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling or mixed-use building. Dwelling: Dwelling shall mean a building used exclusively for residential occupancy and for permitted accessory uses, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings, and which contains: (a) a minimum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area, or (b) in the case of a dwelling to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot in the L-M-N, M-M-N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B, C-C-N, C-C-R, H-C or E zone districts, a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of floor area, so long as a dwelling already exists on the front portion of such lot. The term dwelling shall not include hotels, motels, tents or other structures designed or used primarily for temporary occupancy. Any dwelling shall be deemed to be a principal building. 138 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 3 Multi-family: Dwelling, multi-family shall mean a dwelling containing three (3) or more dwelling units, not including hotels, motels, fraternity houses and sorority houses and similar group accommodations. These definitions explain to how this project’s use is defined as “multi-family”, due to the fact that each of the 60 units proposed provide a separate bathroom and kitchen for the use of a single family. If the units did not provide separate bathrooms and kitchens, the use would be considered a group home. Further, the proposed use is not a hotel, motel, fraternity/sorority house or a similar group accommodation. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030, and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D),(1), (2) and (3) Block Standards, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking. Approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030, a determination of infeasibility as to the Block Requirement regarding block structure in Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Modifications of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D), (1), (2) and (3) Block Standards Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure, Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of these Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good. • The P.D.P. complies with the Block Requirements of Section 3.8.30(D)(2) and (3) for Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage. It is infeasible for the P.D.P. to comply with the block requirement of Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure due to existing development. 139 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 4 • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided that the Modifications of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D), (1), (2) and (3) Block Standards, Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. are approved and/or deemed not applicable. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards (i) provided that either compliance with Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure is deemed infeasible or that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure is approved; and (ii) provided that the Modifications to Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking are approved. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial District (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts, subject to the approval of the modifications of standard that are part of TOD Overlay Zone requirements for the C-G District – specifically the Modifications of Standard to Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (C-G) Commercial (Woodley’s Fine Furniture, Weburg P.U.D.) South General Commercial (C-G) Commercial (Cameron Second Filing, Cameron First Filing) East General Commercial (C-G) South College Avenue; Commercial West General Commercial (C-G) Wetland Buffer (Formerly Redtail Final Plan) The property is vacant and is covered predominantly with disturbed soil and fill material, rock, waste, non-native grasses and weedy plant material. The subject property was annexed in January of 1987 through the Mill First and Second Annexations. Adjacent to the south of the site is the Cameron Park Second Filing and further to the south is Cameron Park First Filing. These commercial developments were planned in 140 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 5 the County in 1981 and included the construction of Cameron Drive and Coronado Court. The two filings were later annexed into the City with the Cameron Park Annexation in April, 1992. The site previously received development approval in 2006 as part of the Redtail Final Plan which included 51 units in 10 buildings with a mix of single-family attached (townhomes), two-family (duplexes) and multi-family units within the boundaries of the site area. The majority of the dwellings were two bedroom units with six one-bedroom units. The extension of Fossil Boulevard through the site was planned and dedicated; however the street was never built. Vesting of this Final Plan approval for the site lapsed and the site is no longer part of an approved development plan. The original Redtail plan also included an additional 90 multi-family and two-family units within 12 additional buildings to the west and southwest of the proposed FCHA site. These buildings were also never constructed. A Major Amendment was also approved in 2007 which proposed office buildings to the south and southwest of the FCHA site, however these building were also not constructed. Although no buildings have been constructed with previously approved Redtail plans, building sites were graded and a system of ponds were constructed to connect drainage from the west, from the Applewood subdivision, through to the City-owned Redtail Grove Natural Area to the south. City streets were also constructed – an extension of Cameron Drive was constructed to the west and Conejos Road was also constructed, running north/south and connecting Cameron Drive to the existing portion of Fossil Boulevard to the north. 2. Compliance with Article 4 – General Commercial (C-G): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 4.21(A) – Purpose The proposed multi-family land use is consistent with the purpose of the C-G District, which is intended to accommodate housing with design that accommodates pedestrians. The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient 141 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 6 personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. B. Section 4.21(B) – Permitted Uses The proposed multi-family land use is permitted in the district and is classified as a “Type 2” use which is subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval. This is because more than 50 dwelling units are proposed. If less than 50 dwelling units are proposed, then the project would be subject to a “Type 1” administrative hearing approval with a Hearing Officer. C. Section 4.21(D) – Land Use Standards The only land use standard stated in the LUC for the district is a maximum building height requirement limited to four stories. The project proposes four stories and is compliance with this district standard. D. Section 4.21(E)(2)(a) – Site Design This section requires that outdoor spaces be created with the project and that the development link outdoor spaces to and make them visible from streets and sidewalks. Sculpture, kiosks, or shelters are encouraged to be prominently placed in outdoor spaces. The project provides two outdoor spaces -- a landscaped plaza space at the building entrance and an outdoor space with the bicycle storage shelter (bike chalet). The spaces are linked together with an enhanced sidewalk along the front of the building with a 10’ wide walking surface lined with trees in tree grates and benches. The spaces are linked to the Fossil Boulevard street frontage by two direct sidewalk routes, both 6’ in width. This location and design of outdoor spaces provided with the proposed project, and their linkage to streets and sidewalks, is in conformance with the standard. E. Section 4.21(G) – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone This section states that the project is subject to the TOD Overlay Zone requirements in Division 3.10. The project proposes two modifications of standard to Division 3.10 and these modifications are discussed later in this Staff Report. Should the modifications be approved with this P.D.P., then the project will be in compliance with Section 4.21(G). 142 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 7 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with two modifications of standard; with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section – 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection The project proposes a high quality treatment of all landscaped areas, with landscape elements provided in the parking lot, building foundation, and throughout the site meeting and exceeding the minimum requirements. Deciduous and evergreen shrubs are used extensively to define enhance the quality of outdoor spaces and to contribute to screening and buffered views into the property from adjoining uses. Low-water-use perennials, ornamental grasses and native seed mixes are used extensively, with higher-water-use plants used in limited areas associated with appropriate functional activities. Street trees are provided along South College Avenue in accordance with the minimum spacing requirements. A total of four existing trees are proposed to be removed, located in the southeast corner of the site, ranging in caliper from four to twelve inches. The applicant has conferred with the City Forester concerning these trees and the project provides new upsized three-inch caliper trees in accordance with the mitigation requirements. The project meets and exceeds the minimum plant size requirements for affordable housing projects. “Full Tree Stocking” is required in all landscape areas within 50 feet of the building, with a minimum/maximum spacing requirement ranging from 20 to 40 feet for shade, evergreen and ornamental trees. Trees are provided along all high use and high visibility areas of the proposed building, meeting or exceeding the requirements of this section, with 38 trees located around the perimeter of the building within 50 feet of the sides of the building face. A significant number of additional trees are located beyond the 50 foot building perimeter and contribute to a layered visual screen that softens views looking into the property from adjacent parcels. The project also meets the minimum trees species diversity requirement of this section. B. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development Standards described in this section, the parking and circulation system provided with the project is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. 143 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 8 C. Section 3.2.2(C)(3) – Site Amenities The proposed project provides adequate site amenities in accordance with the requirement of this section, including bike racks, benches, and canopy structures. D. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Both enclosed bicycle parking and fixed bicycle racks are provided that meet the minimum requirements, with 56 enclosed bike garage spaces provided in the Bike Chalet south of the main building and 8 uncovered convenience bike spaces. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Walkways Sidewalk connections are planned for the site from the building entrances to existing streets with “directness and continuity” as required by this section. A minimum 6’ wide sidewalk connection is provided with walkways on both sides of the entrance drive isle into the property. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) – Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections The proposed on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system provides for direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations surrounding the site by linking the development to the surrounding street sidewalk system. G. Section 3.2.2(E) – Parking Lot Layout The parking layout and sidewalk system provided contributes to the attractiveness of the development with an overall form that is enhanced, using design features typically found with urban street patterns and as described in Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(C) with the use of street-like private drives, including: reduced travel lane widths, angled parking, tree-lined borders, wide sidewalks, landscaped medians, corner plazas and pedestrian-scaled lighting. H. Section 3.2.2(E) – Parking Minimum Number of Spaces At the time of this development application submittal, multi-family dwellings within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone had no minimum parking requirements. The project provides 36 parking spaces to satisfy FCHA parking requirements for the residents and employees within the context of close proximity of the MAX South Transit Center. 144 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 9 I. Section 3.2.3(D) Access to Sunshine The proposed project is in conformance with the standards of this section with a design orientation that protects access to sunshine and will accommodate solar systems that may be installed in the future. J. Section 3.2.3(E) Shading This section requires that the physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. The shadow analysis provided by FCHA demonstrates that a portion of the adjacent structure to the north (Woodley’s Fine Furniture) is shaded between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, but not more than what would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property line. The project is therefore in compliance with this standard. K. Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting A photometric plan was submitted for the project. The design complies with the lighting design standards with no foot-candle levels that exceed the maximum allowable. Parking lot and drive lighting is provided by down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. L. 3.2.5 Trash and recycling encloses Adequate trash and recycling space is provided by a central receiving room within the building. No outside trash enclosures are proposed. M. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the Redtail Ponds site is just east of a riparian woodland and a wetland larger than 1/3 of an acre. The proposed site is highly disturbed and currently consists of smooth brome, kochia, cheatgrass, and field bindweed amongst other non-native species. The buffer standards for the wetland and riparian woodland are a 100’ wide buffer zone from the edge of the wetland. To meet the standards associated with Section 3.4.1, the proposed parcel has provided for a 10 – 30 foot-wide buffer area, even though the site is greater than 100 feet from the edge of the wetland. In addition, native species have been proposed for the western edge of the property and in the stormwater detention 145 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 10 area, which will enhance the overall value of the site. Finally, no site lighting will spill over into the 100’ buffer zone. N. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(D)(E)(F) Building and Project Compatibility The General Standard of this section states that: New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. The character of the surrounding architectural context can be described as follows: • The adjacent building to the north is Woodley’s Fine Furniture, which is a one-story building of large retail proportions, approximately 20 feet in height with an exposed aggregate finish. The exterior wall facing the FCHA project is uniform with no windows and minimal articulation. • To the south, the Cameron business park has one and two-story buildings with sloped roofs. Materials are mid-tone brick and light stucco along with wood/vinyl siding painted with earth tones of grayish blues and sage greens. The building closest to the project site is two-story with steeper gable roof pitches that add to the height and overall scale and mass of the building. Portions of the building faces are sloped and taller, with a third row of windows in the gable portion of the building. Facades of this building are not as articulated as buildings further south, with fewer recesses and projections provided. • To the east across South College Avenue, buildings are retail oriented with parking located in the foreground. The buildings are composed of mainly storefront, stucco, and a low flagstone veneer base. Overall, the 146 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 11 mass and scale of the building faces are fairly uninterrupted and lacking in detailed articulation typically seen in retail buildings intentionally planned in close proximity to residential dwellings. Exterior articulation is limited and fairly uniform in use of material except for use of color. Most of the surrounding buildings are neutral in their specific color palette, with exception of the Carpet Exchange building which includes multiple brighter colors. • No buildings are adjacent to the west, where the natural drainage area is located with open water and riparian habitats. In conformance with the General Standard of this section, the architectural character of the area varies significantly and a consistent architectural character has not been definitively established – therefore in terms of the General Standard, the project is required to set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. In accordance with the standards, the building is articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of adjacent buildings. Along the southern portion of the project, the building footprint steps down from four-story to one-story and includes a one- story bike chalet canopy. This one-story area has an overall building envelope size that is similar in size to the existing 2-story office that is directly adjacent to the south, providing massing that is proportional to the massing of this existing office building. This one-story area subdivides the massing of the overall building form and provides a substantial transitional element. The southern elevation also includes substantial articulation through the use of projected metal panels, projecting parapet accents, variations in colors, and brick material along the ground level to further break up the mass and scale of the southern façade into modules that are at a minimum consistent with the scale of the adjacent office building. Articulation of accent details, recesses and projections are used consistently throughout all faces of the building to subdivide the massing and create appropriate forms and proportions in relation to the adjacent building context surrounding the site. Privacy is achieved by the building’s angled orientation and central positioning on the site, which allows windows to be more than 75 feet away from the southern property line. The building’s rotated angle also allows windows to not face directly south, with sight lines from the windows directed to more open areas of the site and away from the adjacent office building to the south. Techniques described in the LUC – including landscaping, open space, change in grade, fencing, and building orientation – are all utilized to reinforce the level of privacy, particularly along the southern boundary of the site. 147 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 12 Within the neighborhood context surrounding the site, the existing building materials colors and textures are varied. The proposed materials include brick, metal cladding, lap siding, scored cement panels and steel accents. Colors are sufficiently muted and earth-tone with a restrained use of accent colors in appropriate areas. Accent colors are brighter than the field colors to provide appropriate contrast and interest, but are not considered excessively bright. Materials and colors have sufficient similarity with the materials used in the surrounding area while also reinforcing a high standard of detail and quality consistent with the standards set for the area. O. Section 3.5.1(G) Special Height Review This Section requires that buildings or structures that exceed 40 feet in height provide a view analysis, which is included as an attachment with this Staff Report. The view analysis must satisfy the following review criteria: 1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Staff analysis: Opportunities for views by the community from public places are not substantially altered by the proposed project. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Staff analysis: The rotation of the proposed building has been used as a technique to mitigate shadowing. The shadow analysis provided demonstrates that the proposed buildings do not cast shadows onto a substantial area of the Woodley’s property to the north. While there is some shadowing seen on the southwest corner of the Woodley’s property, this area is already shadowed by large mature shade trees located along the south of the Woodley’s parking lot. 3. Privacy. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be designed to avoid infringing on the privacy of adjacent public and private property, particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. Staff analysis: Privacy is achieved by the building’s angled orientation and positioning on the site, which allows windows to be more than 75 feet away from the southern property line. The building’s rotated angle and position on 148 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 13 the site also allows windows to not face directly south, with sight lines from the windows directed to more open areas of the site and away from the adjacent office building’s windows to the south. 4. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than 40 feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale. Staff analysis Compatibility is defined in Article 5 of the LUC: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The building achieves neighborhood scale by using a high standard of articulation, so that massing is divided both in height and length in a manner that achieves a human scale compatible with the scale of existing buildings in the neighborhood. While the overall size of the proposed building faces is not the same as some of the building faces in the surrounding neighborhood, height to mass and length to mass are reduced to smaller modules within the overall length and height of proposed facades through the use of projected metal panels, projected parapet accents, variations in colors, and brick material along the ground level. P. Section 3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition A key component of Building and Project Compatibility for this project is the buffer space provided around the perimeter of the building. The central position of the building on the site, as well as the building’s rotated orientation, creates a separation between the proposed multi-family use and adjacent uses. Along the south, the nearest four-story corners of the building faces are 93 feet and 62 feet away from the southern edge of the project. The open space separation then recedes further towards the interior portions of the site. This represents a significant separation of building faces from surrounding land uses. The site’s elevation above adjacent areas is also a significant factor that provides increased privacy and transition. Due to the grade change, eye-level sight lines looking towards the property are more directly focused on open space landscaping along 149 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 14 the sloping grades in the foreground, with views toward the building receding in the background. Q. Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards The project complies with the general standard of this section by achieving a high level of architectural articulation that meets and exceeds the multi-family design standards. R. Section 3.8.30(F) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings 1. 3.8.30(F)(3) Variation in Color. The building design features a palette of earth tone and natural colors in accordance with the standards. 2. 3.8.30(F)(4) Entrances. The building entrance is emphasized with an accent roof that is clearly identifiable from the public space. 3. 3.8.30(F)(5) Roofs. Rooflines include at least two distinct features to provide variation and articulation in accordance with this standard. Main roof lines are punctuated with secondary accent roofs that are pitched so that there are no unbroken rooflines. Rooflines are further mitigated by building modules that project above the eave. Main rooflines are terminated at the top with a substantial parapet overhang and change in color. 4. 3.8.30(F)(6) Facades and Walls. This standard requires that multi- family buildings feature sufficient articulation through a variety of techniques. All building faces are highly articulated. Areas of wall plane where stories are expressed over large expanses receive recessed and projected wall modules with contrasting materials parapet accents. Parapet sunshades and vertical columns add detail and interest. The building accents are generous and include repeating patterns that contribute human scale combined with off-center accents that add interest and variety. The use of brick as a high quality material is extensive along higher visibility areas of the building to the east and west. The overall appearance of the building is balanced with a high level of detail that maintains a high level of quality for the area. S. Section 3.10.5 TOD Overlay Zone – Character and Image The standards of this section share many of the same requirements as 3.8.30(F) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings, with some distinctions as follows: 150 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 15 (1) Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt-up concrete systems. (2) All building facades shall incorporate stone, stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood and/or equivalent accent material in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or the base and top of the building. An all-brick building does not need to incorporate an accent material, though soldier courses and banding or other brick, stone or metal detailing are encouraged in order to subdivide masses and establish human scale. (3) Predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. (4) Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, and black, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. (5) Exterior building materials shall not include smooth-faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels The project features a brighter yellow and green color used in accent areas in additional to the earth tone color scheme for the majority of the building. Accent colors are brighter than the field colors to provide appropriate contrast and interest, but are not considered excessively bright. Brick veneer and corrugated metal are used generously and incorporated into all facades as a base feature as well as to highlight and articulate the building massing. T. Section 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study that was submitted to the City for review and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this P.D.P are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. A variance request was submitted to City Engineering requesting to reduce the inside radius of the Conejos Road/Fossil Boulevard intersection from 20’ to approximately 17' to match the existing flow line radius. A variance is also being requested for the radius R2 and R3 to maintain a uniform radius around the corner to tie into existing flow lines. The minimum radius R2 is 44' and R3 is 52' 151 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 16 and will be altered from LCUASS detail with the south lane on Conejos Rd. being tapered and a 37' radius to tie-into the existing east flow line. The proposed layout has a total roadway width at the midpoint of the radius of approximately 42.5'. City Engineering has reviewed the variance request and found it acceptable. The proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, will not reduce design life of the improvement nor cause the Local Entity additional maintenance costs. 5. Modification of Standard Request to Section 3.8.30(D)(1)(2)(3) – Block Requirements Block Requirements: Block Structure Infeasibility Determination and Modification of Standard Request to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) A. The standard: Section 3.8.30(D)(1)(2)(3) Block Requirements All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature: (1) Block Structure. Each multi-family project shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). (See Figures 16A through 16F…). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block. (2) Block Size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. (3) Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. B. Description of the Infeasibility Request and Modification: The applicant has asserted that the project meets the infeasibility criteria for the block structure standard of Section 3.8.30(D)(1). The applicant has also submitted a request for approval of a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure requesting that the project not be required to comply with this standard. The applicant requests approval of both the infeasibility request and the modification request. 152 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 17 The applicant has submitted a request for approval of a Modification of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D)(1),(2)and(3) Block Requirements requesting that the project not be required to comply with these standards. The applicant has also asserted with this request that the project meets the infeasibility criteria for the block structure standards. Should the decision maker determine that the project meets the infeasibility criteria, then the modification to these block requirement standards would not be required. The applicant is requesting both the approval of infeasibility and approval of the modification. C. Land Use Code Block Structure Infeasibility and Modification Criteria: With Regards to Block Structure infeasibility, the LUC states: Section 3.8.30(D) Block Requirements. All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature. With Regards to Modification of Standard Criteria, the LUC states: “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 (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, 153 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 18 physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). D. Applicant’s Justification: The applicant has provided the following justification for the modification request as well as a justification that the compliance with the standards is infeasible: 1. Compliance with Block Requirements based on Infeasibility. The Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing Project (“Project”), proposed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”), is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low- income individuals, and is categorized by the City as a multi-family development. The Project is located on a narrow, rectangular (approx. 225’ by 550’) 2.97-acre parcel in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development surrounded by Woodley’s Fine Furniture on the north, College Avenue on the east, Cameron Park 2nd Filing on the south, and Fossil Blvd./Conejos Road and the Redtail drainage area and pond on the west. All multi-family projects are required to comply with the Block Requirements in Sec. 3.8.30(D) of the Land Use Code unless “compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature.” The following analysis of the specific elements of the standard show that it is infeasible, due to existing development, to comply with the Block Structure requirement of Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and that the Project complies with the Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage requirements of Sections 3.8.30(D)((2) and (3). 154 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 19 A. Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure. This section sets forth the requirements for the “block structure” and states that all projects are to be “developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private)”, although “natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.” Series of Blocks: It is infeasible to create a series of blocks or even one additional block by installing a street that would divide the property into more than one block. The sole point of access to/from the Project is on its west end at the intersection of Conejos Road and Fossil Blvd. Using this only possible point of access, the extension of a street into the Project far enough to divide the property and create an additional complete block could only result in a dead end and not a complete block, as there are no opportunities for connections due to the existing development on the north (Woodley’s Fine Furniture) and south (Cameron Park 2nd Filing), and the College Avenue frontage on the east where the number and kind of accesses are limited because of safety factors. Bounded by Streets: The east and west sides of the Project comply with the standard as they are bounded by either streets or a combination of streets and a natural feature or substantial physical feature (College Avenue and the steep slope to College Avenue on the east; Fossil Blvd. and the Redtail Ponds wetland and natural area on the west). The north and south sides of the property are not bounded by streets, nor are they bounded by natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks or another substantial physical feature, but rather by existing development (Woodley’s Fine Furniture on the north and Cameron Park 2nd Filing on the south), making it infeasible to meet this requirement. B. Section 3.8.30(D)(2) Block Size. The Project satisfies this standard as the gross acreage of this one-block Project is 2.97 acres, which is less than maximum seven (7)-acre size imposed by Sec. 3.8.30(D)(2). C. Section 3.8.30(D)(3) Minimum Building Frontage. The Project satisfies this standard requiring that 40% of each block side or 50% of the block face of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. The approximate total length of all block faces combined is approx. 1,640 lineal feet. The combined length of the building frontage, plaza, and functional open space (multi-use paths, walkways, lawns, terraces and 155 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 20 urban agriculture) is approximately 1,110 lineal feet, or 68% of the total of all block faces, which is in excess of the minimum of 50%. 2. Request for Modification of Standards Although FCHA believes that the Project meets the infeasibility criteria for the Block Structure standards, the language could also potentially be interpreted in a way that a modification would be required. In order to cover all of the bases, and because FCHA also believes that a modification would be justified, if needed, FCHA submits this modification request to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Land Use Code requires that all modifications not be detrimental to the public good, and provides four (4) alternative specific grounds for granting the modification, of which, we are citing two (2) as justification for approval of this request. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: A. Not Detrimental to Public Good Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” The stated purposes of the multi-family development standards in Land Use Code Sec. 3.8.30 (several of which are not applicable to development in the TOD Overlay District) are “to promote variety in building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.” Granting a modification from the Block Structure standards requiring “a series of complete blocks bounded by streets” would not be a detriment to the public good in that none of the overall purposes of the standard are diluted. With the modification of standards, FCHA will be able to construct a building with excellent design and high quality materials to create variety, vibrancy and eclectic ambience in the neighborhood, the South College Corridor and the TOD Overlay District. Access to parks is not affected by a modification of these standards, and the Project is able to incorporate pedestrian- oriented features like tree-lined borders, connecting walkways, plazas, outdoor spaces, pedestrian lighting and direct pedestrian access to the building entrance. B. Alleviate City Problem/Address Community Need Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and 156 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 21 purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low-income individuals. The need for housing units tailored to the specific needs of these types of individuals is defined in City Plan and the Affordable housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 60 individuals is a significant steps towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. Please see the following excerpts: City Plan: Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. LIV 7.5 – Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. LIV 8.5 – Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Executive Summary: Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs. Introduction: Affordable housing is a critical asset contributing to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of a community . . . The overall wellbeing of an individual can be significantly improved with stable housing conditions, which leads to more stable families and stable neighborhoods. 4.1 Goal: Increase the Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units. The first priority should be to increase the inventory f affordable rental units . . . 4.3 Goal: Increase Housing and Facilities for People with Special Needs. This broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence. These groups generally 157 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 22 require housing units tailored to specific needs not typically addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. 4.3.1 Justification. Homeless: . . . Research has shown the sooner people can enter a stabilized shelter situation, the sooner they can start dealing with the other problems that accompany homelessness, which also decreases costs to providing community services for this populations. . . . suggests single room occupancy housing as a more effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters. Persons with Disabilities: . . . organizations which provide supportive services or housing for disable customers do not have enough low-rent options for the number of people who need them. . . . it is important to expand the supply of housing that is both accessible and affordable. Partners in Affordable Housing. While the City of Fort Collins is an important player in addressing the affordable housing needs of its citizens, there are other partners that also contribute important resources. . . . the City cannot solve all of the community’s affordable housing needs alone. Policies: AHSP-11 The City will support community initiatives identifying homeless needs and developing action plans to reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins, The City will also participate in partnerships exploring solutions for homelessness. AHSP-12 The City will support projects producing affordable units to serve persons with disabilities, and “cost-burdened” senior citizens. Conclusion: . . . A lack of affordable housing affects everyone. . . . Affordable housing is greater than a social issue; it is also about economic development and environmental protection. . . . The Fort Collins City Council made a commitment to affordable housing through the adoption of many programs and the allocation of General Fund revenue into the Affordable Housing Fund. . . . affordable housing must be elevated so it is discussed on par with such topics as economic development, environmental protection, and public safety . . . Every discussion regarding a sustainable community must include the consideration of affordable housing. C. Exceptional Conditions Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(3): “By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue 158 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 23 hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.” The Project is an infill development located in the existing Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park on an exceptionally narrow, rectangular (approx. 225’ by 550’) 2.97-acre parcel which slopes steeply down to College Avenue. The combination of these conditions, all of which are unique to the property, together with the infeasibility of meeting the Block Structure requirement, results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties in designing a series of complete blocks bounded by streets. With a single possible point of access (Fossil Blvd./Conejos Road on the west), the installation of a street through the Project to divide the property and create and additional block would result in a dead end, as there are no opportunities to connect the street on any of the three other sides of the property. An on-site street of sufficient length to divide the Project into more than one block would consume approximately .76 acres of the 2.97- acre property (25%), leaving only approximately 1.1 acres on either side, making it extremely difficult to construct any financially feasible commercial or multi-family project and leaving insufficient space for construction of the size and type of facility (single building with controlled access and consolidated on-site supportive tenant services) necessary to adequately serve the special needs of the tenant population. Finally, designing the Project around the additional street right-of-way that would be required to divide the property into more than one block bounded by streets would not allow for many of the site amenities, recreation, natural areas and urban agriculture currently planned for the Project. 3. Summary. FCHA believes that the Project complies with the Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage standards, and that it is infeasible, due to existing development, to comply with the Block Structure requirement. FCHA also believes that if a modification of standards is required because of the inability to meet the Block Structure requirement, that the modification would be justified. Therefore, FCHA requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a determination regarding both requests. E. Staff Finding: Recommendation of Infeasibility: Staff recommends that a determination be made that compliance with the standard for Block Structure, Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage is infeasible due to 159 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 24 unusual topographic features, existing development, and a natural area or feature. This is because: 1. Series of Blocks It is infeasible for the project to be further bisected to create a “series of blocks” or even one additional block by installing a street that would divide the property into more than one block: The site is significantly higher in elevation than South College Avenue and the extension of a new street to South College Avenue is infeasible. The highest portions of the site are at 5,005 to 5,000 feet, and if the site is lowered to an average of 4,998 feet, which is the proposed elevation of the FCHA building, then the site would still be 18 feet above the South College Avenue at the center of the site. This change in elevation is significant and should qualify as an unusual topographic feature.prohibits the site from being bisected to create an additional complete block. 2. Bounded by Streets The east and west sides of the property comply with the standard as they are either bounded either by streets or a combination of streets and a natural feature. To the north and south, Tthe street network, development parcels and resulting block structure surrounding the subject site have already been designed and platted. This existing development structure was first designed as the Cameron Park First Filing and Cameron Park Second Filing. These commercial developments were planned in the County in 1981 and included the construction of Cameron Drive and Coronado Court. The two filings were later annexed into the City with the Cameron Park Annexation in April, 1992. As part of the 2006 Redtail plans approved in the City, the remaining west portion of Cameron Drive was constructed. Conejos Road was also constructed, running north/south and connecting Cameron Drive to the existing portion of Fossil Boulevard to the north. Although no buildings were constructed with the previously approved Redtail plans, building sites were graded and a system of ponds were constructed to connect drainage from the west from the Applewood subdivision through to the City-owned Redtail Grove Natural Area to the south. The staff report from the original Redtail approval in 2003 explains that the project (which the FCHA site is part of) provided the required street system, stating: “The South College Access Management Plan designates Cameron Drive and Fairway Lane as signalized intersections with College Avenue, and specifically calls out the need for an internal street network connecting Cameron Drive and Fairway Lane without the use of College Avenue. 160 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 25 This PDP is consistent with the Master Street Plan, and provides the required internal street connections…” To summarize, the network of streets and parcels already planned with the surrounding existing development makes compliance with the block standard structure infeasible along the north and south boundaries of the project. Adjacent to the west of the project, the Redtail natural drainage area represents a substantial physical feature that forms part of the western block, and south College Avenue forms the block to the east. Staff recommends that a determination be made that compliance with the standard for Block Structure is infeasible due to existing development. The network of streets and parcels already planned with the surrounding existing development makes compliance with the block standard infeasible . Additionally, original planning of the existing Redtail City streets and parcels was designed to accommodate natural areas (wetlands) within the Redtail site. Compliance with the block requirements was not an applicable standard with the original approval of the Redtail PDP in 2003. 1. The intent of the standard is clearly shown in LUC Diagrams 16A through 16F that are referenced in the block structure code language, which is to divide developments larger than seven acres into blocks that are not more than seven acres so, that the General Development Standards of the code can be better achieved. Staff Finding for the Modification: Staff finds that the request for a Modifications of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D),(1) Block Structure,(2), and (3) Block Requirements is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and: A. The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(2) because the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, – including: LIV 7.5- Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area, LIV 8- The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing affordable housing supply, and LIV 8.5- Encourage the 161 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 26 integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. This is because the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible, the granting of the modification does not impair intent and purpose of the LUC described in Section 1.2.2 Purpose, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern by permitting the project to meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. B. The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(3): By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. This is because the project site cannot contribute towards any strict requirement to form a “complete block” without adding a street connection through the site, connecting to either South College Avenue to the east or Coronado Court to the south. Making such a connection is both an exceptional practical difficulty, because the block pattern surrounding the site has already been established by existing development and natural areas through prior approvals as referenced in this staff report, and because the change in topographic elevation between the site and South College Avenue is an exceptional physical condition that makes the construction of a complete street connection and complete block an undue hardship upon the owner not caused by act or omission. 6. Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking. A. The standards: 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation. Primary commercial and residential building entrances shall face streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, but not parking lots. Buildings shall face all street frontages to the maximum extent feasible, with highest priority given to east-west streets that lead from transit stations to destinations. 162 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 27 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located only behind, above or below street-facing buildings. No parking will be allowed between the street and the front or side of a building. B. Description of the Modifications: The applicant has submitted a request for approval of two related Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking. Together these standards require parking areas to be located in areas that are behind the building as well as not located between the front entrances of the building and the street. The standards are part of the Site Planning and Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections criteria for the TOD Overlay Zone. The intent of the TOD standards is to foster and promote attractive street-oriented developments with enhanced design details such as outdoor plazas with public art, walkways with benches, trees with tree grates, and street-oriented parking design. The Site Planning and Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections standards promote the intent of the TOD Overlay Zone by encouraging the use of buildings to define streets, as opposed to having streets defined by parking lots, in order to create an enhanced urban character that typical parking lot designs don’t provide. C. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “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 (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, 163 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 28 physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). D. Applicant’s Justification: The applicant has provided the following justification for the modification request: 1. Background. The Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing Project (“Project”), proposed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”), is located on a narrow rectangular (approx. 225’x555’) 2.97-acre parcel in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development. Direct street access to the Project is not possible to/from the north or south due to existing development (Woodley’s Furniture and the approved Cameron Park 2nd Subdivision), or from the east, where the number and kind of accesses to/from College Avenue are limited. The sole point of access to/from the Project is from the west end at the intersection of the public streets, Conejos Road and Fossil Blvd. The Project was originally designed to have a typical 40-space parking lot between the Conejos Road/Fossil Blvd. intersection and the entrance to the building, however, it was pointed out by City staff during the conceptual review process that this configuration would not be in compliance with the following two Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay Zone development standards: 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation. Primary commercial and residential building entrances shall face streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, but not parking lots. Buildings shall face all 164 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 29 street frontages to the maximum extent feasible, with highest priority given to east-west streets that lead from transit stations to destinations. 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located only behind, above or below street-facing buildings. No parking will be allowed between the street and the front or side of a building. In response, FCHA redesigned the Project to have an entrance drive/parking area that more closely resembles a street like private drive with numerous enhancements that mitigate the impacts of a standard parking lot and create a unique design with a strong urban building/street relationship. The redesign includes angled parking spaces, tree-lined borders, and a detached sidewalk. Four (4) additional parking spaces (head-in style) are provided in close proximity to the building entrance for handicapped accessible vehicles. The parking area will function like a public street, and the multi-family building will front on and offer primary orientation to such drive. Other features in the design of the parking area drive include an adjacent multi-use path, a landscaped median, a wide plaza between the drive the building entrance, street trees, and site benches. 2. Request for Modification of Standards. FCHA requests the Planning and Zoning Board grant a modification of the TOD Overlay Zone development standards cited above. The Land Use Code requires that all modifications not be detrimental to the public good, and provides four (4) alternative specific grounds for granting the modification, of which, we are citing three (3) as justification for approval of this request. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: 1. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” The overwhelming majority of people coming and going from the Project will be tenants, management, employees, and service providers. There is no reason for members of the public to be coming to the property or traveling through the Project, particularly since there are no services available to the public nor is there a through street, so there will be no detriment to the public good. In addition, the enhancements to the entrance drive/parking area contribute to the intent of the TOD Standards and are, therefore, not detrimental to the public good. 165 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 30 2. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(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.” Stated purposes of the TOD Overlay Zone development standards include: “to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations,” “. . . allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations,” “encourage the creation of . . . attractive residential . . . environments . .. .” The enhancements to the entrance drive/parking area contribute to the intent of the TOD Standards as well as a site layout that complies with the standards in that the Project continues to support the transit station by virtue of its location in an area of mixed uses within convenient walking distance to the transit station. In addition, the greatest visibility of the building will be from vehicles traveling along South College Avenue where there will not be any pavement or parking between the building and the street. If FCHA installed a public street with a cul-de-sac to access the building within the Project (see Alternative Plan attached) to comply with the TOD standards, the resulting layout, in comparison with the proposed layout, would be less desirable for the following reasons: • More pavement within the Project • 62% reduction in parking (13 vs. 34) • 23% reduction in amount of functional open space for use by tenants • Closer proximity to and greater visibility of parking lot from College Avenue • Height/mass are emphasized with location of building closer to steep slope • Less buffer to Woodley’s Furniture • Increased construction costs to deal with change in elevation between building and College Avenue • Increased street maintenance costs to City 3. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a 166 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 31 substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low-income individuals. The need for housing units tailored to the specific needs of these types of individuals is defined in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 60 individuals is a significant steps towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. Please see the following excerpts: City Plan: Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. LIV 7.5 – Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. LIV 8.5 – Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Executive Summary: Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs. Introduction: Affordable housing is a critical asset contributing to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of a community . . . The overall wellbeing of an individual can be significantly improved with stable housing conditions, which leads to more stable families and stable neighborhoods. 4.1 Goal: Increase the Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units. The first priority should be to increase the inventory of affordable rental units . . . 167 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 32 4.3 Goal: Increase Housing and Facilities for People with Special Needs. This broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. These groups generally require housing units tailored to specific needs not typically addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. 4.3.1 Justification. Homeless: . . . Research has shown the sooner people can enter a stabilized shelter situation, the sooner they can start dealing with the other problems that accompany homelessness, which also decreases costs to providing community services for this populations. . . . suggests single room occupancy housing as a more effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters. Persons with Disabilities: . . . organizations which provide supportive services or housing for disable customers do not have enough low-rent options for the number of people who need them. . . . it is important to expand the supply of housing that is both accessible and affordable. Partners in Affordable Housing. While the City of Fort Collins is an important player in addressing the affordable housing needs of its citizens, there are other partners that also contribute important resources. . . . the City cannot solve all of the community’s affordable housing needs alone. Policies: AHSP-11 The City will support community initiatives identifying homeless needs and developing action plans to reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins, The City will also participate in partnerships exploring solutions for homelessness. AHSP-12 The City will support projects producing affordable units to serve persons with disabilities, and “cost-burdened” senior citizens. Conclusion: . . . A lack of affordable housing affects everyone. . . . Affordable housing is greater than a social issue; it is also about economic development and environmental protection. . . . The Fort Collins City Council made a commitment to affordable housing through the adoption of many programs and the allocation of General Fund revenue into the Affordable Housing Fund. . . . affordable housing must be elevated so it is discussed on par with such topics as economic development, environmental protection, and public safety . . . Every discussion regarding a sustainable community must include the consideration of affordable housing. 4. As required by Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(3), by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical 168 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 33 conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The Project is located amidst existing development in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development on a narrow rectangular (approx. 225’ by 555’) 2.97-acre parcel with steep slopes down to College Avenue. Direct street access to the Project is only possible at its west end, where there is very limited frontage; street access to College Avenue on the east is not possible. Due to these unique conditions, it is not possible to position the building in close proximity to the street on either the west or the east. Finally, if FCHA were required to install a street into the Project to satisfy the TOD Overlay Zone development standards regarding building orientation and off-street parking, the result would create the following practical difficulties for the Project: • More pavement within the Project • 62% reduction in parking (13 vs. 34) • 23% reduction in amount of functional open space for use by tenants • Closer proximity to and greater visibility of parking lot from College Avenue • Height/mass are emphasized with location of building closer to steep slope • Less buffer to Woodley’s Furniture • Increased construction costs to deal with change in elevation between building and College Avenue • Increased street maintenance costs to City E. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking are justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and: A. The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(1) because 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. 169 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 34 This is because the entrance drive and parking area provides street-like enhancements similar to a street-like private drive including narrower travel lanes, tree-lined borders, tree grates, sidewalks, angled parking, generous landscaped medians, corner plazas, pedestrian lighting and benches that create an appropriate alternative to a street. The result is a project in which the overall design and building entrance is not dominated by a standard parking configuration, but rather achieves a unique identity consistent with the urban character promoted by the standards of the TOD Overlay Zone. The stigma and negative design impacts of a design dominated by a standard parking lot have mitigated by the enhancements provided. If the project were not in the TOD Overlay Zone, the building/parking/street configuration proposed would be permitted by the LUC General Development Standards without the significant enhancements proposed by the plan as modified. B. The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(2) because the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, – including: LIV 7.5- Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area, LIV 8- The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing affordable housing supply, and LIV 8.5- Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. This is because the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible, and the granting of the modification does not impair the intent and purpose of the TOD Overlay Zone to foster and promote attractive street-oriented developments with enhanced design details, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern by permitting the project to meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. 7. Neighborhood Meeting A City neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project, and detailed meeting minutes and letters from the neighbors are attached with this staff report. FCHA has 170 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 35 provided supplemental information that describes the project’s public engagement process and outlines comments from neighbors and the responses throughout the design process. 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Modifications of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure,(1), (2) and (3) Block Standards that are proposed with this P.D.P. meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) and (3), and the granting of these Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good. This is because (i) the strict application of such standards would render the project practically infeasible, the granting of the modifications does not impair intent and purpose of the LUC, and the granting of the modifications would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern by permitting the project to meet the housing needs of special populations within the community including: LIV 7.5- Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area, LIV 8- The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing affordable housing supply, and LIV 8.5- Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas; and (ii) the project site cannot contribute towards any strict requirement to form a “complete block” without adding a street connection through the site, connecting to either South College Avenue to the east or , Coronado Court to the south. , or through the Woodley’s development to the north. Making such a connection is both an exceptional practical difficulty, because the block pattern surrounding the site has already been established by existing development and natural areasprior approvals, and because the change in topographic elevation between the site and South College Avenue is an exceptional physical condition that makes the construction of a complete street connection and complete block an undue hardship upon the owner not caused by act or omission. 171 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 36 B. Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and (2), and the granting of these Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good. This is because (i) the strict application of such standards would render the project practically infeasible, the granting of the modification does not impair intent and purpose of the LUC, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern including: LIV 7.5- Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area, LIV 8- The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing affordable housing supply, and LIV 8.5- Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas; and (ii) the entrance drive and parking area provides street-like enhancements similar to a street-like private drive including narrower travel lanes, tree-lined borders, tree grates, sidewalks, angled parking, generous landscaped medians, corner plazas, pedestrian lighting and benches that create an appropriate alternative to a street. The strict application of such standards would render the project practically infeasible, and the granting of the modifications do not impair intent and purpose of the TOD Overlay Zone to foster and promote attractive street- oriented developments with enhanced design details, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern by permitting the project to meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. 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. complies with the Block Requirements of Section 3.8.30(D)(2) and (3) for Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage. It is infeasible for the P.D.P. to comply with the block requirement of Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure due to existing development. 172 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 37 E. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards (i) provided that either compliance with Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure is deemed infeasible or that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure is approved; and (ii) provided that the Modifications to Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking are approved. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided that the Modifications of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D), (1), (2) and (3) Block Standards, Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. are approved and/or deemed not applicable. F. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial District (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts, subject to the approval of the modifications of standard that are part of TOD Overlay Zone requirements for the C-G District – specifically the Modification of Standard to Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking that are proposed with this P.D.P. are approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030, a determination of infeasibility as to the Block Requirement regarding block structure in Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure,(1), (2) and (3) Block Standards, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off-Street Parking. ATTACHMENTS: 1. FCHA Memo to P&Z 2. Statement of Planning Objectives 2.1 Modification Request – Block Requirements 2.2 Modification Request – Block Requirements, map exhibit 2.3 Request for Reasonable Accommodation 2.4 Modification Request – TOD Parking Standards 3. Site Plan, Building Elevations, Building Materials, Building Perspectives 4. Landscape Plans 5. Aerial Perspective 6. Lighting Plan 7. Lighting Details 8. Plat 9. Utility Plans 10. Building Height Review 173 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing, PDP #130030 Planning & Zoning Hearing November 21, 2013 Page 38 11. View Analysis Images 12. Shadow Analysis 13. Ecological Characterization Study 14. Transportation Impact Study 15. Traffic memorandum – sidewalk connection 16. Street Turn Variance 17. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, comments and responses 18.1Letters from Neighbors 18.2Letters from Neighbors 19 Drainageway Easement Agreement 20 Application Form 21 Submittal Checklist 22 PDP Comment Responses 23 Preliminary Geotech Report 24 TIS Appendices 25 Depiction of Block Requirements 26 Preferred and Alternative Site Plan-TOD modification 174 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Fort Collins Housing Authority Kristin Fritz, Senior Project Manager DATE: October 28, 2013 SUBJECT: Redtail Ponds Overview, Outreach, and Permanent Supportive Housing Case Studies Dear Planning and Zoning Board, The Fort Collins Housing Authority is excited to bring forward the Project Development Plan for Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing. Redtail Ponds is a mixed-income 60-unit apartment community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans, and other low-income individuals. This integrated housing approach combines high-quality housing for homeless individuals with affordable units for individuals with lower incomes. Onsite services such as counseling, life skills training, financial literacy and employment assistance contribute to housing stability for those that once were homeless. Redtail Ponds will help address the critical need for affordable housing in our community. It will be located in south Fort Collins, one block from the South Transit Center, along the South College Corridor in the TOD Overlay Zone. The programming and the building are designed specifically to promote both independence and a healthy community. The unique features that make permanent supportive housing successful include programming space for the onsite staff, computer labs and job training rooms, community rooms, front desk, onsite case managers and overnight staff, a single point of entry, and security. Partnerships are formed with a variety of local service agencies, including University of Colorado Health who will be providing wellness programs and education for Redtail Ponds residents. Touchstone Health Partners and Veteran Affairs will also be providing case management and counseling onsite at Redtail Ponds. FCHA believes it is important to share the long history and process for bringing permanent supportive housing to the Fort Collins community. A number of years ago, through a community-based process, a “Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness” was born. Homeward 2020 challenged the Fort Collins community to work together to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent supportive housing was identified as the top priority in making progress toward this goal. It’s identified as a national best practice and a proven solution to improve housing stability, employment, and mental and physical health. Redtail Ponds will fill a gap in the current housing services our community provides. 175 2 The thoughtful process for selecting the location for Redtail Ponds was initiated in December 2011. It included a team of representatives from a variety of agencies using a toolkit for site selection developed by the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) and an in depth triple bottom line analysis facilitated by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department. (For 20 years, CSH has been the National leader of the supportive housing movement, demonstrating supportive housing’s enormous potential for improving lives of very vulnerable individuals and families.) The zoning and adopted policies for the selected site encourage higher density multi- family housing with an emphasis on affordability at this location. The site is surrounded by an office park, large format retailer, an elevated railroad track, and US 287 (S. College Avenue). It was agreed that implementation of multi-family housing near the South Transit Center will achieve a healthier mix of uses and contribute to a thriving transit oriented district. South Fort Collins has many amenities that make it an attractive location for many people to live and thrive, and we believe the same to be true for our residents. If it’s a decent place for other people to live, it is a decent place for our residents to live, too. Soon after the site selection was made, FCHA voluntarily hosted two public workshops to uncover key issues and stakeholder desires at the beginning of the process. The format for the workshops was based on best practice strategies for public outreach. The goal was to hear comments and concerns before any design development occurred, listen to ideas, and demonstrate a commitment to working with the community. An in-depth timeline of the ongoing public outreach process is attached for your information. Since being awarded the highly competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding allocation in June 2013, FCHA has hosted three rounds of public workshops, including the one City required neighborhood meeting on July 8 th . The second round of workshops was designed to solicit input for a voluntary Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. During the month of September, FCHA convened a committee of community volunteers to draft the GNSO. The draft document was presented at a community open house on October 14 th where additional comments were received before presenting the GNSO to the FCHA Board of Commissioners on October 24 th for consideration and November 21 st for approval. Permanent Supportive Housing is a best practice for addressing homelessness around the country. Thousands of permanent supportive housing units have been successfully implemented in a variety of different locations and contexts. Studies have shown that the combination of affordable housing with onsite supportive services is a proven method for keeping individuals housed long term and improving their health, stability, and independence. Studies have also shown that many of the neighborhood fears surrounding supportive housing are unfounded, including a comprehensive new analysis of what has transpired in Mount Laurel, N.J., since 140 units of affordable housing were built in that upscale suburb in 2000 (Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb, Massey, 2013). Although it is common for permanent supportive housing plans to be faced with neighborhood opposition and concern, there are numerous studies documenting that the presence of permanent supportive housing neither detracts from nor flat lines the growth in value of parcels in close proximity. A number of case studies, articles and research alluding to the success of permanent supportive housing are attached for the Board’s information. 176 3 Attachments: 1. FCHA - Public Outreach Summary Timeline 2. FCHA - Redtail Ponds Frequently Asked Questions 3. FCHA - Redtail Ponds Weekly Newsletters (July 29 – Oct 8, 2013) 4. Here Comes the Neighborhood, New York Times, David Kripp, Oct 19, 2013 5. How Long Do People Stay in Supportive Housing and What Happens When They Leave? Corporation for Supportive Housing 6. Creating Lasting Solutions, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless 7. Supportive Housing Is Cost Effective, National Alliance to End Homelessness, Jan 2007 8. Our Neighbors, Our Neighborhoods: the Impact of Permanent Supportive Housing on Neighborhoods in Fort Worth, Texas, www.DirectionsHome.org 177 FCHOUSING.ORG Public Outreach Process The Fort Collins Housing Authority is committed to making Redtail Ponds a success for the greater Fort Collins community as well as for the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. REDTAIL PONDS DEVELOPMENT October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 March 2013 November 2012 May 2012 March 2012 December 2011 Site Selection Team develops selection criteria, adopts TBLAM approach, recommends Redtail Ponds site as #1 choice Feedback from open house results in new site within same office park Site Selection Team formed Public Workshops Round 1: visioning, Permanent Supportive Housing 101, green charrette Invitations to public workshop mailed to 200 property owners (expanded notification area) FCHA receives notification of funding from low income tax credits (LIHTC) Neighborhood Meeting* Public Workshops Round 2: develop ideas for the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Citizen committee crafts Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Public Workshops Round 3 scheduled for Oct. 14 Development application submitted } } { Invitations to neighborhood meeting sent to expanded notification area Development and submittal of 2nd application for LIHTC funding Open House with office park owners July 2012 Submittal of 1st application for LIHTC funding November 2011 Supportive Housing Planning Retreat with FCHA & partners City of Fort Collins HOME FCHOUSING.ORG BUILDING STRONG FOUNDATIONS FOR OVER 40 YEARS! 1715 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH: 970.416.2910 FX: 970.221.0821 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Redtail Ponds is a mixed-income 60-unit development with 40 units designated as Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). The program is designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans, and other low-income individuals. Onsite supportive services will be provided to help promote independ- ence. SITING/LOCATION Site location FCHA seeks sites that are appropriate to our program and building needs. This means looking for properties in areas where people live, and where the zoning supports the sort of multi-unit properties we create. If it's a decent place for other people to live, it's a decent place for our residents to live, too. In our constant effort to create new afford- able housing opportunities for our residents, we found a suitable property for development in south Fort Collins, entered into a purchase and sale agreement in 2012, and we are following all requirements of the City of Fort Collins notification process. We continue active property searches throughout the city. How residents benefit from the building and the location South Fort Collins has many amenities that make it an attractive location for many people to live and thrive, and we believe the same will be true for our residents. There is a full service grocery and pharmacy, several small restau- rants, and walking trails easily accessible from our building site. The South Transit Center with MAX rapid transit and numerous bus routes is within one block of the FCHA site. The current level of bus service is adequate for FCHA residents, who will be able to access goods and services throughout the City with access to MAX. Proximity to schools and day cares is not relevant because our residents are not raising young children and they do not pose any risks to other children. We work with our residents to understand that engaging in drug or criminal activity in the neighborhood is not allowed. CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN FCHA anticipates construction on the building will begin in early 2014 and be completed in early 2015. Like all devel- opments of this size and type, Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing must go through the City of Fort Collins PDP pro- cess, which will require Planning and Zoning Board approval. When the project is being constructed, our general contractor will comply with all City regulations regarding traffic, safety, noise, and utility interruption. The building will be four stories, built in an L-shape with a private courtyard. The courtyard area will be surrounded by a perime- ter fence. It will also contain a patio area, shelter with tables, community lawn, bocce court and landscaped gardens. A gravel trail wanders through the landscaped area for walking and exercise opportunities. There is also a “smoking 179 room” on each floor with outside patio/deck access for residents located at the south end of the east wing of the building. The common spaces include a community room, sitting area, computer room, multi-purpose room, exercise room, and wellness office. Each floor will have a distinct common space for residents to enjoy. The building will have 54 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom independent apartments. The ground floor will include offices for the on-site staff, a front desk, and resident common space. Design Team The award-winning design firm, Studio Completiva, has completed over 600 multi-residential units in Colorado. With a dedication to design excellence and a deep commitment to affordable, multi-residential housing for a diversity of popu- lations, their track record demonstrates affordable communities that bring a marked, positive impact both to the lives of the residents and the greater neighborhood. Cost The cost of our building design has to conform to our public funders' expectations. Our layered financing is from public sources and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. The project must meet their standards for reasonable cost control. Building Security The Redtail Ponds project will be equipped with a security system and cameras throughout the interior and exterior of the building. Front desk staff monitors security cameras. Staff walk the perimeter of the building several times through- out the day and night to check that doors are secure and perform basic building security, and be visible and available to neighbors as needed. DEMOGRAPHIC/POPULATION/RESIDENTS Resident eligibility and screening criteria are primarily determined by rules associated with the funding agencies in- volved in this project as well as relevant FCHA policies. The funding sources may include: the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (McKinney-Vento Act funding as amended by the Homeless Emergency Assis- tance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher funds), the U.S. Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. Resident selection will be a two-step process. First, the referring agencies will identify potential residents and assess their suitability and ability to benefit from Permanent Supportive Housing. Then FCHA will screen recommended can- didates for eligibility and conduct background checks. Some candidates may be disqualified from Permanent Supportive Housing based on the findings of FCHA’s screening. Like all property owners we are evaluating potential tenants in order to build a safe community and occupy apartments with tenants who will pay their rent and maintain their lease agreement. The intention is to prioritize individuals who 180 are living, working or accessing services in the City of Fort Collins who, first and foremost, want to be housed and, second, can and want to be successful in permanent supportive housing, which includes evaluating an individual’s will- ingness to be lease compliant and engage with case managers to receive support services. Due to the significant need for this type of housing in Fort Collins, nearly all of the potential residents will be referrals to FCHA from Fort Collins service agencies. There will simply not be room for individuals who apply without any track record of service cooperation. Local service agencies include, but are not limited to Catholic Charities, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, Touchstone Health Partners, Disabled Resource Services, Murphy Center, Crossroads, Homeless Gear, and Hand Up Cooperative. PROPERTY, SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS Housing and Services model Key to success of FCHA’s permanent supportive housing program is having 24-hour on-site-staff. Redtail Ponds will have intensive staff and supervision similar to other model supportive housing projects. The "support" can be com- pared to accommodations we are more accustomed to seeing everyday, such as wheelchair ramps for people who can't walk up stairs. For people with histories of homelessness and disabilities, community spaces, 24-hour staffing and other services are similar to ramps or braille signs. It's not a social services program - it's home, but with the support residents need to succeed in living as independently as possible. Staffing The project will be staffed 24/7 by a group of trained staff under the supervision of the full-time on-site Program Man- ager. The services planned to be offered on site include: comprehensive case management, mental health counseling, employment readiness classes, substance abuse counseling, education counseling, health and wellness classes, nutrition and health cooking classes, financial budgeting, recreational activities and groups. The Program Manager will oversee the property management functions and supervise the round-the-clock staff, as well as coordinate between property management functions and the on-site case management staff. Maintenance staff will be responsible for keeping the facility clean and in good condition. There will be 1.5 full time maintenance staff dedicat- ed to Redtail Ponds who are highly qualified in day-to-day maintenance and janitorial supervision as well as asset man- agement and preventive maintenance. Good Neighbor Statement of Operations FCHA will work with the community in good faith to develop a Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. Using a con- sensus based process, the Statement of Operations will provide information to the community on the operation of Redtail Ponds , including how to engage in ongoing development and operation of the property and communicate and resolve issues. Overall, the document will provide a framework for open communication channels and good neighbor operations. FCHA will collaborate with the community to ensure that Redtail Ponds will be operated with consideration for guid- ing principles that address the neighborhood, the building, the residents, and the property management. 181 Length of tenancy All units in the project are permanent housing, and the length of residency will not be limited. In general, people are more secure knowing they will not be forced to leave after specific period of time. The wrap around services offered in the building will help tenants stabilize and keep their housing for a longer period of time than in a conventional apart- ment building where no specialized support is offered. The vast majority of residents will stay in the housing for multi- ple years. Like any rental housing, tenants have leases. Tenants are required to pay thirty percent (30) of their income as rent. The bulk of funding for the program's operations and services comes from different grants and government contracts, in addition, the amount from resident rents is an important piece. QUALITY OF LIVING/EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD FCHA is committed to being good neighbors to all who live and work in the area. We will talk with residents about this expectation at length, both when they move in and throughout their tenancy at Redtail Ponds, and we write it into their lease agreements. Our experience has shown that tenants are very receptive to this message. After periods of living on the street, they want to be good neighbors because they value their housing. It is important to us that staff and tenants contribute to the health and stability of the neighborhood and that we are available to neighbors as need- ed, to answer questions or hear concerns. While it is impossible to give absolute assurance that no act of violence will ever occur in our community, we know that the risk of such acts occurring can be significantly reduced by providing appropriate services. Safety of children/Impact on schools & daycares We have received many inquiries about how it’s appropriate for our residents to live near schools or otherwise near children. This is based on a misconception that our residents are dangerous to children. This is simply untrue. The question about the safety of children walking past our building implies that there are fears our residents would strike or snatch a child passing by. Such incidents have not occurred around other supportive housing developments or the Murphy Center locally , and we are at a loss as to how that stereotype ever came to exist. Concerns about sex offend- ers are often raised, but registered sex offenders are automatically prohibited. Guests and Non-Residents around Redtail Ponds Based on experiences of other supportive housing developments around the country, it is not expected that there will be additional non-resident homeless people drawn to the area surrounding Redtail Ponds. This would be especially true since the neighborhoods are separated by the railroad track and US 287. The reason FCHA has focused on security of the building is because the neighbors have expressed such a strong concern about safety and security. A great deal of time was spent on this topic at the neighborhood meeting because the question was asked repeatedly. The goal of this project is to provide stable, secure housing for formerly homeless people. It is not a shelter or a drop-in center, it is an apartment building. FCHA’s visitation policy, building rules and good neighbor commitment are appended to each of the tenants' leases that are strictly enforced by staff. The visitor policy will limit the number of people visiting and fre- quency of visitors a resident may have. Any guest who is removed from the building or not permitted to enter will be provided with bus fare, so they will not be stranded in the neighborhood. In general, we find that residents of our 182 buildings outside the downtown core receive fewer visitors than residents of our buildings downtown. The leasing office for Redtail Ponds will not be located in the building. Prospective residents will be going to other FCHA or Villages offices to apply so as not to attract non-residents to the building. It is important to us that staff and tenants contribute to the health and stability of the neighborhood and that we are available to neighbors as needed, to answer questions or hear concerns. In the vicinity of each of FCHA’s apartment buildings, neighborhoods have become more stable and property invest- ment has been prompted. In the case of Redtail Ponds, the separation between single family neighborhoods, parks, and the project is substantial. The closest single-family home is 770 feet (as the crow flies) and the closest park is 0.75 mile away. Police Services has been involved with this project from the early stages. We had representation from Police Services at our supportive housing service planning retreat as well as participation in our initial community meetings in 2012. We plan to continue the coordination with Police Service once the building is operational. Engagement with neighbors It’s typical for us to hear two principal questions from neighbors: will the project move forward, and if it does, how will it interact with the neighborhood? In all of our communications, we have described our resident population and the model we employ to help them. Our residents have had difficult lives and we have a strong objective of having a safe and pleasant community for them to live. Neighbors want this as well, of course, and so we are earnest in establishing a relationship with the neighborhood aimed at supporting this mutual objective. Our intent is to continue working with neighbors over the long haul and one way we would do that is through the creation of a neighborhood advisory group to discuss our program and how best to integrate with the neighborhood. Neighbors are encouraged to call at any time to request a staff person respond to an issue involving a building tenant's behavior in the neighborhood. Staff will be prepared to respond immediately whenever possible to help; if the person in question is not a resident of the project our staff will still try to help them get whatever resources they may need. Lease agreements with all tenants will include prohibitions against certain behaviors in the neighborhood including pan- handling, drinking, loitering, littering, or other uncivil behaviors. With supportive housing it is common for neighbors to raise concern when a location is first announced. It is found that after opening, neighbors appreciate the attentive ap- proach to both how the programs are operated, and how neighborhood concerns are responded to. MEASURING SUCCESS Success in all our housing projects is measured in terms of the residential longevity of our tenants. That longevity is related to the stabilization of tenants and is the principle reason we staff our buildings so generously. "Success" in Red- tail Ponds will be defined in the same manner. The project’s goals are threefold: (1) empower and equip formerly homeless and disabled residents with the skills and resources to help them live as independently as possible; (2) strive to integrate the building and its residents into the surrounding community; and (3) construct a well-designed, high per- formance building that is energy efficient, secure, comfortable, and cost effective to operate. 183 Homelessness is a real issue in Fort Collins. The Murphy Center served 1,387 individuals in 2011. Next Steps Now - Oct. 4: Working Committee develops Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GSO) Early Sept.: Fort Collins Housing Authority submits Development Application to the City Early Oct.: Public meeting to share draft of GSO, gather feedback Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Sign Up! There's still time to sign up to participate in the working committee that will create the Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. Your involvement is important to assuring this document meets the needs of your community. Sign up today! Development Review Process The City of Fort Collins requires each development project to go through a process to ensure projects meet standards related to safety, quality, design consistency and construction of buildings and public infrastructure. Known as Development Review, this process includes a variety of steps and approvals and is a core responsibility of local government. Learn more. Redtail Ponds is in the initial stage of this process. The Fort Collins Housing Authority has completed the Conceptual Review and first required Neighborhood Meeting. The FCHA plans to progress to the next step, Application Submission, in early September. The City's process does not require additional public meetings. However, FCHA is committed to working with surrounding neighbors and property owners to assure that this project is successful for the entire community. Another public workshop is planned for early October; stay tuned for details. Services at Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing programs like Redtail Ponds Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 3 10/28/13 11:28 AM 184 Authority Board adopts GSO offer many support services onsite. This allows residents convenient access to those services that will help them transition from homelessness to self sufficiency. Services will include: case management job training counseling community building FAQ: WHY THIS LOCATION? The Fort Collins Housing Authority evaluated a dozen different sites before choosing this one at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. Cost, current zoning, and access to transit, retail and employment all played a factor in the decision. Ultimately, this site proved to be the best choice as it's ideally located to help promote health and independence for our tenants. DID YOU KNOW? One-third of the Redtail Ponds units are dedicated to low and moderate income households (40-50% of area median income). Receiving this newsletter for the first time? Sign up to subscribe to future updates regarding Redtail Ponds. Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 3 10/28/13 11:28 AM 185 There is a growing need for affordable housing. The Fort Collins Housing Authority has a waiting list of 1,900 families and individuals hoping for housing help. Next Steps Now - Oct. 4: Working Committee develops Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GSO) Early Sept.: Fort Collins Housing Authority submits Development Application to the City Early Oct.: Public meeting to share draft of GSO, gather feedback Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Committee Update The Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Committee met for the first time yesterday, September 5, at the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA). The group discussed communication and property management. At the next meeting (September 12) they'll discuss safety and security, project design, and resident eligibility and screening. Staffing Levels Redtail Ponds will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 9.5 FTEs (or full time equivalent) positions are funded through a combination of grants, income/rent, and other agencies such as Touchstone Partners and the VA (Veterans Association). Positions include: Program Supervisor Property Manager Clinical Case Managers Case Aide Overnight staff Relieve stafff Front Desk staff Maintenance Some have asked about long-term funding stability and its impact on staffing levels. The FCHA does not anticipate a change in funding sources. However, if grant funding was no longer available, onsite services would be eliminated and FCHA would be forced to change the purpose - and thus Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 3 10/28/13 11:29 AM 186 Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Authority Board adopts GSO tenants - of Redtail Ponds. New Data: Average Rent The average rent for a 1-bedroom in Fort Collins is now $888/month (2nd Quarter 2013). FAQ: WHY 60 UNITS? Once the location was determined, the Fort Collins Housing Authority considered the site layout, zoning, costs, and potential efficiencies from economies of scale to determine the size of the project. These factors coupled with an evaluation of best practices resulted in a 51,580 square foot building with 54 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom independent apartments and 20,000 square feet devoted to communal and programming space. 60 units also allows us to create a mixed-income community, which contributes to the success of the program. DID YOU KNOW? The Fort Collins Housing Authority is an experienced property manager which currently owns and operates 1,000 units of affordable housing and more than 1,000 rental assistance vouchers. Experience Matters The Fort Collins Housing Authority, in partnership with its nonprofit affiliate, Villages LTD, serves more than 4,000 individuals in the community. This makes us one of the largest property managers in Fort Collins with experience serving the homeless and low income populations. FCHA Clients Currently, FCHA and Villages serve residents at a variety of income levels, ranging from 0-60% of area median income (AMI), or those making up to $31,860 per year. We currently house formerly homeless individuals and families at all of our properties. Single Room Occupancy Developments FCHA also successfully owns and operates two Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments. Single Room Occupancy are multiple-tenant buildings that house one person in individual rooms; SRO tenants share bathrooms and kitchens. The rent is subsidized but there is no funding for services. This type of housing is reserved for formerly homeless individuals, and works well for some who do not need ongoing support. It tends to be transitional; residents generally move on to other housing within a couple years. Linden Street SRO FCHA previously leased a third SRO at Linden Street; however, due primarily to funding, FCHA decided in 2009 to terminate the lease in 2010. The location also made it challenging Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 3 10/28/13 11:29 AM 187 for residents due to its proximity to Jefferson Park, an area where many homeless congregate. The aging building also presented many challenges. The Move to Permanent Supportive Housing Federal funding has been moving away from SRO programs and towards permanent supportive housing (PSH). PSH is unique as it provides on-site services and a 24/7 staff presence. Neither of these amenities are possible in an SRO which only receives funding for the rent subsidy. Subscribe to future updates regarding Redtail Ponds Still have questions? Email us! Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 3 of 3 10/28/13 11:29 AM 188 Average Rent for a 1-bedroom unit in Fort Collins/ Loveland is $888. The generally accepted definition of affordability is defined as a household that spends no more than 30% of its annual income on housing. In order to afford $888 in rent, you would need a household income of at least $35,520 or $17/hour. Next Steps Now - Oct. 4: Committee develops Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) Now - November: City of Fort Collins staff review Redtail Ponds Update: Good Neighbor Statement of Operations The Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) Committee met again earlier this week to discuss the final three elements of the GNSO, safety and security, project design, and eligibility and screening. At their next meeting, the group will continue to work on the draft document so that they can share the results of their work with the community at large. An additional public workshop will take place in early October to share the GNSO and gather final feedback before presenting the document to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Directors. Application Submitted The Fort Collins Housing Authority has submitted a Project Development Plan to the City of Fort Collins. With submital of this application, Redtail Ponds begins the Development Review Process. Various City departments will review the proposal to assure the plan complies with the City's planning, zoning, and building codes. There are several ways to keep tabs on proposals under review both online and in person. Check out the City of Fort Collins' Ways to Track Development Review which explains how to access all the the different tools and information. Sharing Information We want to make sure that those interested in the project are Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 5 10/28/13 11:30 AM 189 development application Early Oct.: Public meeting to share draft of GNSO, gather feedback Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Authority Board adopts GNSO getting the information they need. If you have ideas about topics for this newsletter, or other ways we can reach out to the community, we want to hear them! Share your ideas. FAQ: Why is Redtail Ponds mostly 1-bedroom units designed for individuals? Redtail Ponds was designed specifically to address the greatest community need. Fort Collins currently provides housing solutions for homeless and low income families and other populations struggling to find housing. Our community is currently lacking sufficient housing for homeless and low income individuals with a disability. Redtail Ponds will help address this critical need. REDTAIL PONDS UNITS BY ANNUAL INCOME Many housing solutions, such as those provided through Redtail Ponds, are based on annual income. The area median income (AMI) for Fort Collins is $54,400. The majority (40 units) of Redtail Ponds units will be dedicated to those making $15,950 or less, or approximately 30% of Fort Collins AMI. Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 5 10/28/13 11:30 AM 190 DID YOU KNOW? The Fort Collins Housing Authority is a leader in developing and implementing programs that address homelessness in our community. Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 3 of 5 10/28/13 11:30 AM 191 Subscribe to future updates regarding Redtail Ponds Still have questions? Email us! Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 4 of 5 10/28/13 11:30 AM 192 Public Workshop When: Monday, Oct. 14 12:30-2pm or 5:30-7:00pm Where: Harmony Library, Community Room (4616 South Shields) RSVP Required: Space is limited to 60 people per session. RSVP online Next Steps Now - Oct. 4: Committee develops Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) Oct. 14: Public workshop to share draft of GNSO, GNSO Draft Coming Soon! Workshop Date Announced At their last meeting, the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) Committee worked toward finalizing the first draft of the document. While there's still more discussion that needs to take place, a draft will be ready to share with the greater community in the next few weeks. Online Viewing We'll post the draft document online and send an email announcement to let you when know it's available for viewing. Public Workshop We want to hear from you! The next public workshop will take place on Monday, October 14. Space is limited; RSVP required. RSVP ONLINE Once the draft is posted, you'll also be able to submit your feedback online. Thanks again to the community members who have volunteered their time and effort to crafting the GNSO! You can view the agendas and notes from their meeting online. Who Will Really Live at Redtail Ponds? This is one of the most common questions we hear! Right upfront you should know that tenants Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 3 10/28/13 11:31 AM 193 gather feedback (see above) Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Authority Board adopts GNSO November (Date TBD): City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board considers Redtail Ponds development application WILL NOT BE: sex offenders "bums" straight off the street meth addicts violent criminals The GNSO Committee is crafting the final requirements for tenants, but overall you can count on the fact that Redtail Ponds will not provide a haven for violent criminals and sex offenders. It does provide housing coupled with job training, behavioral health treatment, and medical services, all with the focus of helping the individual become more stable and self-sufficient. Want to learn more about who will be living at Redtail Ponds? Meet Nick in the article below. Fact Check As we continue to talk with the community about the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing project, it's clear that misunderstandings exists. Let's clear up some of the confusion: MYTH: Redtail Ponds will be home to 60 male criminals who are homeless and sex offenders, creating a dangerous environment. FACT: Redtail Ponds will provide long-term housing to both men and women by offering one and two bedroom apartments with onsite services. Tenants of Redtail Ponds are simply members of our community who need assistance with housing. They are veterans, disabled, and seniors, among others. Tenants will need to pass a multi-step screening process and only those who are committed to bettering their circumstances will be accepted. READ MORE MYTHS AND FACTS Meet Nick Nick's story is exemplary of those you might find at Redtail Ponds. While Nick currently has a permanent place to live, others just like him need assistance. The tenants of Redtail Ponds will each have a personal story to tell about their own journey to self-sufficiency. Layoffs at Longmont Dairy Farm, Inc. led Nick down a path he had never foreseen. Nick was happily living in a house he had owned for twelve years. But when he lost his job Nick's life quickly changed. Nick said, "I lost my job, then my car, then my house." Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 3 10/28/13 11:31 AM 194 Before long, Nick found himself completely homeless. While living in a homeless shelter he tried for many months to find a job. He filled out more than one hundred job applications, without any success. Then one day, Nick enrolled with the Hand Up cooperative. Once completed the curriculum, he landed an interview with Center Partners, Inc. and was eventually offered a job. By continuing with Hand Up he's been able to find affordable housing after living in a shelter for six months. From being homeless for almost an entire year to being fully self sufficient, Nick was equipped with the tools he needed to be successful each step of the way. Subscribe to future updates regarding Redtail Ponds Still have questions? Email us! Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 3 of 3 10/28/13 11:31 AM 195 Next Steps Now - Oct. 4: Committee develops Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) Oct. 14: Public workshop to share draft of GNSO, gather feedback (see above) Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Authority Board adopts GNSO November 21: City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board considers Redtail Ponds development application GOOD NEIGHBOR STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS PUBLIC WORKSHOP: OCTOBER 14 Please join us at one of the following workshops where the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations committee will share their draft document and gather feedback. Monday, October 14 12:30-2 p.m. or 5:30-7 p.m. Harmony Library, Community Room 4616 South Shields RSVP ONLINE Space is limited to 60 people per session; please RSVP. FAQ: Will Redtail Ponds attract homeless individuals who are not tenants? Homeless people tend to be attracted to facilities that provide general services like kitchens and shelters. Redtail Ponds will not provide these general services, and the specialized onsite services will only be available to tenants. While we don't expect Redtail to attract non-residents, security/staff will be onsite 24/7 to manage visitors and guests. Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 3 10/28/13 11:31 AM 196 READ MORE FAQS Fact Check As we continue to talk with the community about the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing project, it's clear that misunderstandings exists. Let's clear up some of the confusion: MYTH: Multi-family housing is not appropriate for this part of Fort Collins. FACT: The City of Fort Collins develops long-term planning documents and zoning districts to encourage certain types of development. At the specific location of Redtail Ponds, multi-family housing is an allowable and encouraged use. The zoning also encourages affordable housing at higher densities within close proximity to transit, as is the case with Redtail Ponds and the MAX bus rapid transit line. READ MORE MYTHS AND FACTS Stories of Success Renaissance Off Broadway Lofts, Denver CO: 81 units, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless The Renaissance was the first newly constructed, affordable rental lofts project in Denver history. The development integrates supportive housing for homeless individuals with affordable rental housing. One-half of the lofts are rented to homeless households. The remaining units are reserved for downtown workers who cannot afford the high-priced lofts in the LODO, Uptown, and the South Platte Valley neighborhoods. The Lofts were built on a vacant parking lot at 2135 Stout Street, just east of Broadway and adjacent to the Coalition's Stout Street Clinic. The property is located near bus lines and light rail. Amenities include a two-story parking garage, an enclosed courtyard, community center, computer lab and laundry facilities. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. Subscribe to future updates regarding Redtail Ponds Still have questions? Email us! Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Redtail Ponds Newsletter https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 3 10/28/13 11:31 AM 197 You are Invited! WHEN: August 12, 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Or August 12, 5:30-7:30 p.m. WHERE: Timberline Church 2908 S Timberline Road, rooms 201 & 202 WHAT: The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) invites you to participate in a collaborative workshop to develop a Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. WHY: The FCHA is committed to implementing proven solutions to combat homelessness while positively contributing to the quality of Fort Collins neighborhoods. In response to recent feedback and to help make Redtail Ponds a success for the entire community, we're inviting neighbors to a collaborative workshop to develop a "Good Neighbor Statement of Operations" which will further outline how we can all - tenants, current neighbors, businesses, and the Housing Authority - work together to create quality neighborhoods. Please feel free to forward/share with your neighbors RSVP: Space is limited to 60 people per workshop. If both sessions reach capacity, we will plan an additional meeting to assure everyone who wants to participate has the opportunity to do so. Register for the 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. workshop Register for the 5:30-7:30 p.m. workshop Unable to Attend? Give Us Your Feedback Here AGENDA: 11:30/5:30 Sign-in/Open House 12:00/6:00 Brief presentation, workshop/small group activities begin 1:00/7:00 Report back from exercise, discuss next steps 1:30/7:30 Workshop concludes Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. 198 Workshop Reminder: You are Invited! WHEN: August 12, 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Or August 12, 5:30-7:30 p.m. WHERE: Timberline Church 2908 S Timberline Road, rooms 201 & 202 WHAT: The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) invites you to participate in a collaborative workshop to develop a Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. WHY: The FCHA is committed to implementing proven solutions to combat homelessness while positively contributing to the quality of Fort Collins neighborhoods. In response to recent feedback and to help make Redtail Ponds a success for the entire community, we're inviting neighbors to a collaborative workshop to develop a "Good Neighbor Statement of Operations" which will further outline how we can all - tenants, current neighbors, businesses, and the Housing Authority - work together to create quality neighborhoods. Please feel free to forward/share with your neighbors RSVP: Space is limited to 60 people per workshop. If both sessions reach capacity, we will plan an additional meeting to assure everyone who wants to participate has the opportunity to do so. Reminder: Redtail Ponds Workshop, August 12 - Please RSVP https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 2 10/28/13 11:25 AM 199 Register for the 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. workshop Register for the 5:30-7:30 p.m. workshop Unable to Attend? Give Us Your Feedback Here AGENDA: 11:30/5:30 Sign-in/Open House 12:00/6:00 Brief presentation, workshop/small group activities begin 1:00/7:00 Report back from exercise, discuss next steps 1:30/7:30 Workshop concludes Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Reminder: Redtail Ponds Workshop, August 12 - Please RSVP https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 2 10/28/13 11:25 AM 200 Thank You and Next Steps TAKE ACTION JOIN the Working Committee SHARE this e-newsletter with your neighbors CONTACT us with questions Workshop Summary Thank you to all those who attended last week's Redtail Ponds Workshops to begin development of the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations. Both workshops included productive conversations, honest feedback, and an opportunity to discuss how to best move forward. Discussions focused on what elements should be included in the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations and focused on five key areas: Communication Project design Property management Resident eligibility and screening Safety and security View the presentation online. Next Steps The next step is to craft a first draft of the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations using the feedback we've received. As a continuation of our commitment to making this a community-driven process, we're looking for 8-10 individuals to form a Working Committee to draft the document. Once a draft is complete, we will host another public meeting to gather additional input, which will be used to create the final version. Sign up to participate on the Working Committee. Redtail Ponds Workshop Follow-up https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 2 10/28/13 11:27 AM 201 Future Newsletters We know that some still have questions regarding the Redtail Ponds project and we plan to use this e-newsletter as a means for addressing various topics. We'll start with a few of the common questions that came up during the workshops and recent public meeting. We'd also like to hear directly from you. Send us your questions! Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Redtail Ponds Workshop Follow-up https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 2 10/28/13 11:27 AM 202 YOU'RE INVITED: PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, OCT. 14 OPEN HOUSE DETAILS When: October 14 stop by anytime between 12:30 & 2 p.m. or 5:30 & 7 p.m. Where: Harmony Library, Community Room, 4616 South Shields WHAT: The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) invites you to join us at one of two open house events where the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations committee will share their draft document and gather feedback. WHY: Based on input collected from two previous public workshops in August, a citizen committee was formed to craft a formal Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO). At the October 14 Open House events, the committee will share the details of the GNSO and ask for final feedback from the community. Once the public input is incorporated into the GNSO, the document will be presented to the FCHA Board of Commissioners for adoption. Please feel free to forward/share with your neighbors PLEASE RSVP Space is limited. Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Open House https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 2 10/28/13 11:32 AM 203 Register for the 12:30 - 2 p.m. Open House Register for the 5:30-7 p.m. Open House Unable to Attend? You can provide feedback online once the GNSO draft is complete. Stay tuned for details. Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Open House https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 2 10/28/13 11:32 AM 204 REMINDER: PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, OCT. 14 OPEN HOUSE DETAILS When: October 14 12:30 - 2 p.m. or 5:30 - 7 p.m. stop by anytime during open house hours Where: Harmony Library, Community Room, 4616 South Shields WHAT: The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) invites you to join us at one of two open house events where the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations committee will share their draft document and gather feedback. UPDATE: The Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations is now posted online! View the current draft. WHY: Based on input collected from two previous public workshops in August, a citizen committee was formed to craft a formal Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO). At the October 14 Open House events, the committee will share the details of the GNSO and ask for final feedback from the community. Once the public input is incorporated into the GNSO, the document will be presented to the FCHA Board of Commissioners for adoption. Please feel free to forward/share with your neighbors PLEASE RSVP Space is limited. Reminder: Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operatio... https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 2 10/28/13 11:33 AM 205 Register for the 12:30-2 p.m. Open House Register for the 5:30-7 p.m. Open House Unable to Attend? Provide feedback online Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Forward this email STAY CONNECTED Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email This email was sent to claire@slatecommunications.com by kfritz@fcgov.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fort Collins Housing Authority | 1715 West Mountain Avenue | Fort Collins | CO | 80521 Reminder: Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operatio... https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 2 of 2 10/28/13 11:33 AM 206 DEADLINE TO PROVIDE GNSO FEEDBACK IS FRIDAY AT NOON NEXT STEPS Now-Oct. 24: Incorporate feedback into GNSO Oct. 24: Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners formally adopts GNSO Nov. 21: City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board considers development application Dec. 2013: Apply for Building Permit GOOD NEIGHBOR STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FEEDBACK Thanks to all who attended the Open House events earlier this week to provide feedback on the Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO). For those who couldn't attend, you still have time to provide feedback online! View the current draft. Complete the online feedback form. DEADLINE: FRIDAY, OCT. 18 AT NOON! Based on input collected from previous public workshops in August, a citizen committee was formed to craft a formal Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO). The committee is collecting final feedback from the community until noon on Friday, Oct. 18. Once the public input is incorporated into the GNSO, the document will be presented to the FCHA Board of Commissioners for adoption. Please feel free to forward/share with your neighbors Learn more about the Redtail Ponds project. Redtail Ponds Good Neighbor Statement of Operations Feedback... https://ui.constantcontact.com/visualeditor/visual_editor_previe... 1 of 2 10/28/13 11:33 AM 207 October 19, 2013 Here Comes the Neighborhood By DAVID L. KIRP SUBURBIA beckons many poor and working-class families with the promise of better schools, access to non-dead-end jobs and sanctuary from the looming threat of urban violence. But many suburbanites balk at the prospect of affordable housing in their midst. They fear that when poor people move next door crime, drugs, blight, bad public schools and higher taxes inevitably follow. They worry that the value of their homes will fall and the image of their town will suffer. It does not help that the poor are disproportionately black and Latino. The added racial element adds to the opposition that often emerges in response to initiatives designed to help poor families move to suburbs from inner cities. Are the fears supported by facts? A comprehensive new analysis of what has transpired in Mount Laurel, N.J., since 140 units of affordable housing were built in that verdant suburb in 2000, answers with a resounding “no.” Families with incomes as low as $8,150 — one-third of the poverty level — have been living in a town where the median income is 10 times higher for a family of four. “Climbing Mount Laurel,” co-written by the Princeton sociologist Douglas S. Massey and several colleagues, concludes that this affordable housing has had zero impact on the affluent residents of that community — crime rates, property values and taxes have moved in step with nearby suburbs — while the lives of the poor and working-class families who moved there have been transformed. In suburbs across America, the houses, schools, swimming pools and golf courses look just like those in Mount Laurel. The socioeconomic backgrounds of their residents are similar as well. Even the names of the subdivisions in Mount Laurel — the Lakes, Laurel Knoll, Tricia Meadows — are familiar in suburbia. So there is reason to believe that what’s happening in Mount Laurel can be readily repeated. THE Mount Laurel story begins on a Sunday morning in October 1970, when 60 black residents gathered in Jacob’s Chapel, a Methodist church. The parishioners were deeply troubled by the fact that their sleepy farm town was being quickly transformed into a wealthy suburb in which many parishioners could no longer afford to live. They gathered in the chapel to await word on a proposal from a community group to build 36 affordable garden apartments in the center of town. MORE IN OPINION Op-Ed Con From the S Read More » 208 According to those present, the news was not good. “If you people can’t afford to live in our town,” a township official told the congregation, “then you’ll just have to leave.” The blunt announcement turned a modest request into a movement that spanned several decades. For 30 years, local officials waged a battle against affordable housing, as “Mount Laurel” came to symbolize the struggle over the socioeconomic integration of suburbia. In “Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia,” which my Berkeley colleagues John P. Dwyer and Larry A. Rosenthal and I published in 1995, we chronicled the controversy. It wasn’t pretty. Jose A. Alvarez, who was mayor in 1975 when the New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the parishioners in one of the most important civil rights decisions since Brown v. Board of Education, regarded the proposed housing units as a deathly threat. “It’s like grafting a good healthy skin so you can graft in cancer skin and blend it in,” he told me. As Judge Edward V. Martino, who presided over the first trial in the case in 1971, said to me, township officials “were treating these people like cattle, even calling them the scum of the earth.” With the town finding one excuse after another to keep out affordable housing, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a second landmark ruling in 1983. In the decision, known as Mount Laurel II, the justices ordered all New Jersey suburbs to rewrite their zoning laws and allow a “fair share” of affordable housing. But that was hardly the end of it. Not until 1997, after endless planning board hearings, council meetings, and multiple attempts to reach a legislative solution, was the housing development finally approved. In 1999, construction started on the affordable housing complex. A year later, the first tenants moved into the Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, town houses whose clean, contemporary exteriors and manicured lawns blended in with nearby market-rate developments. Many came from disadvantaged communities like Camden, just 15 miles away, which has the nation’s highest crime rate. “A ghetto in the field” was how some townspeople envisioned the new housing. “Everyone was scared, apprehensive of the unknown,” recalls Mount Laurel’s former mayor, Peter McCaffrey, who had been booed by his constituents for supporting the venture. No one could predict whether life in and around the Mount Laurel complex would affirm or mock the ideals of faith, hope, tolerance and equality, names given to streets in the complex. Thirteen years later the answer is at hand, and it is unambiguously positive. “Climbing Mount Laurel” shows that the well-off residents of the town have been unaffected by the new housing. There have been changes in life in Mount Laurel. But the changes are entirely consistent with those in demographically similar suburbs that surround the township. In all these communities, crime rates fell. Property values rose during the housing boom and dipped during the recession. 209 Tax rates declined. Even in the Mount Laurel neighborhoods closest to the affordable housing, property values were unaffected. To most residents, the fact that poor families now live in Mount Laurel has proved entirely irrelevant. Today, many well-to-do Mount Laurel residents don’t even know that affordable housing exists there. Where you live profoundly shapes who you are. “I would go as far as to argue that what is truly American is not so much the individual but neighborhood inequality,” concludes the Harvard sociologist Robert J. Sampson in his landmark 2012 book, “Great American City.” The families that migrated to Mount Laurel — earning from 10 to 60 percent of median income — obtained more than a nicer house. They secured a new lease on life, a pathway out of poverty for the adults and a solid education for the children. “CLIMBING Mount Laurel” makes good use of what social scientists call a natural experiment — since there weren’t enough units to accommodate everyone who wanted to live there, the researchers could compare the experiences of the successful and unsuccessful applicants. At the outset the two groups led similar lives, but much has changed since then. Those who didn’t secure housing report that their neighborhoods remain pockmarked by violence. But the families who came to Mount Laurel have settled into a tranquil world — so quiet, one resident tells me, that for the first year she had to keep the TV on to fall asleep. Deer are a familiar sight, and frogs sometimes land on their doorstep. “I used to be afraid of gunshots,” another tenant says. “Now I’m afraid of skunks.” With less stress and better job opportunities, these families have done much better economically than the nonresidents. Two-thirds are working, compared with just over half of the nonresidents, and a third as many, 4 percent, are on welfare. The sizable earnings gap, $19,687 versus $12,912 from wages, helps push the tenants living in the new housing out of poverty. The longer they stay in Mount Laurel, the better jobs they get and the more economically independent they become. Their youngsters have also fared better. They study twice as many hours and spend more time reading. That extra effort is paying off — even though their schools are more academically rigorous, they earn slightly better grades. On a sweltering day in August 2002, a thousand people came to the formal dedication ceremony in Mount Laurel. The civil rights icon Julian Bond described the moment as “bittersweet.” To those who fought so long to open up this suburb, he said, the new homes were a proud achievement. But what about the poor people “locked into inner-city blight”? The woes of the inner cities cannot be solved by opening up the suburbs. Many urban dwellers, 210 embedded in networks of kith and kin, wouldn’t dream of swapping the spiciness of the city for the white-bread pleasures of suburbia. And as “Climbing Mount Laurel” points out, “those mired in substance abuse, criminality, family violence and household instability” need more support than simply “a decent home in a peaceful neighborhood with good schools.” Still, millions of families, trapped in terrible neighborhoods, would jump at the chance to move to a place like Mount Laurel. “I wish other places could learn from our example,” says Mr. McCaffrey, the former mayor, but that hasn’t happened. Affordable housing is still too rare in suburbia, as zoning laws continue to segregate poor and working-class families. Despite the track record in Mount Laurel and the promise it holds for neighborhoods around the country, it’s hard to imagine that the suburban drawbridge will be lowered anytime soon. It is a truism that fear and prejudice are not readily ousted by facts. David L. Kirp is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America’s Schools.” This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 27, 2013 The credit for a photograph with an article last Sunday about affordable housing in Mount Laurel, N.J., was incomplete. It is Ashley Gilbertson/VII for The New York Times, not Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times. 211 Supportive Housing Research FAQs: How Long Do People Stay in Supportive Housing and What Happens When They Leave? Corporation for Supportive Housing: How Long Do People Stay in Supportive Housing and What Happens When They Leave? September 2006 1 A number of research studies have demonstrated the positive effect that supportive housing has on residential stability among formerly homeless individuals. Approximately 75-85% of those who enter supportive housing are still housed after one year. In addition, many of those who leave supportive housing do so for positive reasons – often to enter more independent settings after they have stabilized. However, others leave for less positive reasons, and some research exists that may give practitioners clues as to why these people may not be as successful in supportive housing. FINDING: Supportive housing has a positive impact on housing retention, even among tenants with long histories of homelessness and the most severe psychiatric disorders. The evaluation of the Closer to Home Initiative – a project targeted to people who were chronically homeless – found that 83% of the tenants were still in supportive housing after one year and 77% after two years. The retention rate was high even among those tenants with the most severe psychiatric and substance use disorders – 79% were still housed one year after placement.1 Similarly, an evaluation of two supportive housing projects in San Francisco, also targeting chronically homeless individuals, found that 81% of tenants remained in housing for at least one year. The large majority of the tenants in these two projects had dual psychiatric and substance use disorders.2 A recent report released by HUD shows similar retention rates – an analysis of three cohorts of supportive housing residents in Philadelphia between 2001 and 2003 found that over three-quarters stayed for one year or more.3 FINDING: When tenants leave supportive housing, many go on to more independent living arrangements in their communities. Fewer studies have tracked tenants’ outcomes after leaving supportive housing - however, there is some indication that many leave for positive reasons. According to the same HUD report, around one-third of those leaving supportive housing move on to more independent living arrangements in the community. Interviews conducted with 100 former residents revealed that those leaving for positive reasons almost always left supportive housing voluntarily and described their leaving as a means of seeking more opportunity and independence in their lives. These individuals often had a housing subsidy upon exit and demonstrated a high degree of independent living skills. In essence, they “graduated” and no longer needed the intensive residential support provided to them in supportive housing (Wong et al. 2006). FINDING: Those who had less positive outcomes after leaving supportive housing were more likely to have left involuntarily. The HUD report found that two-thirds of those leaving supportive housing left for more intensive or restrictive residential situations (such as congregate residential settings), institutions (hospitals and correctional facilities), or became homeless again. Based on their interviews with former residents, the researchers found that these individuals often left supportive housing involuntarily because of failure to follow program rules and regulations, drug and alcohol use, and an inability to manage psychotropic medication. While the study did not track differential outcomes based on the type of supportive housing model, some of these tenants may have been more likely to stay in housing had they been in a project with a low demand philosophy. However, more research will need to be done in order to fully answer this question. 1 S Barrow, G Soto, P Cordova, Final Report on the Evaluation of the Closer to Home Initiative, (Corporation for Supportive Housing, 2004). 2 Tia Martinez and Martha Burt. Impact of Permanent Supportive Housing on the Use of Acute Care Health Services by Homeless Adults (Psychiatric Services, July 2006 Vol. 57, No.7). 3 YI Wong, et al., Predicting Staying or Leaving in Permanent Supportive Housing that Serves Homeless People with Serious Mental Illness. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2006). 212 CREATING Colorado LASTING SOLUTIONS Coalition for the Homeless E N D I N G H O M E L E S S N E S S T H R O U G H O U T C O L O R A D O 213 Colfax Av 25 70 6 36 104th Av Wadsworth Blvd Sheridan Blvd Alameda Av Santa Fe Dr Hampden Av 225 University Blvd Colorado Blvd Alameda Mississippi Av Leetsdale Dr Monaco Pkwy Havana St 6th Av 76 285 Peoria St N Federal Blvd Broadway C J L A K D B E G H N Champa St Logan St I 16th Street Mall Colfax Av State Capitol Broadway F I M 21st St 18th St Downtown Denver 2 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless A Renaissance 88 Apartments B Renaissance Uptown Lofts C Renaissance West End Flats D Renaissance Riverfront Lofts E Renaissance at Xenia Village F Renaissance at Civic Center Apartments G Renaissance Blue Spruce Townhomes H Renaissance at Lowry Boulevard I Renaissance Off Broadway Lofts Table of Contents Renaissance West End Flats (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 Renaissance Uptown Lofts (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 Renaissance Riverfront Lofts (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 Renaissance 88 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 Renaissance at Xenia Village (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 Renaissance at Civic Center (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 Housing First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 11 Renaissance Blue Spruce Townhomes (2003) . . Page 12 Renaissance at Lowry Boulevard (2003) . . . . . . . Page 13 Renaissance Off Broadway Lofts (2001) . . . . . . . Page 14 Beacon Place (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15 Renaissance at Concord Plaza (1998) . . . . . . . . . Page 16 Renaissance at Loretto Heights (1997) . . . . . . . . Page 17 Forum Apartments (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 Forest Manor (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 Colorado Coalition for the Homeless • 3 Properties are developed by the Renaissance Housing Development Corporation (RHDC) and managed by the Renaissance Property Management Corporation (RPMC), subsidiaries of the Colorado Coalition of the Homeless. 215 CREATING LASTING SOLUTIONS Housing In over 25 years of service, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has developed a variety of supportive affordable housing developments in Colorado. The following listings showcase our properties, beginning with our most recent, Renaissance West End Flats and concluding with the Forum Apartments, opened in 1990. Our integrated housing approach combines high-quality housing for homeless individuals and families with affordable homes for individuals and families with lower incomes. Services such as counseling, life skills training, fi nancial literacy and employment assistance contribute to housing stability for those that once were homeless. Our quality architectural designs and environmental standards add signifi cant value to neighborhoods and cultivate pride and well-being among residents and the larger community. Key features: n Supportive housing services for formerly homeless families and individuals n Affordable housing for working households with lower incomes n Transit-oriented locations selected along main bus routes and light rail lines n Secure, safe communities that aid in recovery from the trauma of homelessness n Superior design standards that rival market rate developments n Built “green” to promote healthy environments, healthy individuals and built to save on utility and energy costs and to reduce its carbon footprint n Modifi ed units for people living with disabilities n Some locations adjacent to healthcare and childcare facilities n Investment in targeted neighborhoods stimulates new economic activity n Retail space in selected developments creates employment opportunities for residents n Signifi cant savings in municipal costs resulting from fewer emergency room visits, inpatient hospital stays, detox visits and days in jail 4 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless 216 Colorado Coalition for the Homeless • 5 RENAISSANCE WEST END FLATS Denver County Under Construction Projected completion: April 2012 5050 West Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 (Colfax and Zenobia) 101 units: 76 one- and 25 two- bedroom apartments Currently under construction, this property will provide supportive housing and affordable rental apartment homes targeted to a variety of incomes in West Denver. The ground level is designed for commercial and community uses with four stories of residential space above. West Colfax Business Improvement District, the West Colfax Partnership, the West Colfax Association of Neighbors, and the Sloan’s Lake Citizens Group form the Neighborhood Advisory Committee for the project. 217 6 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE UPTOWN LOFTS Denver County Opened 2010 571 East Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 (Colfax at Pearl) 98 units: 4 studios, 90 one-, and 4 two-bedroom apartments This fi ve-story, Capitol Hill property integrates Permanent Supportive Housing for homeless individuals with other affordable rental apartments targeted to a variety of incomes. It’s built to Enterprise Green Communities™ and LEED ® standards to keep energy costs and environmental impacts low. The fi rst fl oor is home to Colorado’s fi rst Pizza Fusion – an organic and eco-friendly pizza restaurant franchise that also serves as a job training location for the Coalition’s clients. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. Because of the value added by the Uptown project to the community, the Coalition received the 2010 Good Neighbor Award from the Capitol Hill United Neighbors Association. Renaissance Uptown Lofts offers 218 Colorado Coalition for the Homeless • 7 RENAISSANCE RIVERFRONT LOFTS Denver County Opened in 2009 3400 Park Avenue West Denver, Colorado 80216 100 units: 88 one- and 12 two-bedroom apartments Award-winning Renaissance Riverfront Lofts demonstrates that environmentally friendly construction can be the standard for affordable housing. The project has transformed a former brownfi eld site into a modern, energy-effi cient, fi ve-story residential community that blends architecturally with other loft-style construction in Denver’s Central Platte Valley. Transit- oriented, it is located on a major bus line, within one-half mile of a light rail station, and adjacent to bike and walking paths, giving residents ready access to downtown services and employment. Common areas are fully powered by photo- voltaic panels. Low-volatile organic fi nishing compounds were selected for paints, sealants, and carpeting. All appliances are Energy Star™ rated. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. Riverfront Lofts was the Affordable Housing Finance Magazine 2009 Reader’s Choice Award Winner for Best Green Project; and the 2009 Gold Hard Hat Award Winner for Multi-Family/ Hospitality Project from Colorado Construction. Colorado Construction also presented the property with the Gold Hard Hat Award/Judge’s Special Award for Outstanding Community Contribution, in 2008. 219 8 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE 88 APARTMENTS Adams County Opened 2007 388 East 88th Avenue Thornton, Colorado 80229 (88th Avenue at Washington, East of I-25) 180 units: 18 one-, 72 two-, 72 three-, and 18 four-bedroom apartments, town-home style Renaissance 88 provides the Adams County area with a variety of apartment homes serving formerly homeless families and individuals with disabilities. The development is subsidized through Federal Rental Assistance for Low-Income Families (Section 8). After acquiring the property in 2007, the Coalition completed signifi cant renovations, including energy- effi cient improvements. The Coalition created a 4,300-square foot clubhouse with a computer lab and a deck overlooking a playground and a community garden to stimulate greater interaction and a sense of community among all residents. Ten apartment homes accommodate individuals with physical disabilities. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. 220 Colorado Coalition for the Homeless • 9 RENAISSANCE AT XENIA VILLAGE Denver County Newly Renovated in 2006 1420, 1425, 1440 and 1460 Xenia Street Denver, Colorado 80220 (Near Colfax and Yosemite) 77 units: 2 studios, 54 one-, and 21 two-bedroom apartments This project involved the acquisition and rehabilitation of four apartment buildings on the 1400 block of Xenia Street in East Denver. The property serves single adults, including those with mental illness and physical disabilities. Supportive housing for homeless individuals is blended with affordable housing for low-income households. The property rehabilitation included a new security system, energy effi cient windows, new insulation and Energy Star™ appliances. New construction included a community building with a kitchen, computer lab, laundry facilities and a community garden. Convenient to public transportation, on- site case management and support services are also available to residents. The Coalition coalesced community organizations and city leaders to create a safer environment for all neighborhood residents. 221 10 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE AT CIVIC CENTER APARTMENTS Denver County Opened in 2004 25 East 16th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80202 216 units: 202 studios with kitchenettes and 14 one-bedroom apartments The Coalition purchased this property from the YMCA in 2001 in order to preserve 167 housing units at-risk of loss. Following extensive renovation and expansion that also preserved a smaller, dedicated space for the YMCA’s fi tness program, the property now provides homes for 216 households. This includes those who are homeless and at- risk of homelessness, as well as veterans and individuals with chronic mental illness and substance treatment needs. It is the primary site for the Coalition’s highly successful Housing First program. Civic Center Apartments is also an option for low-income workers in downtown Denver who could not otherwise afford to live in the area. In 2008, Renaissance at Civic Center Apartments received the 2008 Fannie Mae Foundation Maxwell Award of Excellence and the 2008 MetLife Foundation First Place Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing. In 2004, the property received the Colorado Housing NOW! Eagle Award for Creating Affordable Housing in Downtown Denver, the Downtown Denver Partnership’s Celebration of Achievement Award, and the Community Preservation Award from Historic Denver Inc. 222 Housing First Works Housing First is a programmatic approach designed to help chronically homeless individuals move more quickly off the streets or out of the shelter system. Housing First includes crisis intervention, rapid access to housing, and follow-up case management and support services to prevent the reoccurrence of homelessness. What differentiates a Housing First approach from traditional emergency shelter or transitional housing models is the immediate and primary focus on helping homeless people quickly access and then sustain housing. Housing First is designed to respond to the most acute need of chronically homeless individuals with disabilities – housing – and through the provision of housing, to respond to the other services the participant may need to maintain that housing and to improve their level of health and functioning. Social service and emergency related costs are reduced as fewer people live in homelessness, or are at-risk of becoming homeless. The Coalition reports total emergency cost savings averaging $31,545 per participant. Among program participants, 84 percent fewer detox visits, 76 percent fewer days in jail, 34 percent fewer emergency room visits, 34 percent fewer outpatient hospital visits, 66 percent fewer inpatient hospital days and 100 percent fewer shelter stays were realized. Incarceration Pre-Entry $1,798 Post-Entry $427 Emergency Room Pre-Entry $5,256 Post-Entry $3,452 Outpatient Pre-Entry $2,641 Post-Entry $1,747 Inpatient Pre-Entry $10,378 Post-Entry $3,533 Shelter Costs Pre-Entry $13,688 Post-Entry $0 Detox Pre-Entry $10,373 Post-Entry $1,641 CHANGE IN AVERAGE SERVICE COST Pre-Entry Per Participant and Post-Entry Per Particpant Colorado Coalition for the 223 Homeless • 11 12 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE BLUE SPRUCE TOWNHOMES Denver County Opened in 2003 7300 East Severn Place Denver, Colorado 80230 (Near 8th and Quebec) 92 units: 32 two-, 39 three-, and 21 four-bedroom town homes The Coalition purchased the Blue Spruce Town Homes from the Lowry Redevelopment Authority as part of the redevelopment of the Lowry Air Force Base in October 2000. These town homes were renovated, and a new community center was constructed. Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing units for homeless families are integrated with mixed income housing serving low and moderate income families. Amenities include a playground, computer lab, laundry facilities, a community garden and a newly constructed clubhouse. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. 224 Colorado Coalition for the Homeless • 13 RENAISSANCE AT LOWRY BOULEVARD Denver County Opened in 2003 550 Alton Way Denver, Colorado 80230 (Near Lowry and Yosemite) 120 units: 63 two-, 42 three-, and 15 four- bedroom apartments Renaissance at Lowry Boulevard is a new construction development located on nine acres within the former Lowry Air Force Base. The project integrates housing for homeless and low-income families. Amenities include a clubhouse, exercise room, computer lab, swimming pool, playground and laundry facilities. It is conveniently located near public transportation and provides integration with service providers, schools and healthcare providers in the greater Lowry area. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. 225 14 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE OFF BROADWAY LOFTS Denver County Opened in 2001 2135 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80205 (Near 20th and Broadway) 81 units: 15 studios, 42 one-, 21 two-, and 3 three-bedroom apartments This was the fi rst newly constructed, affordable rental lofts project in Denver history. The development integrates supportive housing for homeless individuals with affordable rental housing. One-half of the lofts are rented to homeless households. The remaining units are reserved for downtown workers who cannot afford the high- priced lofts in the LODO, Uptown, and the South Platte Valley neighborhoods. The Lofts were built on a vacant parking lot at 2135 Stout Street, just east of Broadway and adjacent to the Coalition’s Stout Street Clinic. The property is located near bus lines and light rail. Amenities include a two-story parking garage, an enclosed courtyard, community center, computer lab and laundry facilities. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. Off Broadway Lofts was Westword’s 2002 Best New Lofts Property. Renaissance Off Broadway Lofts adjacent to our STOUT STREET CLINIC 226 BEACON PLACE Denver County Opened in 1999 3636 West Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 (West Colfax and Federal) 85 beds: single, double, and triple occupancy rooms Beacon Place provides transitional housing for homeless residents, primarily single adults living with mental illness. The property includes a computer room, television area, and a communal kitchen. Meals, housekeeping and laundry services are provided. Some space is reserved for disabled veterans and for those individuals in need of respite care after a hospital stay. Twenty-four hour on-site case management and support services are provided to all residents. Colorado Coalition for the 227 Homeless • 15 16 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless RENAISSANCE AT CONCORD PLAZA Jefferson County Opened in 1998 1793 Kendall Street Lakewood, Colorado 80214 (Near Colfax and Pierce) 76 units: 8 one-, 40 two-, 24 three-, and 4 four-bedroom apartments This new construction project in Lakewood, Colorado was modeled after the Coalition’s Renaissance at Loretto Heights property. It integrates transitional housing for homeless families with mixed income affordable apartment homes. Amenities include a swimming pool, clubhouse, exercise room, playground, computer lab and laundry facilities. On-site case management and support services are provided to residents, as needed. The property is located near public transportation and is adjacent to the Renaissance Children’s Center, a Coalition program that provides nationally accredited early childhood education for children of all income levels. In 2000, Concord Plaza received the 12th Maxwell Award of Excellence from the Fannie Mae Foundation. Renaissance at Concord Plaza is adjacent to our RENAISSANCE CHILDREN’S CENTER 228 RENAISSANCE AT LORETTO HEIGHTS Arapahoe County Opened in 1997 3151 West Girard Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 (Near Hampden and Federal) 76 Units: 8 one-, 40 two-, 24 three-, and 4 four-bedroom apartments This new construction development is located in unincorporated Arapahoe County. Seventy-six apartment homes integrate transitional housing for homeless families with affordable housing for low-income households. The property includes a swimming pool, clubhouse, playground, computer lab and laundry facilities. It is conveniently located near public transportation. The Coalition collaborates with Inter-Faith Community Services to provide on-site case management services to residents, as needed. In 1999, Renaissance at Loretto Heights received the MetLife Foundation Life Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing from the Enterprise Foundation and the Maxwell Award of Excellence for Housing from the Fannie Mae Foundation, in 1998. The property received the Housing Colorado NOW! Eagle Award for Innovative Supportive Housing, in 1997. Colorado Coalition for the 229 Homeless • 17 FORUM APARTMENTS Denver County Opened in 1996 250 West 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80202 (Near Colfax and Bannock) 100 units: studio apartments with full kitchens This development was the fi rst Permanent Supportive Housing complex located in Denver, across the street from the Denver City and County Building. Once the site of Denver University’s Law School, it is centrally located to community services and public transportation. Amenities include a community room, a computer lab, a common kitchen area and laundry facilities. On-site case management and support services are provided for residents. The Forum Apartments project was the 1997 recipient of the Signi¥ cant Achievement Award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . Ground fl oor retail space includes Quiznos, the Coalition’s fi rst retail partnership. 18 • Colorado Coalition for the Homeless 230 FOREST MANOR APARTMENTS Arapahoe County Opened in 1990 1420 Moline Street Aurora, Colorado 80010 (Near Colfax and Peoria) 86 units: 11 studios, 60 one-, 12 two-, and 3 three- bedroom apartments Forest Manor residents include formerly homeless families and individuals, those with mental illness, and others in the community seeking affordable housing. The property includes a laundry facility and a community room. Conveniently located near public transportation, residents also have access to on-site case management and support services, as needed. Colorado Coalition for the 231 Homeless • 19 OUR MISSION The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless works collaboratively toward the prevention of homelessness and the creation of lasting solutions for homeless and at-risk families, children and individuals throughout Colorado. The Coalition advocates for and provides a continuum of housing and a variety of services to improve the health, well-being and stability of those it serves. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless n 2111 Champa Street, Denver, CO 80205 303-293-2217 n www.coloradocoalition.org 232 Supportive Housing is Cost Effective January 2007 Three studies show that the net public cost of providing permanent supportive housing for homeless people with mental illness and/or addictions is about the same or less than the cost of allowing them to remain homeless. Homelessness causes illnesses and makes existing mental and physical illnesses worse, leading to expensive treatment and medical services. Permanent supportive housing improves physical and mental health, which reduces the need for these services, particularly expensive inpatient mental health care and hospitalization. Permanent supportive housing helps tenants increase their incomes, work more, get arrested less, make more progress toward recovery, and become more active and productive members of their communities. New York, NY In New York City, each unit of permanent supportive housing saved $16,282 per year in public costs for shelter, health care, mental health, and criminal justice. The savings alone offset nearly all of the $17,277 cost of the supportive housing. Source: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Services Use for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness in New York City. Dennis Culhane, Ph.D., Stephen Metraux, M.A., Trevor Hadley, Ph.D., Center For Mental Health Policy & Services Research, University of Pennsylvania. Data from 4,679 NY/NY placement records between 1989-97. $4,658 $1,839 $12,520 $6,358 $6,229 $4,907 $11,596 $8,771 $2,613 $4,596 $1,822 $1,378 $1,013 $456 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Homeless Shelters State Mental Hospitals Non-Federal Hospital Costs Medicaid Inpatient Medicaid Outpatient Veterans Administration Prisons and Jails Exhibit 1: Annual Cost of Supportive Housing vs. Homelessness Costs per Homeless Individual Costs with Supportive Housing 233 Denver, CO The Denver Housing First Collaborative targets people who have been homeless for long periods of time, many of whom live on the streets, and moves them into permanent housing. The program reduced the public cost of services (health, mental health, substance abuse, shelter, and incarceration) by $15,773 per person per year, more than offsetting the $13,400 annual cost of the supportive housing. $5,187 $821 $899 $214 $2,628 $1,726 $874 $1,321 $5,189 $1,767 $6,844 $0 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 Detox Incarceration Emergency Room Outpatient Inpatient Shelter Exhibit 2: Annual Costs Before and After Entering Supportive Housing Pre-Entry Post Entry Source: Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost Benefit Analysis And Program Outcomes Report. Jennifer Perlman, PsyD, and John Parvensky. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. December 2006. Portland, OR Portland’s Community Engagement Program provides housing and intensive services to homeless individuals with mental illness and addictions. The program reduced the cost of health care and incarcerations from $42,075 to $17,199. The investment in services and housing during the first year of enrollment was averaged to approximately $9,870. This represents a 35.7% ($15,006 per person) annual cost saving for the first year following enrollment in CEP. Source: Estimated Cost Savings Following Enrollment In The Community Engagement Program: Findings From A Pilot Study Of Homeless Dually Diagnosed Adults. Thomas L. Moore, PhD. Portland, OR: Central City Concern. June 2006. $42,075 $17,199 $9,870 $0 $10,000 OURNEIGHBORS,OURNEIGHBORHOODS THEIMPACTOFPERMANENTSUPPORTIVEHOUSINGONNEIGHBORHOODSINFORTWORTH,TEXAS  Introduction AcrossAmerica,permanentsupportivehousingishelpingtoendchronichomelessnessby pairingattractive,wellͲmanagedhousingwithprofessional,onͲsiteservices.Thispaperreportsdata fromastudyoftheimpactofpermanentsupportivehousingonneighborhoodpropertyvaluesinFort Worth,Texasbetween2000and2008anddiscussesdesignconsiderations,propertymanagementand strategiesforneighborhoodinvolvement.Theevidencethatthevalueofpropertiesclosestto permanentsupportivehousinghavegrownrobustlyandconsistentlywiththeneighborhoodsinwhich theyaresituatedisencouragingnewsforpropertyownerswhomaybeconcernedbyaproposed development.  Background Withbroadpublicsupport,inthesummerof2008theCityCouncilofFortWorth,Texasadopted atenͲyearplantoendchronichomelessness.ThevisionoftheDirectionsHomeplanistomakeall homelessnessrare,shortͲtermandnonͲrecurringinFortWorth,Texasbytheyear2018.   DirectionsHome:MakingHomelessnessRare,ShortͲterm andNonͲrecurringinFortWorth,TexaswithinTenYears  Visionȱ Homelessnessȱwillȱbeȱaȱrare,ȱshortȬtermȱandȱnonȬrecurringȱexperienceȱinȱFortȱ Worth,ȱTexasȱȱ byȱtheȱyearȱ2018ȱ Goalsȱ 1. Homelessnessȱwillȱbeȱrare:ȱeveryȱyearȱfewerȱhouseholdsȱwillȱfallȱoutȱofȱhousingȱ andȱintoȱhomelessness.ȱ 2. HomelessnessȱwillȱbeȱshortȬterm:ȱnoȱoneȱwillȱbeȱhomelessȱmoreȱthanȱ12ȱ months—endingȱchronicȱhomelessnessȱinȱourȱcommunity.ȱ 3. HomelessnessȱwillȱbeȱnonȬrecurring:ȱhomelessnessȱwillȱbeȱaȱonceȬinȬaȬlifetimeȱ experience.ȱȱ Strategiesȱ 1. Increaseȱtheȱsupplyȱofȱpermanentȱsupportiveȱhousingȱ 2. Expandȱopportunitiesȱandȱservicesȱlinkedȱwithȱaccountabilityȱ 3. Developȱandȱoperateȱaȱcentralȱresourceȱfacilityȱ 4. Coordinateȱandȱexpandȱhomelessnessȱpreventionȱinitiativesȱ 5. Supportȱandȱstrengthenȱexistingȱpublic,ȱprivateȱandȱfaithȬbasedȱeffortsȱȱ 6. Mitigateȱtheȱnegativeȱcommunityȱimpactsȱofȱhomelessnessȱ 7. Lead,ȱeducateȱandȱadvocateȱforȱchangeȱȱ   Basedonpositive,localexperienceandnationalbestpractices,acornerstoneoftheDirections Homeplanisincreasingthesupplyofpermanentsupportivehousingforchronicandvulnerable homelesspeople.SupportivehousingisdefinedbytheCorporationforSupportiveHousingas,“a successful,costͲeffectivecombinationofaffordablehousingwithservicesthathelpspeoplelivemore stable,productivelives.” www.DirectionsHome.org 235 2 www.DirectionsHome.org ȱ ȱ QualityȱAffordableȱHousingȱ +ȱ SupportiveȱServicesȱ ȱ ȱ (Tenantsȱtypicallyȱpayȱ30%ȱofȱtheirȱincomeȱforȱrent.)ȱ ȱ (Medical,ȱsocialȱandȱpsychiatricȱservices,ȱhousekeeping,ȱmoneyȱ management,ȱpeerȱsupport,ȱcounseling,ȱjobȱtraining,ȱetc.)ȱ ȱ PermanentȱSupportiveȱHousing ȱ ȱ ȱ  Acrossthecountry,permanentsupportivehousing(PSH)isproving1tobemorecosteffective thanleavingchronicallyhomelesspeopleonthestreets.Coupledwithimpressiveretentionratesand therapeuticoutcomes,this—perhapscounterintuitive—facthasledtoitsincreasingacceptanceby policymakersandadvocatesalike.Althoughitiscalledpermanent,themajorityofsupportivehousing tenantsinTarrantCountystaylessthanfouryears—similartotheaveragelengthoftimepeopleowna home.  AProductionProgramModelwasdevelopedforTarrantCountytoguideeffortstobringan additional1,088unitsofpermanentsupportivehousingonlineinthecomingdecade.Themodelcalls forbothexpandingtheuseofexistinghousingunitsbyprovidingrentalvouchersandcreatingnewunits throughrehabilitationandnewconstruction.  ThemajorityofexistingunitsofPSHinTarrantCountyarescatteredsite—typicallyasmall numberofunits(<7)dispersedinmultifamilydevelopmentsthroughoutthecounty.Larger,congregate facilitiesandclustersofunitsexist,however,andthisstudyisanefforttoexplorewhat,ifany,impact theyhavehadonsurroundingpropertyvalues.  InNovember2008,theFurmanCenterforRealEstateandUrbanPolicyatNewYorkUniversity publishedapolicybriefonTheImpactofSupportiveHousingonSurroundingNeighborhoods:Evidence fromNewYorkCity.Thisanalysisemployedacomplexstatisticalmodeltostudypropertyvaluesthat fellwithinoneofthreezonesaroundapermanentsupportivehousingdevelopment.Thezonesthey employedexaminedpropertiesthatfellwithina500ͲfootradiusofaPSHdevelopment,a1,000Ͳfoot radiusofaPSHsiteorwithinthesamecensustract.  TheFurmanstudyexaminedover7,500unitsin123developments.Theirresearchindicated:  thevaluesofpropertieswithin500feetofsupportivehousingshowsteadygrowth relativetootherpropertiesintheneighborhoodintheyearsaftersupportivehousing opens.Propertiessomewhatfurtheraway(between500and1,000feet)showadecline invaluewhensupportivehousingfirstopens,butpricesthenincreasesteadily,perhaps asthemarketrealizesthatfearsaboutthesupportivehousingturnedouttobewrong. (p.8)   ItisnotpossibleinTarrantCountytoreasonablyapproximatethesamplesizeandlongitudinal depthofthedatasetemployedintheFurmanstudy.However,thisspatialframeworkcouldbe employedtoconductamorecursorysurveyofavailabledata.  1“SupportiveHousingisCostEffective”,January2007,LiteratureReviewbytheNationalAlliancetoEndHomelessness.  236 www.DirectionsHome.org 3 Methodology SubjectProperties 1. In1996,theCornerstoneAssistanceNetworkopenedtheNewLifeCenteronFortWorth’sNear Southside.Aremodelednursinghome,theNewLifeCenterisan18ͲunitSRO(SingleRoom Occupancy)supportivehousingdevelopmentsituatedinanestablishedresidential neighborhoodintheFairmountHistoricDistrict. Davidȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ“MyȱstruggleȱbeganȱonȱDecemberȱ25,ȱ2000.ȱȱ Christmasȱmorning,ȱIȱwentȱtoȱwakeȱmyȱwifeȱbutȱ unfortunately,ȱsheȱhadȱsufferedȱaȱmassiveȱheartȬ attackȱsometimeȱduringȱtheȱnightȱandȱhadȱpassedȱ away.ȱȱNotȱwantingȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱpainȱandȱgrief,ȱIȱ turnedȱtoȱalcoholȱandȱbeganȱdrinkingȱdailyȱforȱtheȱ nextȱfourȱyears.ȱȱIȱendedȱupȱloosingȱeverything;ȱ house,ȱcar,ȱfamily.ȱYouȱnameȱit,ȱIȱlostȱit.ȱȱIȱwasȱ homelessȱandȱwithoutȱhope.ȱȱIȱwentȱintoȱtreatmentȱ twiceȱandȱstillȱhadȱnoȱhope.”ȱ ȱȱȱȱDavidȱfoundȱhisȱwayȱtoȱtheȱCornerstoneȱNewȱLifeȱ Centerȱinȱ2006.ȱȱThisȱpermanentȱhousingȱprogramȱ chargesȱ$50.00ȱperȱmonthȱinȱrentȱandȱsupportsȱhimȱwhileȱheȱisȱworkingȱonȱhisȱeducation.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ“OneȱofȱmyȱbiggestȱproblemsȱfindingȱaȱjobȱinȱmyȱformerȱfieldȱwasȱthatȱIȱhadȱnoȱworkȱhistoryȱforȱsixȱ years.ȱȱHowever,ȱatȱCornerstoneȱNewȱLifeȱCenter,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱgoȱbackȱtoȱcollegeȱandȱgetȱmyȱreȬ certificationȱinȱCNCȱMachineȱandȱRobotics.ȱȱIȱwillȱgraduateȱinȱDecemberȱ2008.ȱȱLifeȱisȱhard,ȱbutȱwithȱhopeȱ andȱdeterminationȱIȱwillȱmakeȱit.”ȱ 2. SamaritanHouseoperatestwoprogramsontheirNearSouthsidecampusthatprovide permanentsupportivehousingopportunitiesforhomelesspeoplewithHIV:SamaritanHouse,a 60ͲunitSROthatopenedin2001,and;TheVillagesatSamaritanHouse,a66ͲunitLowͲincome HousingTaxCreditdevelopmentthatopenedin2006. Demetraȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ. ȱȱȱȱAfterȱDemetraȱwasȱdiagnosedȱasȱ HIVȬpositiveȱinȱ1988,ȱsheȱjustȱgaveȱup,ȱ goingȱintoȱaȱperiodȱfullȱofȱbadȱ relationships,ȱdrugsȱandȱfinallyȱ prison.ȱIronically,ȱitȱwasȱinȱprisonȱthatȱ sheȱrecoveredȱherȱwillȱtoȱlive.ȱWhenȱ sheȱarrivedȱatȱSamaritanȱHouse,ȱsheȱ wasȱableȱtoȱgetȱseriousȱaboutȱ rebuildingȱherȱlife.ȱNotȱonlyȱdidȱsheȱ findȱaȱjobȱhelpingȱtrainȱpeopleȱwithȱ disabilities,ȱbutȱsheȱalsoȱmetȱherȱ futureȱhusband,ȱaȱfellowȱresidentȱatȱ SamaritanȱHouse.ȱFiveȱyearsȱlater,ȱsheȱ isȱhappilyȱmarried,ȱstillȱlovesȱherȱjob,ȱ hasȱachievedȱ17ȱyearsȱofȱsobriety,ȱandȱservesȱonȱtheȱSamaritanȱHouseȱBoardȱofȱDirectors.ȱ 237 3. PennsylvaniaPlaceApartmentsweredevelopedbyMentalHealthHousinginpartnershipwith theEnterpriseFoundation.The152Ͳunitmultifamilyincludes25setasideunitsofpermanent supportivehousingforpersonswithsevereandpersistentmentalillness.OnͲsitesupportive servicesareprovidedbyprofessionalsfromMentalHealthandMentalRetardationofTarrant County(MHMRTC).  Data 1. Propertyvaluesfor2000,2004and2008wereobtainedfromtheTarrantAppraisalDistrict.For 2004and2008,“AppraisedValue[s]”weresummedandaveragedonapersquarefootof improvementsbasisforthegeographyunderinspection.For2000,“LandValue”and “ImprovementValue”werecombinedtoderiveastandͲinforappraisedvalue.  2. ArcGISgeographicinformationsystem(GIS)softwarewasemployedtogeneratetwo,roughly radialbuffersaroundthesubjectparcels.Ifmorethan50%oftheareaofaparcelwasinsidethe circle,theparcelwasincludedthecalculationsofpropertyvaluesforthezone.  3. AUnitedStatesCensusBureauGISlayerwasemployedtoidentifycensustractsfromthe2000 Census.Where500footand1,000footzoneswerenotwhollycontainedwithinasinglecensus tract,datafrombothcontiguouscensustractswereused.  4. FromyearͲtoͲyearthecontinuityofGISparcelcodingissometimeslostduetosubdivisionand/ orreͲplatting—afunctionofchangingpropertytaxidentificationnumbers.Parcelidentitiesthat couldnotbemaintainedforthedurationofthestudyperiod,2000–2008,wereexcludedfrom analysis.  5. Parklandandunimprovedlandinthe100Ͳyearfloodplainwereexcludedfromtabulationsof value.  Results Proximity to Permanent Supportive Housing and Annual Property Value Appreciation per sq ft  Cornerstone NewLifeCenter SamaritanHouseandThe VillagesatSamaritan House PennsylvaniaPlace Apartments  2000Ͳ2004 2004Ͳ2008 2000Ͳ2004 2004Ͳ2008 2000Ͳ2004 2004Ͳ2008 500'Zone 29.17% 23.57% 23.30% 15.75% 35.91% 20.48% 1,000'Zone 22.99% 19.79% 15.54% 13.06% 20.83% 15.08% CensusTract 23.07% 19.22% 14.88% 12.86% 18.09% 12.84%   Eachofthethreepermanentsupportivehousingdevelopmentsexaminedappreciatedinvalue between2000and2004aswellasbetween2000and2008.Thelargestpropertyvalueincreasesfor neighboringpropertieswereforthoseparcelswithin500Ͳfeetofapermanentsupportivehousing development. 4 www.DirectionsHome.org 238 www.DirectionsHome.org 5  239  Onapersquarefootbasis,theappraisedvalueofallpropertiesinsideIͲ820andwithintheCity ofFortWorthgrewatanaverageannualrateof10.6%between2000and2008.Propertiesinall geographiczonesnearpermanentsupportivehousingthatwerestudiedappreciated49–122%more thantheCityatlarge.  Discussion Thisstudydidnotaccountformanyvariablesthatimpingeonneighborhoodvaluessuchas transportationaccess,schoolqualityandproximitytojobs.Thus,itwouldprobablybeinappropriateto readthisdataassupportingacausalrelationshipbetweenhandsomeappreciationratesandthe presenceofapermanentsupportivehousingdevelopmentwithin500feet.However,itdoesseem reasonabletoconcludethatthepresenceofpermanentsupportivehousingneitherdetractsfromnor flatlinesthegrowthinvalueofparcelsinclosestproximity.  Financialconsiderations,ofcourse,arenottheonlyreasonwecareaboutorderivepleasure fromourbusinessesandhomes.Thelookandfeelofaneighborhoodandourrelationshipswithour neighborsalsoaddvaluetoourownership;thus,itisimportanttounderstandhowneighborhoodscan influencedesignconsiderationsandthemanagementofpermanentsupportivehousingdevelopments.  DesignConsiderations Concernsaboutthedesignofsupportivehousingtypicallyfallintothecategoriesof compatibility,location,sizeandaesthetics.Moderncodes,zoningandarchitecturalstandardsinsure thatnewmultiͲfamilyhousingdevelopmentswillnotbetheoverͲcrowded,monolithiceyeͲsoresofthe 1940s.  Permanentsupportivehousingisasubsetofquality,affordable,accessiblehousing.Assuch, theexpectationoftheCityofFortWorthisthatadditionalunitsofpermanentsupportivehousingbe strategicallylocatedanddispersedthroughoutthecommunity.Permanentsupportivehousingsite selectionisgovernedbyFortWorth’sZoningOrdinanceandissubjecttodevelopmentstandardsandall applicablebuildingandfirecodes.Theoperationofmultipleunitsofpermanentsupportivehousingis alsosubjecttorentalregistrationandinspection.  Asapracticalmatter,developersofpermanentsupportivehousingwillchooselocationsmost likelytocontributetothesuccessoftheirclients;thus,proximitytopublictransportation,groceries, medicalservicesandemploymentwillbepreferred.Dispersingquality,affordablehousingalsoprovides morechoicestorenterswhowanttoliveclosetofamily,friendsandothersupports.  Permanentsupportivehousingcantakemanyforms:SingleSite,SetAsideorScatteredSite. Eachoftheformsisdescribedinbriefbelow.  Singlesite AmultiͲunitapartmentbuildingofanysizewhereformerlyhomelessindividualsorfamilies occupyalloftheunits.Typically,servicestosupportthetenants’recovery,employmentactivitiesand reintegrationintothecommunityareavailableonsite.Largerbuildingsusuallyincludea24Ͳhourfront desk.TheVillagesatSamaritanHouse(FortWorthSouth)andtheCornerstoneNewLifeCenter (Fairmount)areexamplesofsinglesite,permanentsupportivehousingdevelopments.Whileitis conceivabletobuildverylargeprojects,newlyconstructed,singlesitepermanentsupportivehousing developmentswilltypicallybefewerthan150unitsandgenerally80unitsorless. 6 www.DirectionsHome.org 240 www.DirectionsHome.org 7  Setasiderentalunits Multipleunits“setaside”forformerly homelesstenantswithinalargerbuilding— usuallyquality,affordable,accessible ownedandmanagedbyanonprofitorprivate marketlandlord.Thesupportivehousing sponsormayholdamasterleaseforthe andsubͲlettothetenantsorthetenantsmay rentdirectlyfromthelandlordinan arrangementfacilitatedbythesupportive housingsponsor.Servicestrategiescanva andmayincludetheprovisionofsome servicesonͲsite.Oftenanextraapartmentfo services/programspaceiseitherleasedor providedfreebythelandlord.Cambridg Court(WestFortWorth)isanexample quality,affordablehousingdevelopmentthatincludesunitssetasideforformerlyhomelesstenants Setasideunitsaretypicallythelesserof50%oftheoverallunitsor80unitstotal.  housing  units  ry r e ofa .  Scatter siterentalunits behouses,aunitinaduplex,oroneormoreunitsinsmallapartment building ts nt   Whetheraprojectisanadaptivereuseofanexisting e thetics eprojects.  ropertyManagement ed Singleunitsthatcan s,rentedfromanonprofitorprivatemarketlandlord.Whereverpossible,scatteredsiteuni aregroupedgeographicallytoachievemanagementandserviceeconomiesofscale.Thesupportive housingprojectmayholdamasterleasefortheunitsandsubͲlettothetenantsorthetenantsmayre directlyfromthelandlordinanarrangementfacilitatedbythesupportivehousingsponsor.Services usuallyincludesomehomevisits,butmostserviceprovisionoccursoutsidethetenant’shome.There areover1,100formerlyhomelesspeoplelivinginscatteredsitepermanentsupportivehousingunits dispersedthroughoutTarrantCounty.  building—asintheexampleoftheneighborhoodnursinghom thatbecametheCornerstoneNewLifeCenter—ornew construction—liketheVillagesatSamaritanHouse—aes matter.Classicdesignsthatincorporateaccessibilityand energyefficiencyaregenerallypreferredbyboth neighborhoodsandthelenderswhounderwriteth Adequateparkingandlightingalongwithappropriate landscapinghelptoharmonizethebuildingwiththe 8 www.DirectionsHome.org Wherepermanentsupportivehousingisdifferentfromotherapartmentsisintheservicesthat alwaysa hecorestaffingforpermanentsupportivehousingismadeupofdegreedSocialWorkerswho broker . tafftotenantratiosgenerallyrangefrom1:10–1:30.ThenumberandqualificationsofonͲsite staffwi ing ecausethefocusofthesupportiveservicesofferedto tenants ts safety anylandlordsappreciatetheopportunitytorent scattere e and HowNeighborhoodsCanGetInvolved ccompanytheunit.Asnotedabove,tenantsinPSHareprovidedanarrayofsupportsthatare focusedonhelpingthemtokeeptheirhousingandlivemorestableandproductivelives.  T anddelivercustomizedsupportiveservicesfortenants.Permanentsupportivehousingisnota destinationforservicesfornonͲresidents;rather,onͲsiteservicesarecoordinatedanddeliveredby professionals(casemanagers,RNs,jobspecialists,counselorsandthelike)forleaseͲholdingtenants  S lldependonthecharacteristicsofthetenants.Forexample,althoughaprogramthatserves disabledveteranswillneedfeweronͲsitestaffthanaprogramthatservesyoungwomenwhoare“ag out”offostercare,theveteransmayneedmorespecializedmedicalcare.  B areonhousingretention,theoperatorsofpermanent supportivehousinghaveavestedinterestininsuringthattenan aresafeandwellͲcaredfor.24Ͳhourstaffingistypicaland securityisappropriateinsomeneighborhoodstoinsurethe oftenants.  M dsiteorsetasideunitstotenantswhohaveaservic providercheckinginontheirwellͲbeing.Thecasemanager becomesanallytothelandlord,lookingoutfortheproperty availabletohelpaddressconcernsiftheyarise.   supportivehousingsponsorsareencouragedtocollaborateon designc learandtimelycommunicationiscertainlyakeytoestablishingandmaintaininggood relation both amaritanHouseandtheCornerstoneNewLifeCenterwelcometheopportunitytohosttours andvol   Neighborhoodsandpermanent onsiderationsandpropertymanagementissuesbeforeunitsarebuiltorleased.Theuseofa GoodNeighborAgreementcanencouragedialogueandfacilitategoodrelationsbetween neighborhoodsandPSHsponsorsbydescribingmutualexpectationsinwriting.  C shipsamongneighbors.Regularmeetingsandtheidentificationofpointsofcontactfor sponsorsandneighborhoodscanhelptokeepchannelsofcommunicationopen.  1 Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Statement of Planning Objectives September 10, 2013 Project Overview Redtail Ponds (the Project) will be a permanent supportive housing community with sixty (60) units on the site located at 5046 Fossil Boulevard in South Fort Collins. The Project is designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans, and other low-income individuals. Onsite supportive services will be provided to help promote independence. Redtail Ponds is Larimer County’s first permanent supportive housing development. The local Homeward 2020 Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness identifies supportive housing as the critical tool to address homelessness in the community. Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) has taken the leadership role in developing sustainable partnerships and funding sources to ensure the supportive housing project and the residents will be successful over the long term. The program, design, location, and financing for Redtail Ponds are modeled on national best practices and based on the concept that combining services with housing for homeless individuals with disabilities will help promote stability and independence. The permanent supportive housing model is supported by local, state, and national funders because it has proven effective. Studies show that approximately 80 percent of homeless people with disabilities who are given the opportunity to move into supportive housing stay for a year or more, and many who leave progress to independent settings. Studies have also shown that supportive housing performs well compared to other LIHTC projects, and the model is financially solid according to Enterprise Community Partners, Inc and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. The site is located on approximately 3 acres of land just south of Woodley’s Fine Furniture at the intersection of Conejos Road and Fossil Boulevard. The site is located within the South College Corridor Plan area. The Plan developed in 2009 incorporates policies and plans for the 608 acres along the South College Corridor from Harmony Road to Carpenter Road. Redtail Ponds is proposed to be located in the transit-oriented district where high intensity uses, increased densities, and high quality design is encouraged. To ensure an active transit station area, the plan calls for a vibrant, walkable, residential, office, and retail district near the South Transit Center (transit station) with building heights of 3-6 stories. Redtail Ponds will be located 1 block south of the South Transit Center with direct access via Fossil Boulevard. The proposed internal walkways will tie in with the existing sidewalks along Fossil Boulevard and Conejos Road. There is also a connection from Conejos Road directly to the Mason Trail. There is no additional right-of-way needed for the proposed project. 243 2 The proposed apartment community consists of one 4-story L-shaped building with access from Fossil Boulevard. The site is currently undeveloped and extends from the Fossil Blvd/Conejos Road intersection on the west to S. College/US 287 on the east. It is also bordered by big box retailor, Woodley’s Fine Furniture to the north, and one existing office building and parking lot in the Cameron Park Office Park to the south. A street like private drive with detached sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and diagonal parking will provide the vehicular and pedestrian access to the building. A welcoming front plaza with street trees, bench seating, walkways and landscaping will separate the street from the front of the building. There will be 35 surface parking spaces for vehicles and a covered “bike barn” for 66 bicycles. Since the property is within the TOD Overlay District, no minimum residential parking is required; however, adequate parking for the population and employees is being provided. Many of the residents will be transit or bicycle dependent. The site location is within close proximity to the Mason Trail, the South transit Center, and a retail center. The construction type is V-A, four-stories of woodframing above a post tension slab foundation. The building consists of four program components: residential dwelling units, communal amenity spaces, supportive programming spaces, and a (future) commercial kitchen component. The building will be 51,572 gross square feet. A community outdoor recreational space will be constructed with the interior courtyard facing South and East. A (future privately funded) community garden will be located west of the building. Access to the bike trail and open space to the West and South will be provided. The proposed modern architecture is intended to contribute to an active and eclectic station area. The Project is expected achieve a minimum of 69 points under the Enterprise Green Communities Guidelines by utilizing various green building techniques, including compliance with Energy Star Highrise guidelines, energy efficient appliances and lighting, and smart meters to track energy usage. The building will be designed to accommodate the installation of PV and solar hot water panels in the future. Landscaping will include mostly native xeriscaping, rain gardens, and a minimal amount of turf. Native habitat will be emphasized to compliment the nearby Redtail Grove Natural Area. Site lighting will be energy efficient and designed to minimize light pollution. The project will be built in a single phase. 1. City Plan Principles and Policies Achieved by the Proposed Plan A fundamental component of City Plan is to locate higher density affordable housing within close proximity to transit while utilizing sustainable building practices that incorporate environmental, economic, and human considerations. Many principles and policies outlined in City Plan are achieved with this project. The most significant are listed here: 244 3 Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Redtail Ponds is a mixed income apartment community with onsite supportive services for the residents. The development is located one block from the South Transit Center (public transportation); 0.2 mile from Walmart (shopping, grocery, and pharmacy), and along the S College Corridor (employment, services, and retail). Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access Redtail Ponds will provide 40 units of permanent supportive housing to homeless individuals with a disability. Every unit will follow Universal Design standards. Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Redtail Ponds is located in south Fort Collins just west of S. College Avenue where there is not currently a concentration of affordable housing. Redtail Ponds itself will be a mixed-income apartment community, contributing to the health and stability of the neighborhood. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community A major component of sound landscape design is use of native and locally adapted species. These plants assure low maintenance, better health, improved wildlife value, and low water use. The Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing development makes extensive use of some of these less common but wonderfully adapted and beautiful species. Policy LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features Redtail Ponds makes use of extensive areas of native and adapted plantings. A significant rain garden area in a large parking median creates a naturalized landscape as the entry statement at the front door. Naturalized bioswales along the south portions of the site further enhances this celebration of native Colorado plants and their healthful benefits while the sloped beds facing College Avenue displays native species in a bold ornamental fashion. Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape The Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing development creates a great example of a functional landscape, having created a large area for urban agriculture, plant selections for visual interest as well as ecological benefits, education and wildlife value. This project includes walks for strolling along the naturalized areas, an outdoor shade structure, and lawn for passive recreation. Along with a large civic lawn, numerous shaded benches and small informal gathering areas encourage social interaction and nature contact. Keeping the principals of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) in mind, plantings are kept low when adjacent to walks, plazas and drives. Uniform lighting and lines of sight encourage comfort and safety 24 hours a day. This project creates and environment supportive of territoriality, surveillance, access control, image/maintenance, activity support and target hardening. Policy 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscape Native and adapted plant species are used extensively at the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing development. These plants assure low maintenance, better health, improved wildlife value, and low water use. Our water budget for the site averages 4.60 gallons per square foot, 69% below the City target of 15 gallons per square foot and saving 953,000 245 4 gallons annually. Also, the site grading avoids the maximum slopes of 1V:3H resulting in both better plant success and less erosion. Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots. The amount of land dedicated to parking at Redtail Ponds is minimal and angled parking is being utilized. Policy LIV 31.7 – Housing - Incorporate a variety of housing options in Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time. Located in the General Commercial District, Redtail Ponds will be utilizing an infill lot for higher density residential development within ¼ mile of the S. Transit Center. Locating 60 new units of housing within close proximity of transit will help promote ridership. Policy LIV 34.2 – Mix of Uses. Redtail Ponds will be introducing higher density residential into a commercial area thereby achieving a healthy mix of uses as envisioned for the General Commercial District. Policy SW 3.3 – Encourage Private Community Gardens in Neighborhood Design Community gardens for the residents are planned at Redtail Ponds to help promote health, community, and potential job training for residents. Adherence with South College Corridor Plan – Subarea Plan South College Corridor Vision: Creating a desirable living and working environment for residents means more banks, restaurants, and shops catering to daily needs. Additional housing will increase market support for neighborhood-serving retail uses. New residential development will occur on vacant or underutilized lands. Existing neighborhoods will remain largely unchanged. With additional residential growth and neighborhood services, the Corridor will become a more complete district where all citizens - business owners, employees, and residents alike - have the opportunity to live near where they work, shop, and recreate. From Fossil Creek to Harmony Road, we envision a transit-oriented district. Here the Corridor will capitalize on Mason Corridor and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities: high intensity uses, increased densities and high quality designs. The Mason Corridor will act as a catalyst for economic development, pedestrian-environments, and enhanced transit service. Figure 17 - Concept sketch of a cross-section for transit oriented development across College 246 5 LU 2.3 - Residential Development. As recommended in the Subarea Plan for the South College Corridor, Redtail Ponds will provide 60 new residential units to help support both the transit and the neighborhood serving retail uses. LU 3.2 - Transit-Oriented Uses. At 20 dwelling units/acre, Redtail Ponds is making efficient use of an infill site that will enhance the South Transit Center station area. Providing a mix of residential, commercial, and office land uses housing will contribute to greater activity levels and en enhanced station area. CAD 1.3 - Architectural Character. The overall image will continue to be defined by unique storefronts in individual buildings. While quality materials will continue to be important, creative building forms and a mixture of materials may be introduced to provide an eclectic ambience. Without a determined architectural context for the area, there is an opportunity for Redtail Ponds to utilize excellent design and high quality materials to create a vibrant and eclectic ambience. ND 1.3 - Green Infrastructure. Redtail Ponds will include permeable pavers in the diagonal parking along the street-like private drive that promote infiltration and act as a water quality feature for storm water. The open space within the landscape island between the diagonal parking areas will also act as a bioswale promoting infiltration. In addition, there will be open swales where possible that will also promote infiltration prior to being captured and piped to the water quality pond. The water quality pond will capture and treat the stormwater from the site. The pond will have a controlled release rate that will allow pollutants and sediment to settle out prior to being conveyed off site. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CURCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROJECT. Proposed open space in the development proposal includes a formal courtyard area, tree-lined walkways, and native plantings. The plan is designed to preserve as many significant trees as possible and enhance open space. The enhanced open space includes a courtyard, community gardens, bocce court, walking paths, and sidewalk connection to the Mason Trail. 66% of the total project area is proposed as open space. The following information details each opens pace area within the proposed plan, including safety, maintenance, and irrigation plans. RESTORATION AREA - All areas within the Natural Areas buffer zone and blending into the project area to the west will consist of native plantings ideally suited to our ecology and supporting the native faunas' shelter and food needs. Representative trees include Cottonwoods, and Netleaf Hackberry and shrubs will included Three-leaf Sumac, Boulder Current, Sand Plum, etc. Safety - Plants and boulders will be selected to avoid creation of hiding places near pedestrian paths while enhancing wildlife value elsewhere. 247 6 Maintenance - Once established this zone will require no maintenance. Irrigation - Temporary drip irrigation to woody plants will be used in this zone for establishment only. Plant materials will not require supplemental water once established. Areas with differing sun exposure must be on separate valves. XERIC PLANTING AREA - This planting type serves as the transition between hardscape, select edges, some slopes, and the restoration area. The landscape of zone A serves two purposes: it celebrates our unique Colorado region, and it provides a sense of place and identity for the Redtail Ponds housing. Characteristics of this zone are a distinctive Colorado stone and native plants character with xeric water demands, low maintenance, improved wildlife value and iconic appearance. Surface treatment is stone mulch, river cobbles (3''-8'' dia.) and wood chip mulch (at groundcover areas). Planting bed edges will be delineated with 1x6 TREX™ headers. In parallel, this planting zone is used to clearly delineate the FCHA properties and communicate a commitment to community and sustainability. This zone uses native or adapted species for creation of a sustainable landscape. Sun exposure in this zone is expected to range from full sun to partial shade. Safety - Plants and boulders will be selected to avoid creation of hiding places near pedestrian paths while keeping sightlines open for all vehicular traffic. Maintenance - Once established this zone will require semi-annual pruning, and annual replenishment of wood mulch (groundcover areas only), and vacuuming leaves from stone mulch and river cobble areas. Irrigation - Drip irrigation will be used in this zone. Plant materials should not require supplemental water once established. Areas with differing sun exposure must be on separate valves. RAIN GARDEN - Area specifically designed to slow and absorb rainfall, slowing the time of concentration of runoff, improving water quality, and maximizing the growth potential of adjacent plantings. Grading will channel site and roof area stormwater through these areas. Safety - These small areas will be designed to stay lower than 4-feet in height and tend to discourage hiding due to the wet soils. Edge safety will be a design consideration since the planting area is often more than a few inches lower than the adjacent pavement. Maintenance - Once established this zone will require semi-annual pruning, and annual vacuuming of leaves from stone mulch and river cobble areas. Irrigation - Automatic pop-up irrigation spray or stream rotor heads will be used exclusively in these areas. LAWN - Used only in high traffic event areas, this is the highest water demand landscape treatment. This area is reserved for lawn areas used for outdoor informal play and medium volume foot traffic. These areas are kept to a minimum due to the high water and maintenance demands required. If turf is used in low traffic sunny areas, alternatives such as fescue or buffalo grass turf will be considered. Trees installed in this area must include 5-foot diameter by 4-inch depth organic mulch rings. 248 7 Safety - Turf areas are the best landscape areas at avoiding hiding places, keeping sightlines open and reducing trip hazard. Maintenance - Turf areas require mowing regularly, whenever the grass blade is 50% of cutting height. Never remove more than 1/3 of total grass blade length at one time. Cut grass to as tall a length as practicable. Fertilize in spring and fall. Apply herbicides only as needed to minimize invasive weeds. Irrigation - Automatic pop-up irrigation spray or stream rotor heads will be used exclusively in this zone. URBAN AGRICULTURE AREA - This privately funded community garden/ tenant use area is composed of community vegetable and flower gardens, picnic areas and related community use structures. Zone C demonstrates commitment to community, support for local food, and an appreciation of the healthful benefits of gardening. Raised planting areas are recommended to delineate areas of use and responsibility, reduce unwanted through traffic, and maintain a defined boundary. These areas should be fenced and provide storage lockers for garden tools and supplies. Potable water hose bibs should be installed in regularly distributed locations at 100-foot intervals for convenient use by gardeners. Consideration should be given to limiting hose bib use with automatic control valves connected to an irrigation controller, avoiding accidental water use overnight. Safety - Plants are selected to avoid creation of hiding places near buildings and pedestrian paths while keeping sightlines open. Maintenance - Once established this zone will require semi-annual pruning, and annual replenishment of wood mulch. Irrigation - Drip irrigation will be used in this zone for permanent plantings. Plant materials will require ongoing supplemental water. All weather commercial grade hose bibs with irrigation control valve installed to restrict hours of operation should be installed within 50 feet of all community garden areas. XERIC MASSING - Durable xeric mass plantings on steep slopes characterize these areas. Once established, these areas will provide a low maintenance bold planting statement highlighting the tessellated form of the earthwork along College Avenue. Maintenance - Once established this zone will require semi-annual pruning, and annual replenishment of wood mulch. Irrigation - Drip irrigation will be used in this zone for permanent plantings. Plant materials will require ongoing supplemental water. All weather commercial grade hose bibs with irrigation control valve installed to restrict hours of operation should be installed within 50 feet of all community garden areas. 249 8 3. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS; APPLICANT’S INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO FUTURE OWNERSHIP OF ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Fort Collins Housing Authority and or its designated management agent shall have responsibility for owning and managing the property in accordance with the requirements of each lender, governmental agency and City of Fort Collins’ codes. Fort Collins Housing Authority and or its designated management agent shall perform all maintenance of the property, including all common areas, community gardens, parking lots, buffer areas, sidewalks, storm water infrastructure, and any other amenity and or feature on the property requiring upkeep. The City of For Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the public roadway. Stormwater Infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within stormwater infrastructure including detention ponds, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the Fort Collins Housing Authority. This maintenance shall include all mowing, weeding cleanout, removal of trash and debris and any other typical maintenance required in order to ensure stormwater infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape All landscape maintenance within the property shall be the responsibility of and performed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority Snow Removal FCHA (or designated contractor) shall perform snow removal on the property, including within all common areas, parking areas, and walkways. 4. ESTIMATE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINEESES, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES Staffing for Redtail Ponds will include 9.5 full time employees, including a Program Manager, Property Manager, Case Managers, a Case Aide, and Maintenance staff. 5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE CHOICES AND ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT Located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, this project exemplifies the purpose and standards envisioned for this district in the Land Use Code. The opportunity to provide housing with onsite supportive services for homeless individuals with a disability, homeless veterans, and low/moderate income individuals on an infill site within close proximity to transit, trails, and retail is also an exciting step in achieving the goals set forth in the Fort Collins Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. 250 9 The site plan is designed to reduce the visual impact of the building on neighboring property owners and to maximize buffer space between US 287 and the building. The building is oriented to take advantage of views to the south and west and provide clear access to the sidewalks along Fossil Boulevard and the Mason Trail. The entrance of the building is oriented to the front walkway and the L-shaped building design allows for a single point of entry to control access to the building. The ground level is larger than the 3 stories above to provide visual articulation while accommodating the programming space for supportive services. There is communal space for the residents on each floor, and there are two stair towers for improved safety and access. The floor plan and footprint take advantage of stacking corridors and units to maintain cost effectiveness while allowing for an interesting shape. The colors and materials selected are drawn from the surrounding environment while adding visual interest and style that result in an appropriately vibrant building for the TOD area. Located within the General Commercial District and the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, this project exemplifies the purpose and standards envisioned for multi-family development in the Land Use Code. The owner and design team used the zone district standards in guiding the site and building design for Redtail Ponds. Applicable Fort Collins Land Use Code Sections Division 3.5 Building Standards 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (B) General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. The proposed development is situated off of South College Ave near the intersection with East Harmony Road. The immediately neighboring buildings which set the standard for compatibility and the context can be classified into three groups: 1. Industrial and Big Box Buildings (Buildings to the North of the Property) Woodley’s, the adjacent neighbor immediately north of the site is primarily a flat-roofed warehouse. The building’s massing is large and bulky, square, roughly 20’ tall. The furniture outlet store is constructed out of pre-cast panels (1970’s or 80’s) with an exposed aggregate finish. There are little to no windows except for the remodeled stucco entry. There are additional warehouse type buildings to the northeast and further north of the proposed building. These warehouses are similar in massing and 251 10 scale as Woodley’s but utilize metal panels in lieu of precast panels as the primary exterior material. Some block walls are used. 2. Retail Buildings (Buildings to the East) Across South College Avenue to the east, there is a “strip” mall retail center. The retail center is composed of mainly storefront, stucco, and a low flagstone veneer base. A portion of the retail center seems to be vacant and in poor condition. As Industrial/commercial buildings, they lack residential architectural elements and integration of elements/strategies for breaking down mass and scale. They are one story buildings with tall ceilings and are “blocky” in nature. Exterior articulation is limited and fairly uniform in use of material except for use of color. Most of the surrounding buildings are neutral in their specific color palette with exception to the Carpet Exchange which has very bright and multi-colored signage. 3. Office Buildings with Residential Character The business park to the south is the most “residential” in character of all the surrounding development. The cluster of buildings have sloped roofs and their facades are constructed of brick and stucco along with wood/vinyl siding painted with earth tones of grayish blues and sage greens. In addition, a new Transit Center is being constructed north of the proposed building. The new building is architecturally modern; its main design elements are combination of concrete and glazing surfaces that are housed under a “butterfly” roof design. The materials utilized are concrete, metal roofing/trim and exposed painted steel beams and columns while also incorporating regional and local masonry materials. As a result of the diverse adjacent building types, materials and uses, there is no clear “standard” to base the compatibility of the design. As such, the proposed development understands “compatibility” as a broader interpretation of the requirement for “sensitivity of development proposal in maintaining the character of existing development”. The proposed project achieves compatibility through the following ways: 1. Control of scale, mass and bulk of the structure (see section C, etc) 2. Vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts ( see Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards, subsection B) 3. Landscaping, buffering and open space features (see section H) In addition, the proposed building initiates an architectural dialogue with buildings in its massing and design elements. They include: • Flat and angled roofs at the main building: The angles roof/shading element references the new transit center as well as the older buildings in the business park with saw-tooth roof design. • Bike barn and the entry canopy utilize angled roofs and columns referring again to the new transit center. (C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. 252 11 The proposed building is taller than neighboring buildings. It achieves compatibility through articulation and subdivision of massing in the following ways: • Use of Stair Towers: The stair towers are taller and articulated as vertical massing elements breaking the length and mass of building into smaller blocks (elaborate) • Horizontal shading element and columns: Most of the building elevation except for the west elevation utilizes a horizontal shading and vertical repetitive columns which “layers” and enriches the elevation of the building. These elements provide shadow line, scalar differentiation and repetition that further break down the massing and scale of the building. At the west elevation, change in material (brick at the office area and the stairs), differentiating colors and projecting, angled roof/column entry canopy are used to break down the massing and scale. • Projections and reliefs. The proposed building will utilize awnings that will serve to articulate the facades and add shade for the residential units. The variation in the elevation planes that help to break down the massing of the building is related to the interior program/functions of the building. For example the laundry rooms, stair towers, public gathering spaces are expressed differently as architectural forms to achieve a building elevation/massing that has a richer, visually more interesting composition. (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. There are two existing buildings adjacent to the proposed building to the north and south. The building to the north, Woodley’s Fine Furniture, does not have any windows on the south face of the building, and there is a deliberate buffer area between the buildings as a result of the angled L-shape layout. The lack of windows and separation will minimize the infringement on privacy of Woodley’s. The office building to the south at 108 Coronado Court experiences a significant grade and distance separation from the Redtail Ponds property. The proposed building is 75 feet away from the southern property line where the 108 Coronado Court office is located. This point is also a corner of the building, so there would not be windows facing south at this location. The elevation of the 108 Coronado Court building is 4,990’-4991.2’ on the north side. The proposed Redtail Ponds building has a finished floor elevation 4,998’, thereby providing a natural privacy barrier through the grade difference. (E) Building Materials. (1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. The proposed building will utilize following materials: CFB (cement fiber board), masonry (brick ) and metal siding. The materials are similar or compatible with adjacent structures. The majority of the proposed building will be composed of painted cement fiber board. The detailing of this material will be different in varying locations. In some areas, the cement 253 12 fiber boards will take on a lap siding characteristic as our neighbors to the south. In others, the CFB will be cut to form panels, varying in size and color. Brick will be used at the stair tower and the first floor at the west elevation. Use of metal siding references the industrial building to the north and west of the property. The metal roofing and steel columns at the entry canopy and shading elements around the building as well as the bike barn, refers to the materials and style of the new transit center. (2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the potential for glare from such materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in terms of vehicular safety, outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such materials shall not be permitted. There are no proposed reflective materials that would create excessive glare. (3) Windows. (a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited. (b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors. (c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion All mirror glass will have a reflectivity or opacity less than sixty (60) percent. Clear glass will be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors. Windows will be defined with carefully designed "reveals" that act as sills and lintels that visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportions. (H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses. In addition to architectural compatibility efforts, the proposed building/development integrates building orientation/siting that maximizes buffer yards and passive open space. The building’s L footprint is intentionally set at an angle to create open space and buffer yards to both north and south properties. The building is also oriented to maximize solar access and southern, landscaped and garden spaces. The proposed building has a 20’ setback from the north property line at the narrowest point and extends to 123’-6” at the widest point. The setback from the south property line at its narrowest point is 62’-8” and 75’-0” at the widest point. The required setback is 15’ and with the exception of the “point” of the building that is 20’ from the north property line, the averaged setback of the building is multiple of the required setback. 254 13 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (A) Purpose. The standards of this Section are intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian-oriented streets in residential development. (B) General Standard. Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human-scaled elements, architectural articulation, and in projects containing more than one (1) building, design variation. The proposed development will utilize the street-like private drive off of Fossil Blvd as the primary “Street”. The building’s entry is clearly emphasized by a canopy with columns and its adjacency to the vertical, stair tower element. The building utilizes various strategies and elements to break down the scale and the massing of the building per responses to Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility. The building also incorporates “human scaled elements such as windows, doors, balconies, shading elements and columns”. In addition, the open spaces have been carefully crafted with landscaping and garden areas. To maximize the pedestrian connection to the overall street system in the neighborhood, the site plan incorporates a loop pedestrian system same as would exist on a residential cul-de-sac. This loop is a detached 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk, lined with street trees and pedestrian scale lighting. This same walk is attached where diagonal parking is planned. Along the drop-off plaza at the building entry the site plan incorporates street trees in tree grates, bike racks, benches and trash receptacles consistent with Fort Collins urban standards. 3.8.30 Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards (A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards apply to all multi-family developments and are intended to promote variety in building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Multi-family developments in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone are exempt from subsections (B), (C) and (E) of this Section. (F) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings. (3) Variation of Color. Each multi-family building shall feature a palette of muted colors, earth tone colors, natural colors found in surrounding landscape or colors consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. The color scheme for the proposed building is drawn from the following: Various Greens: Various, muted green colors are drawn from the trees and various landscape elements that are adjacent to the property Accent Colors: Accent colors, rust and blue are used per section 3.8.30 Multi- Family Dwelling Development Standards subsection (F), item 7, Colors and 255 14 Materials. These bright colors are used as accents and trim as part of the strategy to break down the scale and massing of the building. White/Grey: These colors are drawn from palette of existing, adjacent buildings, in particular the buildings in the business park to the south of the property. (4) Entrances. Entrances shall be made clearly visible from the streets and public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping. (5) Roofs. Roof lines may be either sloped, flat or curved, but must include at least two (2) of the following elements: (a) The primary roof line shall be articulated through a variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or change in massing. (b) Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances, porches, garages, dormers, towers or other architectural projections. (c) Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in the vertical plane. (d) Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be articulated by design details and/or changes in materials and color. (e) Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by incorporating equipment screens of compatible design and materials. The proposed building utilizes following elements at the roof lines. • (d) Termination at the top of the flat roof parapets are articulated as angled shading devices with change in color and materials. • (e) The Rooftop equipment that would be visible from the vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be hidden from view by incorporating equipment screens of compatible design and materials. (6) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two- family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Facade articulation may be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections shall fall within setback requirements. Façade and Walls utilize the following to break down massing/scale and enrich the design: • Use of Stair Towers: The stair towers are taller and articulated as vertical massing elements breaking the length and mass of building into smaller blocks (elaborate) • Horizontal shading element and columns: Most of the building elevation except for the west elevation utilizes a horizontal shading and vertical repetitive vertical columns which “layers” and enriches the elevation of the building. These elements provide shadow line, scalar differentiation and repetition that 256 15 further break down the massing and scale of the building. The vertical columns are placed approximately 22’ on center; the distance between the columns are approximately half the distance of 40’ allowed in the Code. • Projection and Reliefs: All sides of building elevations incorporate projections (cantilevered) and recessions to provide further breakdown of the mass and scale. These projections and recessions reflect the interior program and are further articulated by use of differentiating colors. (7) Colors and Materials. Colors of nonmasonry materials shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality. Colors and materials shall be integrated to visually reduce the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim, by contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or architectural element from another. Bright colors, if used, shall be reserved for accent and trim. The color scheme for the proposed building is drawn from the following: • Various Greens: Various, muted green colors are drawn from the trees and various landscape elements that are adjacent to the property • Accent Colors: Accent colors, rust and blue are used per section 3.8.30 Multi- Family Dwelling Development Standards subsection (F), item 7, Colors and Materials. These bright colors are used as accents and trim as part of the strategy to break down the scale and massing of the building. • White/Grey: These colors are drawn from palette of existing, adjacent buildings, in particular to the south of the property in the business park. • Accents colors are used selectively in keeping with the code and similar to the accents colors used in the commercial building to the east of the property. 3.10.5 Character and Image (1) Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt-up concrete systems. See response 3.5.1.E – Building Materials above. The proposed building will also meet this standard by utilizing the following materials: CFB (cement fiber board), masonry (brick ) and metal siding. (2) All building facades shall incorporate stone, stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood and/or equivalent accent material in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or the base and top of the building. An all-brick building does not need to incorporate an accent material, though soldier courses and banding or other brick, stone or metal detailing are encouraged in order to subdivide masses and establish human scale. The proposed building incorporates brick and rusted corrugated metal panels to highlight the articulation. (5) Exterior building materials shall not include smooth-faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels. See earlier responses. 257 16 (A) Articulation. Exterior building walls shall be subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using projections, overhangs and recesses in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size. The exterior wall uses the following in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size: • Every elevation includes a projection, overhang, and or recess that break up the mass and scale of the wall. Such elements are scaled off of or based on windows, floor heights or other human scale elements. • Most the elevations utilize horizontal, projecting, shading devices that provide additional breakdown of massing and gives the building additional sense of scale • The South and North elevations utilize columns in front of the exterior wall at about 22' on center. This "layer" of exterior columns add an additional element of interest, scale and rhythm to the building elevations. The column design motif is also expressed in the bike barn and the entrance canopy. Also see response to 3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale (B) Rooflines. Flat-roofed buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment on all walls facing streets or connecting walkways, or a rail at the top of the wall of a usable rooftop deck, unless the top floor is stepped back to form a usable roof terrace area. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings. Accent roof elements or towers may be used to provide articulation of the building mass. To the maximum extent feasible, a minimum pitch of 6:12 shall be used for gable and hipped roofs. Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 4:12. The project includes two accent stair towers above the roof line to help articulate the building mass. Butterflied roof lines are also incorporated over the building entry, on the west elevation, and on the bike barn. Termination at the top of the flat roof parapets are articulated as angled shading devices with change in color and materials. (C) Materials and Colors. (3) Predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. (4) Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, and black, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. See response to 3.8.30.F.7 above. (F) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings (6) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two- family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Facade articulation may be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan, 258 17 recessing or projection of design elements, change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections shall fall within setback requirements See response to 3.8.30.F(6) Facades and Walls above. 259 October 29, 2013 1. Compliance with Block Requirements based on Infeasibility. The Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing Project (“Project”), proposed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”), is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low-income individuals, and is categorized by the City as a multi- family development. The Project is located on a narrow, rectangular (approx. 225’ by 550’) 2.97-acre parcel in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development surrounded by Woodley’s Fine Furniture on the north, College Avenue on the east, Cameron Park 2nd Filing on the south, and Fossil Blvd./Conejos Road and the Redtail drainage area and pond on the west. All multi-family projects are required to comply with the Block Requirements in Sec. 3.8.30(D) of the Land Use Code unless “compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature.” The following analysis of the specific elements of the standard show that it is infeasible, due to existing development, to comply with the Block Structure requirement of Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and that the Project complies with the Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage requirements of Sections 3.8.30(D)((2) and (3). A. Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure. This section sets forth the requirements for the “block structure” and states that all projects are to be “developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private)”, although “natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.” Series of Blocks: It is infeasible to create a series of blocks or even one additional block by installing a street that would divide the property into more than one block. The sole point of access to/from the Project is on its west end at the intersection of Conejos Road and Fossil Blvd. Using this only possible point of access, the extension of a street into the Project far enough to divide the property and create an additional complete block could only result in a dead end and not a complete block, as there are no opportunities for connections due to the existing development on the north (Woodley’s Fine Furniture) and south (Cameron Park 2nd Filing), and the College Avenue frontage on the east where the number and kind of accesses are limited because of safety factors. 260 Bounded by Streets: The east and west sides of the Project comply with the standard as they are bounded by either streets or a combination of streets and a natural feature or substantial physical feature (College Avenue and the steep slope to College Avenue on the east; Fossil Blvd. and the Redtail Ponds wetland and natural area on the west). The north and south sides of the property are not bounded by streets, nor are they bounded by natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks or another substantial physical feature, but rather by existing development (Woodley’s Fine Furniture on the north and Cameron Park 2nd Filing on the south), making it infeasible to meet this requirement. B. Section 3.8.30(D)(2) Block Size. The Project satisfies this standard as the gross acreage of this one-block Project is 2.97 acres, which is less than maximum seven (7)- acre size imposed by Sec. 3.8.30(D)(2). C. Section 3.8.30(D)(3) Minimum Building Frontage. The Project satisfies this standard requiring that 40% of each block side or 50% of the block face of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. The approximate total length of all block faces combined is approx. 1,640 lineal feet. The combined length of the building frontage, plaza, and functional open space (multi-use paths, walkways, lawns, terraces and urban agriculture) is approximately 1,110 lineal feet, or 68% of the total of all block faces, which is in excess of the minimum of 50%. 2. Request for Modification of Standards Although FCHA believes that the Project meets the infeasibility criteria for the Block Structure standards, the language could also potentially be interpreted in a way that a modification would be required. In order to cover all of the bases, and because FCHA also believes that a modification would be justified, if needed, FCHA submits this modification request to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Land Use Code requires that all modifications not be detrimental to the public good, and provides four (4) alternative specific grounds for granting the modification, of which, we are citing two (2) as justification for approval of this request. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: A. Not Detrimental to Public Good Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” The stated purposes of the multi-family development standards in Land Use Code Sec. 3.8.30 (several of which are not applicable to development in the TOD Overlay District) are “to promote variety in building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.” Granting 261 a modification from the Block Structure standards requiring “a series of complete blocks bounded by streets” would not be a detriment to the public good in that none of the overall purposes of the standard are diluted. With the modification of standards, FCHA will be able to construct a building with excellent design and high quality materials to create variety, vibrancy and eclectic ambience in the neighborhood, the South College Corridor and the TOD Overlay District. Access to parks is not affected by a modification of these standards, and the Project is able to incorporate pedestrian-oriented features like tree-lined borders, connecting walkways, plazas, outdoor spaces, pedestrian lighting and direct pedestrian access to the building entrance. B. Alleviate City Problem/Address Community Need Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low- income individuals. The need for housing units tailored to the specific needs of these types of individuals is defined in City Plan and the Affordable housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 60 individuals is a significant steps towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. Please see the following excerpts: City Plan: Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. LIV 7.5 – Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. LIV 8.5 – Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Executive Summary: Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs. 262 Introduction: Affordable housing is a critical asset contributing to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of a community . . . The overall wellbeing of an individual can be significantly improved with stable housing conditions, which leads to more stable families and stable neighborhoods. 4.1 Goal: Increase the Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units. The first priority should be to increase the inventory f affordable rental units . . . 4.3 Goal: Increase Housing and Facilities for People with Special Needs. This broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence. These groups generally require housing units tailored to specific needs not typically addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. 4.3.1 Justification. Homeless: . . . Research has shown the sooner people can enter a stabilized shelter situation, the sooner they can start dealing with the other problems that accompany homelessness, which also decreases costs to providing community services for this populations. . . . suggests single room occupancy housing as a more effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters. Persons with Disabilities: . . . organizations which provide supportive services or housing for disable customers do not have enough low-rent options for the number of people who need them. . . . it is important to expand the supply of housing that is both accessible and affordable. Partners in Affordable Housing. While the City of Fort Collins is an important player in addressing the affordable housing needs of its citizens, there are other partners that also contribute important resources. . . . the City cannot solve all of the community’s affordable housing needs alone. Policies: AHSP-11 The City will support community initiatives identifying homeless needs and developing action plans to reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins, The City will also participate in partnerships exploring solutions for homelessness. AHSP-12 The City will support projects producing affordable units to serve persons with disabilities, and “cost-burdened” senior citizens. Conclusion: . . . A lack of affordable housing affects everyone. . . . Affordable housing is greater than a social issue; it is also about economic development and environmental protection. . . . The Fort Collins City Council made a commitment to affordable housing through the adoption of many programs and the allocation of General Fund revenue into the Affordable Housing Fund. . . . affordable housing must be elevated so it is discussed on par with such topics as economic development, environmental protection, and public safety . . . Every discussion regarding a sustainable community must include the consideration of affordable housing. 263 C. Exceptional Conditions Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(3): “By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.” The Project is an infill development located in the existing Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park on an exceptionally narrow, rectangular (approx. 225’ by 550’) 2.97-acre parcel which slopes steeply down to College Avenue. The combination of these conditions, all of which are unique to the property, together with the infeasibility of meeting the Block Structure requirement, results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties in designing a series of complete blocks bounded by streets. With a single possible point of access (Fossil Blvd./Conejos Road on the west), the installation of a street through the Project to divide the property and create and additional block would result in a dead end, as there are no opportunities to connect the street on any of the three other sides of the property. An on-site street of sufficient length to divide the Project into more than one block would consume approximately .76 acres of the 2.97- acre property (25%), leaving only approximately 1.1 acres on either side, making it extremely difficult to construct any financially feasible commercial or multi-family project and leaving insufficient space for construction of the size and type of facility (single building with controlled access and consolidated on-site supportive tenant services) necessary to adequately serve the special needs of the tenant population. Finally, designing the Project around the additional street right-of-way that would be required to divide the property into more than one block bounded by streets would not allow for many of the site amenities, recreation, natural areas and urban agriculture currently planned for the Project. 3. Summary. FCHA believes that the Project complies with the Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage standards, and that it is infeasible, due to existing development, to comply with the Block Structure requirement. FCHA also believes that if a modification of standards is required because of the inability to meet the Block Structure requirement, that the modification would be justified. Therefore, FCHA requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a determination regarding both requests. 264 Existing Development (Woodley’s Furniture) Public Street (S. College Ave.) Public Street (Conejos Rd.) Public Street (Fossil Rd.) Natural area/ physical feature (Tract F, Redtail Ponds) SE Frontage Rd. Existing development (Cameron Park 2nd Filing) Coronado Ct. BLOCK REQUIREMENTS - FCHA - REDTAIL PONDS - PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Project site: 2.97 acres Block size: 2.97 acres (less than 7 acres) Length of each block face: north - ____; east - _____; south - ______; west - _____ Total length of all block faces: _______ feet Combined length of building frontage, plazas, and functional open space: _______ feet Building frontage percentage of total length of block faces: _____% 555 ft 1,640 225 ft 635 ft 225 ft 1,110 67.7 NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST 0' 5' 10' 20' 30' 50' 91 92 + 97.98 TS 97.52 + + BS 96.45 +TR 97.61 96.76 + + 97.98 + 97.98 TS 97.47 + 97.52 + +BR 96.85 97.70 + 97.70 + 97.70 + 1.9% + 97.61 97.51 + +96.74 +96.35 96.13 + +96.04 4.9% 3.4% + 96.7 90 95 96.50 + 85 95 266 267 October 29, 2013 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS 1. Background. The Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing Project (“Project”), proposed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”), is located on a narrow rectangular (approx. 225’x555’) 2.97-acre parcel in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development. Direct street access to the Project is not possible to/from the north or south due to existing development (Woodley’s Furniture and the approved Cameron Park 2nd Subdivision), or from the east, where the number and kind of accesses to/from College Avenue are limited. The sole point of access to/from the Project is from the west end at the intersection of the public streets, Conejos Road and Fossil Blvd. The Project was originally designed to have a typical 40-space parking lot between the Conejos Road/Fossil Blvd. intersection and the entrance to the building, however, it was pointed out by City staff during the conceptual review process that this configuration would not be in compliance with the following two Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay Zone development standards: 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation. Primary commercial and residential building entrances shall face streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, but not parking lots. Buildings shall face all street frontages to the maximum extent feasible, with highest priority given to east-west streets that lead from transit stations to destinations. 3.10.4(C) Off-street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located only behind, above or below street- facing buildings. No parking will be allowed between the street and the front or side of a building. In response, FCHA redesigned the Project to have an entrance drive/parking area that more closely resembles a street like private drive with numerous enhancements that mitigate the impacts of a standard parking lot and create a unique design with a strong urban building/street relationship. The redesign includes angled parking spaces, tree-lined borders, and a detached sidewalk. Four (4) additional parking spaces (head-in style) are provided in close proximity to the building entrance for handicapped accessible vehicles. The parking area will function like a public street, and the multi-family building will front on and offer primary orientation to such drive. Other features in the design of the parking area drive include an adjacent multi-use path, a landscaped median, a wide plaza between the drive the building entrance, street trees, and site benches. 2. Request for Modification of Standards. FCHA requests the Planning and Zoning Board grant a modification of the TOD Overlay Zone development standards cited above. The Land Use Code requires that all modifications not be detrimental to the public good, and provides four (4) alternative specific grounds for granting the modification, of which, we are citing three (3) as justification for approval of this request. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: 1. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” 268 The overwhelming majority of people coming and going from the Project will be tenants, management, employees, and service providers. There is no reason for members of the public to be coming to the property or traveling through the Project, particularly since there are no services available to the public nor is there a through street, so there will be no detriment to the public good. In addition, the enhancements to the entrance drive/parking area contribute to the intent of the TOD Standards and are, therefore, not detrimental to the public good. 2. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(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.” Stated purposes of the TOD Overlay Zone development standards include: “to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations,” “. . . allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations,” “encourage the creation of . . . attractive residential . . . environments . . . .” The enhancements to the entrance drive/parking area contribute to the intent of the TOD Standards as well as a site layout that complies with the standards in that the Project continues to support the transit station by virtue of its location in an area of mixed uses within convenient walking distance to the transit station. In addition, the greatest visibility of the building will be from vehicles traveling along South College Avenue where there will not be any pavement or parking between the building and the street. If FCHA installed a public street with a cul-de-sac to access the building within the Project (see Alternative Plan attached) to comply with the TOD standards, the resulting layout, in comparison the proposed layout, would be less desirable for the following reasons: • More pavement within the Project • 62% reduction in parking (13 vs. 34) • 23% reduction in amount of functional open space for use by tenants • Closer proximity to and greater visibility of parking lot from College Avenue • Height/mass are emphasized with location of building closer to steep slope • Less buffer to Woodley’s Furniture • Increased construction costs to deal with change in elevation between building and College Avenue • Increased street maintenance costs to City 3. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is a permanent supportive housing community designed to meet the special housing needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans and other low-income individuals. The need for housing units tailored to the specific needs of these types of individuals is defined in City Plan and the Affordable Housing 269 Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 60 individuals is a significant steps towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. Please see the following excerpts: City Plan: Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. LIV 7.5 – Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. LIV 8.5 – Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units in isolated areas. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Executive Summary: Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs. Introduction: Affordable housing is a critical asset contributing to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of a community . . . The overall wellbeing of an individual can be significantly improved with stable housing conditions, which leads to more stable families and stable neighborhoods. 4.1 Goal: Increase the Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units. The first priority should be to increase the inventory of affordable rental units . . . 4.3 Goal: Increase Housing and Facilities for People with Special Needs. This broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. These groups generally require housing units tailored to specific needs not typically addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. 4.3.1 Justification. Homeless: . . . Research has shown the sooner people can enter a stabilized shelter situation, the sooner they can start dealing with the other problems that accompany homelessness, which also decreases costs to providing community services for this populations. . . . suggests single room occupancy housing as a more effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters. Persons with Disabilities: . . . organizations which provide supportive services or housing for disable customers do not have enough low-rent options for the number of people who need them. . . . it is important to expand the supply of housing that is both accessible and affordable. Partners in Affordable Housing. While the City of Fort Collins is an important player in addressing the affordable housing needs of its citizens, there are other partners that also contribute important resources. . . . the City cannot solve all of the community’s affordable housing needs alone. Policies: AHSP-11 The City will support community initiatives identifying homeless needs and developing action plans to reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins, The City will also participate in partnerships exploring solutions for homelessness. 270 AHSP-12 The City will support projects producing affordable units to serve persons with disabilities, and “cost-burdened” senior citizens. Conclusion: . . . A lack of affordable housing affects everyone. . . . Affordable housing is greater than a social issue; it is also about economic development and environmental protection. . . . The Fort Collins City Council made a commitment to affordable housing through the adoption of many programs and the allocation of General Fund revenue into the Affordable Housing Fund. . . . affordable housing must be elevated so it is discussed on par with such topics as economic development, environmental protection, and public safety . . . Every discussion regarding a sustainable community must include the consideration of affordable housing. 4. As required by Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(3), by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The Project is located amidst existing development in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development on a narrow rectangular (approx. 225’ by 555’) 2.97-acre parcel with steep slopes down to College Avenue. Direct street access to the Project is only possible at its west end, where there is very limited frontage; street access to College Avenue on the east is not possible. Due to these unique conditions, it is not possible to position the building in close proximity to the street on either the west or the east. Finally, if FCHA were required to install a street into the Project to satisfy the TOD Overlay Zone development standards regarding building orientation and off-street parking, the result would create the following practical difficulties for the Project: • More pavement within the Project • 62% reduction in parking (13 vs. 34) • 23% reduction in amount of functional open space for use by tenants • Closer proximity to and greater visibility of parking lot from College Avenue • Height/mass are emphasized with location of building closer to steep slope • Less buffer to Woodley’s Furniture • Increased construction costs to deal with change in elevation between building and College Avenue • Increased street maintenance costs to City 271 6'' MOW STRIP T T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 19 18 17 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 20'-0" 96'-8" 75'-5" 199'-3" ADJACENT BUILDING ADJACENT BUILDING SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE CONEJOS ROAD FOSSIL BLVD. 1-STORY NORTH 0' 5' 10' 20' 30' 50' RETAINING WALL 167'-0" RETAINING WALL WALK BOCCE COURT TERRACE FENCE 6' HT FENCE PROPERTY LINE 4-STORY TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION: NFPA 13 R-2 OCCUPANCY 1-STORY 62'-8" 123'-6" 54'-1" 133'-10" WALK ASPHALT PAVING PERMEABLE BRICK PAVERS AT PARKING STALLS LANDSCAPE EDGING RE: LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE RE: LANDSCAPE 31'-1" 185'-8" BIKE CHALET CANTILEVER 2ND FLOOR ABOVE BUILDING OVERHANG BUILDING OVERHANG ENTRY CANOPY 38'-0" 35'-0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" T.O. CMU (STAIR) 154' - 0" T. O. CMU 150' - 0" 5 4 3 2 1 2 2 11 12 12 10 13 6 14 16 15 11 10 46' - 0" 55' - 0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" T.O. CMU (STAIR) 154' - 0" T. O. CMU 150' - 0" 46' - 0" 3 14 7 10 10 12 1 6 5 2 9 11 1 2 5 4 3 6 1. OFF-WHITE BASE COLOR 2. SECONDARY COLOR 3. CONTEXTUAL GREEN #1 4. CONTEXTUAL GREEN #2 5. HIGHLIGHT GREEN 6. BIKE CHALETBUILDING ENTRY ACCENT COLOR COLOR PALETTE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE PLAN DATE: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REDTAIL PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 3000 ZUNI STREET DENVER, CO 80211 PH: 303.477.9156 FX: 303.477.9428 OCT. 31, 2013 SHEET 8 BUILDING MATERIALS IMAGE 1: CEMENT FIBER BOARD IMAGE 3: CEMENT FIBER PLANK CEMENT FIBER CLADDING CORRUGATED METAL CLADDING MASONRY IMAGE 4: RUSTED CORRUGATED METAL IMAGE 2: CEMENT FIBER BOARD & PLANK IMAGE 5: RUSTED CORRUGATED METAL IMAGE 6: BRICK SAMPLE METAL SCREEN IMAGE 8: EXPANDED METAL MESH FENCE @ BIKE BARN IMAGE 9: BIKE BARN SCREEN - EXPANDED METAL MESH MATERIAL EXAMPLE IMAGE 7: BRICK SAMPLE 274 ESS EASEMENT 13.50 UTILITY EASEMENT NEW PROPERTY LINE TO FOLLOW COVENANT BOUNDARY O FOLLOW LOT 10 TRACT G ADDITIONAL 1.5' ROW DEDICATION PER CITY COMMENTS TILITY EASEMENT 89 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 87 86 85 80 81 82 91 50.00 20.00 T T 0' 5' 10' 20' 30' 50' 1 2 3 4 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE PLAN DATE: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REDTAIL PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 3000 ZUNI STREET DENVER, CO 80211 PH: 303.477.9156 FX: 303.477.9428 OCT. 31, 2013 SHEET 9 PERSPECTIVES 1 2 3 4 275 DRAWING NAME 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY LS01 3 LS53 5 LS54 1 LS51 1 LS51 2 LS51 3 LS53 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ LS11 STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY LS11.dwg HARDSCAPE SITE PLAN - WEST LS11.dwg Scale: 1''=20'-0'' SITE SECTION C - C Scale: 1''=10'-0'' LS11.dwg SITE SECTION A - A Scale: 1''=10'-0'' 1 LS11 1 LS12 2 LS11 1 LS52 1 LS54 4 LS54 3 LS54 2 LS54 4 LS53 4 LS51 5 LS51 2 LS53 1 LP52 1 LS54 1 LS51 1 LS51 2 LS51 3 LS53 6 LS51 1 LS52 4 LS53 2 LS53 3 LS51 LS12.dwg LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - EAST Scale: 1''=20'-0'' 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY LS12.dwg CONCRETE JOINTS STONE PAVEMENT 3 LS51 AGGREGATE PAVEMENT MOW STRIP STAIRS RAMP SECTION 1 LS51 5 LS51 4 LS51 BOCCE COURT WALL 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY SITE DETAILS LS51 BOCCE COURT A-A - 3 LS51 7 LS51 2 LS51 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY SITE DETAILS LS52 MSE BLOCK WALL MSE BLOCK GRAVITY WALL METAL FENCE 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY SITE DETAILS AND PRODUCT SHEETS LS53 loll SITE FURNISHINGS LITTER CONTAINER TABLES & CHAIRS BIKE RACK FIRE PIT 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY PRODUCT SHEETS & SITE DETAILS LS54 9' 4,967 sq. ft. DEDICATED ROW 15 C9 C10 C11 15 UE TRACT I 1,739 sq. ft. LOT 12 5,340 sq. ft. LOT 13 1,012 sq. ft. LOT 14 6,856 sq. ft. LOT 15 6,834 sq. ft. LOT 16 7,693 sq. ft. LOT 17 6,781 sq. ft. LOT 18 6,572 sq. ft. LOT 19 6,568 sq. ft. TRACT H TRACT G 10,633 sq. ft. 0.244 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq. ft. 0.964 acres (51' RIGHT OF WAY) C11 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ LP01 STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY 9' 15 C9 C10 C11 15 UE C11 A A BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY PEDESTAL MOUNT CONTROLLER MASTER VALVE/PRV ASSEMBLY 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ LP02 STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY LP02.dwg IRRIGATION MAINLINE DIAGRAM Scale: 1''=30'-0'' IRRIGATION NOTES TREE PROTECTION 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ LP11 STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY LP11.dwg PLANTING PLAN - WEST Scale: 1''=20'-0'' LP12.dwg PLANTING PLAN - EAST Scale: 1''=20'-0'' 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ LP12 STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TRIANGULAR SPACING PERENNIALS & GRASSES SHRUB PLANTING SHRUB PLANTING ON SLOPE TREE TREE ON SLOPE 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TREE GRATE PLANTING 678',2&203/(7,9$,1&&23<5,*+7‹ STUDIO COMPLETIVA azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY 289 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 2 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA, Inc. KL&A, Inc. MOUNTAIN AIRE wAynes ELECtric, inc. REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY E1.2 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty Catalog Number Description Lamp File Lumens LLF Watts WW 11 owp-fc-201-cfl- 1x26.ies 1710 1.00 26 AA5 1 DSX2_LED_10 0C_700_40K_T 5W_MVOLT.ie s Absolute 1.00 218 AA4S 2 DSX2_LED_10 0C_700_40K_T 4M_MVOLT_H S.ies Absolute 1.00 218 BB4S 3 DSX0_LED_40 C_700_40K_T4 M_MVOLT_HS .ies Absolute 1.00 91 ORACLE OWP-FC- 201-CFL-1X26 MEDIUM FULL CUT-OFF FLOOD LIGHT WITH FROSTED TEMPERED FLAT LENS PHILIPS F26TBX/841/A/ECO 1710 DSX2 LED 100C 700 40K T5W MVOLT DSX2 LED W/2 LARGE & 2 MEDIUM LIGHT ENGINES, (2) 700mA DRIVERS, 4000K LED, TYPE T5W OPTICS LED LITHONIA DSX2 LED 100C 700 40K T4M MVOLT HS DSX2 LED W/2 LARGE & 2 MEDIUM LIGHT ENGINES, (2) 700mA VICINITY MAP TRACT DESCRIPTION OWNED & MAINTAINED BY TRACT AA OPEN SPACE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION ³ ´ ³ ´ KING SURVEYORS 650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550 phone: (970) 686-5011 | email: info@KingSurveyors.com 1 A Replat of Tract H, Tract G, Lots 13 through 19, and portions of Fossil Boulevard, all of the Redtail Subdivision within Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 69 West Of The 6th P.M., City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado 292 LOT 1 122,839 SQ.FT. 2.820 ACRES TRACT AA 5,233 SQ.FT. 0.120 ACRES RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 129 SQ.FT. 0.003 ACRES RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 337 SQ.FT. 0.008 ACRES LOT 2 634 SQ.FT. LEGEND KING SURVEYORS 650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550 phone: (970) 686-5011 | email: info@KingSurveyors.com 2 A Replat of Tract H, Tract G, Lots 13 through 19, and portions of Fossil Boulevard, all of the Redtail Subdivision within Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 69 West Of The 6th P.M., City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado 293 UTILITY PLANS FOR REDTAIL SECOND FILING REDTAIL LOT 1 SECOND FILING FROM TRACT H, TRACT G, LOTS 13 THROUGH 19 AND PORTIONS OF FOSSIL BOULEVARD, ALL OF THE REDTAIL SUBDIVSION WITHIN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH , RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT ADDRESS: CONEJOS AND FOSSIL BLVD. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OCTOBER 31, 2013 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C0.0 COVER SHEET 294 G S N S W E W X X X X X EB VB S W O CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C0.1 295 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C0.2 296 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner C0.3 297 LOT 12 5,340 sq.ft. 5033 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT I 1,739 sq. ft. TRACT F 63,458 sq.ft. 1.457 acres 12,955 sq. ft. 0.297 acres 3,855 sq. ft. CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C1.0 298 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C1.1 299 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C1.2 300 DETAIL STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK DETAILS D-6 DRIVE-OVER CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK VERTICAL 6 IN. CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK DUMMY JOINT FOR WALKS COMBINATION CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK "HOLLYWOOD" (OBSOLETE - FOR REPLACEMENT ONLY) CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD1.0 301 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD1.1 302 CAD FILE NAME: DRAWN BY: T. COX D46.dwg DATE DRAWN: 8/15/05 C C A A B B SECTION C-C SECTION A-A SECTION B-B WELL SCREEN FLOW CONTROL PLATE 6" Wo PLAN 3" CLR. 1 GENERAL NOTES SECTION D-D WQ D D A A OPP. CLR. ABBREVIATIONS @ # Wp Wo TYP. DIA. O.C. MAX. MIN. LEGEND INV. WQ ELEV. 6" Ls Ws DETAIL LAST DATE REVISED: 11/7/06 D-46 Ws/2 Ws/2 1' Ls 3'-6" 6" 6" 6" Ws VARIES VARIES 6" 2'-6" D 6" 4" Wp Wo 6" Wo 1' LOT 12 5,340 sq.ft. 5033 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT I 1,739 sq. ft. TRACT F 63,458 sq.ft. 1.457 acres CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CE1.0 304 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CE1.1 305 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY C2.0 All changes, addendums, additions, deletions and modifications to these drawings must be approved, in writing, by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Mr. Terry Farrill, P.E., District Engineer Date Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, Manager Date FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT 306 2'-0" 5'-0" TYPICAL 1'-0" 1'-6" CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD2.0 All changes, addendums, additions, deletions and modifications to these drawings must be approved, in writing, by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Mr. Terry Farrill, P.E., District Engineer Date Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, Manager Date FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT 307 4" TYP CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD2.1 All changes, addendums, additions, deletions and modifications to these drawings must be approved, in writing, by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Mr. Terry Farrill, P.E., District Engineer Date Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, Manager Date FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT 308 309 Wood float finish thru ramp Transition back of walk (typ.) Curb (optional) 6" (min.) (min.) 6" NOTES: 1. * 6" Thickness applies to entire ramp area. 2. ** 1:25 Unless a landing behind ramp (then ramp can be 1:12 with 1:20 on the truncated dome warning.) 3. See CONST. DWG. 1606(a) and 1607 for Fort Collins. 4. See CONST. DWG. 1614, 1615 and 1616 for Loveland. Only if needed or same width as the widest walk 6' (max.) at the corners of the truncated dome warning truncated dome warning detection FORT COLLINS ONLY ATTACHED SIDEWALK DETAIL Slope sidewalk to curb 1/4" per foot. NOTE: Construct sidewalk with joints at 10' intervals R 1/8" WEAKENED PLANE JOINT EXPANSION JOINT R1/4" and aligned with scoring on curb. INSTALL IN LOCATIONS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 22 1/2" 1/4" 1/4 SLAB THICKNESS 1/4" 1/2" Expansion Joint material DETACHED SIDEWALK DETAIL Variable Landscaping Slope sidewalk to curb 1/4" per foot. 2' min. Slope: Minumum 1 4"/ft Maximum 3"/ft Sidewalk Driveway LIP F.L. T.C. DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK SECTION A-A NOTE: 1. Sidewalk grade shall remain consistent across driveway 3. This detail applies to Residential & Commercial driveways. 6" 6" Residential Detached Sidewalk MIN. MIN. ONE IN EVERY EIGHT ACCESSIBLE SPACES, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE, SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE. ONE SIGN PER SPACE REQUIRED REQUIRED PER SPACE ONE SIGN REQUIRED PER SPACE ONE SIGN CAR ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE "UNIVERSAL DESIGN" CAR & VAN ACCESSIBLE OR A "UNIVERSAL" PARKING SPACE DESIGN MAY BE USED. THIS DESIGN IS USED TO ACCOMMODATE CAR & VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR TWO SIGN TYPES. 8' 5' 8' 8' 8' 8' 11' 5' 11' 11' 5' R7-8 R7-8 R7-8 NOTES: 2" x 2" x 10' OR 12' 12 GAUGE TELESPAR POST 7'-0" MIN. CLEARANCE 2' - 3' FROM F R1-1 "STOP" SIGN 30" HIGH DENSITY/DIAMOND GRADE. SIGN MOUNTED TO POST WITH 1 EACH DRIVE RIVET WITH NYLON WASHER AGAINST SIGN FACE (ON TOP OF THE SIGN). THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN SHALL BE MOUNTED WITH 1 EACH 5/16"x2-1/2" HEW BOLT WITH METAL AND FROM NYLON WASHERS (NYLON WASHER AGAINST SIGN FACE) AND SECURED WITH 1 EACH 5/16" HEX NUT ON THE BACK SIDE OF POST. L 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" x 3' ANCHOR/STUB 2 EACH 8" BLADES MOUNTED TO POST WITH 4 EACH DRIVE RIVETS WITH NYLON WASHERS 30" 8" 8" CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing September 10, 2013 BUILDING HEIGHT REVIEW The applicant, Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”), proposes to construct a 4-story building approximately 46-feet tall in the Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing Project (“Project”). The Project is located in the General Commercial (G-C) zone district and the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone where four (4) story buildings are specifically allowed. Since the building exceeds 40 feet in height, however, FCHA is providing the following information as required by the building height review process in Land Use Code Sec. 3.5.1(G). 1. Visual Analysis Attached for your review is the “Visual Analysis” prepared by Studio Completiva that includes photographs of the Project site, as it is currently viewed by the public from three (3) different locations, together with a graphic depiction of what the community will see from each of the same three vantage points after construction of the Project. View 1: Looking Northwest from US 287/S. College Avenue at the location of the Carpet Exchange sign. The foothills are not visible. There are mature trees and the corner of Woodley’s Fine Furniture is visible from the roadway. The proposed building would not block the visibility of Woodley’s or any foothills views from this perspective. The east elevation of the proposed building would be visible. View 2: Looking southwest from US 287/S. College Avenue in front of the southeast corner of the Woodley’s Fine Furniture property. The foothills are not visible from this perspective as there are numerous mature trees along the Woodley’s property. The east and north elevations of the building will be visible from this perspective. View 3: Looking east across the property from the entry point at Conejos Road and Fossil Boulevard. There are no view impacts from this direction. The west elevation (entrance) of the building is visible from this perspective. Conclusion: The proposed building will not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets or parks within the community. 2. Shadow Analysis Attached for your review is an analysis of the shadows to be cast by the proposed building at 9:30 am, 12:30 pm and 3:30 pm on March 20 th , June 21 st and December 21 st . Note that the only time that any portion of the parking lot on the private property to the north of the Project (Woodley’s Fine Furniture) is shaded is during the very late afternoon in December (winter solstice) and that Woodley’s own building casts more significant shadows 312 on that lot during the same time frames. The shadows cast on the Woodley’s Fine Furniture building by the Project’s building will not preclude the functional use of solar energy and will not shade windows or gardens on the Woodley’s property, and since the Woodley’s Fine Furniture building casts more significant shadows during the same time frames, there is no contribution to the accumulation of snow and ice. Conclusion: The shadows to be cast by the proposed building will not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. 3. Privacy The Project is not located adjacent to any residential areas or public parks, nor are there any windows on the south side of the Woodley’s Fine Furniture building that face toward the Project. Conclusion: The building in the Project will not infringe on the privacy of any adjacent public or private property. 4. Neighborhood Scale The 4-story Project is located in the G-C zone district and the TOD Overlay Zone where four (4) story buildings are specifically allowed. The Project is also located within the boundaries of the South College Corridor Plan which envisions this area (Fossil Creek to Harmony Road) to be transit-oriented, consistent with the TOD Overlay Zone, with a focus on increased densities to support transit and high quality design. To ensure an active transit station area, the Plan specifically calls for a vibrant, walkable, residential, office, and retail district near the South Transit Center (transit station) with building heights of 3-6 stories. South College Corridor Plan Figure 17 - Concept sketch of a cross-section for transit oriented development across College Although the proposed building will be taller than neighboring buildings, the control of mass and scale is sensitive to the character of the existing development. There are a variety of building types surrounding the Project, including industrial and big box buildings; retail buildings, and office buildings with residential 313 character. The South Transit Center is currently being constructed to the north and is architecturally modern with a butterfly roof design. In addition to the existing buildings in the neighborhood, there is also approval for four office buildings up to 61’ in height on the vacant site just southwest of the Project at Conejos Rd and Cameron Drive. The Redtail Ponds Office Campus (File #26-01B) was approved with building heights of 52’ and a tower element over the front entries being 61’ in height. As more of the infill sites around the Transit Center begin to develop, greater heights and densities will be seen. This more intensive develop will promote transit ridership and contribute to a more active station area as envisioned for the TOD and S College Corridor. Conclusion: The scale of the building is compatible with the neighborhood and in character with the overall intent of the TOD Overlay District and South College Corridor Plan. 314 before after View 1 315 before after 316 before after 317 [WINTER SOLSTICE] DECEMBER 21 - 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM BUILDING IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY 25’ TALL WALL ON PROPERTY LINE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY 25’ TALL WALL AT PROPERTY LINE + BUILDING SHADOW IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY REDTAIL PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SOLAR STUDY WOODLEY’S FINE FURNITURE WOODLEY’S FINE FURNITURE WOODLEY’S FINE FURNITURE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING S. COLLEGE AVE. S. COLLEGE AVE. 318 October 21, 2013 Kristin Fritz Senior Project Manager Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Revised Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing Project Area Kristin: This revision of the ECS Report for the Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing Project Area is submitted in response to comments received on the July 29, 2013 ECS Report from the City of Fort Collins and to further address the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the submittal of an ECS report for proposed development projects. The Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing project area is located immediately east of the current terminus of Fossil Boulevard on undeveloped land between Woodley’s Furniture on the north and the Cameron Park development on the south. This undeveloped parcel is in the southeast ¼ of the southeast ¼ of Section 2 (Township 6 North, Range 69 West). Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed during a field survey on July 26, 2013. The field survey included a delineation of the east wetland boundary of the wetlands located to the west of the project area. The wetland boundary was delineated using the methodology outlined in the publication Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Intensity of mapping conformed to the "routine on-site determination" method. The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & i) Habitats in the project area consist almost entirely of disturbed weedy areas with the majority of its surface covered with soil and rock waste piles (see attached Photos 1 and 2 and Figure 1). There is also one small patch of non-native grassland at the west end of the project area (see Figure 1), comprised primarily of smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Existing vegetation cover in the disturbed weedy areas is dominated by annual and perennial weedy species including kochia (Bassia scoparia1), prickly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), flixweed (Descurainia sophia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), goosefoot lambsquarters (Chenopodium berlandieri), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and western ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Woody species are limited to a few rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) shrubs and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) seedlings at scattered locations across the project area. Native trees are restricted to two small clusters of eastern cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) at the southeast and northwest property corners (see Figure 1). The group of cottonwood trees at the southeast corner consists of two single-stemmed trees (approximately 8 and 20 inches in diameter), 2 multi-stemmed trees (ranging from 6 to 10 inches in diameter), and three single-stemmed trees (less and 6 inches in diameter). Cottonwood trees at the northwest corner were not enumerated since they are outside the proposed development area, but most are less than 6 inches in diameter. Two other native trees, lanceleaf cottonwoods (Populus acuminata) grow at or near the south property boundary near the west end of the project area. The City Forester or a private arborist will need to evaluate the health of native trees on the project area in order for their significance status to be determined. There are no wetlands or other unique habitat features in the project area, other than the native trees discussed above, the Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing project area does not support any significant areas of native 1 Scientific nomenclature follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/ 319 K. Fritz 10/21/13 Page 2 of 3 vegetation or other unique habitat features. Because of surrounding roadways and commercial development, features of ecological value within 500 feet of the project area consist solely of the mosaic of open water, wetlands, and riparian habitat immediately west of the west project area boundary (see Figure 1). Wildlife habitat value on the property has been degraded by past disturbance and stockpiling of waste dirt and rock, and there is minimal wildlife use of the project area. Urban-adapted birds such as mourning dove and house finch may occasionally use the site for foraging for seeds. The few trees on or near the project area may also be used for perching, nesting, and foraging by urban-adapted songbirds. No bird nests were located in trees on the property during the July 25, 2013 field survey. Other wildlife species use of upland habitats on the property is likely limited occasional foraging by urban adapted species such as red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk, which may come on to the project area from the wetland/riparian corridor to the west. In contrast, the riparian woodlands immediately west of the project area are may be used year round and/or seasonally for perching, foraging, and nesting by a variety of songbird and other avian species, including great horned owl, eastern screech owl, downy woodpecker, western kingbird, black-capped chickadee, house wren, American robin, northern flicker, mourning dove, yellow warbler, house finch, American goldfinch, and Bullock’s oriole, among others. Trees in the riparian corridor may also be used for perching and nesting by open-country raptors such as Swainson’s hawk and red-tailed hawk, but the presence of the adjacent developments likely precludes nesting use by these two species. Mammalian wildlife species likely to use the adjacent wetland and riparian woodland habitats include to urban adapted species such as coyote, red fox, raccoon, fox squirrel, striped skunk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer. (b) There are no wetlands on the property but wetlands, open water, and riparian habitats are supported along the drainage west of the project area. A relatively steep bank and an abrupt shift from smooth brome in the uplands to narrowleaf cattail in the wetlands defines the wetland/upland boundary west of the project area. Eastern cottonwood, Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) trees dominate the tree canopy in riparian habitat adjacent to the pond and wetlands. The wetlands, open water and riparian habitats supported along this drainage are valuable habitats in that they typically support a greater diversity of plants and animals than that found in adjacent dryland habitats in urban areas. Wildlife species from adjacent upland habitats rely on wetland habitats for obtaining food, cover, and water on a regular or intermittent basis and will use the canals for movement corridors through developed urban areas. Wetlands and seasonal aquatic habitats also provide foraging and resting habitats, and movement corridors for waterfowl and other urban-adapted waterbirds. Other species potentially present in canal wetland and aquatic habitats include Woodhouse’s toad, chorus frog, leopard frog, bullfrog, and wandering garter snake. Wetlands west of the project area are in excess of 1/3 acre, and Section 3.4.1 of the City’s Land Use Code stipulates a non-development buffer of 100 feet for wetland of this size. Current project development plans indicate a development setback of 100 feet would be maintained between proposed development areas and the wetland boundary. (c) Portions of the project area provide partial views of the Front Range foothills. (d) As indicated under (a & i) the project area supports little native vegetation, and significant trees are restricted to the southeast corner and the west end of the project area. Because of past disturbances on the property, there are no other significant native or non-native trees located on the property. West of the project area in the wetland drainage and pond area there are relatively dense stands of eastern cottonwood, Russian olive, and green ash trees, several of which may be classified as significant since they exceed 6 inches in diameter. Green ash and Russian olive are non-native trees, and Russian olive is classified as a nuisance species by the City of Fort Collins. However, these trees do provide perching, foraging, and nesting habitat value for songbirds. (e) There are no natural drainages on the project area. The wetland drainage west of the property boundary is within 500 feet of the project area and is tributary to the Fossil Creek drainage. 320 K. Fritz 10/21/13 Page 3 of 3 (f) There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species on or adjacent to the project area. No other sensitive or ecologically important species are likely to use the property since its surface has been disturbed and piled with waste soil and rocks. (g) Past removal of native habitat has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property other than the few significant trees. (h) The wetland drainage/riparian corridor west of the project area is the only wildlife movement corridor within 500 feet of the project area. Project development would not have any impact on this wildlife movement corridor. (j) There is only one issue regarding the timing of property development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area. If the development proposal includes removal of any trees on the property or if construction occurs near an occupied bird nest during the songbird nesting season (April through July), these activities could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest and would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (k) Since the entire project area has been converted from native habitats to disturbed/ weed-dominated areas, project development would have no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features, other than existing trees on the property. Native trees determined to be significant on the on the project should be preserved to the extent possible. Removal of any trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees, as determined by the City Forester based on the Land Use Code. Because tree removal or construction near trees during the nesting season could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest, it is recommended that tree removal or construction near raptor or songbird nests occur outside of the nesting season (April 1 – July 31), or trees on or near the project area be surveyed to ensure lack of nesting prior to removal or construction activities during the nesting season. This mitigation recommendation would preclude the possible incidental take or disturbance of active songbird nests. Current development plans indicated a development setback of 100 feet would be maintained from the wetlands west of the project area. This buffer area currently supports either disturbed weedy or non-native grassland habitats. Therefore, it is recommended that the buffer area be enhanced by control/removal of weedy and non- native species and revegetated with native herbaceous and woody species to create to create a native, upland shrub and tree transition zone between the wooded wetland area and more xeric grasslands at the eastern edge of the buffer zone. Native tree plantings in the buffer zone could also be used to mitigate native tree loss to project development, if necessary. Revegetation of any water quality/detention basins should also use native grass and forb species to meet buffer zone performance standards stipulated in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing project area. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding my evaluation, please give me a call. Sincerely, INC. T. Michael Phelan Principal Senior Wildlife Biologist attachments: Photos 1 and 2 Figure 1, Habitat Mapping for the Redtail Ponds Affordable Housing Project Area 321 322 323 324 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 5 Pederstrian Facilities....................................................................................................... 9 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................9 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 10 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 13 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 13 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 13 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 13 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 19 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 19 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 19 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 19 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 21 325 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 10 3. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 17 4. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 18 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Adjusted/Balance Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................. 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 12 7. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 14 8. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 15 9. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 16 10. Short Range (2018) Geometry ................................................................................ 20 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Peak Hour Signal Warrant E. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets 326 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Redtail Ponds Residential Development. The proposed Redtail Ponds Residential Development is located west of College Avenue (US287) between Fairway Lane and Cameron Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planning architect (Architecture West), Fort Collins Traffic Engineering, and Fort Collins Transportation Planning. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). A scoping discussion was held with the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. Due to the trip generation, this is an intermediate transportation impact study. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation 327 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Redtail Ponds Residential is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial/office and residential. Commercial/office uses exist adjacent to the site, to the north, and to the northeast across College Avenue. Residential uses exist east of the site across College Avenue and west of the site, across the railroad tracks. The center of Fort Collins lies to the north of the Redtail Ponds Residential development. The Redtail Ponds Residential site is in an area termed “commercial corridor.” Streets The primary streets near the Redtail Ponds Residential site are College Avenue, Fossil Creek Parkway, Cameron Drive, and Fairway Lane. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the key intersections. College Avenue is east of (adjacent to) the proposed Redtail Ponds Residential site. It is a north-south street classified as a six-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, College Avenue has a four-lane cross section with appropriate auxiliary lanes. At the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection, College Avenue has a northbound and a southbound left-turn lane, two through lanes in each direction, and a northbound and a southbound right-turn lane. At the College/Fairway intersection, College Avenue has a northbound and a southbound left-turn lane, two through lanes in each direction, and a northbound and a southbound right-turn lane. The College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection has signal control. The College/Fairway intersection is stop sign controlled on Fairway Lane. The posted speed changes just to the south of the College/Fairway intersection. The posted speed is 50 mph to the north of the intersection and 55 mph to the south of the intersection. Fossil Creek Parkway is south of the proposed Redtail Ponds Residential site. It is an east-west street classified as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Fossil Creek Parkway has a two-lane cross section. Fossil Creek Parkway lines up with Cameron Drive, which is west of College Avenue. At the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection, Fossil Creek Parkway has a westbound left-turn/through lane and a westbound right-turn lane. The posted speed on this segment of Fossil Creek Parkway is 25 mph. 328 SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 3 College Avenue (US287) Fossil Creek Harmony Road 329 EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 4 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive Fossil Creek Parkway - Denotes Lane 330 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 5 Cameron Drive is south of the proposed Redtail Ponds Residential site. It is an east-west street classified as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Cameron Drive has a two=lane cross section. At the College/Fossil Creek- Cameron intersection, Cameron Drive has an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, and an eastbound right-turn lane. Only the left-turn lane is striped, however they function as mentioned above. There is an unnamed frontage road just west (25 feet) of College Avenue. There is no posted speed on Cameron Drive. Fairway Lane is north of the proposed Redtail Ponds Residential site. It is an east-west street classified as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Fairway Lane has a two-lane cross section. At the College/Fairway intersection, Fairway Lane has a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a right-turn lane eastbound, and a left-turn/through lane and right-turn lane westbound. The westbound leg is not striped, however they function as mentioned above. There is no posted speed on this segment of Fairway Lane. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections were obtained in July 2013. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts were done on different days, the traffic volumes were balanced between the two key intersections. Figure 4 shows the adjusted/balanced recent peak hour traffic volumes. Existing Operation The College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection is currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The College/Fairway intersection is currently not operating acceptably. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. At the College/Fairway intersection, the calculated delay for the eastbound and westbound approach was commensurate with level of service E/F in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Redtail Ponds Residential site is in an area termed “commercial corridors.” In areas termed “commercial corridors,” acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At unsignalized intersections, in commercial corridors, there is no minimum level of service criteria. In other TIS’, Fort Collins staff has indicated that level of service E is considered to be acceptable. This is considered to be normal and acceptable in urban areas. 331 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 6 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive 17/28 1437/1349 28/51 19/9 799/1621 49/112 6/27 2/7 4/22 111/81 2/0 37/48 4/3 1544/1446 20/11 10/3 794/1759 41/34 3/9 0/0 7/8 17/33 0/0 2/9 AM/PM Fossil Creek Parkway 332 ADJUSTED/BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 7 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive 17/28 1444/1351 28/51 19/9 767/1634 49/112 6/27 2/7 4/22 111/81 2/0 37/48 4/3 1537/1445 20/11 10/3 826/1738 41/34 3/9 0/0 7/8 17/33 0/0 2/9 AM/PM Fossil Creek Parkway 333 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 8 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D D EB T D D EB RT A A EB APPROACH D D WB LT/T D D WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A College/Fossil Creek-Cameron (signal) OVERALL A A EB LT F F EB T A A EBRT B C EB APPROACH F F WB LT/T F F WB RT C C WB APPROACH E F NB LT B C College/Fairway (stop sign) SB LT C B 334 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 9 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in this area are sporadic. Sidewalks exist on Fossil Creek Parkway and Cameron Drive. There is access with handicap ramps to the Mason Trail to the west of the site and Fossil Creek Trail is to the south of the site. Sidewalks will be incorporated within and adjacent to this development. Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle lanes along College Avenue and Fossil Creek. Bike lanes are not required on local streets. The Mason Trail is to the west of the site and Fossil Creek Trail is to the south of the site. Transit Facilities Currently, the FLEX is within 1320 feet of the site. FLEX is a regional route operating between Fort Collins and Longmont. There are stops in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. 335 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 10 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Redtail Ponds Residential is a residential development with 60 apartment dwelling units and an office for support staff, located on College Avenue between Cameron Drive and Fairway Lane in Fort Collins. Figure 5 shows a site plan of the Redtail Ponds Residential. The short range analysis (Year 2018) includes development of the Redtail Ponds Residential and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The site plan shows that the Redtail Ponds Residential will have access to both Fairway Lane and Cameron Drive. The signalization of the College/Fairway intersection will encourage the Redtail Ponds Residential traffic to use the College/Fairway intersection and not travel through the Cameron Park development. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contain in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at the Redtail Ponds Residential site. Redtail Ponds Residential is an affordable housing development. Therefore, it is likely that many residences will use the MAX and FLEX transit services. However, to be conservative no reduction in the number of vehicle trips was requested. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the Redtail Ponds Residential development resulted in 552 daily trip ends, 42 morning peak hour trip ends, and 56 afternoon peak hour trip ends. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 60 D.U. EQ 488 EQ 7 EQ 26 EQ 33 EQ 18 710 Office 10 Employees EQ 64 EQ 8 EQ 1 0.06 1 0.40 4 552 15 27 34 22 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Redtail Ponds Residential was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2018) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. 336 SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 11 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT BUILDING ADJACENT BUILDING 1-STORY BOCCE COURT LAWN TERRACE GARDEN PROPERTY LINE 4-STORY TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION: NFPA 13 R-2 OCCUPANCY 1-STORY BIKE CHALET CANTILEVER ABOVE 2ND FLOOR SCALE 1"=100' 337 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 12 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive SITE 20% 5% 75% Fossil Creek Parkway 338 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 13 Background Traffic Projections Figure 7 shows the short range (2018) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, CDOT 20-year factors, and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes on College Avenue, would increase by approximately 1.5% per year in the short range future. Traffic from the South Transit Center/BRT Station (to the north of Fairway Lane) was added to the short range (2018) background traffic volumes. The background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 8 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 9 shows the short range (2018) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection is currently signalized. The College/Fairway intersection will meet the peak hour warrant in the afternoon peak hour in the short range (2013) future. The peak hour signal warrant analysis is in Appendix D. Therefore, the College/Fairway intersection was analyzed as a signal in the short range (2018) future. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting the year 2018 condition. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections operate in the short range (2018) background traffic future as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections operate in the short range (2018) total traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The key intersections will operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours. 339 SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 14 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive 36/31 1590/1473 28/51 63/17 852/1796 50/113 12/68 4/20 7/39 111/83 16/3 37/48 39/21 1654/1592 20/11 89/30 930/1873 41/34 28/81 1/4 33/44 17/33 4/1 2/9 AM/PM Fossil Creek Parkway 340 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 15 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive 2/3 2/5 0/0 4/4 0/0 2/2 2/5 0/0 11/26 0/0 21/16 4/4 AM/PM Fossil Creek Parkway 341 SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 16 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive 38/34 1592/1478 28/51 63/17 856/1800 50/113 12/68 4/20 9/41 111/83 16/3 37/48 41/26 1654/1592 20/11 100/56 930/1873 41/34 49/97 1/4 37/48 17/33 4/1 2/9 AM/PM Fossil Creek Parkway 342 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 17 TABLE 3 Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D D EB T D D EB RT A A EB APPROACH D D WB LT/T D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A College/Fossil Creek-Cameron (signal) OVERALL A A EB LT D D EB T D D EB RT A A EB APPROACH D D WB LT/T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A College/Fairway (signal) OVERALL A A 343 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 18 TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D D EB T D D EB RT A A EB APPROACH D D WB LT/T D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A College/Fossil Creek-Cameron (signal) OVERALL A A EB LT D D EB T D D EB RT A A EB APPROACH D D WB LT/T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A A SB APPROACH A B College/Fairway (signal) OVERALL A A 344 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 19 Geometry Figure 10 shows a schematic of the required short range (2018) geometry. This is the existing geometry at the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron and College/Fairway intersections. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Redtail Ponds Residential development. There will be five pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Redtail Ponds Residential development. These are: 1) the office area (Cameron Park and Fossil Creek Office Park) adjacent to the site, 2) the commercial area north of the site, 3) the commercial/office area northeast of the site, 4) the residential area (Fossil Creek) to the east of the site, and 5) the South Transit Center DEIS Commuter Rail/BRT Station to the north of the site. This site is in an area type termed “transit corridor.” The minimum level of service for “transit corridor” is B for Directness and Security and level of service C for Continuity, Street Crossings, and Visual Interest & Amenities. Acceptable pedestrian level of service is achieved for all pedestrian factors. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Redtail Ponds Residential development. There will be two bicycle destinations within 1320 feet of the Redtail Ponds Residential development. These are: 1) the Mason Street/Fossil Creek multi-use path to the west and south of the site and 2) the Max transit center to the north of the site. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. The minimum level of service for this site is C. This site is connected to College Avenue and the Mason Street trail. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service C can be achieved. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Flex. This area will be served by the MAX in the short range future. According to TransFort, almost all southern bus routes will be redirected to stop at the South Transit Center/BRT Station. This will encourage residence to use transit for many other locations around Fort Collins and surrounding communities. 345 Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 Page 20 College Avenue Fairway Lane Cameron Drive Fossil Creek Parkway - Denotes Lane SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY 346 DELICH Redtail Ponds Residential TIS, September 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 21 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Redtail Ponds Residential on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2018) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - Currently the College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection operates acceptably. The College/Fairway intersection does not operate acceptably. - The development of the Redtail Ponds Residential is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Redtail Ponds Residential will generate approximately 552 daily trip ends, 42 morning peak hour trip ends, and 56 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - The College/Fossil Creek-Cameron intersection is currently signalized. The College/Fairway intersection will meet the peak hour signal warrant in the short range (2018) future. - In the short range (2018) future, given development of the Redtail Ponds Residential and an increase in background traffic, the College/Fossil Creek- Cameron and College/Fairway intersections will operate acceptably with the existing geometry and a signal at the College/Fairway intersection. - The short range (2018) geometry is shown in Figure 10, this is the current geometry. - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. The location of the South Transit Center/BRT Station will encourage residence to use transit for many other locations around Fort Collins and the surrounding communities. 347 348 349 350 BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK JVA, Incorporated 25 Old Town Square Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ph: 970-225-9099 Fax: 970-225-6923 Toll Free:877.444.1951 Web site: www.jvajva.com E-mail: info@jvajva.com August 27, 2013 Mr. Tyler Siegmund City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Reference: Fort Collins Housing Authority - Redtail Site Street Turn Layout Variance JVA PN: 1980c Dear Tyler, This letter is a variance request for the layout of the street turn joining Fossil Blvd. and Conejos Rd. for the project stated above. A. Identifying Issue - Per Larimer County Urban Area street Standards (LUCASS), A minimum inside radius (R1) shall be 20' to 36', the minimum offset radius (R2) shall be 44' based on a 24' wide Conejos Rd, and a total bump out radius (R3) shall be 52'. Refer to LUCASS figure 7-24 Widening Detail for Street Turns >60 degree (Local Streets Only). B. Alternate Design - The proposed design is utilizing the existing inside radius (R1) of approximately 17'. The flow line along the south side of Conejos Rd. has been tapered approximately 4.7' to the south over a distance of approximately 73.38'. The taper then transitions into a 37' radius (R3) that ties into the existing east flow line of Fossil Blvd. C. Comparing Standards - Based on the standard minimum inside radius (R1) of 20', a variance is being requested to reduce the radius to approximatley17' to match the existing flow line radius. A variance is also being requested for the radius R2 and R3 to maintain a uniform radius around the corner to tie into existing flow lines. The minimum radius R2 is 44' and R3 is 52' and will be altered from LUCASS detail with the south lane on Conejos Rd. being tapered and a 37' radius to tie-into the existing east flow line. The proposed layout has a total roadway width at the midpoint of the radius of approximately 42.5'. With the reduction of widening for the street turn, we do not anticipate any impacts on the capital and maintenance requirements or costs associated with this variance. D. Justification - Due to existing right-of-way (R.O.W) constraints and existing utility infrastructure, the minimum required street turn standards cannot been achieved. The proposed alternative layout will provide an additional dedication of R.O.W. along the southeast corner of Conejos Rd. and Fossil Blvd. The layout will not required additional R.O.W dedication from adjoining properties and allow the existing drainage infrastructure to remain in place. The additional R.O.W. dedication and variance to the 351 Fort Collins Housing Authority - Street Turn Variance August 27, 2013 Page 2 of 2 street turn will allow through traffic to continue along Conejos Rd. to Fossil Blvd without a stop sign as currently exists. The proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, will not reduce design life of the improvement nor cause the Local Entity additional maintenance costs. If you have any questions regarding this variance please contact me. Sincerely, JVA, Incorporated By: ____________________________________ Charles R. Hager, IV, P.E. 8/27/13 Vice President CC: Fort Collins Housing Authority Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West, L.L.C. 352 Page 1 of 13 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing DATE: July 8, 2013 PLANNER: Jason Holland NEIGHBORHOOD Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison RESOURCES: The meeting began with Jason Holland providing an explanation of the City development review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules of communication. Applicant Presentation Julie Brewen and Kristin Fritz from the Fort Collins Housing Authority were present and provided information about the project at Redtail Ponds and the philosophy behind the permanent supportive housing model: The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) is not a City entity; it is formed under State law. Its purpose is to create affordable housing. The FCHA is willing to have personal meetings with anyone to work on getting information to people and to listen and hear concerns and questions; we are available for house calls or to sit down and have coffee. We are looking for a dialogue back and forth. Redtail Ponds units will be apartments. People will apply; it is not a correctional facility or treatment center or halfway house. FCHA has been looking at the permanent supportive housing model. Dozens of communities are moving to this model. It involves housing stability, employment, medical and mental health care. It helps people live more stable and effective lives, and it is much more cost effective than shelter care. It moves people off the streets and into becoming productive members of our community. When people hear about homelessness, we know what people tend to think. I live in Laporte and there’s a man that lives in the Overland Foods parking lot who is scary, but I also know people, including two gentlemen present tonight (Bryan Tribby & Liam) who are formerly homeless veterans. I have the benefit of knowing who the people that will be living here in the apartments are like; people who will apply and will be screened. This is a local priority for the City and a top focus of the 10 year plan to end homelessness. We started to look at other communities and examined award winning permanent supportive sites, including a project in Fargo, ND (Cooper Home) and in Portland, OR (Bud Clark Commons), as well as projects in Minneapolis and in other sites around the country and internationally. Where has this been successful? Denver & the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless in our own backyard… We have many partners working with us and we’re going to be screening to find people who will be successful in this model. 353 Page 2 of 13 The project is located at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. It is the vacant site just south of Woodley’s Furniture. It is one block from the future South Transit Center and Mason Corridor; this is one of the primary reasons the site was chosen. Originally we had looked at a site to the southwest of the current location in the office park. We have worked with the office park owners, who preferred this new site and it works well as it is further away from the railroad tracks and closer to the transit station. We like that is it close to transit and the trail. It will have great access to the redeveloped Wal‐Mart and access to the Harmony Corridor and its jobs and services, and it is near the Touchstone Clubhouse and within reach of the Harmony Library and Front Range Community College. What makes Supportive Housing different? This will be Northern Colorado’s first supportive housing model, and what makes it different is that the units are designed to be very livable. There is space for all the services that will be provided onsite. We’re also able to control things like security and access to the building; the building only has one point of access. This is designed specifically for the users; we’re not rehabbing an existing structure. We have a very experienced architecture and design team. There will be onsite supportive services, it is not just housing. This is modeled on national best practices. There will be a total of 60 units. 40 units will be for individuals who are formerly homeless. 15 of those 40 units will be reserved for formerly homeless veterans. The other 20 units will be for those earning less than 50% of the area median income. The units are predominately 1 bedroom units with a total of 6 2‐bedroom units. It was important to be able to control access; there is a single point of access with a front desk area that will be manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is also space for a community garden, an interior courtyard, walking paths, landscaping and space for a future commercial kitchen and job training area. Supportive services will include case management, lifestyle coaching, medical and/or therapeutic services, etc. We want to develop skills for residents to live more independently. Our goals are to help maintain housing stability, to increase participation in job training and community resources and to increase the number of tenants with improved physical health. It is estimated 9.55 employees will be working or supporting residents onsite just for this specific property. Overnight and relief staff will mean 24/7 coverage. This level of staffing and support is available because the FCHA applied for a HUD grant and will be receiving $250,000 per year ongoing. The FCHA is a high performing housing authority with “A” ratings for the past 15 years. We have a proven track record and this will be a form of permanent financial support. The building is 4 stories and will be built under the General Commercial and TOD (Transit‐Oriented Development) Overlay Standards. It includes laundry facilities, exercise rooms, communal rooms, offices for case managers, computer room, reception area and a video surveillance system. A future commercial kitchen may be added and we’re hoping to find a local partner for this in the future. Lighting and landscaping is planned on the outside to provide safety and healthy living. We also are seeking to promote a personal living space. We have worked closely with our design team to provide a nice sense of space, including an interior courtyard. Most of the supportive services and spaces are located on the ground floor of the building. The upper floors are reserved for the units themselves and common space. Indoor bicycle parking is also provided as we expect a high proportion of bicycle use. 354 Page 3 of 13 There will also be a community garden for the residents to use and enjoy. As the community garden evolves it may be possible to have gardening classes or canning lessons. It could be a job training center or for job placement for residents. Resident selection is critical to the success of the project. The goal is to ensure supportive housing is the right match for the right residents. There will be criminal background screening and an interview process to help screen residents. There will also be referrals from people and organizations in the community, i.e. people who work at the Murphy Center or churches. There are multiple tools for safety and livability: ‐ Resident screening: making sure the right tenants are in the building ‐ 24/7 onsite property management. Someone will be watching who is coming and going, signing people and guests in ‐ We control ownership of the building and site. If something isn’t working it can be quickly addressed and fixed by the FCHA, we don’t have to work and wait on outside management ‐ Promoting the community for residents as something they can take pride in ‐ Promoting a healthy living environment through management and design The building will be properly maintained. One funding source comes from low income tax credits from investors who will be doing inspections of the building to make sure it is being kept up. No color selection has been made for the building at this time. Outreach has been ongoing for about a year, focused primarily to this point with the office park. We can and want to engage more with the public about any fears, concerns or questions you may have. FCHA has a high performer designation from HUD and has experience owning and operating 700 units of housing. Beginning of construction is envisioned in early 2014 with occupancy in early 2015. Questions, Comments & Responses Question (Citizen): I live in Fossil Creek across the road and I am anticipating people will be using the pedestrian path and transit system. The design is well thought out but there are a lot of concerns and a lot of statistics that would show the extra, collateral stuff that would go with a project of this size in this part of town. I’m glad to hear you’re working with businesses, but those don’t use the parks or paths or schools. I see me being fearful of sending my kids along the bike path and of putting a huge social, economic barrier in this location. We want to help, but we have a lot of questions unanswered. Do we have any experience with something this size, what does the collateral look like for the community around it? Response (Applicants): It sounds like the number of units is a concern. Our property, the Village on Stanford property is 72 units and serves a similar population. We encourage people to take a look at the property; it is located near Drake & Stanford. Question (Citizen): You’re modeling after successful projects – what happens to residents when they don’t succeed, will we be bringing that problem down to the south end of Fort Collins? Response (Applicants): We talked a lot about security; we have a single point of entry so you can’t bring friends and there isn’t loitering. The security is as much for you as it is our residents. 355 Page 4 of 13 Question (Citizen): What about the success rate? What percentage doesn’t succeed over the course of 2 or 3 years? Response (Applicants): Some Response (Applicants): We can get you some numbers. Comment (Citizen): Maybe you just brought only the positives. Response (Applicants): No, we know some people don’t succeed. Question (Citizen): What happens to people who are evicted? Response (Applicants): Right now they would be living in camps or on the street. Question (Citizen): There is only one person at the front desk? Is that the security? What is the cost of this? Is it 12 million? Response (Applicants): 11.5 million. Comment (Citizen): That seems like a lot for 60 units. Response (Applicants): That is one of the lower dollars per unit figures from the other proposals. It sounds like a big number, but it is a reasonable cost for building 60 units. You can look at the other applications that were submitted to the state for the last round of funding. Response (Applicants): 2.5 employees are dedicated to overnight and relief. Most of the day hours there will be over 9 people present onsite; levels of staffing will shift around. Question (Citizen): Is that staffing or security? Who is fully dedicated to security? Response (Applicants): One front desk, and two people for overnight and security. When these people are working, we don’t have the exact hours yet. There will be a presence onsite 24 hours a day. Question (Citizen): What if someone has a bad background, does that eliminate them? Response (Applicants): That depends on the background. That is important because we know people are homeless for a reason and that may have caused their homelessness. We will screen closely for things that are not permissible at all. It is important to do a thorough background screening – we can deny anyone for any reason. Comment (Citizen): I heard that your standards may be relaxed. Response (Applicants): What you may have heard was a misstatement from a staff member for a different project. Response (Applicants): There has been no intentional statement that we are changing our screening or background checks. Background checks are one part of our screening. Screening is looking at people’s backgrounds, whether they can abide by the rules of the lease. Residents must enter into a lease and abide by the rules of the lease. Comment (Citizen): We have seen materials with different wording, and that can make a large difference. Can we get an immutable document with all of these specifications? Response (Applicants): It is partly subjective. We may not screen out someone who got a DUI last year, but we may screen out someone who is still actively drinking. Comment (Citizen): We have to have legal recourse when we think something isn’t being done, otherwise we’re defenseless. Question (Citizen): I had a son who was mentally ill and would have been on the streets if he had not had the support of our family. I know your location would not have worked for him. He used Touchstone and other services and they were difficult for him because of the traffic and noise. You’re putting people who are mentally ill and going to put them between a railroad track and a 4‐lane highway? 356 Page 5 of 13 Response (Applicants): This may not be the type of place for someone like your son, but may be the type of place for someone like Bryan who is going to school and is formerly homeless, and could use the onsite services. He doesn’t have to travel to other areas because the case managers come to the site. Comment (Citizen): If we really care about these people, why would we put them between a highway and a railroad track? I don’t understand that. I wouldn’t live there. Response (Applicants): One of the parts about the MAX Corridor and Transit Oriented Development is that MAX will run along the railroad tracks. This means getting access to transit will be close to the railroad tracks, and this effects more uses like student or multifamily housing. Comment (Citizen): This is crazy and I’m concerned for the people. They have to have someplace, but I don’t understand how this is a good place for them. Comment (Citizen): I come from a unique perspective. I’m not from here but I’ve lived here for a long time. I was one of the first 5 people who were appointed to develop services to this kind of group of people. I live in the ripple‐effect neighborhoods. I’m listening to this staffing level and I’m hearing unicorns and marshmallows. I have worked with people in this situation. I think everyone deserves good, solid shelter and the ability to learn to take care of themselves, both personally as myself and also as a therapist. I listen to this number and you’re just waiting for a disaster to occur. It’s not a matter of if but when. I have many, many stories where services didn’t work as well as they had been proposed to work. I listen to this stuff and you have to be kidding me. Response (Applicants): No one is pretending this is a halfway house or correctional facility. People have to have a certain level of functioning to live here. There isn’t psychiatry care. Comment (Citizen): You keep backtracking and saying this isn’t a treatment facility. Response (Applicants): There are different levels of treatment, you’re absolutely right. Response (Applicants): This is not necessarily for chronically homeless. This is just homeless. These are apartments and the supportive services are there for assistance. I can tell the services piece is making people nervous it’s not enough. This is not the most severe population – this is what goes along with the screening. Comment (Citizen): Screening is only as good as the screener. I went on the website and looked at the parameters and they don’t meet the grade. They are too loose and don’t cover enough bases. Response (Applicants): There are two apartment buildings for this same population in the community right now, and it is very successful. This is not our first project. Question (Citizen): Could you tell us about that? The successes and failures. Question (Citizen): What is the deal with going to big versus keeping small community based housing with decent staffing levels with 4 or 5 people? I have worked in many of them. I’m curious to know why so big and why now. I came in late so I may have missed some of that. Response (Applicants): We have looked at similar models across the country. 60 units allowed us to be a mixed‐income development, so it is not 100% of one population. One part will be standard affordable housing; they have incomes a little lower and qualify for the affordable housing. Question (Citizen): Some of the other projects you highlighted as successful were in Fargo and Portland and those projects were in an area in/near downtown or industrial areas. Why this model here? Response (Applicants): There were 6 or 7 different sites in Portland; there are others in more residential communities. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has about 10 sites in Denver. There is a whole continuum of type and how they work in a downtown versus a residential situation. 357 Page 6 of 13 Comment (Citizen): You mentioned one of the assets is that you are the owners and can control and remain flexible in terms of staffing and those guidelines – that worries me a little that those aren’t ironclad standards. They may lose this over time and change and morph. This is a concern. Question (Citizen): The 24 hour staffing at the front desk isn’t necessarily security? What is their job, is it a greeter, a concierge? Will they screen if someone comes into the building intoxicated? What will happen? Response (Applicants): Yes and possibly yes to those questions. Response (Citizen): I spent two years living in a car in front of Catholic Charities. These people you are talking about are your friends and relatives and kids. It’s the same community – there are good people and bad people. The homeless community gets messed with by everybody and is victimized at a much higher rate than everyone else in this room. I spent 33 years doing security and I know these people, I can tell you there are very good people in my community. We just got through with an art show at the Murphy Center that was very successful – these are the types of people likely to end up at this facility, people trying to move forward with their lives. Not everyone is crazy or a drug addict. We have a police force and they are on the homeless – they know the homeless community too. Don’t think you are getting the dredge of society ‐‐ that is not the truth of it. That is all I have to say right now. Question (Citizen): Your idea of security is who goes in the building for your residents, but what about the security for all of us? Response (Applicants): It’s an apartment building; people who live there have a lease. Comment (Citizen): People seem to be worried about people wandering the streets at night. There are probably 8‐10 people in the building who spoke before me, but it only takes one bad egg to ruin it for everybody. Question (Citizen): Is there a plan for an article in the Coloradoan for this development to explain all of this? My kids go to the elementary school about a mile away from this. This all seems very secretive, when will we hear more about this? Response (City): The neighborhood notification letter follows the Land Use Code rules, which dictates a minimum 800 feet notification area from the property boundary. In this case we went out substantially farther; we went out as much as 2,000 feet from the property boundary to capture a number of nearby neighborhoods such as Fairway Estates, Applewood, and Fossil Creek Meadows. We also contacted the neighborhood associations with those developments. In addition, we post information online. I’m sure there will be a gathering or momentum of people finding out and learning about this project. This is the best attended neighborhood meeting I have been to and I have been to some large ones for Banner Health or Woodward. I have to be very careful that we do what is legally required and in a way that is provided under the terms of the Land Use Code. Everyone who is in attendance and signs in, you will have more information on the project ‐‐ you will get the neighborhood meeting minutes. We cannot control what the Coloradoan does or does not advertise. Be sure to check on the box of the sign‐in sheet if you did or did not receive the notification. Response (City): Our business cards are up there on the table and I can provide information on where people can find information on the project or other projects. The information you are seeing tonight is also new to City staff. Comment (Citizen): It seems most people didn’t know about this and have no idea what is going on. Response (City): Another tool we’re trying to use is NextDoor. We can start to put information there. 358 Page 7 of 13 Question (Citizen): I partook in this type of conversation with Discount Tire and there were some concessions made like hours of operation. Once that was all approved and put into motion, they never adhered to or enforced those provisions. Where does the buck stop with changes for this? It will morph into something different by 2015. Response (Applicants): The Fort Collins Housing Authority is a quasi‐governmental agency. The Board is appointed by City Council. FCHA has operated an A+ rated housing authority that receives awards year after year. We’re committed to the neighborhood we’re in. Question (Citizen): Will it morph by the time we get to 2015? Will the City be in charge of enforcing that? Response (City): There will be a formal submittal and they will have to draw formal site plans and show the information in the form of notes on those site plans as well as project details such as the number of bedrooms, the way the building is positioned. They will go to a public hearing and present this information to the Planning & Zoning Board. These plans will be recorded with the City and they will be available online – there is nothing secretive about the plans. They are required to build the project according to what is on the plans, and the notes on the plans, if there are operational notes. They are required to build it and operate it to those standards. Comment (Citizen): The City of Fort Collins does not enforce this for Discount Tire. Response (Applicants): One thing we talked about early on with the business park owners – we have neighborhood commitment statements. One of the things we offered was a good neighbor agreement that we could negotiate with each other. The business park owners decided they didn’t need this but it included things like you must call police if you see something going on. We would have a 2‐way neighborhood agreement. Neighborhood agreements, we are very willing to work through these and that may include some of those screening tools. These can be fleshed out much more in an agreement. Comment (Citizen): The City hasn’t held up its part of the bargain. I don’t want to be mad, I just want the City to do this. I want to hold the City’s feet to the fire. Comment (Citizen): We own property in proximity to this project. We have covenants associated with the way we conduct our lives that we sign up to. We are asking for you to provide those covenants to us. Response (Applicants): That is why we offered, but we have to work through it together. A good neighbor agreement is something that would be between us and you. We have statements and commitments and we’re happy to work with you. Question (Citizen): Don’t you have covenants associated with your property? Response (Applicants): Our property does not have covenants. There are no covenants on the land. Question (Citizen): Do you own the land? Response (Applicants): It is under contract. Question (Citizen): You just make the rules up as you go? Response (Applicants): It is zoned multifamily for that many units. Question (Citizen): How would you hold people to a standard? Response (Applicants): There is a lease which is the agreement for the residents. Question (Citizen): Who writes the lease? The FCHA? Response (Applicants): You mean between the owner and the tenant? We have a 20‐page lease. When we have to move quickly on an eviction we need to have an iron‐clad lease that holds up in court. Question (Citizen): Is that posted on your website? Response (Applicants): Yes we can post it; we are proud of our lease. We have a one‐strike policy and we move very quickly. It holds up in court case after court case. 359 Page 8 of 13 Question (Citizen): How long is quickly? Response (Applicants): There are state laws we need to adhere to. Question (Citizen): Isn’t it 6 months? Response (Applicants): Oh no, I think there is a 3‐day notification, but I don’t want to misspeak. Question (Citizen): What other sites did you consider? You picked a site that is prime real estate and smack dab in the middle between two elementary schools? I do agree it is going to be difficult to find a space not near a school. Question (Citizen): I heard a lot of businesses in downtown rejected anything up north because of the problems they were having and the trouble – that is why this is moved down south. Response (Applicants): We considered site up north, downtown, midtown, south, and all over the place. We had a team of 15 folks to help us go through and analyze available sites that would allow this type of development per zoning. We went through a full triple bottom line analysis with the City and stakeholders. We had a 15 point matrix in terms of access to trails, transportation, services, and appropriate building design. This site kept rising to the top and this is all very well documented. This was not by any means the only site we looked at. With every site there are issues – there is no perfect place to do this. Anywhere we would have selected there are going to be neighbors and businesses that have concerns. Question (Citizen): Are the other sites available? Response (Applicants): Some are no longer available and are no longer on the market. Question (Citizen): Is your contract contingent upon development approval? Will you own this land and do it anyway regardless of what we say tonight? Response (Applicants): We’re looking to hear what else we can do to make the community more comfortable with this. We were awarded funding for this project and we’re excited to move it forward and we want to work with the community to address concerns. Question (Citizen): Is your contract contingent? Response (Applicants): There are contingencies in the contract; approval of development review is not one of them. Question (Citizen): Are you going to build it regardless of whether we want it or not? Response (Applicants): I’m not sure there is an appropriate answer. We plan to move forward with this project. We are here to try and address your concerns. We have to go through the normal, full development review process. Question (Citizen): What are your short and long range housing projects? Are there any other projects that will go in, in the immediate area? Within a mile of this project? Response (Applicants): We don’t have any land in our control in the south side of town. Question (Citizen): Would you be willing if this got approved not to build anything else in this part of town so we don’t become a hub? Response (Applicants): We would be willing to discuss this. Comment (City): To get back to, will this get built no matter what? The answer is this is not a done deal. What City staff is required to do is make sure the project complies with the code, that their impacts are mitigated, and that the project fits here. Staff is not the decision maker. The Planning & Zoning Board is the decision maker. They will take the concerns and any input you have about ways to make the project better – that is all appreciated feedback. We’re hearing flat out you don’t think this is the appropriate location for this project, and they will look at your feedback and comments. Question (Citizen): Why isn’t the Planning & Zoning Board here tonight then? 360 Page 9 of 13 Response (City): This meeting is part of the process. If the project moves forward, this is a chance for the FCHA to respond to your comments to help make sure the project is better by considering your input. They will submit the project and in time the Planning & Zoning Board will look at it. Response (City): All of this will be a part of the record for the project that goes to the Planning & Zoning Board. Comment (Citizen): There is a gray area that it has to fit into the community. We’re here to try and see if we can make that work or not. Response (City): If you feel that it is not a fit for the community and you have reasons and concerns and points you would like to make in addition to the comments you have made tonight, you are welcome to articulate those concerns to me in writing. Everything you submit to me I will forward to the Planning & Zoning Board when they decide to approve or disapprove the project. Question (Citizen): For most multifamily projects that go in front of the P&Z Board, they are reviewed under their land use classification, being multifamily. Often times they say it is inappropriate for us to review the project based on the tenant focus or demographics. If we do that, then we are doing so in a discriminatory manner. The fact that this project is receiving public funding and that the occupancy of this project is limited to certain qualifications that the tenants would have – would this project then be appropriate for comments to be based upon the tenancy of this project? As opposed to simply the fact that it is a multifamily project that has to meet multifamily codes? Response (City): That is a good question. This is way outside the box of what a normal, typical development proposal is as far as those types of questions. We would have to approach that very carefully. Comment (Citizen): This is a very relevant question for those people here. When you go to the P&Z Board, you are not automatically allowed to comment about how a project is tenanted because it could come down to a legal disposition by the City attorney that because this is a multifamily project, you can only comment on the project based on its multifamily impacts and go beyond that about who is going to occupy the project – you are asking for a review response that may be deemed discriminatory. The City will have to define an appropriate neighborhood scope with this project. I think because this project is not available to the general public, and there is public funding being made available and restrictions upon the tenants, the scope of the comments about this project can be specific to the demographics this project will bring upon the neighborhood. We need to know the appropriate review and comments for this type of project. Can it go beyond that? Response (City): Everyone is welcome to make any comment that they want to make about this project. The Planning & Zoning Board is not going to say, wait a minute, we can’t hear that comment. The Planning & Zoning Board is going to hear and listen to your comments and consider them. Question (Citizen): But can they disregard the comments if they’re not legally allowed to hear them? Response (City): That is something we will have to answer from a legal standpoint. The Planning & Zoning Board isn’t going to say you can’t say that or that you can’t discuss a certain item or we’re not going to listen to your comments because they’re not legitimate. Response (Applicants): Two thirds of the apartments are really geared to people who have been homeless. The rest are for those at 50% of the area median income. I’m guessing you can comment to those. Comment (Citizen): There needs to be a legal determination about what comments can be reviewed. You don’t want the board to look to the City Attorney for a determination during the hearing. What kind of comments can be legitimately used for the decision basis? They will look at this based on if it meets the code, that is their major criteria. Supportive housing is not a land use, it doesn’t exist in the Land Use 361 Page 10 of 13 Code. When it is reviewed, will it be based on the use of multifamily apartments or based on the specifics of the demographics for which this project is limited? You deserve an answer to this. Question (Citizen): We’re not opposed to this project at all. I love the idea of this and I’m sure people are supportive of it. It’s just where it is located and some of these other intricate details. I’m sure it is very hard for you to stand up here tonight and hear all of this. Specifically, are residents required to help out around the facility to promote responsibility? Are they going to be accountable? A lot of times you’re just enabling and they’re taking and taking and not giving back. Response (Applicants): The lease is the agreement for those who live in the apartments. The lease cannot dictate community activities and engagement. What we see is people want to do it, and we work hard to make that happen. Rent is based on 30% of income and they are paying rent here. As income goes up, their rent will go up. It is an apartment. A sense of community is strongly encouraged but it can’t be required by the lease. Question (Citizen): Who creates the sense of community? Response (Applicants): Staff and community partners. We will have community partners in there. Question (Citizen): When you say background check, does that mean psychological screening as well? Response (Applicants): A criminal background check, landlord references, credit reports, all kinds of things go into this. Question (Citizen): What about the safety of the children that go to the two nearby schools? I’m concerned about those traveling to these schools. Have you talked to the schools about building this project? Response (Applicants): No we have not talked to the schools at this point yet. Comment (Citizen): You need to talk to them; you’re within a mile of two schools. Question (Citizen): I would strongly suggest like the other lady that you reconsider your staffing for security. I do believe people deserve a place like this. The flip side of transit is that it can encourage people to come to this facility with or without security. In winter it already gets dark at 4 or 5pm. Response (Applicants): What would you want the security to be or do so we have your input? Response (Citizen): I understand you don’t want to make it like a prison. Response (Applicants): Are you suggesting something like a private patrol? Response (Citizen): If one of your residents comes back drunk and is causing problems what would happen? Who would monitor people who are struggling? Response (Applicants): This needs to be situation based. If I come home drunk and I get in my apartment and don’t bother anyone, as an example. Response (City): It seems there are a lot of questions and concerns about security both on and off site and we will capture that in the notes and look if they can address this if the proposal moves forward. Response (Applicants): If I am belligerent, staff will call police services and at that point I would be in violation of my lease. If I am disrupting the peace of other residents, that will be grounds for eviction. Comment (Citizen): I feel like Huntington Hills was completely disregarded. It would be responsible for you to send emails or newsletters out to Huntington Hills; we use the same schools and trails. It would be beneficial for you to reach out to that neighborhood so you could get vital information and the concerns. I think it would be important for my voice to be heard and to make this a really great thing in Fort Collins. This is the best thing about Fort Collins – that we want to be a tight‐knit community. I am very frustrated that I had to hear about this from a neighbor and friend. 362 Page 11 of 13 Question (Citizen): What are the concerns of the business park? Why would you move it from one spot to the next? Response (Citizen/Nearby Business Owner): All of our business owners across the street did not want this project until they offered us money and then a couple decided they would do it then. Our business owners association would not allow this to come in, so their solution was to condemn this so they could move in. Response (Applicants): For legal reasons, I cannot correct this gentleman. Question (Citizen): Are you denying that you were going to condemn our business association? Response (Applicants): The facts are incorrect but cannot be discussed. Comment (Citizen): I can understand why you wouldn’t want to talk about this. Comment (Citizen): Typical government. Comment (Citizen): I really appreciate what you guys are trying to do here. I think your goals are laudable. I understand you have poured your energy and life into this and that this meeting is frustrating for you, but please understand it is frustrating for us and it is frustrating for us because most of us have only just heard of this. I happened to hear about it this morning because a friend sent me an email. You can say this is a mile away and shouldn’t be concerned about it, but I am. My kids go to that school and that park. For this to be successful you really need the community to be behind you and it is going to take a lot of effort. I think the frustration is because people feel this is only two hours. It doesn’t feel like a give‐take relationship. It feels like we are going to be building by January and here is our two hours that you will listen to us and that’s it. If most people in this room feel like the project is going to work out like you feel it would, they would be supportive of it. One concern I have that has not been addressed is – there is a park and a school and we can talk about security in the building, but the reality is that homeless people will be hanging out in the park. You said they couldn’t bring their homeless friends into the building so the most convenient place for them to go is the park. I am concerned about my kids going back and forth to school or playing in the park. My advice is you need to do a lot more reaching out to the community. Response (Applicants): Yes, let’s work on that together. Comment (Citizen): I think part of the frustration this evening is that we’re learning about this when the process is 2/3 complete. Asking us to come to the meeting and not gathering our concerns much earlier is frustrating. I was never mailed any information – that is a problem. I will communicate with these people whether by mail or email and so forth and my voice will be heard. I think you have missed the boat by not involving the citizens who live in this area into the process. Response (Applicants): I appreciate what you are saying. Last May we sent out invitations to the HOAs instead of going to all the residents, and perhaps we should have gone straight to the residents. Comment (Citizen): That’s your answer? We were going to do a mailer but it went to the HOAs instead and it didn’t go to the residents and we’re sorry? Comment (Citizen): One of things that I gather, and I’m an engineer – you come across as if you only looked at all the positives and not the negatives. What is your standard for accepting or rejecting, you couldn’t answer that. When we ask what you will be doing for security, it is all based on the inside, not the outside. I don’t care if you fail or not, but there are a lot of conflicts with people who may be subjected to living there. It is a very confusing picture with very little detail. At a minimum, the site makes no sense to me. I have lived in big cities and lived next to developments. Usually they are located near the city centers or grocery stores or other services. Homeless people that are living around here have their own community themselves. I’d rather you let them into the bloody building rather than forcing them to hang out in the park. Your whole perspective is very inward. You have to take into 363 Page 12 of 13 account that there are a lot of negatives with this project. You haven’t done your homework in terms of addressing concerns from those of us outside the development. Question (Citizen): Your supportive services and the garden and future kitchen are for residents only? There would be no in and out? Response (Applicants): Yes Question (Citizen): I feel everything has been extremely subjective and you’re packaging of this as an apartment. If I go to apply for an apartment they are going to ask me if I have a job, or a criminal background or a medical marijuana card – they know all this. Why is it you have all these communities and you don’t know the statistics? If you have it up and running you can’t tell us what the success rate is? Question (Citizen): How large are the other properties, how many residents? Comment (Citizen): We need something that is less subjective. I’ve heard we’ll turn them out to the street. I don’t appreciate thinking how your own residents are safe but you have said nothing about our safety. Comment (Citizen): This is our home and our community and our children. Response (Applicants): I don’t believe this is the last of the conversation. I am happy to meet with you all individually at home or for coffee to discuss this. Question (Citizen): If I’m calling or reporting something, you’re telling me you are making the community responsible for the policing? I have to go down and put my address on something and go to court. I have to choose is it work putting my name on something, going to court and wasting my time so the community is responsible for policing this? Response (Applicant): I understand your concerns. We have your comments and we will work on this together. Comment (Citizen): There was a discussion about misinformation that went out. I went and looked for verification and the last minutes of the board of commissioners weren’t available. The last meeting was the May meeting. Response (Applicants): The June minutes have not been adopted by the board yet. I’m sure that information can be shared with you. Comment (Citizen): I have something I think should be in the minutes – it is something why we are all concerned. The registry process in November 2010 surveyed the homeless and identified 229 of them. Over 90% were male, 87% had been in and out of the jail system, 46% have a mental illness. These facts are in the Homeward 2020 10‐year plan. We are concerned because Scenic Knolls was completely ignored in all of this. It shares Fossil Creek Drive as a boundary. It will go around the Redtail Ponds open space and meet the Mason Trail. There is a conduit now for all the people to have access to our neighborhoods. Comment (Citizen): Please take our serious concerns into consideration. There is a reason I moved to South Fort Collins. This makes me very emotional. I have two children that walk to the elementary school. I am not going to feel safe. My children walk their dogs in the park; I’m not going to feel safe for them anymore. Please take whatever is here into consideration. There is a reason we are at capacity and there is a reason Jason has said this is the best attended neighborhood meeting he has been to. Comment (Citizen): I think one of the things that strikes me is that you have a 12 million dollar project. We have our families and community at stake. To disregard that is unbelievable to me. I work both sides 364 Page 13 of 13 of the fence; I don’t have an issue with this type of project in the right place in the community itself. I think the size is wrong; the demographics need to be tightened up. I think the information you are sharing with us needs to be very tight and firm. Comment (Citizen): What concerns me is that this hasn’t been put out there and they are trying to shove this through without any discussion. Comment (Citizen): The Housing Authority has a great reputation and it is a needed facility. I saw 90‐ 95% of what they were talking about in here tonight on the website. My concern is the 4‐story building and height. I went to the Midtown discussions and they were emphasizing up to 7 story buildings, but my max is about 3 stories. I would like to see the building orientation rotated so it is better oriented for rooftop solar collection. Make sure it has a good area for the community garden and urban agriculture. Think about what residential friendly windpower could look like and that the design is compatible with that in the future. I feel there is a lot of misinformation here from the public. For instance, I don’t get notified if my neighbor is under investigation for a crime, but neighbors near the facility are notified, it’s almost safer because with my neighbor I wouldn’t find out until I read about it in the paper. There is also a mental health facility and other services like this located in this part of town, for instance near Trout Elementary across the street on Corbett and there have been no serious issues. I believe there were a couple escapes, but no crimes resulting from the escapes. Facilities in the area have had good management. It would be great if the development review process was changed to notify both the houses and HOAs. The expense is sending out the mailing, but the more you send out the less it should cost individually. My teenagers and their friends volunteer at homeless facilities in town and there hasn’t been a single incident. I don’t fear them being in proximity to the population – there are bad apples in every group and we have a good homeless community here from everything I have seen. 365 1 Jason Holland From: Dana Spanjer <dana.spanjer@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:38 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: RE: Public Comment Regarding Redtail Ponds Development (#91) Dear Jason, I am pleased that my comments circulated to the appropriate departments and I appreciate your communication with me since the project has been submitted formally to the City. However, I am very surprised that there has been zero concern raised by any of these City departments involved in the review process. Proposed development projects in the private sector experience much more scrutiny and resistance from the majority of the City departments during their vetting processes. Granted, many concerns raised by City staff over private developments are often very legitimate, I find it shocking that not one City department has voiced a concern about this project. Rather, variances and exceptions seem like they will be frequently and casually given to this project where they might not otherwise be granted to a private development. I am disappointed with even the thought that this project is not being held to the same standards other developments are in the City. I also am concerned that there has been a complete lack of concessions made by the housing authority in an effort to comprise on their project and work with the neighbors (residential and commercial). When citizen concerns are voiced, they are simply met with boiler plate responses by the FCHA in an effort to convince the neighbors they should not be worried about the project and should trust the authority of an agency that has never directly built a project of this nature. I am discouraged that I have not been able to be an agent of change during this process. I have directly voiced my opinion to both the City (through communication with you) and to the FCHA through their public meetings, board meeting and individual communications as well as inform my neighbors of the project. None of the suggestions or concerns raised by myself or my neighbors have altered the path, scope or the momentum of this project. Our concerns have only resulted in a ‘good neighbor statement of operations’ which is neither binding nor enforceable. It is highly discouraging to spend so much personal time invested in a public project only to find out the outcome will be the same, no matter the participation of the community. I am disheartened by this experience, as it's clear that the project will move forward, unmodified, regardless of citizen concern, participation or dialogue. Sincerely, Dana Spanjer 366 1 Jason Holland From: Jason Holland Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:16 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Public Comment Regarding Redtail Ponds Development (#91) From: Dana Spanjer [mailto:rad.bag@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 6:29 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Re: Public Comment Regarding Redtail Ponds Development (#91) Jason, Thank you for your note back. I do appreciate your responsiveness and I am by no means frustrated with you. Since the FCHA has been presenting the same specifications for building design, size, location, and development timeline for over a year, I do get the impression that not much has changed, especially since these specifications are still being presented in their original form. This is probably the main reason why I feel as though suggestions and concerns have fallen on deaf ears. While I understand that I most likely have a different perspective of what is actually happening, I am still uneasy with the number and type of variances the FCHA has submitted with their application. From its inception, the FCHA has repeatedly emphasized to the public and CHFA (their main funding source) that this specific lot was the most desirable for the project, in part due to the TOD’s unique height standards. However, the numerous Modifications of Standards requested suggest otherwise. - The requests for modification concerning building orientation and off street parking are a direct result of improper structure configuration within the TOD overlay zone. While the FCHA found the TOD height allowances desirable, this request for modification is essentially an effort to eliminate standards that this building can’t meet. - Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification to the Block Requirement. While there is an infeasibility clause in this requirement, the site does not meet any of the acceptable reasons for noncompliance. One justification seems to be that there isn’t enough room to accommodate a street that would divide the building into blocks. Additional justification sites this is an infill project. The applicant even states that this site is extremely difficult to build a financially feasible multifamily project on and without this modification, leaves insufficient space for the size and type of their very own project. These considerations did not appear to be considered during site selection due diligence. - Another submitted variance aims to alter the minimum radius requirements of Fossil Blvd and Conejos Rd. which is currently not permissible under the City of Fort Collins Street Design standards. Granting this variance only delays an inevitable traffic access problem for any future development in the Redtail Ponds office park. Requesting so many significant variances and modifications after stating this site was “ideal” is contradictory, exposing a lack of site location due diligence. It seems as though the building is being forced onto a lot that is too small. I would suggest, instead of altering land use codes, that the building size be reduced in order to comply. By requiring this project to adhere to the existing codes and TOD zoning, it will be more compatible with future development along the South College and MAX Transit corridors. 367 2 Thank you again for considering my input. I will be traveling the next week with sparse email access, but I look forward to our continued dialogue. Dana 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 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/developmentreview September 27, 2013 Chadrick Martinez Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RESPONSE COMMENTS - CONSULTANT TEAM; OCTOBER 21, 2013 RE: Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing (Affordable Housing), PDP130030, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 In terms of building color, the project is in proximity to natural habitat and also must comply with the multi-family design standards. Staff's recommendation to satisfy these standards is to utilize a color palette that is warmer and more natural, in order to harmonize within the natural setting and the existing office buildings to the south. A contrast of traditional materials/colors with the contemporary building would be appropriate. [SC]: Colors modified per recommendation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 Building Materials: Please submit an exhibit showing an accurate depiction of all proposed material colors and textures. This can be done with high resolution photographs of materials and color samples as well as photographs of the materials on existing buildings. Include color and material information for the HVAC units shown on the building elevations. The individual HVAC units need to blend in and be as inconspicuous as possible. Recent approved Banner Health plans are a good format example. Please incorporate color elevations directly in to the 24x36 drawings instead of separate 11 x 17 pages. [SC]: Presentation provided per request. 530 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 Staff recommends that more masonry material be used on the building facade and that the masonry be more evenly distributed around the building, both to further articulate the massing and to further improve the residential character of the building. An additional material such as a stained siding might also add a warmer appearance to the building; the Baker Townhomes at 4th and Cherokee would be an example. This could be used to enhance the traditional/contemporary contrast. [SC]: Masonry added to East/College Ave. Elevation. RE: Elevations. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/27/2013 West elevation: The projected design elements used to break up the main wall plane on this elevation are repeated uniformly to the extent that the overall elevation could benefit from additional elements to substantially break up this uniformity. In addition to substantial elements, the west elevation would benefit from more material variation such as the addition of plank siding used on the east elevation. Also, please also add a dashed line to the elevations showing where main wall plane corners intersect. A plan key map would also be helpful adjacent to each elevation. [SC]: Key plan provided in drawings. Uniformity of elevation addressed. RE: Elevations. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/27/2013 Landscape and site plans: Please provide a detail for the site fence and retaining wall showing design, material, and color. We recommend moving the fencing north off of the top of the 3' retaining wall, so that the wall and fence are a more layered affect. Fence has been moved from top of wall. See Sheet LS53 for fence detail. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/27/2013 Provide significant additional evergreen tree and shrub material along the south property boundary in a naturalized, layered pattern to enhance screening, transition and softer / filtered views toward the southern facing building elevations. Project has added three evergreen trees, in addition to the planned 47 shrubs and trees capable of screening year round. Included in this number are the Gambel Oaks which retain their leaves through winter. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/27/2013 The MAF tree symbol on the plans -- can you please clarify, this is not on the plant list. MAF refers to Mahonia fremontii, common name Desert Holly Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/27/2013 Landscape and site plans: please incorporate the overall site plan into the set as a cover page, and make the more detailed site and landscape plans more readable by eliminating the existing topo and improving the line hierarchy. Label the locations of walls on the plans and add a +/- wall height for general reference. WILL COMPLY Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Additional information is needed on the project to be able to calculate the TDR Fee's for the project. I need to know the amount of non residential space in the building (office space, meeting space...). Common/programming space square footage = 4,436 sf 531 Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: An additional utility easement is needed where the water main and fire hydrant extends onto the property. Currently they are in ROW but with vacation of the ROW an easement will be needed. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18, 2013 A utility easement has been added for the watermain outside of ROW. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please provide radii for the drive approach returns RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 A detailing grading and layout plan has been created for the drive approach. Radii have been added. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: The variance request for the Fossil Blvd/Conejos intersection has been accepted and a letter of acceptance will follow. Profile plan of the vertical alignment is needed and will be reviewed at final plan. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Right, left and center profiles have been added for the intersection. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please incorporate Construction Notes appendix E-1 and E-2 from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards to the General Notes on sheet C0.1 of the utility plans RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Constructions notes have been added. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please show the new right of way along Conejos Rd- see redlines RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 ROW has been shown on all plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please label the 15ft utility easement along College Ave on sheet C2 RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Easement has been labeled. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please add the standard asphalt repair note to sheets C0.2, CE1.0 in the Utility Plans: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with city street repair standards. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Note has been added. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please provide a detail for the retaining wall construction. Label the retaining wall along College Ave on sheet C2 RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013. See landscape plans for retaining wall detail. Retaining wall labels have been added. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please note that the existing right-of-way on sheet C0.2 is to be vacated RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Note have been added. 532 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Sheet C2.0 references an existing light and power vault but is not shown on the plan. Add existing vault location. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 The existing electric transformer has been added. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: The South College Corridor Plan identifies 144ft of right-of-way needed along College Ave adjacent to this project. This development is responsible for ½ of the required right-of-way, or a total of 72ft. 70.5ft currently exist so an additional 1.5ft of right-of-way is needed along College Ave RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Additional ROW has been added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: The site plan and the utility plan set are conflicting on the width of the existing sidewalk along College Ave. The Utility plans show an existing 7ft sidewalk and this project constructing an 8ft sidewalk for the remaining property frontage. The South College Corridor Plan identifies 8ft sidewalk widths along College Ave. Further evaluation will be needed to determine if the existing 7ft wide sidewalk along approximately 40ft of the property frontage will need to be removed and replaced with an 8ft sidewalk. Please revise the site plan to show the existing 7ft sidewalk and the new 8ft wide sidewalk to be installed with this project. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 The existing sidewalk at the southeast corner of the site is concrete and transitions to asphalt to the north. The intention is to maintain the existing 7' wide concrete sidewalk for approximately 40' along the property line and replace the entire section of asphalt walk. The existing 7' wide concrete walk appears to be in good shape. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: A CDOT construction permit will be needed for the sanitary sewer service connection in College Ave. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 JVA will coordinate with CDOT for a construction permit. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please show the proposed vacation of Fossil Blvd right-of-way on the new plat. A note will need to be added that references all easements on the original Redtail Subdivision plat are vacated. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please reference the easement agreement recordation number for Tract I detention pond on the plat. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Tract I is no longer required and will not be included with the property. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Add the following note to the plat: There shall be no private conditions, covenants or restrictions that prohibit or limit the installation of resource conserving equipment or landscaping that are allowed by Sections 12-120 – 12-122 of the City Code. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. 533 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Add the development name in the legal description on sheet 1 of the plat. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please add the following note to the site plan: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. [SC]: Notes provided. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please label the retaining wall along College Ave. [SC]: Label provided. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please add the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to the site, landscape and utility plans. I am struggling to read the landscape plans, is there a way to simplify some of the linework and details? WILL COMPLY RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Natural Habitat Buffer Zone has been labeled. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Per the ECS, additional shrubs and native trees need to be added to the landscaping plan in order to achieve compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g) of the Land Use Code. The referenced code states “The project shall be designed to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site. If existing landscaping within the buffer zone is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures such as regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation.” The project boundary/property line only encroaches into the buffer where the projects’ site access connects to the City right-of-way at the northwest portion of the site. The ECS discussion within the buffer area is actually an out parcel and not a part of this project. Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: The ECS needs to be updated to include the following information: - Wildlife use of the area and not just the immediate site - Any patterns of non-native vegetation on the site as described in Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(e). ECS HAS BEEN UPDATED AND RE-SUBMITTED. 534 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Schedule an on-site meeting with the City Forester to obtain information needed to develop an existing tree inventory, protection and mitigation plan. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Add tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Species Changes: Planting Ash is not recommended because of future impact from Emerald Ash Borer moving into Colorado. REMOVED FROM LIST Sugarberry has not proven reliably hardy in the Fort Collins area. REMOVED FROM LIST Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: In the plant schedule list percentages of each tree used and check that they are within the minimum species Diversity standard. LUC 3.2.1 D 3. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Due to the utility line separation for the Sewer line some trees along College are placed in back of the walk. Review with the utility if a small ornamental tree such as Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry, which was used in the parkway between the sidewalks to the south of this project, can be used on this project. If the parkway has a steep grade that could be limiting. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: The west most shade tree to the south on the entry to the parking lot does not appear to be labeled. TREE LABELED QM, Quercus macrocarpa, common name Bur Oak Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Add Standard landscape notes that address plant, quality, mulch selection and placement, irrigation etc. In addition to those add these landscape notes. Include a note that incorporates the separation standards in LUC 3.2.1 K. • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. • A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the 535 location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Sizes of trees and shrubs should meet LUC size standards. Review with the City Planner. ALL PLANT MATERIALS MEET OR EXCEED LUC SIZE STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/23/2013 09/23/2013: The locations of the electric utility facilities will need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. The electric transformer (not shown on the utility plan) will need to be located within 10 feet of an all-weather surface that is accessible to a utility line truck. Also, the utility plan shows the electric line too close to the water lines. The minimum lateral separation between water and electric is 10 feet. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Water line has been shifted to proved 10' minimum separation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/23/2013 09/23/2013: The developer will need to provide a completed Commercial Service Information (C-1) form and a 1-line electric diagram to Light & Power Engineering. This form is available on WWW.FCGOV.COM, or can be provided on request from Light & Power Engineering. NOTED. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/23/2013 09/23/2013: Electric development charges will apply. Light & Power Engineering can assist in estimating these charges. City Code requires that individual apartments must have individual electric meters for each unit. It also provides for the Utilities Director to grant an exception to this requirement, which was granted on August 2, 2013. NOTED. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/23/2013 09/23/2013: It appears likely that a fire booster pump will be necessary. This pump must be metered along with the main building meter. NOTED, REVIEWING WITH PFA AND ENGINEERING. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/23/2013 09/23/2013: After plans are final and approved, please send an AutoCad (version 2008) drawing of the utility site plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. NOTED. 536 Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: PFA continues to work off-line with the project team to resolve minor questions and concerns. NOTED. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: As both stairwells will serve a roof access and areas of refuge, please be sure that both stairwells are appropriately signed on the exterior for firefighter identification and use. [SC]: SC to comply. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. (Requirements added to the packet of Materials from Stormwater) Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 The drainage and erosion control is still under design. The final drainage and erosion control report will be provided shortly. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Per previous meetings and discussions, the development needs to meet the detention, water quality, and LID requirements. These requirements need to be met while still meeting the detention pond design and landscape standards. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 The drainage and LID requirements are still under design. Water quality variance is being requested to be included with the detention volume and will be further explained in the drainage report which will be provided shortly. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings 537 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please change the sub-title on sheet C0.00 to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please change the numbering of sheet C0.00 to C0.0, to be consistent with the rest of the plan set. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets C0.2, C1.0, CD1.2, CE1.0, CE1.1, C2.0, C3.0, CD1.0 & Figure 2. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: There are text over text issues on sheets C1.0. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LP11 & LP12. See redlines. WILL COMPLY Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: The title on sheet LP11 does not match the index on sheet 1 of the Site Plans. See redlines. WILL COMPLY Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please correct the typos in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please add the Plat name to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Are there any Lienholders? If you are uncertain whether there are, please add a signature block as a placeholder. There are no Lienholders Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please add the note: Unless shown otherwise, all easements depicted on the Retail Subdivision are hereby vacated with this plat. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please provide the current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners 538 shown. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please label all properties surrounding this Plat. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please label the right of way widths and how they were dedicated. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please add a note addressing the offsite sight distance easement(per Retail Subdivision) at the northwest corner of the property, to be vacated by separate document IF this sight distance easement is no longer needed and IF it was ever dedicated to begin with. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please show an additional tie distance for the 20' emergency access easement. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please add the square footage and use to all Lots & Tracts. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please make all bearings to read the same direction. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please label the Point Of Beginning. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please show and label all dimensions between the monuments shown. See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Do calculated positions need to be shown along the east line of Section 2? See redlines. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please change the legal description to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. [SC]: Revised. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please move all of the "date" text over to the date line on sheet 1. See redlines. [SC]: Revised. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Please correct the typos in the titles in the index on sheet 1. See redlines. [SC]: Revised. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: There are 2 sheets in the Lighting Plans. Please add sheet E1.2 to the index on sheet 1. See redlines. [SC]: Revised. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LS11 & LS12. See redlines. WILL COMPLY 539 Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: There are text over text issues on sheet LS11. See redlines. WILL COMPLY Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: Please include an R1-1 (Stop) with street name sign above and a W4-4P warning sign (Cross Traffic Does Not Stop) below. RESPONSE COMMENTS - JVA; OCTOBER 18,2013 Comment noted. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/24/2013: TIS is accepted. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Russian Sage (Perovskia Atriplicifolia) is no longer on the Fort Collins Plant List- Please find a suitable replacement. PLANT WAS NOT USED AND HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM LIST Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Label the height of the building from grade to the tallest point of the building. [SC]: Dimension provided. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Add a note to either the buidling elevation drawings or to the site plan indicating that vents, flues, meters, conduit, PTAC units, mechanical equipment, etc., will be painted to match the building or will be screened from view. [SC]: SC to comply. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Provide a detail drawing of the fence and the bike chalet. [SC]: See building materials. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Add a note to the 'Landscape Notes', stating something to the effect that all landscape improvements are required to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or financially guaranteed by a bond, letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 125% of the cost of a written estimate from the landscape contractor in the event the 540 landscaping isn't completed. WILL COMPLY Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Show the distance from the bike chalet to the south lot line. [SC]: Dimension provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: Show the parking stall and drive aisle dimensions. [SC]: Dimension provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: the site plan legend calls out a bike rack (BR) and light poles (LP), but I couldn't find them on the plan. Please show the locations. [SC]: Labels provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: The conceptual review comment letter states that trash and recycling are stored within the building. Please add a note to the "General Notes" explaining that. [SC]: Notes provided. END OF COMMENTS 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 APPENDIX A 1 565 2 566 3 567 4 568 5 569 APPENDIX B 6 570 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 7/24/2013 Observer: Carl Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: College/Fairway S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: College Southbound: College Total Eastbound: Fairway Westbound: Fairway Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:30 0 404 7 411 15 196 2 213 624 1 0 3 4 0 0 1 1 5 629 7:45 2 443 4 449 12 208 3 223 672 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 4 676 8:00 2 355 5 362 12 196 4 212 574 1 0 2 3 2 0 5 7 10 584 8:15 0 342 4 346 2 194 1 197 543 1 0 1 2 0 0 8 8 10 553 7:30-8:30 4 1544 20 1568 41 794 10 845 2413 3 0 7 10 2 0 17 19 29 2442 PHF 0.87 0.95 0.63 0.59 4:30 3 332 3 338 3 430 1 434 772 4 0 4 8 3 0 10 13 21 793 4:45 0 435 2 437 13 524 1 538 975 1 0 1 2 3 0 12 15 17 992 5:00 0 350 1 351 11 363 1 375 726 4 0 3 7 3 0 6 9 16 742 5:15 0 329 5 334 7 442 0 449 783 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 788 4:30-5:30 3 1446 11 1460 34 1759 3 1796 3256 9 0 8 17 9 0 33 42 59 3315 PHF 0.84 0.83 0.53 0.7 7 571 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 7/25/2013 Observer: Carl Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: College/Fossil Creek S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: College Southbound: College Total Eastbound: Cameron Westbound: Fossil Creek Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:30 2 349 3 354 9 189 3 201 555 1 0 0 1 9 0 25 34 35 590 7:45 3 415 9 427 13 210 4 227 654 1 0 1 2 8 1 27 36 38 692 8:00 6 335 11 352 14 190 9 213 565 2 1 1 4 12 1 29 42 46 611 8:15 6 338 5 349 13 210 3 226 575 2 1 2 5 8 0 30 38 43 618 7:30-8:30 17 1437 28 1482 49 799 19 867 2349 6 2 4 12 37 2 111 150 162 2511 PHF 0.87 0.95 0.6 0.89 4:30 5 319 11 335 28 375 2 405 740 4 2 6 12 10 0 13 23 35 775 4:45 12 324 11 347 24 387 4 415 762 6 2 4 12 12 0 27 39 51 813 5:00 7 348 12 367 28 415 2 445 812 10 2 8 20 18 0 25 43 63 875 5:15 4 358 17 379 32 444 1 477 856 7 1 4 12 8 0 16 24 36 892 4:30-5:30 28 1349 51 1428 112 1621 9 1742 3170 27 7 22 56 48 0 81 129 185 3355 PHF 0.94 0.91 0.7 0.75 8 572 APPENDIX C 9 573 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Recent AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 2 4 37 2 111 17 1444 28 49 767 19 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 137 138 113 174 7 117 546 2715 1200 314 2830 1203 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.74 0.74 0.04 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 1395 1937 1583 1394 94 1647 1756 3688 1630 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 2 0 44 0 11 19 1641 14 56 872 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1395 1937 1583 1488 0 1647 1756 1844 1630 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.6 0.2 19.8 0.2 0.6 7.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 19.8 0.2 0.6 7.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 137 138 113 181 0 117 546 2715 1200 314 2830 1203 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.60 0.01 0.18 0.31 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 320 393 321 376 0 334 648 2715 1200 389 2830 1203 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 40.5 0.0 41.6 0.0 40.7 2.8 5.9 3.3 5.0 3.7 2.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 6.1 0.1 0.3 2.4 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 43.3 40.5 0.0 42.3 0.0 41.0 2.8 6.9 3.3 5.3 4.0 2.9 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 9 55 1674 935 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.7 42.1 6.8 4.1 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 11.7 5.6 75.0 7.1 76.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 7.0 68.0 7.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 4.6 2.2 21.8 2.6 9.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 17.0 0.0 18.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 10 574 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Recent AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 75 24 11 75 24 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 7 4 15 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 End Time (s) 35 0 24 35 0 24 Yield/Force Off (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Local Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 Local Yield (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Yield 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 11 575 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek recent pm City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 27 7 22 48 0 81 28 1351 51 112 1634 9 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 128 159 130 180 0 136 267 2751 1215 351 2857 1214 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.76 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1402 1937 1583 1391 0 1647 1756 3688 1629 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 8 0 52 0 8 30 1453 38 120 1757 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1402 1937 1583 1391 0 1647 1756 1844 1629 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 18.2 0.7 1.5 23.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.4 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 18.2 0.7 1.5 23.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 159 130 180 0 136 267 2751 1215 351 2857 1214 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.53 0.03 0.34 0.61 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 264 216 259 0 225 341 2751 1215 451 2857 1214 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.3 46.5 0.0 48.4 0.0 46.5 5.2 5.9 3.6 5.0 6.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 5.9 0.2 0.6 7.7 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 46.6 0.0 49.3 0.0 46.7 5.4 6.6 3.7 5.5 7.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 37 60 1521 1877 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.0 48.9 6.5 6.9 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 14.0 6.4 88.0 7.9 89.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 14.0 7.0 79.0 10.0 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 6.2 2.4 20.2 3.5 25.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 29.0 0.1 28.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 12 576 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek recent pm City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 89 20 14 86 20 Maximum Split (%) 9.2% 74.2% 16.7% 11.7% 71.7% 16.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 14.5 7 4 13.5 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 59 70 39 59 73 39 End Time (s) 70 39 59 73 39 59 Yield/Force Off (s) 66 32.5 53 69 32 53 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 66 22.5 33 69 11 32 Local Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 Local Yield (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Yield 170(s) 27 103.5 114 30 92 113 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 39 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 13 577 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Recent AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 30720174 1537 20 41 826 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - 100 - - 20 200 - 200 200 - 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - -2 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 40820205 1808 24 48 972 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1982 2886 486 2400 2886 904 972 0 0 1808 0 0 Stage 1 1068 1068 - 1818 1818 ------- Stage 2 914 1818 - 582 1068 ------- Follow-up Headway 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 36 16 527 17 16 280 705 - - 336 - - Stage 1 237 296 - 80 128 ------- Stage 2 294 128 - 466 296 ------- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 30 14 527 15 14 280 705 - - 336 - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 30 14 - 15 14 ------- Stage 1 235 254 - 79 127 ------- Stage 2 271 127 - 393 254 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 50.5 48.2 0 0.8 HCM LOS F E Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 705 - - 30 0 527 50 280 336 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.118 + 0.016 0.18 0.048 0.144 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.141 - - 140.4 0 11.9 92.2 18.5 17.502 - - HCM Lane LOS B F A B F C C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.02 - - 0.361 + 0.048 0.592 0.149 0.496 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 14 578 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: College (US 287) & Fairway recent pm City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 6.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 90890333 1445 11 34 1738 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - 100 - - 20 200 - 200 200 - 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - -2 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 10 0 9 10 0 37 3 1606 12 38 1931 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2816 3619 966 2653 3619 803 1931 0 0 1606 0 0 Stage 1 2007 2007 - 1612 1612 ------- Stage 2 809 1612 - 1041 2007 ------- Follow-up Headway 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver # 8 5 254 11 5 326 301 - - 403 - - Stage 1 61 102 - 109 162 ------- Stage 2 340 162 - 246 102 ------- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver # 7 4 254 10 4 326 301 - - 403 - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver # 7 4 - 10 4 ------- Stage 1 60 92 - 108 160 ------- Stage 2 299 160 - 215 92 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s $ 643.9 235.3 0 0.3 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 301 - - 7 0 254 21 326 403 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 1.429 + 0.035 1.058 0.075 0.094 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.094 - - $ 1198.7 0 19.7 $ 475.5 16.9 14.855 - - HCM Lane LOS C F A C F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.034 - - 2.133 + 0.108 2.964 0.242 0.308 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 15 579 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 20 C > 20 and < 35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F > 80 16 580 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment 17 581 APPENDIX D 18 582 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 100 200 300 400 500 *75 *100 1 LANE & 1 LANE 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES WB PM 10 VPH AM 2786 VPH PM 3592 VPH WB AM 6 VPH EB PM 101 VPH EB AM 50 VPH (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 KM/H (40 MPH) ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR STREET APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT COLLEGE/FAIRWAY MUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7 19 583 APPENDIX E 20 584 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Background AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 12 4 7 37 16 111 36 1590 28 50 852 63 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 136 152 125 146 45 130 541 2692 1190 275 2765 1175 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.09 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1368 1937 1583 1030 571 1647 1756 3688 1630 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 5 0 60 0 17 41 1807 13 57 968 54 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1368 1937 1583 1602 0 1647 1756 1844 1630 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.9 0.5 24.5 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 24.5 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 136 152 125 191 0 130 541 2692 1190 275 2765 1175 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.13 0.08 0.67 0.01 0.21 0.35 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 303 389 318 384 0 331 622 2692 1190 349 2765 1175 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.7 40.2 0.0 41.6 0.0 40.6 2.6 6.8 3.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 7.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 40.3 0.0 42.6 0.0 41.0 2.7 8.1 3.5 6.6 0.3 0.1 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 19 77 1861 1079 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 42.2 8.0 0.6 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 12.4 6.6 75.0 7.1 75.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 7.0 68.0 7.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 5.3 2.5 26.5 2.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.2 0.0 20.1 0.0 23.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.5 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 21 585 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Background AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 75 24 11 75 24 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 7 4 15 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 End Time (s) 35 0 24 35 0 24 Yield/Force Off (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Local Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 Local Yield (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Yield 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 22 586 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Background PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 68 20 39 48 3 83 31 1473 51 113 1796 17 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 170 233 191 213 11 198 279 2634 1164 297 2734 1161 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.71 0.71 0.09 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1397 1937 1583 1264 89 1647 1756 3688 1629 1792 3763 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 22 0 55 0 9 33 1584 36 122 1931 3 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1397 1937 1583 1353 0 1647 1756 1844 1629 1792 1881 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 1.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 24.7 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.9 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 24.7 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 233 191 224 0 198 279 2634 1164 297 2734 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.09 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.60 0.03 0.41 0.71 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 253 207 239 0 215 347 2634 1164 391 2734 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.7 45.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 44.7 3.8 8.2 4.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 45.2 0.0 47.7 0.0 44.8 4.0 9.2 4.8 8.2 0.9 0.0 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 95 64 1653 2056 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 47.3 9.0 1.3 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.8 18.8 6.6 88.1 8.0 89.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 14.0 7.0 79.0 10.0 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 7.0 2.6 26.7 4.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.2 0.0 32.3 0.1 40.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 23 587 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Background PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 89 20 14 86 20 Maximum Split (%) 9.2% 74.2% 16.7% 11.7% 71.7% 16.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 14.5 7 4 13.5 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 59 70 39 59 73 39 End Time (s) 70 39 59 73 39 59 Yield/Force Off (s) 66 32.5 53 69 32 53 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 66 22.5 33 69 11 32 Local Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 Local Yield (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Yield 170(s) 27 103.5 114 30 92 113 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 110 Offset: 39 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 24 588 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Background AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 28 1 33 2 4 17 39 1654 20 41 930 89 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 134 80 68 68 56 68 468 2838 1206 326 2869 1219 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.76 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 1405 1863 1583 411 1320 1583 1774 3725 1583 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 1070046 1946 9 48 1094 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1405 1863 1583 1731 0 1583 1774 1863 1583 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.9 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.9 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 80 68 125 0 68 468 2838 1206 326 2869 1219 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.69 0.01 0.15 0.38 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 367 388 330 408 0 330 551 2838 1206 409 2869 1219 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 41.8 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.6 2.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 41.8 0.0 42.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.8 Lane Grp LOS D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 34 7 2001 1224 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.0 42.1 0.9 3.9 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 8.9 6.8 75.4 6.8 75.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 7.0 68.0 7.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.5 10.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 49.1 0.0 44.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes 25 589 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Background AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 75 24 11 75 24 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% Minimum Split (s) 11 15 15 11 15 15 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 End Time (s) 35 0 24 35 0 24 Yield/Force Off (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 Local Yield (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Yield 170(s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 1: College (US 287) & Fairway 26 590 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Background PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 81 4 44 9 1 33 21 1592 11 34 1873 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 187 174 148 181 15 148 201 2781 1182 328 2834 1204 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 1410 1863 1583 1281 164 1583 1774 3725 1583 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 4 0 11 0 0 23 1769 0 38 2081 18 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1410 1863 1583 1445 0 1583 1774 1863 1583 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 33.9 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 33.9 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 187 174 148 197 0 148 201 2781 1182 328 2834 1204 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.64 0.00 0.12 0.73 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246 252 214 257 0 214 280 2781 1182 445 2834 1204 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.4 45.7 0.0 45.9 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.6 3.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 11.7 0.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 51.3 45.7 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.8 0.0 2.7 9.3 3.4 Lane Grp LOS D D D A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 94 11 1792 2137 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.1 46.0 0.9 9.1 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 15.3 6.0 88.8 6.8 89.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 14.0 7.0 79.0 10.0 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.5 35.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.2 0.0 67.8 0.0 43.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes 27 591 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Background PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 89 20 14 86 20 Maximum Split (%) 9.2% 74.2% 16.7% 11.7% 71.7% 16.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 15 15 11 15 15 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 End Time (s) 31 0 20 34 0 20 Yield/Force Off (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 Local Yield (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Yield 170(s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 1: College (US 287) & Fairway 28 592 APPENDIX F 29 593 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Total AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 12 4 9 37 16 111 38 1592 28 50 856 63 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 135 152 124 146 45 129 540 2693 1190 275 2763 1174 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.09 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1368 1937 1583 1031 571 1647 1756 3688 1630 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 5 0 60 0 17 43 1809 13 57 973 54 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1368 1937 1583 1602 0 1647 1756 1844 1630 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.9 0.5 24.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 24.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 135 152 124 191 0 129 540 2693 1190 275 2763 1174 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.13 0.08 0.67 0.01 0.21 0.35 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 303 389 318 383 0 331 620 2693 1190 349 2763 1174 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.8 40.3 0.0 41.7 0.0 40.6 2.6 6.8 3.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 7.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 44.1 40.4 0.0 42.6 0.0 41.1 2.6 8.1 3.5 6.6 0.3 0.1 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 19 77 1865 1084 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 42.3 8.0 0.6 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 12.4 6.7 75.1 7.1 75.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 7.0 68.0 7.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 5.3 2.5 26.6 2.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.2 0.0 20.2 0.0 23.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 30 594 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Total AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 75 24 11 75 24 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 7 4 15 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 End Time (s) 35 0 24 35 0 24 Yield/Force Off (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Local Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 Local Yield (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Yield 170(s) 31 93.5 108 31 82 107 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 31 595 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Total PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 68 20 41 48 3 83 34 1478 51 113 1800 17 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 193.7 186.3 182.4 193.7 193.7 184.4 184.4 191.8 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 170 233 190 213 11 198 281 2635 1164 296 2729 1159 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.71 0.71 0.09 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1397 1937 1583 1264 89 1647 1756 3688 1629 1792 3763 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 22 0 55 0 9 37 1589 36 122 1935 3 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1397 1937 1583 1353 0 1647 1756 1844 1629 1792 1881 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 1.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.6 0.6 24.9 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.9 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 24.9 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 233 190 224 0 198 281 2635 1164 296 2729 1159 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.09 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.60 0.03 0.41 0.71 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 252 206 238 0 215 346 2635 1164 389 2729 1159 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 45.1 0.0 47.2 0.0 44.8 3.8 8.2 4.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 8.8 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 45.2 0.0 47.7 0.0 44.9 4.0 9.3 4.9 8.2 0.9 0.0 Lane Grp LOS D D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 95 64 1662 2060 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.6 47.3 9.1 1.3 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.8 18.8 6.8 88.2 8.0 89.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 14.0 7.0 79.0 10.0 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 7.0 2.6 26.9 4.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 32.4 0.1 40.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 32 596 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek Short Total PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 4 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 89 20 14 86 20 Maximum Split (%) 9.2% 74.2% 16.7% 11.7% 71.7% 16.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 23.5 33 11 35 34 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 4 14.5 7 4 13.5 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 20 21 21 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 59 70 39 59 73 39 End Time (s) 70 39 59 73 39 59 Yield/Force Off (s) 66 32.5 53 69 32 53 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 66 22.5 33 69 11 32 Local Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 Local Yield (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Yield 170(s) 27 103.5 114 30 92 113 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 110 Offset: 39 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 117: College (US 287) & Fossil Creek 33 597 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Total AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 49 1 37 2 4 17 41 1654 20 41 930 100 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 164 121 103 68 97 103 451 2771 1178 320 2799 1190 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.74 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 1405 1863 1583 281 1491 1583 1774 3725 1583 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 1070048 1946 7 48 1094 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1405 1863 1583 1773 0 1583 1774 1863 1583 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.8 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.8 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 121 103 165 0 103 451 2771 1178 320 2799 1190 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.70 0.01 0.15 0.39 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 358 379 322 401 0 322 530 2771 1178 399 2799 1190 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 40.9 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 4.3 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 3.4 0.4 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 44.2 40.9 0.0 41.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 0.0 2.4 4.7 3.4 Lane Grp LOS D D D AAAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 59 7 2001 1232 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 41.1 1.1 4.5 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 11.1 6.8 75.5 6.8 75.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 7.0 68.0 7.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.6 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 49.1 0.0 43.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.2 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes 34 598 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Total AM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 8:00 am 3/6/2008 Final Timings - 2009 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 75 24 11 75 24 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% 10.0% 68.2% 21.8% Minimum Split (s) 11 15 15 11 15 15 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 End Time (s) 35 0 24 35 0 24 Yield/Force Off (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Start Time (s) 24 35 0 24 35 0 Local Yield (s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Local Yield 170(s) 31 103.5 18 31 103 18 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 1: College (US 287) & Fairway 35 599 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Total PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 97 4 48 9 1 33 26 1592 11 34 1873 56 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 188.1 188.1 188.1 Lanes 111011121121 Cap, veh/h 205 198 168 197 17 168 196 2742 1166 324 2783 1183 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.74 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 1410 1863 1583 1284 159 1583 1774 3725 1583 1792 3763 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 108 4 0 11 0 0 29 1769 0 38 2081 46 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1410 1863 1583 1444 0 1583 1774 1863 1583 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 36.4 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 36.4 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 205 198 168 214 0 168 196 2742 1166 324 2783 1183 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.65 0.00 0.12 0.75 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 248 210 253 0 210 268 2742 1166 438 2783 1183 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 45.2 0.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.6 3.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 12.9 0.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 51.6 45.2 0.0 45.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.9 0.0 3.1 10.4 4.0 Lane Grp LOS D D D A A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 112 11 1798 2165 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.4 45.5 1.0 10.2 Approach LOS D D A B Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 1 6 5 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 17.0 6.4 89.1 6.8 89.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 14.0 7.0 79.0 10.0 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.2 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.6 38.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.2 0.0 68.0 0.0 41.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes 36 600 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: College (US 287) & Fairway Short Total PM City of Fort Collins Signal Timing 4:30 pm 8/9/2012 Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL EBTL SBL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 11 89 20 14 86 20 Maximum Split (%) 9.2% 74.2% 16.7% 11.7% 71.7% 16.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 15 15 11 15 15 Yellow Time (s) 3 5.5 3 3 5.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 1131 1.53 Minimum Initial (s) 444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 End Time (s) 31 0 20 34 0 20 Yield/Force Off (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Start Time (s) 20 31 0 20 34 0 Local Yield (s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Local Yield 170(s) 27 113.5 14 30 113 14 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 1: College (US 287) & Fairway 37 601 APPENDIX G 38 602 SCALE: 1"=1000' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES 1 College Avenue (US287) Fossil Creek Harmony Road 5 3 4 2 39 603 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Transit Corridor Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum B C C C B 1 Actual A C A C B Offices adjacent to the Site (Fossil Creek Office Park) Office Proposed A C A C B Minimum B C C C B 2 Actual A B A C B Commercial Uses north of the site Commercial Proposed A B A C B Minimum B C C C B 3 Actual A C C C B Commercial/Office uses northeast of the Site Commercial/ Office Proposed A C C C B Minimum B C C C B 4 Actual A C E C B Residential area to the east of the site Residential Proposed A C C C B Minimum B C C C B 5 Actual A B E C B The Max Station to the north of the site Transit Proposed A B C C B Minimum 6 Actual Proposed Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 40 SCALE: 1"=1000' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES 1 College Avenue (US287) Fossil Creek Harmony Road 2 41 605 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service – Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C C C Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification 1 Mason/Fossil Creek Trail to the west Recreational C C B 2 South Transit Center to the north C C B 3 4 42 606 Existing Development (Woodley’s Furniture) Public Street (S. College Ave.) Public Street (Conejos Rd.) Public Street (Fossil Rd.) Natural area/ physical feature (Tract F, Redtail Ponds) SE Frontage Rd. Existing development (Cameron Park 2nd Filing) Coronado Ct. BLOCK REQUIREMENTS - FCHA - REDTAIL PONDS - PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Project site: 2.97 acres Block size: 2.97 acres (less than 7 acres) Length of each block face: north - ____; east - _____; south - ______; west - _____ Total length of all block faces: _______ feet Combined length of building frontage, plazas, and functional open space: _______ feet Building frontage percentage of total length of block faces: _____% 555 ft 1,640 225 ft 635 ft 225 ft 1,110 67.7 NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST 0' 5' 10' 20' 30' 50' 91 92 + 97.98 TS 97.52 + + BS 96.45 +TR 97.61 96.76 + + 97.98 + 97.98 TS 97.47 + 97.52 + +BR 96.85 97.70 + 97.70 + 97.70 + 1.9% + 97.61 97.51 + +96.74 +96.35 96.13 + +96.04 4.9% 3.4% + 96.7 90 95 96.50 + 85 95 LOT 12 5,340 sq.ft. 5033 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 10 1,233 sq.ft. 5021 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 13 1,012 sq.ft. 5039 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT G 10,633 sq.ft. 0.244 sq.ft. LOT 14 6,856 sq.ft. 5045 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 15 6,834 sq.ft. 5051 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 16 7,693 sq.ft. 5057 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 19 6,568 sq.ft. 5046 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 18 6,572 sq.ft. 5058 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 17 6,781 sq.ft. 5064 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT I 1,739 sq. ft. TRACT F 63,458 sq.ft. 1.457 acres T G q.ft T H q.ft TRAC 75 s 4 acres 41,9 0.96 6,56 LOT 12 5,340 sq.ft. 5033 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 10 1,233 sq.ft. 5021 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 13 1,012 sq.ft. 5039 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT G 10,633 sq.ft. 0.244 sq.ft. LOT 14 6,856 sq.ft. 5045 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 15 6,834 sq.ft. 5051 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 16 7,693 sq.ft. 5057 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 19 6,568 sq.ft. 5046 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 18 6,572 sq.ft. 5058 FOSSIL BLVD LOT 17 6,781 sq.ft. 5064 FOSSIL BLVD TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT H 41,975 sq.ft. 0.964 acres TRACT I 1,739 sq. ft. TRACT F 63,458 sq.ft. 1.457 acres T G q.ft 4 ac 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services TO: Wanda Nelson, City Clerk FROM: Andy Smith, Chair Planning and Zoning Board DATE: November 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan - 2014 During 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board continued to review an increased number of development applications – 31% over the previous year. Some notable projects are: Feeder Supply, Crowne on Timberline, LDS Temple, Carriage House Apartments, Remington Row, Max Flats, Harmony Campus Cancer Center, Banner Health Medical Campus, Avago Technologies Building Four, Pateros Creek, Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Old Town Flats and Terra Vida II Apartments. Fewer projects (5) were appealed compared to 2012 (8) with most appealed early 2013. The Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Mail Creek Annexation as well as the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies, the Mid-town Plan, 3- Mile Plan and the Trails Master Plan. A number of LUC amendments were reviewed by the Board in 2013, including sections to implement the Eastside/Westside Character Study, vested rights extensions, parkway landscaping, urban agriculture, an expanded definition of large-base industry, and an update to the non-native trees section clarifying mitigation measures. In 2014, there will continue to be a major effort to identify and recommend code revisions to City Council to implement principles of Plan Fort Collins as well as other plans and policies. Council expressed a preference for important code changes to be brought to them on an as-needed basis rather than waiting for the annual update package. This will result in the Board being asked to more frequently make recommendations related to code amendments, including: • Transit Overlay District parking or alternative compliance standards; the current minimum parking standard sunsets in 2014. • Whether or not to extend the PDOD pilot ordinance. • Any LUC changes related to the Phase II Historic Preservation Code amendments. • Any LUC changes related to the PZ Committee’s recommendation on Addition of a Permitted Use (APU). In a July timeframe the Board met in a joint work session with City Council to review emerging issues. As a result of that dialogue, Council asked the Board to provide recommendations related to parking standards or alternative compliance methods for the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) and to evaluate changes to the APU (Addition of a Permitted Use) Ordinance. 610 2014 Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan November 15, 2012 Page 2 Projects anticipated for 2014 include additional student housing projects and mixed-use developments emerging in the Northeast area of the City. Outreach to the community on development proposals increased in 2013 and included the formation of a Planning and Zoning Ad Hoc Committee to work with citizens interested in revising the current Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) process. In addition to reviewing and evaluating development proposals, the Board will address important land use policy issues during 2014, including: Lincoln Avenue Corridor Strategic Plan – The purpose of the Lincoln Corridor Plan is to develop a compelling vision and to identify and prioritize improvements to the street and surrounding area. A series of fall community engagements activities including workshops and online survey have wrapped up. This project is expected to finish in March 2014. Nature in the City – This project was originally identified from the City Plan update and is intended to encourage the integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. Its scope was expanded in 2013 and it will now be focused on developing a strategy for preserving the remaining informal open areas within the community. Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations – This project has been set aside due to a voter-passed moratorium against the use of Hydraulic Fracturing in the city or on city-owned lands. Staff, however, is working closely to ensure compliance with the current operator agreement. The Board expects to review subdivisions that are adjacent to the Fort Collins Field in 2014 using Land Use Code standards adopted in 2013 including reciprocal set-backs. Planning Development Overlay District (PDOD) – In 2013, the PDOD tool was refined by staff and a six-month Pilot Project was extended to confirm whether the tool would work as intended and to assess interest from the development community. So far, there have not been any developments interested in using this tool. The extension will expire in 2014 and the board will make a recommendation to Council as to whether the pilot program should continue. cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Council Liaison Karen Cumbo, PDT Director Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director - 2 - 611 SIL 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. SIL 1 sq.ft. 5064 SIL 4 ac acres res .ft. BLVD .ft. BLVD .ft. BLVD .ft. 5058 BLVD FOS BLVD .ft. LOT 16 .ft. BLVD .ft. 5058 5064 FOS 6,78 5064 6,78 5064 FOS BLVD 6,78 6,57 5058 6,57 5058 LOT 4 ac 5064 4 ac acres res 75 s 4 ac 75 s sq.ft 4 ac 75 s 4 acres ac res Bocce Court Urban Agriculture Terrace Lawn 60 DU Bike Barn Bocce Court Urban Agriculture Terrace Lawn 60 DU Bike Barn Conejos St. South College Avenue LOT 10 3 sq FOSSIL FOS TRACT H q.ft res LOT 6,56 5046 FOS 6,56 TRACT H q.ft res TRACT H q.ft res LOT 6,56 LOT 6,56 5046 FOS 6,56 5046 FOS 6,56 TRAC T H 41,975 s 4 ac q.ft 4 acres 41,975 s 4 ac LOT 12 2 REDTAIL PONDS - SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE A 609 FOS 6,56 FOS 6,56 FOS 0.964 96 ac LOT 2 sq.ft. LOT .ft. BLVD .ft. LOT 18 2 sq.ft. BLVD LOT 18 BLVD LOT 18 .ft. BLVD LOT 18 .ft. BLVD 2 sq..ft. LOT .ft. LOT BLVD .ft. BLVD 75 sq.ft T H 75 sq.ft T H 75 sq.ft T H 75 sq.ft T H 75 sq.q.ft 5058 2 sq FOSSIL 2 sq FOS 2 sq FOSSIL 2 sq FOS 2 sq FOSSIL 2 sq FOS 2 sq FOS 2 sq FOSSIL 2 sq FOSSIL 2 sq 5058 FOSSIL FOS 6,572 57 2 sq FOS 6,57 FOS 6,57 FOS 6,57 FOS 6,572 sq FOS 6,572 sq FOS BLVD LOT 41,9 0.96 75 s 0.964 4 ac 75 s 4 ac 75 s sq.ft 4 ac 75 sq.s ft 4 ac 6,83 LOT 6,83 5051 FOS 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 LOT 6,83 5051 FOS 6,83 5051 FOS 6,83 5051 75 sq.q.ft T H res q.ft res q.ft res 75 sq.ft res 75 sq.ft res 75 sq.s ft res 75 sq.ft res 75 sq.ft res 75 sq.ft res 75 sq.q.ft res 75 sq.ft res 2 sq..ft. LOT 0.96 964 4 ac BLVD T H 18 0.96 LOT FOS LOT 2 sq LOT 0.96 41,9 0.96 T H LOT 6,57 TRACT T H FOS Bocce Court Multi-Use Path Urban Aggriculture Terrace Lawn Xeric Planting Bike Barn Multi-Use Path Conejos St. South College Avenue FOS LOT 10 3 sq FOS LOT 6,834 sq 5051 FOS TRACT H 41,9 0.96 TRACT T H 41,9 TRAC TRACT T H 0.96 41,9 0.96 Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path BLVD Terrace Terracee Terrace Bocce Bocce Court Urban Urban Aggriculture Lawn Lawn Xeric Planting Pla Planti TRACT H Bike Barn 1 REDTAIL PONDS - PREFERRED SITE PLAN Prepared by: Azur Ground 26 Aug. 2013 608 96 94 + 97.98 + 97.98 97.70 + 97.70 + +96.35 97.98 + 97.98 + 98.03 + 90 95 94 93 89 88 87 86 85 +RIM 95.45 4995 4990 4985 4995 4995 96 96 4995 4990 96 96 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 19 18 17 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 WALK 607 604 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD3.1 311 Attached Sidewalk 1/2" Expansion Joint Material 1/2" Expansion Joint Material A A 2. For driveway design requirements, see CONST. DWG. 706 & 707. DETACHED ATTACHED 3'-0" 6'-0" All Sidewalk Thickness Shall Be 6" minimum. Min. SIDEWALK 8" Commercial NOTES: 1. 6' wide pan for residential streets. 2. All intersections to have access ramps. 3. 6" Curb Height. 4. 0" Curb Height. 5. All of these pedestrian improvements must be in ROW or a pedestrian or public access easement. 6. Truncated Dome Warning Detection. 2' Y 1:12 1:48 (max.) Driveway Gutter Sidewalk Parkway Sidewalk ROW Flare Optional Expansion Joint TYPE III DETACHED WALK TYPE IV ATTACHED WALK See Note 4 See Note 3 6' (min.) 1:12 See Note 3 See Note 4 See Note 5 Ramp if walk continues on private property. Curb to retain Landscape if Necessary If Concrete Driveway Detached Curb 1:48 (max.) 1:12 t 1/4" PER FT. N.T.S. SECTIONS A-A & B-B 1:12 (max.) A A 1:48 SLOPE WALK B B DRIVEWAY WIDTHS (FC Only)   1:12 Max Max See Note 6 See Note 6 1:48 Wood float finish thru ramp Transition back of walk (typ.) Curb (optional) 6" (min.) (min.) 6" NOTES: 1. * 6" Thickness applies to entire ramp area. 2. ** 1:25 Unless a landing behind ramp (then ramp can be 1:12 with 1:20 on the truncated dome warning.) 3. See CONST. DWG. 1606(a) and 1607 for Fort Collins. 4. See CONST. DWG. 1614, 1615 and 1616 for Loveland. Only if needed or same width as the widest walk 6' (max.) at the corners of the truncated dome warning truncated dome warning detection CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD3.0 310 CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: Date Date Date Date Date Date City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineer Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility City Engineer CHECKED BY: APPROVED: Date Environmental Planner STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 3 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA KL&A MOUNTAIN AIRE wAyne's ELECTRIC REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY CD1.2 303 DRIVERS, 4000K LED, TYPE T4M OPTICS, WITH HOUSE SIDE SHIELD LED LITHONIA DSX0 LED 40C 700 40K T4M MVOLT HS DSX0 LED WITH (2) 20 LED LIGHT ENGINE, TYPE T4M OPTIC, 4000K, @ 700mA WITH HOUSE SIDE SHIELD LED TYPE: AA4S, AA5 TYPE: BB4S 291 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 3.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.1 2.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.6 2.6 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.0 1.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.3 2.5 3.2 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.4 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.5 2.1 3.0 4.2 4.8 5.6 5.6 4.7 4.1 2.8 1.9 1.3 1.7 2.4 3.1 4.4 5.9 6.8 6.7 5.7 4.2 3.0 2.3 1.5 2.8 3.9 4.5 5.3 5.2 4.4 3.8 2.7 1.9 1.3 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.2 2.3 1.8 1.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.2 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.0 STUDIO COMPLETIVA, INC. COPYRIGHT ©2 0 1 2 CIVIL: MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL: ARCHITECT: STUDIO COMPLETIVA ELECTRICAL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: azur ground JVA, Inc. KL&A, Inc. MOUNTAIN AIRE wAynes ELECtric, inc. REDTAIL PONDS PSH FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY E1.1 LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS No. Label MH Tilt 1 WW 10.0 0.0 12 A4S10 25.0 0.0 13 A3T10 25.0 0.0 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty CatalogWatts Number Description Lamp File Lumens LLF WW 11 owp-fc-201-cfl- 1x26.ies 1710 1.00 26 AA3T 1 DSX2_LED_10 0C_700_40K_T 3M_MVOLT.ie s Absolute 1.00 436 AA4 2 DSX2_LED_10 0C_700_40K_T 4M_MVOLT_H S.ies Absolute 1.00 218 ORACLE OWP-FC- 201-CFL-1X26 MEDIUM FULL CUT-OFF FLOOD LIGHT WITH FROSTED TEMPERED FLAT LENS PHILIPS F26TBX/841/A/ECO 1710 DSX2 LED 100C 700 40K T3M MVOLT DSX2 LED W/2LARGE & 2 MEDIUM LIGHT ENGINES, (2) 700mA ,DRIVERS, 4000K LED, TYPE T3M OPTICS LED LITHONIA DSX2 LED 100C 700 40K T4M MVOLT HS DSX2 LED W/2 LARGE & 2 MEDIUM LIGHT ENGINES, (2) 700mA DRIVERS, 4000K LED, TYPE T4M OPTICS, WITH HOUSE SIDE SHIELD LED STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Boundary Spill 0.0 fc 0.2 fc 0.0 fc N / A N / A 2.2 fc 6.8 fc 0.7 fc 9.7:1 3.1:1 0.2 fc 3.7 fc 0.0 fc N / A N / A Parking / Drive Property Surrounds TYPE: AA3T,AA4 290 SITE SECTION B - B Scale: 1''=10'-0'' LS12 10 1 13 5 15 2 55' - 0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" T.O. CMU (STAIR) 154' - 0" T. O. CMU 150' - 0" 15 5 8 14 9 2 10 3 17 3 13 46' - 0" 15 11 13 5 1 2 3 1 8 7 12 5 10 10 55' - 0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" T.O. CMU (STAIR) 154' - 0" T. O. CMU 150' - 0" 10 5 9 12 15 6 46' - 0" 1 7 1 11 2 55' - 0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" 15 4 5 11 2 10 46' - 0" 1ST FIN FLR 100' - 0" 2ND FIN FLR 112' - 0" 3RD FIN FLR 122' - 0" 4TH FIN FLR 132' - 0" T.O. PLATE 142' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 146' - 0" T.O. CMU (STAIR) 154' - 0" T. O. CMU 11 150' - 0" 5 3 4 10 10 7 1 5 17 2 11 13 14 14 46' - 0" 15 16 10 5 3 2 1 15 1 2 14 2 3 55' - 0" FIBER CEMENT BOARD PANEL STEEL POSTS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT METAL WIRE MESH FENCE VINYL WINDOWS PREFINISHED METAL RAILING PREFINISHED METAL COPING H.M. DOOR CONCRETE COLUMN MATERIAL NOTES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 METAL DECKING OVERHANG / SUNSHADE TPO ROOFING PTAC UNIT BRICK RUSTED CORRUGATED METAL PANEL ROOFTOP UNIT SCREEN FIBER CEMENT BOARD PLANK NORTH NORTH PROJECT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE PLAN DATE: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REDTAIL PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 3000 ZUNI STREET DENVER, CO 80211 PH: 303.477.9156 FX: 303.477.9428 OCT. 31, 2013 SHEET 7 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP - EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 PDP - SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 PDP - NORTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 PDP - EAST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 PDP - SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 5 PDP - WEST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 6 273 44'-2" RETAINING WALL RE: CIVIL/LANDSCAPE LP LP LP LP LP LP 6' HT FENCE 7' EXISTING SIDEWALK 8' SIDEWALK 6' HT FENCE LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE RE: LANDSCAPE TRASH ROOM LOCATED IN THE BUILDING BR DETENTION POND AREA PERMEABLE BRICK PAVERS AT PARKING STALLS ASPHALT PAVING LANDSCAPE EDGING RE: LANDSCAPE EDGE OF WETLANDS RETAINING WALL BIKE RACK 93'-8" TRACT I 100 FEET WETLAND BUFFER LINE NORTH FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE PLAN DATE: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REDTAIL PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 3000 ZUNI STREET DENVER, CO 80211 PH: 303.477.9156 FX: 303.477.9428 VICINITY MAP LAND USE STATISTICS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL COVERED BICYCLE SPACES (GARAGES) TOTAL UNCOVERED BICYCLE SPACES 58 8 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 36 TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS = 60 du GROSS: 21.4 du/AC TOTAL NUMBER OF (1) BEDROOM UNITS = 54 NET: 21.4 du/AC OF (2) BEDROOM UNITS = 6 AVERAGE DENSITY PER ACRE: 21.4 DU/AC BASED ON GROSS AREA AVERAGE TOTAL SITE COVERAGE CONCRETE / HARDSCAPE SQ. FT. 32,770 SQ. FT. % OF LOT 27% BUILDING COVERAGE 14,680 SQ. FT. 12% ACRES 0.75 0.34 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING SHEET INDEX GENERAL NOTES LEGEND HANDICAP PARKING STALL PARKING SIGN BIKE RACK LIGHT POLE BR LP OPEN / LANDSCAPE 75,364 SQ. FT. 1.73 61% HANDICAP SPACE 4 STANDARD SPACES 32 INTERIOR GARAGE SPACES 0 SITE 122,814 SQ. FT. 2.82 100% TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 0 TOTAL BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED 66 DEDICATED OPEN SPACE 75,364 SQ. FT. 1.73 61% UPDATE AND REVISE 1. ALL NEW EXTERIOR SITE AND BUILDING LIGHTING SHALL CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS TO INCLUDE FULL CUT-OFF LAMPS. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE DOWN DIRECTIONAL & DESIGNED FOR NO "OFF-SITE" TRESPASS. 2. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON THE STREET SIDEWALKS. 3. FIRE HYDRANTS TO MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 4. REFER TO UTILITIES PLAN FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, EASEMENTS AND SIDEWALKS. 5. SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS WILL CONFORM TO CITY / ANSI STANDARDS. 6. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE AND WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH SEPARATE PERMIT. 7. BIKE RACKS ARE TO BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 8. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION - THE DIRECTOR SHALL ESTABLISH A "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT" ("LOD") LINE(S) TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 9. SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. 10. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND TIMED TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCUPYING OR USING ON-SITE AND ADJACENT NATURAL HABITATS OR FEATURES. 11. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. 12. COVERED BIKE PARKING PROVIDED. 13. TRASH SERVICE BINS TO BE PROVIDED BY LOCAL TRASH COLLECTING COMPANY. NOT TO SCALE EXISTING ZONING: CG PROPOSED USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NET AREAS EXCLUDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE UNDERSIGNED DOES / DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/ WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I / WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER (SIGNED) DATE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER (SIGNED) DATE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER (SIGNED) DATE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER (SIGNED) DATE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER (SIGNED) DATE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ____________________ DAY OF ___________ A.D., 20_____ BY ______________________________________________________ (PRINT NAME) AS ___________________________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______________________________ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ______________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC ______________________________________________________ ADDRESS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS _______ DAY OF _________________, 20____. _____________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING _____________________________________________ ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER SHEET 1 SHEET 2 - LS11 SHEET 3 - LS12 SHEET 4 - LP01 SHEET 5 - LP11 SHEET 6 - LP12 SHEET 7 SHEET 8 SHEET 9 SHEET 10 - E-1.1 SHEET 11 - E-1.2 OVERALL SITE PLAN HARDSCAPE SITE PLAN - WEST HARDSCAPE SITE PLAN - EAST PLANT SCHEDULE, LEGEND AND WATER BUDGET LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - WEST LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - EAST ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS BUILDING MATERIALS PERSPECTIVES SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PHOTOMETRIC SPEC SHEETS SITE Lot 10 and Lots 13 through 19 and Tracts G and H, REDTAIL, According to the plat recorded August 9, 2006 at Reception No. 20060060078 of the Records of Larimer County, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. EXCLUDING THEREFROM a parcel of land described as follows: A parcel of land being comprised of a portion of Tract G, a portion of Lot 10, and all of Lot 11 and Lot 12 of the Redtail Subdivision, a plat recorded August 9, 2006 as Reception No. 2006-0060078 of the Records of Larimer County, and being located within Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Southwest Corner of Lot 12 of the Redtail Subdivision and assuming the Westerly line of said Lot 12 as bearing North 2l°35’55” West, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2007, with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto: THENCE North 21°35’55” West along the Westerly line of said Lot 12 a distance of 89.00 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; THENCE North 68°24’05” East along the Northerly line of Lot 12 a distance of 9.64 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 11 of the Redtail Subdivision; THENCE North 21°35’55” West along the Westerly line of Lot 11 and along the Westerly line of Lot 10 of the Redtail Subdivision a distance of 71.74 feet to a line previously being the Northerly line of Lot 13 of Cameron Park Second Filing, said Northerly line being vacated by the recordation action of said Redtail Subdivision; THENCE South 87°54’07” East along said vacated Northerly line a distance of 78.83 feet to the vacated Easterly line of Lot 13 of Cameron Park Second Filing; THENCE South 27°34’07” East along said vacated Easterly line a distance of 129.75 feet to the Southerly line of Tract G of the Redtail Subdivision; THENCE South 65° 12’52” West along the Southerly line of said Tract G a distance of 95.17 feet to the Southwesterly corner of said Tract G; THENCE North 24°47’08” West along the Westerly line of said Tract G a distance of 5.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. OCT 31, 2013 14. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT = 4 STORIES SHEET 1 OVERALL SITE 1" PLAN = 30'-0" 1 272 96 94 + 97.98 + 97.98 97.70 + 97.70 + +96.35 97.98 + 97.98 + 98.03 + 90 95 94 93 89 88 87 86 85 +RIM 95.45 4995 4990 4985 4995 4995 96 96 4995 4990 96 96 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 19 18 17 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 WALK 265 S unteers.Moreover,tenantsinnewneighborhoodsareofteneagertomakenewfriendsandlive uptotheexpectationsoftheirnewneighbors.PermanentsupportivehousingworksinFortWorth, Texas,whenandbecausepeoplecareabouttheirneighborsandtheirneighborhoods.    242 surroundingneighborhood. P  ablerentalcontractorleasegovernstherelationshipbetweenthelandlordand tenants nyother Alegallyenforce wholiveinpermanentsupportivehousing.Thisdocumentspellsouttherightsand responsibilitiesofboththelandlordandthetenant.Inthisregard,PSHisnodifferentfroma multifamilydevelopment.  241 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 Pre-Entry Post-Entry Exhibit 3: Annual Cost Before and After Entering Supportive Housing Supportive Housing Services 234 J Beacon Place K Renaissance at Concord Plaza L Renaissance at Loretto Heights M Forum Apartments N Forest Manor Apartments Permanent Supportive Housing Developments 214 funding received City of Fort Collins CDBG funding received June 2012 * denotes required public 178 meeting sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 134 26’-0" 24’-0" 26’-0" 25’-0" 23’-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor E E-12 E-7 W-1 C-1 S-3 P-5 E-1 T-2 W-1 P-1 W-1 C-1 S-3 W-3 S-3 E-12 E-7 P-2 P-5 W-1 E-12 W-3 W-3 E-7 S-3 T-2 E-12 C-1 S-3 P-2 T-2 W-1 E-12 C-1 P-5 F O OTHILLS 29’-0" 26’-0" 24’-0" 25’-0" 23’-0" 29-0" 29-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor P-2 W-1 S-3 E-1 E-12 W-3 S-3 Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 133 INSULATED METAL STUDS OVER GYP. BD. EIFS CORNICE MECHANICALLY FASTENED TPO INSULATION OVER METAL DECK G THROUGH WALL B-1 BRICK ST-2 PRECAST COPING A400 1 WALL 3/4" = 1'-0" SECTION 2 WALL 3/4" = 1'-0" SECTION 5 SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" 12048.01 WALL SECTIONS 122 A400 ELEC. SERVICE AND GAS METER BEYOND. PAINT P-1. A E G FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" UPPER PARAPET 123' - 0" 4 3 1 5 6 LOWER PARAPET 120' - 0" T.O. WINDOWS 110' - 0" E-14 E-14 E-8 E-8 M-1 ST-2 ST-2 ST-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 E-14 E-8 ST-2 P-1 B-1 AW-2 AW-1 M-2 M-2 M-2 SIGNAGE 10' - 0" 4' - 0" 2 A400 1 A400 ST-2 SF-1 SF-2 2 FIRST LEVEL 100' - 0" UPPER PARAPET 123' - 0" B C F D LOWER PARAPET 120' - 0" T.O. WINDOWS 110' - 0" E-14 E-8 E-14 M-1 E-8 ST-2 ST-2 ST-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 SF-1 AW-1 M-2 AW-2 M-2 SIGNAGE 4' - 0" 10' - 0" SF-2 G E A E-14 MATERIALS LEGEND E-1 ST-1 E-8 SF-1 P-1 EIFS TO MATCH B.M. GRAYSTONE 1475 EIFS TO MATCH B.M. ROCKPORT GRAY HC-105 ENVIRONMENTAL STONEWORKS - STRIPSTONE COLLECTION: BUFF EIFS CORNICE TO MATCH B.M. 1477 STOREFRONT - ALUMINUM WITH 1" CLEAR GLAZING MATTHEWS PAINT TO MATCH B.M. 1477 SF-2 STOREFRONT - ALUMINUM WITH 1" SPANDREL GLAZING M-1 PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING TO MATCH B.M. ROCKPORT GRAY HC-105 B-1 INTERSTATE BRICK (THROUGH-WALL): PLATINUM AW-1 SUNBRELLA EXTERIOR FABRIC AWNING: SLATE M-2 PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING TO MATCH B.M. 1477 ST-2 PRECAST STONE BASE TO MATCH ST-1 COLOR AW-2 SUNBRELLA EXTERIOR FABRIC AWNING: CHARCOAL GREY 7 A300 6 A300 3 A400 6' - 0" 0' - 4" 12' - 0" 3 A400 B-1 ST-2 P-1 B-1 ST-2 P-1 1 WEST 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 2 SOUTH 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 3 EAST 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 4 NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 5 TRASH 1/4" = 1'-0" ENCLOSURE 6 TRASH 1/4" = 1'-0" ENCLOSURE ELEV 7 TRASH 1/4" = 1'-0" DOOR ELEV A300 12048.01 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 120 REGENCYDR HINSDALE DR CREST RD S MASON ST WAKEROBIN LN APPLE DR PARADISELN SCENIC DR HILLDALE DR CLARENDON HILLS DR WARBLER DR HEPPLEWHITECT SNEAD DR STARFLOWER DR SENECA ST ASHFORD LN PALMER DR FOXHILLS DR WESTBURYDR FRONTAGERD E BUENODR BENTLEYPL CORSICADR SMOKEY ST FOSSILRIDGE DR MARIGOLD LN TOWHEE ST FAIRWAYLN PLATEAU CT APPLE BLOSSOMLN MILKY WAY DEERCREEK LN PRAIRIE ST WOODLANDWAY CRAIGDR CAMERONDR FOSSILBLVD CHIPPENDALEDR GOSHAWK DR BORDEAUX DR PYRENEESDR GOLDENEYE DR VENUSAVE E HARMONYRD LANGDALEDR BEARCREEKDR HILLVIEW CT OGDEN CT ALEXA CT MCGRAW DR FOSSILCTN ROCHELLE CIR BLUE MOUNTAIN DR KREMMLINGLN THRASHER ST STODDARD DR FROMMECT HOBSONCT KENSINGTONDR VIOLAST RED TAIL CT HAZEL CT PIPITCT HORSESHOE CT OLT CT Fossil Creek Trilby Lateral BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Trilby Lateral New Mercer Canal Mail Creek Legen Subdivision Tax Parcel PlattedBlo Buildings Garages RockyMou Parks and School Pro Natural Re Incorporate Cre usingdata fro makes no war may not refle T Map 1. Shows the FRCC campus, surrounding developments, and Fort Collins natural areas. FRCC Cathy Fromme Prairie Redtail Grove McGraw ES Ridgeview Park 88 J -~ - -:-= . - - .-~ - c. 50 .-i_" ,. -.~---- '. - -.-:.-:":~.~ . ~....•..~:~ :'<.'~.."'"'.~~~:' .•-- -Jf-~~tP;' ~! ~~; ~1&~~t~i\ '. '.. *~.~.:-..:.... " .',.,: ." , •.... -- _.... . '.~-- , 'J;'; i .~:.•.,...;;;'~ x· ". :~~.~ .. ' : ... -'. -." .. _ ... --:..,.;:~-=r. - ~.'-'~~ 49 information on this issue. 46 habitat featuresv located on the site?    While no special habitat features were observed during the ECS field visit, the trees in the area have supported nesting sites for Great Horned Owl, as documented by the FRCC Naturalist Program and the neighbors (see Attachment X). A pre-construction survey shall be conducted to ensure that development activities are buffered as far away from the active nest as possible, e.g., if construction occurs between February 15 and July 15. Does the site contain wildlife movement corridors?    The area clearly serves as an urban wildlife corridor, though the ECS notes that the ditches go underground just east of the FRCC property and then west of S. Shields Street, indicating the fragmented nature of the corridor. The south ditch is noted as a more functional wildlife corridor than the north ditch (pg. 3). 45